I was Calvinist/evangelical and I watched pretty much every catholic protestant debate on TH-cam, and watched many of Catholic answers, and Dr. David Anders videos 4 years ago, and now I am Catholic! Keep seeking truth!
Trent was a key player in my conversion! Started about a year ago and I was fully received into the Church this last Easter. Stay on the narrow path, I'm sure we'll see you Home soon! 😁
My wife, autistic daughter and I went on a pilgrimage to Israel with a group of American evangelical Christians in 2016 (we're from England). Our daughter is severely autistic (19 at the time), does not understand propositional faith, but wanted to be baptized when we went to the river Jordan. Nothing was explained to her, but when she came out she said "all my sins have been washed away". This was not something she had heard from us. All I can think is that the Spirit explained the significance of the event to her. Certainly her words were consistent with the understanding of the church fathers with no obvious reason for the correlation.
I started studying Catholicism due to studying Eastern Orthodoxy (Orthodoxy feels safer when you are a Protestant because the Reformation wasn't a protest against the Orthodox Church). I was shocked about how many beliefs I thought were false teaches from Catholicism were actually accepted among all historic churches with little controversy. This included: - Primacy of the Bishop of Rome (who's authority traces back to St. Peter the Apostle) - Baptismal regneration - Prayers to Mary and the Saints - Mary remained a virgin her whole life - The bread and wine of the Eucharist literally turns into the body and blood of Jesus Christ - Justification is by faith, but not by faith alone - The scripture is authoritative in the Church, but not the only authority in the Church - The One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church is ACTUALLY a visible church - Man's will co-operates with Grace (no monergism) - Seven sacraments - Salvation is a community effort and not individual (this one really blew my mind) Yes, you can say the Early Church Fathers didn't teach modern Catholicism word for word verbatim. However, it is very hard not to see Catholicism is more historically linked to the Early Church Fathers than any Protestant denomination.
The Synod of Jerusalem 1675, was the Eastern church's, version of the Catholic Council of Trent 1545. It was a response to the Protestants. - by reaffirming the 7 sacraments and affirmed the teaching role of the church and therefore of tradition against Protestant sola scriptura
@@colepriceguitar1153 no apostolic fathers ever teach the satanic cult of sola scriptura a man made tradition invented by a devil possessed man , introduced just five hundred years ago.
@@ddzl6209 “On consideration...of the reason wherefore men have so far gone astray, or that many - alas! - should follow diverse ways of belief concerning the Son of God, the marvel seems to be, not at all that human knowledge has been baffled in dealing with superhuman things, but that it has not submitted to the authority of the Scriptures” - Ambrose “For how can we adopt those things which we do not find in the holy Scriptures?” - Ambrose “The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth” - Athanasius “Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith's sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture” - Athanasius “These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, ‘Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures.’ And He reproved the Jews, saying, ‘Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of Me” - Athanasius “If anyone preaches either concerning Christ or concerning His church or concerning any other matter which pertains to our faith and life; I will not say, if we, but what Paul adds, if an angel from heaven should preach to you anything besides what you have received in the Scriptures of the Law and of the Gospels, let him be anathema.” - Augustine “Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, but the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God.” - Augustine “Whatever they may adduce, and wherever they may quote from, let us rather, if we are His sheep, hear the voice of our Shepherd. Therefore let us search for the church in the sacred canonical Scriptures.” - Augustine “For among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life.” - Augustine “What more shall I teach you than what we read in the apostles? For Holy Scripture fixes the rule for our doctrine, lest we dare be wiser than we ought. Therefore I should not teach you anything else except to expound to you the words of the Teacher” - Augustine “What is the mark of a faithful soul? To be in these dispositions of full acceptance on the authority of the words of Scripture, not venturing to reject anything nor making additions. For, if ‘all that is not of faith is sin’ as the Apostle says, and ‘faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God,’ everything outside Holy Scripture, not being of faith, is sin” - Basil “The hearers taught in the Scriptures ought to test what is said by teachers and accept that which agrees with the Scriptures but reject that which is foreign.” - Basil “If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favour of that side will be cast the vote of truth” - Basil “For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.” - Cyril of Jerusalem “We endeavored as far as possible to hold to and confirm the things which lay before us, and if the reason given satisfied us, we were not ashamed to change our opinions and agree with others; but on the contrary, conscientiously and sincerely, and with hearts laid open before God, we accepted whatever was established by the proofs and teachings of the Holy Scriptures.” - Dionysius “We are not entitled to such licence, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings” - Gregory of Nyssa “There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source… so all of us who wish to practise piety will be unable to learn its practice from any other quarter than the oracles of God. Whatever things, then, the Holy Scriptures declare, at these let us look; and whatever things they teach, these let us learn.” - Hippolytus "I do not, like Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. They were apostles.” - Ignatius “We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith” - Irenaeus “Regarding the things I say, I should supply even the proofs, so I will not seem to rely on my own opinions, but rather, prove them with Scripture, so that the matter will remain certain and steadfast” - John Chrysostom “They say that we are to understand the things concerning Paradise not as they are written but in a different way. But when Scripture wants to teach us something like that, it interprets itself and does not permit the hearer to err. I therefore beg and entreat that we close our eyes to all things and follow the canon of Holy Scripture exactly.” - John Chrysostom “It is impossible either to say or fully to understand anything about God beyond what has been divinely proclaimed to us, whether told or revealed, by the sacred declarations of the Old and New Testaments” - John of Damascus “I revere the fullness of His Scripture, in which He manifests to me both the Creator and the creation. In the gospel, moreover, I discover a Minister and Witness of the Creator, even His Word. If it is nowhere written, then let it fear the woe which impends on all who add to or take away from the written word.” - Tertullian
@@colepriceguitar1153 this is exactly what the devil want the satanic cult believing protestants of sola scriptura, to think and behave like hypocrites , they believe what st. Augustine said but never follow what he actually practiced, because st. Augustine was a Catholic Bishop of Hippo.
Trent, as a Protestant, I love your content. But I've got a criticism here: at 8 minutes, you say "It should be an even playing field." You are right to say that it is not even, and that Protestantism wins by default. But let me explain why this must be the case: When a claim is being made, there are essentially 3 (to be nitpicky, technically 4) different states that one can believe regarding that claim. 1.) The claim is more likely than not to be true. 2.) The claim is more likely than not to be false. 3.) I do not know how likely the claim is to be true or false. But to believe a claim necessarily means 1. And if to be a member of the church means to necessarily hold in mind beliefs that pertain to certain things, then they require a heavier burden of proof than those who do not make those claims. When it comes to Christianity, all of the three primary sects or 'groupings' of Christianity agree that Scripture is an infallible rule of faith. Because we agree on this point, it does not have to be proven more-so, or less-so than any other point. However, whenever you add more required beliefs that others deny, the skeptic is not the one who has the burden of proof, unless they are claiming explicitly that your claim is false. But that is not what the claim of Protestantism in general is. This is why the Catholic Church must demonstrate why it is infallible, and or why the Pope is infallible, or why the assumption of Mary is truth. If these dogmas are required to be held, then, *why* should we believe them? One of the biggest strengths, and admittedly, largest criticisms of Protestantism as the severe lack of history and traditional leanings to Protestant-flavored Christianity. No doubt are there serious warnings to be held against protestants to deny the traditions of those who came before them, however due to this freedom, we are able to examine these traditions without burden. We are free to challenge them and to question whether or not they are truly apostolic. The burden the church has placed on you is to accept them by default. Is this wrong? I do not know! However, because of this burden, and the heavy historical content, it makes Catholicism epistemologically heavy, but Protestantism epistemologically light. Does that mean Catholicism is wrong? No! However, it does mean that it must bear a greater burden to prove its case. It isn't an even playing field because the number of commitments one must hold are vastly different.
Your argument is indeed logical, the one “adding more” has the burden of proof. Might we refine this to be “the one adding a change”. One could say, it is the Protestants’ burden of proof to show that a belief universally held by the early Church Fathers, like Baptismal Regeneration, should no longer be believed.
@@dreistheman7797 Indeed, one could say that! But you must recall that: 1.) There are a great number of Protestants that do believe in Baptismal Regeneration (Lutherans, Anglicans, and to a lesser extent Presbyterians). 2.) Those that don't do give arguments that show it is an accretion. For example, take Gavin Ortlund's videos on Infant Baptism - while not the exact same topic, it is certainly a deeply related topic. To someone that is already convinced that it is a later accretion, the burden of proof has been met, and will likely be a Baptist or something similar. Likewise, someone who is already convinced that it is not a later accretion, would likely turn to some high church denomination such as Lutheranism, not necessarily Catholicism. There are still many other commitments in order for one to become Catholic - not just Baptismal Regeneration.
@@Narikku That is a high burden to overcome, if it can be, something unanimous among the Fathers. On high church denominations also affirming Baptismal Regeneration, yes one might look into those first. What I found from Protestant pastors and leaders that convert to Catholicism, like Newman who became one of the great Catholic theologians, is that the early church is Catholic, put simply. It is not only Baptismal Regeneration, that might be the inspiration of Newman for "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant" - the deeper you go, the more you find the early church had and taught the same beliefs as the Catholic Church, and not what their denomination teaches.
@@dreistheman7797 It is precisely because of this notion, my friend, that I bring up the specific issues I did in my first post. The more that I study church history, the less confident I am than any one denomination has it "completely correct" - for if the early church is our standard, then the assumption of Mary, Papal Infallibility and even Ecclesial Infallibility is not something that is found in the apostolic fathers - not to mention veneration of icons, and other such practices! Additionally, these are not things to be taken lightly - assent is required to be of the Catholic Faith with threats as strong as a anathema for some issues! Rather, the more I look, these seem to be later medieval additions to the Catholic faith. I am Protestant *precisely because* I look at the history, and see that it is messy - not because I am ignorant of the history. I may not think that Baptists or Lutherans line-up perfectly with the Church Fathers - yet, when I look at Orthodox or Roman Catholicism, neither of those seem to match quite up, either, but for different reasons. I appreciate you and your willingness to discuss. However, I would encourage you to cease from using that phrase, as it directly implies that all Protestants are simply "not well studied", and leads to a dismissal of their arguments and words, rather than taking them seriously and examining the claims they are making. Assuming that someone is a Protestant merely because they do not know history only encourages you to dismiss their claims. Have you ever considered what it may look like if Protestants were correct?
@@Narikku I apologize if that came out as dismissive, I will take your admonition to heart. Regarding the Marian Dogmas, Papal Infallibility, and Ecclesial Infallibility (councils you mean I assume), say there is zero attestation I'll grant for discussion, the early Church is at best, silent. They might not have gone deep in it, nor there is a need to, until potentially-dividing heretical ideas sprung up. That is then when a doctrine needs to be officially defined/given boundaries to. Zero attestation may be accepted, that is different than the early Church believes A and my denomination teaches B. What it will look like if the Protestants were correct, is the early Church believes and has written something opposite to those Catholic doctrines/dogmas, instead of being silent. This then goes into the discussion of Church Authority and who can settle disputes on the what the Bible and the early church is silent about. Historically, it was the Catholic Church, on Christ's divinity, the Canon of Scripture, and many more heresies, until the present.
@@slynt_ Jesus taught using sola scriptura! “Sanctify them through thy truth: *thy word* is truth.” {John 17:17} But he answered and said, "IT IS WRITTEN, Man shall not live by bread alone, *but by every word* that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” {Matthew 4:4} Jesus said unto him, "IT IS WRITTEN again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.” {Matthew 4:7} Then saith Jesus unto him, "Get thee hence, Satan: for IT IS WRITTEN Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.” {Matthew 4:10} “For this is he, of whom IT IS WRITTEN, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.” {Matthew 11:10} And said unto them, "IT IS WRITTEN, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.” {Matthew 21:13} Then saith Jesus unto them, "All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for IT IS WRITTEN, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.” {Matthew 26:31} He answered and said unto them, "Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as IT IS WRITTEN, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me." {Mark 7:6} And he answered and told them, "Elias verily cometh first, and restoreth all things; and how IT IS WRITTEN of the Son of man, that he must suffer many things, and be set at nought. But I say unto you, That Elias is indeed come, and they have done unto him whatsoever they listed, as IT IS WRITTEN of him.” {Mark 9:12-13} “The Son of man indeed goeth, as IT IS WRITTEN of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born.” {Mark 14:21} And Jesus saith unto them, "All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for IT IS WRITTEN, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered." {Mark 14:27} “IT IS WRITTEN in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.” {John 6:45} “Search THE SCRIPTURES; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.” {John 5:39} And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he [Jesus] expounded unto them *in all the scriptures* the things concerning himself. {Luke 24:27} For I [Paul] delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins *according to the scriptures* And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day *according to the scriptures* {1 Corinthians 15:3-4} And *the scripture* foreseeing that God would justify the heathen *through faith* preached before *the gospel unto Abraham* saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. {Galatians 3:8} Contrasting, And he said unto them, "Full well you reject *the commandment of God* that you may keep your own TRADITION." ... “Making *the word of God* of none effect through your TRADITION, which you have delivered: and many such like things you do.” {Mark 7:9&13} But he answered and said unto them, "Why do you also transgress *the commandment of God* by your TRADITION?” {Matthew 15:3} Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the TRADITION OF MEN, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. {Colossians 2:8} *Tradition* in the context of men Greek παράδοσις / paradosis = 666 by counting the letter values of the Greek transliteration; P(80), A(1), R(100), A(1), D(4), O(70), S(200), I(10), S(200).
When I was a protestant, I did exactly what you said on 8:20 onwards: I considered myself a christian (that means I pressuposed the christian belief that Jesus Christ is God) and them compared protestantism, orthodoxy and catholicism. I'm now catholic.
If you would like to strengthen your Catholic faith, perhaps my videos can be of a help to you. I’m publishing a weekly TH-cam video on episodes from the life of Don Bosco, entitled ST JOHN BOSCO by JOE ZAMMIT. In this series I’m narrating events and miracles from the splendid life of Don Bosco. St John Bosco used to perform a miracle almost every day, through the intercession of Mary Help of Christians. From the lives of saints we can learn how to love God more and draw closer to him. Thank you.
@@josephzammit8483, thanks a lot! Dom Bosco is actually the patron of my city, Brasília (capital of Brazil). We have a bone from his right arm here on his cathedral.
Since Vatican II the Church teaches that we must respect and admire the parts that are true in Islam since they claim to worship the same God, but that the only way to live a fully complete religious life is by following Jesus and accepting his divinity, and it asks Christians to treat Muslims with respect and no discrimination.
Trent you are such a wonderful speaker! You talk so clearly on subject and in an easy-to-understand manner. Thank you for dedicating your time to talk about our faith! May God bless
Great episode today Trent. I was raised Lutheran and I was just yesterday having a conversation with my parents about "what it means to be Christian." This conversation was brought about by a Jewish friend of my mother, who was confounded when my mother explained to her that unlike Jewish law, Christian faith isn't something that is merely hereditary. I brought up the subject of baptism, and how, at the very least, to be a Christian you must be baptized, even if the only option is by desire. My dad, who is a practicing Lutheran, and who struggled with infant baptism throughout his life(my parents baptized my eldest sibling, but left the rest of ours until we were older), and himself was raised in the Reformed/Presbyterian tradition, has a hard time fully accepting baptismal regeneration. Ironically, it was me seeking to revert to more strict Lutheran roots that has led me down the path to more traditional Christianity, seeing what has happened in the ELCA in the last 20 years or so. Finding Lutheran and Anglican authors who support Church tradition(since the ELCA is in open communion with the Anglican church) has been very helpful in equipping me for conversations with my parents about whether or not their church is upholding the truth, or whether or not these other, more traditional and orthodox churches(Catholicism and Orthodoxy) are. Suffice it to say, your Lutheran and Anglican authors mentioned today will be taken to heart.
As a Baptist pastor for 40 years I came to exactly the same conclusion as Beasley-Murray; namely the New Testament DOES NOT support the notion that baptism is merely a symbol or and outward sign of faith. In fact, St. Paul's whole defense of the inclusion of the Gentiles without circumcision and the moral life of the believer are built on the theology of baptismal regeneration. I was driven to this conclusion by the sheer weight of the biblical record.
I'm a convert from protestantism to Catholicism. When I was in my teen years that was one of the things that I could not make sense of. Why do we believe that baptism is merely a symbol when the bible never describes baptism that way even once? In fact it appears to be directly tied to the forgiveness of sins in the acts of the apostles multiple times.
As a Protestant that was one of the things that didn't make sense to me. And it wasn't helped by the fact that our pastor reminded us constantly that it was just a symbol, nothing else, and that we should remember that. Same with the Eucharist, every time we did it he said that it was just to remember Jesus, that in no way was it the actual body of Jesus, but then you go to the Gospels and you read that when Jesus did it some people were also weirded out and they didn't understand, at which point Jesus didn't say: "oh, don't worry, it's just a symbol, sorry if I wasn't being clear". On the contrary, he doubled down on it and he said it was his body.
My senior pastor is super respected and a former Baptist, himself. My church separated from the Baptist Church once they started promoting homosexuality, though, among other things like this, that they were just absolutely wrong about. They sued us for the land, but we won the lawsuit and are now our own little “denomination.” We really don’t have any; we’re for all denominations, but we teach a specific version, all the same.
@@matthewoburke7202 Agreed well put and a similar thing could be said regarding the Eucharist. The evidence in the bible seems to clearly indicate that it really changes us and that we are transformed into the life of Christ within his body the Church. John 6 & 1 Cor 11 ...not merely symbols
@@disguisedcentennial835 Blessings! I feel like many many non Catholics have been led astray due to the “tradition” of their respective denomination and have never even heard the Catholic Tradition that is so full and deep and logical and effective for drawing us into deep relationship with Jesus. I pray y’all will figure out a way back to the Catholic Church someday :)
I’m a Protestant and I totally agree that Scripture and the Fathers teach that God offers grace - including regenerating grace - in baptism (including infant baptism). I know Baptists and non-denominational type evangelicals reject that, but Lutherans, Anglicans, many Methodists and Presbyterians affirm it, following the Reformers. There are a whole lot of Roman Catholic apologetics channels on TH-cam, and many (such as yours) are quite thoughtful and charitable and faithful; but one problem i consistently see is lumping all Protestants together as if they were all the same. The truth is few, if any, go to a “Protestant” church - they go to an Anglican Church, or a Methodist, or a Lutheran, or a Baptist church, or what have you, with all of the specificity and different nuance that entails.
Yes, obviously Protestants aren’t all the same, but the definition of a Protestant is someone who is not Catholic. The whole Protestant reformation was in opposition or to protest it.
Yeah Trent is wrong here about traditional Reformed rejecting it. I think he should read Westminster confession chapter 28. That doesn't mean Presbyterians hold to it in the same sense as Lutherans/Catholics; but certainly not in agreement with Baptists either.
If the Church Fathers could be wrong on something universally, then they could also be wrong in which books are Scripture... think about it. Moreover, if the entire body of the early Church could be wrong, what makes you, the Protestant, the individual or small church, think you aren't wrong, no matter what kind of consensus you have?
This is actually a belief that groups like the 7th day adventists have. They believe that the early Church was wrong and that the “spirit” given to the Church was lost until Ellen G. White rediscovered the spirit. Oh and also their real “church” was hidden for 1500 years until the Reformation when these real “Christians” started to come out into the open and profess their Protestantism. Kinda weird and just makes them sound like they are making up their own beliefs.
The church is the people. The first century communities taught by the apostles had one message. Later councils simply formalized what had been accepted from the beginning. (An interesting book which describes the unity of the apostolic message in comparison to the false teachings that arose is by Darrell L. Bock called "The Missing Gospels". ) I do believe that as time went on certain traditions arose which were extra-biblical but perfectly acceptable as cultural expressions of the time. But over time other traditions arose which were anti-Biblical, antithetical to the apostolic message, and it is those that must be spoken against. They endanger people's understanding of the correct object of faith. It's not about 'Catholic' vs. 'Protestant'. I don't believe the Lord looks at the sign on the church house door. No, he looks at the hearts of men and women to see where their faith is. And the apostolic message found in scripture is a sufficient source of grace so that we know where our faith should be. As Paul said, "I am determined to know nothing but Jesus Christ and him crucified."
@@stephenbailey9969 "But over time other traditions arose which were anti-Biblical" But people call things like priestly celibacy 'anti-biblical' even though literally St. Paul the Apostle said he was celibate and wished everyone was and that it's easier to serve the Lord when celibate than married. They call things like that Mary was a virgin her whole life 'anti-Biblical' even though Mary herself explicitly says in Scripture from her own mouth 'but gabriel how can I have this son since I don't have sex?' This is what you're up against, individuals who read the Bible and conclude otherwise than the church does. What then? Everyhing is subject to question. They declare a tradition of the Apostles 'contrary to Scripture' in EXACTLY the same way - EXACTLY THE SAME WAY - that atheists and heretics conclude that St. Paul and St. James contradicted each other on justification. if the individual is the judge of Scripture, then every individual and those who agree with him must be granted the right to be called 'the church.' If you deny him this right or them this right, by what authority do you do so except an alternative interpretation which is no more infallible than his/theirs???
@@AveChristusRex The Holy Spirit is the judge of scripture since he inspired it. I have been to a number of churches of various denominations over the years and I've heard things which the Holy Spirit tells me in my heart aren't exactly so. But he had me remain in that church because of the people he wanted me to serve with. And so I remained until he and circumstances told me to move on. In the end, our faith is not in ourselves or our own understanding, nor in the explanations of men. It is in the living Christ and what he did for us at Calvary. He will guide you in the way that is right.
Hi, Trent. I know a Catholic priest who at a time was very keen on debating baptism with me. I am a Christian who is not Roman Catholic. I really can't see the issue, since I have been baptized, and the Christians I know have all been baptized. Where Catholics and I agree is on what I think are the two most important side notes of baptism. What's not a side note is that we must be baptized. What the two side notes are, they are these: Not everyone who is baptized is saved. Someone can be saved without having been baptized. When I say that someone can be saved without being baptized, I mean without the physical water in a ceremony or sacrament or demonstration of baptism. Regardless of whether there is physical water or not, all Christians must undergo some type of baptism in order to be saved: an identification with the death, burial and resurrection of Christ; the baptism of the Spirit where God comes indwells the person in new birth or regeneration; an identifying with the deliverance of God's people out of bondage (as through the Red Sea, and out of sin); a public confession of loyalty to Christ and the willingness to suffer with him; ... etc. All these I think are ways of describing the baptism that Church fathers would agree equate to regeneration and are necessary for salvation, as well as the NT. (If there is a chance to use physical water along with the waterless baptism, by all means water should be used! It has always been the way of the Church to do so, and there is no reason to stop doing so. If someone has undergone a water baptism without any aspects of the waterless baptism just described, they will not be saved.) The problem when it comes to regeneration, then, is if a Protestant thinks "Once regenerated, always regenerated." This means that if the person has a water baptism sacrament without any aspects of the waterless aspects of baptism, the Catholic will say the person has truly been regenerated, but then later on rejects that new life to die outside of a state of grace, while the Protestant "once-regenerated-always-regenerated" will conclude that the person was never regenerated in the first place, not even in the water baptism sacrament. The area of disagreement is not of any practical interest then. If someone has been baptized in the Catholic Church, the Catholic clergy will still do what they can to assist the person to die in a state of grace, believing that regeneration is not the final word in salvation. If someone has been baptized as a Protestant, the Protestant clergy will still do what they can to assist the person to die in a state of grace, believing it is possible they were never truly regenerated in the first place. I don't find the insistence on baptism odd at all in either tradition. What I do see that is odd in many Catholic and Protestant churches is the delay in water baptism while the person is on probation and in training as a new believer in Christ. I don't see that as lining up with Scripture or the Church fathers, yet it is commonly done.
We Lutherans always held to baptismal regeneration. You could even say that Luthers view on justification flows from his understanding of the efficacy of baptism.
@ZachCICM The next sentence says, “Both no doubt are ours, but yet they are called God's, and Christ's, because it is by their bounty that these gifts are bestowed upon us.”
@ZachCICM “The righteousness of God, then, by faith of Jesus Christ, is unto all that believe; for there is no difference, for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God”
"Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." (Matthew 11:28-30)
I'm a protestant that embraces baptismal regeneration. The question I have, related to 1 Peter 3:21, concerns what precedes the assertion that Baptism saves you (by the resurrection of Christ). Peter states that Baptism is "a pledge of a clear conscience toward God." Could it be that baptism is regenerative AND is (normatively) a conscious pledge ("choice" for lack of a better term)? Are we to treat baptism as a salvation dispenser that we can "pledge" for others (e.g., infants) because it is (always) regenerative? This would seem similar to Paul's rhetorical question "Should we go on sinning that grace may abound?". I.e. Just because it is efficacious does not render how it is effected irrelevant.
@@jonathanbontrager The problem with that stance is that both cannot be true. Either one is true and the other is false. That's the reason this topic is discussed so much amongst protestants and catholics.
@@ninjason57 The guy you responded to seems to have the orthodox view on baptism. To use Catholic terminology, baptism is the *ordinary* path to salvation. It is not the only one out there, but is the only path God straight up told us. Popular among Catholics is, for example, "baptism by blood". Meaning martyrs got their baptismal regeneration by being "washed" through the blood they shed for Christ, even though some never got the chance to be baptized in the ordinary way. Some others believe there are "unknowing Christians" (of which Justin Martyr mentions, basically those that found out about the Trinity and righteous live through the Logos by reason alone, his prime examples of such being Plato and Socrates) they, by definition, don't have access to the sacraments, thus they God may have saved them anyway? But who are we to know? We are only certain of the ordinary baptism. The thief that died next to Jesus is also a case of someone saved through an extra-ordinary method. Now don't go speculating which are all of these ways. There's no hope to deduce out of scripture but a handful of those, if we can even be sure of any! As Catholics say "God saves whoever he wants to save." Yet we have but one 100% _known_ way to salvation. So if anything, you could see baptism as assurance. And also, even if you had reason to be sure you were baptized in an "extra-ordinary" way, Jesus would still prefer you go through with it all the same, given the chance.
@@jenex5608 Was the thief "saved" before or after the Church was established and Peter declared "Repent and be baptized everyone of you in the Name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sin"? And then he went on to say that this gift of baptism was for you, for your children, and for all who God will call to himself in the future. That includes us, surely.
Us Catholics can't argue well against Protestants if we see them as one entity. They were at one generation only a handful of denominations, but now can't agree on anything wholly, and denominations in the hundreds of thousands.
I thought at first you weren't going to point out that we Anglicans and Lutherans hold to Baptismal Regeneration. Thanks for qualifying it and not misrepresenting us!
@@reformedcatholic457none of the reformed churches can be the Church which Christ instituted 1500 years before them. They are man made . I will not go into details. The Gates of Hell will not overcome my church, Jesus said. They have tried from day one , 2000 years ago but Christ knows what He said.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 02:50 🌊 Baptismal regeneration is a universally attested doctrine among the Church fathers. 04:15 🛑 Not all Protestants deny every Catholic doctrine; there's a spectrum of beliefs within Protestantism. 06:51 📖 The argument that if apostles taught something, it should be universally found among Church fathers is inconsistent. 10:24 🎓 Scholars acknowledge universal consent among Church fathers on baptismal regeneration, regardless of their own beliefs. 14:09 📜 Early inscriptions and writings support infant baptism and the concept of baptismal regeneration. 17:54 📚 Historical writings reveal that Tertullian and others didn't universally oppose infant baptism; they questioned its timing. 20:22 ⏳ Delaying baptism until deathbed distorts the understanding of baptismal regeneration. 21:19 📖 Recommended resources for studying Church fathers and their teachings.
I think there are other clearly universally accepted doctrines among the ECFs, too: Real Presence, Bishop/Priest/Deacon governance, liturgical worship, etc. This is primarily what motivated my switch to Anglicanism in the 90's, then Catholicism in 2005.
hello Aaron. Just to respond a little to your comment that there are many RC distinctives universally taught by Early Church Fathers, two responses: 1. there are a number of ECF who are light years away from Trent on the eucharist, for example. This article will at least get you started on that if you're interested. onefold.wordpress.com/early-church-evidence-refutes-real-presence/ 2. As I say in reply to the baptismal regeneration video, the Apostles (e.g. Paul in Galatians) make it very clear that heresy is present from day 1, let alone the 2nd or 3rd centuries. Therefore, from the protestant point of view even the unanimous voice of the "Early Church" is not a clincher. You have to believe in the absolute authority of Tradition, with all the problems that entails, to be swayed by that kind of argument.That's what makes protestants protestants and catholics catholics, of course.
I interpret your answer as meaning that I'm trying to hoodwink you banking on your being ignorant when in fact you're an Early Church expert. I am not an expert but I wasn't trying to deceive you. I was trying to find out if you really believed there was universal support for Real Presence (and the other things you mentioned) ideas in the Early Church. Apparently you do. Right? I'm not looking for an argument, just confirmation that you've read things like the Didache, Justin Martyr, Athanasius etc.and still think they were teaching what Rome teaches. I take it the answer is "yes".
@Eucharist Angel Going back to 1 Peter 3 15, I just thought your apologetics were a little heavy on rhetoric and light on reasons. It wouldn't have hurt to actually cite some Fathers who, for example, did not believe in a Real Presence; there are some as you probably know e.g. Clement of Alexandria or Cyprian to name two). Judging people's hearts/intentions is also questionable ("you know damn well...choose...") and insulting RCC beliefs does not help much (they adore the host, which you compare to a Ritz cracker). Having said that, perhaps we can agree to disagree on this one as you clearly feel you have biblical warrant for your tone. Gently and respectfully yours...
@Sage of Synergism Just as the Israelites were saved by "baptism" walking through the parted Sea and Noah/family was saved by "baptism" of the flood so too are we baptized by water and spirit. “God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were SAVED THROUGH WATER” (v.20) 37When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and asked Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” 38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39This promise belongs to you and your children and to all who are far off-to all whom the Lord our God will call to Himself.”…
@Sage of Synergism Read the entirety of the references. Acts 10 Cornelius & his household were the 1st Gentiles to enter the Church. The Holy Spirit sent Pope St Peter to preach the Gospel to them after a series of visions. While he was preaching the Holy Spirit came upon them. Everyone with Peter was astonished. Peter commanded that they be baptized. Spirit & water are required. 1Cor 1:10-17 This was an established community, hence mostly baptized, on the verge of schism over who had a better baptism. Paul, of course, says he didn’t go to baptize then, proceeds to list people he did baptize.
St. Emperor Constantine didn’t delay his baptism to “exploit a loophole.” He waited because it was his expressed intention to make a pilgrimage to the Holy Land and be baptized in the Jordan River. However, he fell ill before he could make the trip and so had to be baptized on his deathbed.
Question: Where does the Roman Catholic church get the idea that infants can depend on their parents faith for baptism? 14:53 "In order for the sacrament of baptism to be valid, the person receiving it, there must be faith connected to that person. . .Now for an infant, of course, an infant cannot freely desire baptism. He has no cognitive awareness of it. The parents can desire it, they are the ones gifted with faith who bring the child for baptism. So the parents renounce Satan on the child's behalf, receive baptism on behalf of their [the parents] faith."
The fact that there is such factional disagreement over baptismal degeneration despite the universal teaching of the Church Fathers also demonstrates how disagreement can emerge over time despite a clear doctrinal concensus at the beginning.
Trent at 3:00 "Baptism is the means by which we become Christian. Baptism regenerates us. It takes away the stain of original sin, of personal sin. It removes all the punishments related to sin. ... It is the waters of baptism--they become the channel of God's grace for our souls to be renewed, for us to become a new creation in Christ." This was not universally taught by the church fathers, nor in Scripture. Justin Martyr, "First Apology," chapter 61, “This washing [baptism] is called illumination because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. In the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate and in the name of the Holy Spirit, who through the prophets foretold all things about Christ, he who is illuminated is washed.” Tertullian, "On Baptism," chapter 1, "A treatise on this matter [baptism] will not be superfluous, instructing not only such as are just becoming formed in the faith, but them who, content with having simply believed, without full examination of the grounds of the traditions, carry in mind through ignorance an untried though probable faith.” Tertullian, "On Baptism," chapter 9, “How mighty is the grace of water in the sight of God and His Christ for *the confirmation* of baptism!” Tertullian, "On Baptism," chapter 12, "They [the Apostles] followed Him who was wont to promise salvation to every believer. ‘Your faith,’ He would say, ‘has saved you,’ and, ‘Your sins shall be remitted you,’ on your believing, of course, albeit you be not yet baptized.” Tertullian, "On Baptism," chapter 18, "According to the circumstances and disposition and even age of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable, principally, however, in the case of little children, for why is it necessary-if baptism itself is not so necessary-that the sponsors likewise should be thrust into danger?” Tertullian, "On Repentance," chapter 6, "A sinner is bound to bemoan himself before receiving pardon because the time of repentance is coincident with that of peril and of fear. Not that I deny that the divine benefit-the putting away of sins, I mean-is in every way sure to such as are on the point of entering the baptismal water, but what we have to labor for is that it may be granted us to attain that blessing. Who will grant you, a man of so faithless repentance, one single sprinkling of any water whatsoever?” Tertullian, "On Repentance," chapter 6, "Is there one Christ for the baptized, another for the learners? Have they some different hope or reward? Some different dread of judgment? Some different necessity for repentance? That baptismal washing is a sealing of faith, which faith is begun and is commended by the faith of repentance. We are not washed in order that we may cease sinning, but because we have ceased, since in heart we have been bathed already. The first baptism of a learner is this: a perfect fear. Thenceforward, in so far as you have understanding of the Lord, faith is sound, the conscience having once for all embraced repentance. Otherwise, if it is only after the baptismal waters that we cease sinning, it is of necessity, not of free will, that we put on innocence.” "Apostolic Tradition" 19:2, "If any catechumens are apprehended because of the name of the Lord, let them not be doublehearted because of martyrdom. If they may suffer violence and be executed with their sins not removed, they will be justified, for they have received baptism in their own blood.” Cyprian, "Treatise 5," chapter 25, "Because we may not hate, and because we please God more by rendering no return for wrong, we exhort you while you have the power, while there yet remains to you something of life, to make satisfaction to God, and to emerge from the abyss of dark superstition into the bright light of true religion. We do not envy your comforts, nor do we conceal the divine benefits. We repay kindness for your hatred, and for the torments and penalties which are inflicted on us, we point out to you the ways of salvation. Believe, and live, and rejoice with us for eternity, you who persecute us in tithe. When you have once departed there, there is no longer any place for repentance, and no possibility of making satisfaction. Here, life is either lost or saved. Here, eternal safety is provided for by the worship of God and the fruits of faith. Nor let anyone be restrained either by his sins or by his years from coming to obtain salvation. To him who still remains in this world, no repentance is too late. The approach to God’s mercy is open, and the access is easy to those who seek and apprehend the truth. Do you entreat for your sins, although it be in the very end of life and at the setting of the sun of time, and implore God, who is the one and true God, *in confession and faith of acknowledgement of Him, and pardon is granted to the man who confesses.* Saving mercy is given from the divine goodness to the believer, and a passage is opened to immortality, even in death itself. This grace Christ bestows. This gift of His mercy He confers upon us by overcoming death in the trophy of the cross, by redeeming the believer with the price of His blood, by reconciling man to God the Father, by *quickening our mortal nature with a heavenly regeneration.* If it be possible, let us all follow Him. Let us be registered in His sacrament and *sign* [baptism]." Eusebius of Caesarea, "Church History," book 1, chapter 11, section 5, "Herod slew him [John the Baptist], a good man and one who exhorted the Jews to come and receive baptism, practicing virtue and exercising righteousness toward each other and toward God, for baptism would appear acceptable unto Him when they employed it, not the remission of certain sins, but for the purification of the body, as the soul had been already purified in righteousness.” Eusebius of Caesarea, "Church History," book 7, chapter 9, sections 2-4, "One of the brethren that assemble, who has long been considered a believer and who, before my ordination and I think before the appointment of the blessed Heraclas, was a member of the congregation, was present with those who were recently baptized. When he heard the questions and answered, he came to me weeping and bewailing himself. Falling at my feet, he acknowledged and protested that the baptism with which he had been baptized among the heretics was not of this character, nor in any respect like this because it was full of impiety and blasphemy. He said that his soul was now pierced with sorrow and that he had no confidence to lift his eyes to God because he had not set out from those impious words and deeds. On this account, he besought that he might receive this most perfect purification and reception and grace. But I did not dare do this and said his long communion was sufficient for this, for I should not dare to renew from the beginning one who had heard the giving of thanks and joined in repeating the amen, who had stood by the table and had stretched forth his hands to receive the blessed food, and who had received it and partaken for long while of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. But I exhorted him to be of good courage and to approach the partaking of the saints with firm faith and good hope.” Council of Elvira, canon 77, "If a deacons serving a community without a bishop or elder baptizes, the deacon shall then give his blessing to those baptized. If someone dies before receiving the blessing, that person is to be regarded as justified by his or her faith.” Cyril of Jerusalem, "Catechetical Lectures," lecture 3, section 4, " Cornelius was a just man, who was honored with a vision of angels and had set up his prayers and alms as a good memorial before God in heaven. Peter came, and the Spirit was poured out upon them who believed, and they spoke with other languages and prophesied. After the grace of the Spirit, the Scripture says that Peter commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, in order that, the soul having been born again by faith, the body also might by the latter partake of the grace." Baptismal regeneration is not universally taught by the church fathers.
@@Solideogloria00 their writings attest to it. Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, Iraneaus of Lyon, Justin Martyr, etc. These are the people who knew the apostles or people who knew them. We have many writings from them you can read. I suggest you Four Witnesses by Rod Bennett as a start.
@@colepriceguitar1153 That's very interesting. I would love to see some quotes from some of them. Was this before the Bible was codified in the 300s, or after?
@Filius Vivam *You are admitting to Roman Catholic ct taking m m doctrines from early writers who had deviated from Jesus, Apostles and NT Church. How "profound" is that? Lol. Early writers wrote about Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura too. Why dont Roman ct believe in these doctrines?* you said The writings of the early Church Fathers are a profound witness that Catholicism is historic, true and the fullness of the Christian life.
For a good time, read the Westminster confession on Baptism slowly to any modern Evangelical. When it says, “the grace offered is not only offered, but exhibited and conferred,” watch them freak out.
@YAJUN YUAN it absolutely is missing the purpose. But Horn is Sola Ecclesia, not Sola Scriptura. The Roman Catholic Church says that Baptism is done to cover original sin, and she (according to Catholic faithful), is the ONLY entity with the authority to interpret the Bible. So, while Horn will use a verse out of context to support a Church teaching, that’s as far as he (or any of them), will go in Biblical study. They simply don’t interpret or study anything that doesn’t match the Church’s teachings.
@@KristiLEvans1 this seems to fly in the face of people who have studied their way INTO the Catholic Church from other denominations, like Scott Hahn. There are many things that influence whether we reject or accept a certain idea, such as preconceived notions or cultural upbringing, so disagreeing with someone else’s interpretation does not necessarily mean they are approaching the text dishonestly. It is difficult to get everyone to reach the same conclusions. Which is why it is good Jesus gave the Church the ability to clear up such confusions
@@0GodJudges0 yes. If you are convinced by gnostic gospels (“Ascension of Isaiah”, “Odes of Solomon”), and incorrectly derived types and shadows, you *can* do it. I’ve heard Hahn. I’m not sure he admitted to drawing from the gnostic gospels, but he definitely, actually cited the types and shadows. I, too, wanted to convert, and so studied for a few years. There is A LOT I love about the RC faith, but I could not study my way into Marian dogmas or the apostolic succession of the Papacy. If you want the high-church, liturgy and lifestyle of worship, badly enough, the brain can justify anything, I suppose. Mine could not.
As a Baptist, I fully affirm Baptismal Regeneration as the normative way that a new Christian receives Regeneration, provided they confess and repent of their sins and put their faith in Christ (i.e. Credo-Baptism).
Around 19:45 you mention what if you die suddenly. Why make one wait to partake off the Eucharist or become Catholic. As the eunuch said, "what hinders me from being baptized?" Phillip: commands the Chariot to stop and baptizes. Catholic Church: RCIA classes in the fall... if you even are acknowledged by the "father".
This is a very interesting topic. I can honestly say I've never even heard an argument for baptism being required for salvation. It was well done and could certainly be the case. How do you interpret what John the Baptist says in Matt. 3:11? I always took that to mean that the "baptism" of salvation was more symbolic rather than a literal baptism. Regardless, the Bible clearly states that you should be baptized whether you think it saves you or not. Seeing as how Christ himself was baptized, we as CHRISTians should all follow him in baptism. Great job on these videos Trent, I love hearing different interpretations of scripture. While I doubt that I will ever agree with you on everything, I know that my interpretations are not infallible. I appreciate what you are doing and keep fighting the good fight brother!
If it’s just a symbol and not required for salvation, why do it? It would be pointless and a waste of time. At the same time, baptism must have faith in the life of the believer (whether at the time of the baptism or afterwards for infants) for its salvific power to be applied to the person. It’s the sign/test/initiation our Lord chose for us to enter into the faith. It is a means of grace, and a means by which we show our obedience to God. It’s brilliant, because it’s an easy test. I like to think of baptism and its regeneration as a process. The process begins when you first have salvific faith towards God, then you begin the catechumen process (Heb 6, instructions about ritual washings), and it is capped off by the actual act of baptism.
I agree with you much more in this episode than usual. 😅 Even when I don’t, I respect your sincerity & scholarship. There is good reason the Church Fathers agreed on this - the solid witness from Scripture.
I was 2 years old when I got baptised; my Mum was a Roman Catholic and my Dad an Anglican. They certainly believed in infant baptism and my older sister had all ready been baptised, so why they left it that long I just don't know. The fact that they left it a bit late certainly can't be used to support Dr. Ortlund's position.
@Григорий Фэша I don't think you can use the Book of Mormon to argue against the Christian baptism of infants - you might just as well quote from the Lotus Sutra.
@@tonyoliver2750 quote--Christian baptism of infants--unquote Please quote the Bible that mentions "Baptism of infants"!!! How can an infant know who Jesus is? Why He died? What salvation is? THe Jews DO NOT baptise anyone until they are age 8!!!! ----What age does the Bible say a child should be baptized? But when exactly was that? The answer finally came when the Lord described how parents should teach their children about the gospel. He said, “And their children shall be baptized for the remission of their sins when eight years old, and receive the laying on of the hands” (Doctrine and Covenants 68:27). ----Infant baptism (or pedobaptism) is the practice of baptizing infants or young children. Infant baptism is also called christening by some faith traditions. Antiquity Scholars disagree on the date when infant baptism was first practiced. Some believe that 1st-century Christians did not practice it, noting the lack of any explicit evidence of infant baptism. Others, noting the lack of any explicit evidence of exclusion of infant baptism, believe that they did, understanding biblical references to individuals "and [her] household" being baptized as including young children. (The issue here is that the verse says NOTHING about "infants". ) And the words " including young children", how young is young??? ----Again, Jews do not baptise until the "young child" is age 8!!! The New Testament includes three passages that explicitly refer to “households” being baptized: “She was baptized, with her household” (Acts 16:15) “He was baptized at once, with all his family” (Acts 16:33; 18:8 also implicitly implies it) “I did baptize also the household of Stephanas.” (1 Corinthians 1:16) NOT ONE of those mentions "infants"!!! Since the ones doing the baptism were Jews, there is NO Way they would have baptised anyone under the age of 8!!!
We Reformed Protestants have also historically taught Baptismal Regeneration. It is a modern thing for the Protestant churches to begin to move away from this because of the interaction with Baptists.
I have a question. Peter said Baptism saves you, but in acts we see the house of Cornelius saved and receiving the spirit before baptism. How do you harmonize that? Please, no attacks. Thanks. 😊
As far as I'm aware, the Cornelius episode was a special occurrence that God used to prove that He wills Gentiles to become Christian as well. Catholics don't deny that in rare circumstances God can give the Holy Spirit to unbaptized individuals (see the thief on the cross), but that the norm is for baptism to be the place where the Spirit comes. Notice how even Cornelius and his household were required to be baptized by Peter. Thanks for the question.
Robert Sungenis claims the fathers universally agreed on geocentrism and therefore he have to submit to that teaching. Obviously a fringe topic but I'd love to see actual experts debate that.
@@Apologetyczny unfortunately it is about scriptural interpretation. And the fathers unanimously interpreted Scriptures on this issue. Scriptural interpretation is a matter of faith.
In every Mass the creator of the universe comes to nourish His people in the Eucharist. I believe in geocentrism, insofar as, it is here on this very planet that I encounter Him who is God and source of all.
I think this is why most modern Americans (Protestant/Catholic) are becoming more and more agnostic. The constant ‘my way is the true way and the facts back my way’ (all Christian groups) has turned so many people away from religion as a whole.
The fact that there are so many protestant denominations clearly tell us they dont agree amongst themselves. So, when it comes to different views on baptismal regeneration amongst protestants is just one of the many consequences. It's no brainer. You cannot propose a win-win solution to protestants because you will end up relaxing your own belief and doctrines.
@Eucharist Angel All Catholics formally agree with the Truths which are taught by the Catholic Church. Yes, many Catholics argue among themselves on the executions of those teachings, but such divisiveness is in no way comparable to the infinite Schisms of Denominations that came out of the Protestant Reformation.
If it must be found in the teachings of Church fathers, where do Evangelical Protestants find “let Jesus into your heart as your personal Lord and Savior” in Church father’s teachings? Or how about pointing to the date and time they got “saved”? Or, a myriad of other such beliefs they hold?
I was a little disturbed when I first heard someone would baptize not just a second time but a third, fourth, or fifth time because they feel like they are still committing sins. Like how was this possible? I didn’t know any of the church fathers really back when I heard this. No one really talked about sin in the churches I used to go to except to say, “You don’t want to end up like this girl, do you?” It breaks my heart to think how hard everyone was on appearing to be saved and not preaching what it takes through their own actions, reaching that girl who is going through trouble but isn’t so far gone to be unreachable.
I suspect a person who seeks multiple baptisms does so because they don't understand or know about the Sacrament of Confession/ reconciliation. Multiple baptisms are probably motivated by sin guilt. Though they may have been sincerely seeking God at their baptism, I suspect they may have not understood that we are to become new creations in Christ, and thus leaving our past sins behind us.
Also seems to go against “salvation by Grace through Faith” is NOT a work. It would appear one has to do something “be baptized” in order to be saved and it is adding to what Christ did on the cross (couldn’t help myself to use their common retort against anything Catholic).
@andrewkline1813 *You have an English issue. Proximity is Not Causality. Being in the same statement does not imply its Causal.* *Example:* *"Open the drawer, take out the medicine, eat and you will be saved; if you do not eat of the medicine you will die".* *Opening the drawer did not save. It's the medicine that saves. It's also seen in the latter sentence "if you do not eat of the medicine you will die".* *Similarly Mark 16:16. It takes certain intelligence to understand proper English constructs.* Mar 16:16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. you said read mark 16:16 "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." Belief and baptism is required. You must not be intelligent
God bless you brother Trent keep making them videos love your channel Jesus Mary and Joseph Pray for Us Saint Anthony of Padua Pray for Us Christ Save us 🛐🗝️🗝️😇🙏📖💯 Catholic
High church and the view of the sacraments brought me to the Lutheran church. Dr. Jordan Cooper’s content on baptism is great by the way, Trent is right to suggest it.
I had no idea so many evangelicals do not embrace baptism as an ordinary means of entrance to Christianity. I thought there were fringe elements, but thanks to Trent, popular pastors of You tube are moving the goalpost that baptism is not really necessary. Crazy
Baptism is an outward sign you are saved. It does not save your soul. Only asking Jesus to be your Lord and Savior does that. Baptism is a very good thing to do but baptizing a young children does not save their souls.
@@mx_moi1964 18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit. , 21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also-not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God.[b] It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand-with angels, authorities, and powers in submission to him. Water is a symbol of salvation. You go down into the water symbolizing where you were in life. You come up from the water symbolizing you are a new creation. Salvation comes from accepting Jesus as Your Lord and Savior. You do that by confessing your sins to Him and then turning away, repenting, from them.
Corruption always happens among God's people whenever they turn from God. 'Return to me, ye revolting children, and I will give you pastors according to my own heart.'
@YAJUN YUAN One of the most popular catechisms in use in America and elsewhere before they released the gigantic CCC in 1980. It puts the faith far more simply, and breaks it down into bitesized, easy to understand chunks.
Can a Catholic clarify? At 3:20 he quotes saying "anyone who receives the sacrament of baptism, there is nothing that will hinder him entering heaven". Do Catholics believe it is impossible to fall away and forfeit your inheritance after being baptized?
As a Protestant(theologically Lutheran) is inquiring of the catholic and orthodox faith, I’ve reached the point where it upsets me that these Protestant theologians completely disregard the witness of the church fathers and go their own way. How arrogant! I affirm both baptismal regeneration and the Eucharist!
As a former protestant, many actually sincerely do not understand why thry should care about the church fathers. They think it's all just people studying the Bible for the last 2000 years, with no reason why anyone else's interpretation should be considered more valuable than their own. They view theology like science, only instead of a universe to study with experiments, they have scripture. They think thay just like with our science and technology, we have reached a greater understanding of scripture. They don't know or understand that Christianity did not start with the Bible. They don't necessarily deny it, they just genuinely don't understand. When it was explained to me, I dropped Protestantism like a sack of potatoes.
quote--I’ve reached the point where it upsets me that these Protestant theologians completely disregard the witness of the church fathers ....unquote Church gods??? Let’s discuss the idea of calling priests “father.” In Matthew 23:9, when Jesus says, “And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven,” does Jesus mean that literally or is he just driving home a point using strong terminology? I would say it’s the latter. Catholics are criticized for this because Catholics call priests “father.” When Jesus said to “call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven,” he is using an expression that has deep roots in the Hebrew Scriptures. To “call” someone by a “name” in the Hebrew tradition meant something closer to “identifying the essence” of a person. For example, when the prophet Isaiah says of the Messiah that “his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, the Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace,” he certainly does not mean that those titles will be commonly used as names of the Messiah by his contemporaries. None of Jesus’ contemporaries, not even the Apostles themselves, called him those things. Rather, the “name” here means the essence, and Isaiah is describing the nature of the Messiah, who will be, in his very nature, the “Mighty God” who shares the essence of the “Wonderful Counselor” (the Holy Spirit) and the “Everlasting Father” (God the Father). So, in this Hebrew tradition, when Jesus says, “Call no one on earth your father,” he means, “Recognize no one on earth as your father in his essence for by nature and by essence, there is only one Father, that is, God the Father.” In a very real sense, all other fathers, even one’s own biological father, are imitation fathers, because God is the true Father who begets children in a way that only He, as God, can. When you were conceived, God created your soul de novo, “new,” and ex nihilo, “from nothing.” That is true fatherhood! Your biological father did not create anything de novo or ex nihilo. Your biological father contributed to your body in a physical process that was wondrously fashioned by God, but nonetheless completely natural and according to physical laws. In a very real sense, your physical father is only a father by analogy, that is, human fatherhood is similar to true fatherhood, which God alone exercises. Another way to look at it is that we can call our biological fathers “Father” only because God is our true Father. All paternity is an imitation of the paternity of God the Father, as St. Paul says: “I bow my knees before the Father, from whom all fatherhood [Greek patria] in heaven and on earth is named” (Eph 3:14-15, my translation). ---
*R Catholicism has nothing to do with God and His Words. R Catholic Church contradicts Scriptures in every possible ways!* 1. Catholics say Mary was sinless. But BIBLE says Mary offered a sinner's offering. She was a sinner. Bible says Mary needed a Saviour. Lk 2:23-24, Lev 12:6-8, Rom 3:10. 2. Catholics say clergies must be celibate. Yet BIBLE says Peter (supposed R Church first leader) had mother in law. Bible says celibacy is not a qualification for clergies. Mat 8:14-15, Mar 1:30-31, Luk 4:38-39. 3. Catholics say Mary was forever virgin. Yet BIBLE says Jesus had brothers and sisters. Mary was not perpetually virgin. Mk 6:3, Mat 13:55, Mat 27:56, Mar 6:3, Mar 15:40, Mar 15:47. 4. Catholics say confess to R priests in a box. BIBLE says nothing about confessing to priests in a box. Bible says confess to GOD only. 1 John 1:9, Mat 6, Romans 10:9-10. 5. Catholics say drink of the physical blood of Jesus. Yet OT and NT both say do not drink blood. Acts 15, Lev 7:26. 6. Catholics say pray to passed on Mary and "saints". Yet BIBLE says do not contact the dead. NT Church did not record a single case of NT believers asking passed on saints to pray for them. Deut 18:11, Isaiah 8:19. 7. Catholics make and bow down to statues. BIBLE says do not bow down to graven images (statues). Deut 4, Exo 20:4-5. 8. Catholics sprinkles “holy water”. But NT Church of the Bible mentioned nothing about “holy water”. There was no record of any Apostles sprinkling “holy water” on believers. Catholics claimed “holy water” came from OT. Yet Num 5:17 says “holy water” was water used to test adulterous women in OT temple. Hardly the same. Those were for Old Covenant Jews. Not New Testament Christians. 9. Catholics say Peter was pope - bishop of all bishops. Yet BIBLE says Peter was just a leader of the Jerusalem Church. Bible says nothing of the office of bishop of bishops. Gal 2:9, Mat 16:18. 10. Catholics say there is a seat of Peter. Yet BIBLE says nothing about it. Jesus said “not to lord over others”. 11. Catholics has clergy priesthood. Bible says clergy priesthood was done away with in New Testament. There is no clergy priesthood in NT. Heb 7:27, 9:12, 10:10. 12. Catholics preaches Works Salvation (faith + good works + partake R sacraments + submit to R pontiff + be in R Church + devote to Mary = to be saved). Yet Bible says “believe in Jesus to be saved”. Bible says Works Salvation is cursed. Gal 1:8-9. Acts 16:30-31, John 3:16, Romans 10:9-10. 13. Catholics says they must do Penance to atone for their sins. Yet Bible says repent, confess and sins will be forgiven. Catholic Bible changes the word “repentance” in NT into “penance”. Original Greek NT does not use or mean the word penance. Penance = work to atone for sins. Repentance = change of heart. 1 John 1:9, Mat 6. 14. Catholics say Mary went straight to heaven without dying. Yet Bible says nothing about it. 15. Catholics say Islam and Christianity have the same GOD. Yet Islam doesn't believe in death and resurrection of Jesus and Trinity.
I never did understand why a priest would not baptize an infant? Even if being pressured by grandma this is a good thing and if it is truly efficacious you would want to baptize them right away. The couple could walk across the street to a Lutheran Church have their infant baptized and the Catholic Church would recognize that baptism as valid....at first I did think this was going to be about Eucharist...I don't think it is possible to find any Church father that proclaims it as only a symbol and not truly the body and blood of Christ. You might find a few examples closer to the Lutheran position but you will also not find a conservative Lutheran that will tell you it is just a symbol and Christ is not present.
Baptisms are meant to be a testament of faith. Kids can be baptized as long as they can reason for their faith. How can’t infants do this? They cannot and therefore ought not to be baptized until they receive Christ in their hearts. Baptizing infants are sort of forced conversions in a way. People think they can sin till death and go to heaven because they have-been baptized as babies without really believing in Jesus. It has been used as a scapegoat for reckless behavior and entitlement.
@andrewkline1813 *You are totally misquoting Scriptures again. 1 Pet **3:21** says "water baptism is a symbol". It does not save.* 1 Pet 3:21 *Baptism, which is symbolized by that water,* now saves you also, not by removing dirt from the body, but by asking God for a clear conscience based on the resurrection of Jesus, the Messiah, you said o get a clear conscience 1 Peter 3:21. Of course faith is required for the efficacy of baptism
@tafazzi-on-discord *Scriptures does not tell us exactly which books. But it tells us CHurch (not referring to Roman ct) and Apostles/leaders knew. The Church discovered the canon over centuries.* *Jesus, APostles and NT Church already called "partial Scriptures", Scriptures, in their days. They did not say believers needed to wait 300 years for Scriptures to be "made inspired" as per the false claims of ROman ct.* you said And how many scriptures tell you what the Bible is? Which books are and which books aren't inspires for example.
8:21 what about just staying in that “mere Christianity” stage? Most of my friends and family, despite being Protestant by church, like to identify themselves as being nondenominational, and solely focus of one’s relationship with Jesus. What should I say to them
It's impossible to "solely focus on one's relationship with Jesus" without running into denominational questions. After all, if Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist, then that's going to be a BIG part of building that relationship with Him. If Jesus gave authority to men to forgive sins, then that's how I restore my relationship with Christ after serious sin. C.S. Lewis made the term "Mere Christianity" famous. I'd suggest he has the best advice for your friends and family: *** I hope no reader will suppose that "mere" Christianity is here put forward as an alternative to the creeds of the existing communions-as if a man could adopt it in preference to Congregationalism or Greek Orthodoxy or anything else. It is more like a hall out of which doors open into several rooms. If I can bring anyone into that hall I shall have done what I attempted. But it is in the rooms, not in the hall, that there are fires and chairs and meals. The hall is a place to wait in, a place from which to try the various doors, not a place to live in. For that purpose the worst of the rooms (whichever that may be) is, I think, preferable. It is true that some people may find they have to wait in the hall for a considerable time, while others feel certain almost at once which door they must knock at. I do not know why there is this difference, but I am sure God keeps no one waiting unless He sees that it is good for him to wait. When you do get into your room you will find that the long wait has done you some kind of good which you would not have had otherwise. But you must regard it as waiting, not as camping. You must keep on praying for light: and, of course, even in the hall, you must begin trying to obey the rules which are common to the whole house. And above all you must be asking which door is the true one; not which pleases you best by its paint and paneling. ***
I would sincerely not want to bring people that have a real walk with the Lord into the world of debates (which frankly is exhausting and sometimes fruitless). I'm a protestant who wants no part of certain catholic beliefs. I have had a lot of opportunity to wreck the "catholic faith" of some catholics, but it seemed wicked to their conscience to bring them into a lot of doubt and questions which may wreck their faith in the blessed Lord. Please be careful and prayerful about what you do with them. All these debates forget that wreck can come to some christians because of thesame. God bless, brother 😊
@@chiagookonta3239 That attitude is pretty much unknown to Christian history though. St. Paul cared enough about truth to argue with those he thought were in the wrong. So did all the apologists of the early centuries. The Church as a whole called Ecumenical Councils so that the authentic Christian Faith could be proclaimed so that people would not be in heresy.
@@davidbates3353 I'm not sure about it being unknown. I think Paul would rather someone be protestant than lost because of an argument with catholics or vice versa. I am all for arguments, but if it will affect someone's faith negatively, one should be content with the fact that this person is a brother. Although this depends on whether you believe that one can be saved and have a good walk with the Lord without being catholic.
@@chiagookonta3239 Protestants regularly tell me that Catholics are doing the same thing as the Galatians and Paul opposed them in the strongest of terms. Let's just assume that the Catholic position is true... I would say that it would be the most unloving thing in the world for a Catholic to let a Protestant friend live a life unknowingly deprived of Jesus' Body and Blood, the graces of Confession, to be dismissive about the Blessed Virgin, to abandon the Pope, and to be deprived of Saintly and angelic intercessors.
Protestant apologists may try to use the argument that such and such a doctrine is not found explicitly in the Early Church Fathers before Year X and therefore cannot be part of Apostolic teaching but a lot of them are very happy to try to use St Augustine's writings to support their own doctrines. It doesn't seem to bother them that the doctrines they think are to be found in the writings of St Augustine are not found in writings from earlier Fathers.
The argument in the first part of this video seems to be: 1. If the apostles taught X, the Church Fathers universally taught X. 2. The Church Fathers universally taught X. 3. Therefore, the apostles taught X. This fallacy is called “Affirming the consequent”.
@YAJUN YUAN That's besides my point, if the Church Fathers who address a given topic do so with a great chorus of assent, and it is a consistent teaching without rebuke from whatever point in the Early Church onwards, then that is a sure sign for veracity.
@YAJUN YUAN With all due respect, your point on the Deuterocanon is completely wrong - I presume you haven't read any Catholic literature on the topic? And your idea that Catholics only do baptism to remove original sin is also wrong. The Catechism plainly contradicts that.
@YAJUN YUAN Every single one of those affirmed the deuterocanon lol, Jerome by the end of his life. You haven't touched Catholic scholarship if you think all of this.
As an Anglican with a Lutheran mix I'm aware that I don't need to be roman to be catholic, I can hold to catholic doctrines without the papacy. Nor do I need to convert to Eastern orthodox to be orthodox although i consider both to be brothers in Christ. I hold baptism forgives sin and unites us to Christ, as God grants whenever he pleases. As for the Holy Eucharist, Christ is present but it's a mystery if I was to go into detail. The fathers are a mix, no church can claim them as theirs.
Strawmanning the reformed calvinist tradition as evangelical baptists part idk Read the reformed confessions on baptism or the institutions of Calvin on baptism. It's not fair to blame reformed theology for mistakes made by one of the three other protestant movements.
@Prasanth Thomas But he did not reject it in the way it's framed in this video at all. He says baptismal regeneration teaches that baptism is not purely a symbolic rite. Reformed Christians agree with that. It's not merely a sign to show people that you have become christian. Reformed christians agree with that. Baptism is the means by which we become christian. Agree. It takes away your sins. Calvin will accept this truth even more than Roman-catholics, since he thinks the sacrament of saying sorry to a priest (sorry I can't find the English name) is an underestimation of baptism. Read the institutions 4.15 (he summarizes in 4.15.14) to see he is really misrepresented here. Reformed christians believe we are really saved with baptism, but not because the Holy Spirit needs to work exclusively in that water. We are saved by the the Holy Spirit and that happens before our eyes during baptism. Something really happens there, while we can only sensually experience the symbols of the thing that happens. Therefore we can say baptism saves or baptism does not save, as long as we're meaning the same thing. We're not merely symbolists like evangelicals, so I cannot find where the Church fathers universally disagree with us. And just as you say, Calvin defended infant baptism. Every Reformed confession that talks about baptism, affirms infant baptism. 5:30 of this video just plainly denies that. If you want to know what the official Reformed teachings are on baptism, read the Heidelbergse Catechismus 65-74 and Confessio Belgica 33-34. It's just not fair to say that there are reformed christians believing that baptism is not a real mean of grace and it's not fair to say that there are reformed christians against infant baptism. Those people are by definition not reformed (denying the creeds), so they are baptists having some teachings in common with reformed christians
@Saint Charbel Miracleworker *Roman Ct members love misquoting 1 Pet **3:21**. It clearly says "water baptism is a symbol".* 1 Pet 3:21 *Baptism, which is symbolized by that water,* now saves you also, not by removing dirt from the body, but by asking God for a clear conscience based on the resurrection of Jesus, the Messiah, you said Just as the Israelites were saved by "baptism" walking through the parted Sea and Noah/family was saved by "baptism" of the flood so too are we baptized by water and spirit. “God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were SAVED THROUGH WATER” (v.20)
The Reformed Traditions official position is to baptize infants too. Only the Calvinistic baptists teaches “believers” baptism which puts them outside of the reformed tradition
even if that is true, they still think it's just a sign and seal of faith and that the promises in baptism are not given until quickening. Meaning, you don't exactly know if the holy spirit is working through the waters of baptism, which is another way of denying baptismal regeneration
@@mcfadden139 for sure, that’s is a problem I have with them. They reject BR when that is actually the best explanation for how the NT presents baptism.
@YAJUN YUAN yes, baptism forgives your sins and then you are received into the Church. There you commune daily with the Lord and Believers where there is daily repentance, adoration, and sanctification.
@YAJUN YUAN adults can make decisions for their children, that includes baptism. There the faith of the parents covers for the infant so the young one can receive the forgiveness of sins and be received in to the church. Or in simple terms “by grace alone” not “mental assent” alone or “verbal confirmation” alone.
If a baby is baptized what need is there for faith in Jesus as the Baby grows? In your beginning argument with John 3 a man cannot enter the kingdom of God unless through water and Spirit. So a baby is baptized shouldn’t their also have to be a person faith In the savior?
Acts 8, Simon was baptized but not regenerated. Acts 10, the Cornelius household experienced regeneration before baptism. The thief on the cross, he came to faith (conviction) without baptism. The act of baptism in and of itself does not cause regeneration. However, baptism in everything that it entails may include regeneration. This is dependent upon Gods mercy (Titus 3:5-8). We see it is entirely up to God, John 3:8. John 6:44 also applies, which the Father by His choice, brings one to Christ. So when Peter mentioned we are saved by baptism, he was including Christs resurrection. No one can come to Christ, unless the Father draws them. Your view of baptism Trent, pushes what God does off to the side. You will have a difficult time uniting believers in your understanding of baptism. You are also building your theology off of church fathers. Is this what Paul had in mind? Ephesians 2:20. Are you aware there have been a lot of modifications through “church fathers” by Eusebius? This is why this is a bad idea on your part. Eusebius tried to define a “orthodox “ view of the relationship between church and state for Constantine. Not a good way to build your theology Trent.
@andrewkline1813 *You are totally misquoting 1 Pet **3:21**. Water only cleanses dirt ==> water baptism did not save. It's the Holy Spirit who cleansed the conscience, not water.* *In the case of Noah's ark. Water represents the instrument of judgement. Water destroyed. It did not save. The ark saves (represented by Jesus saves). Not the water. Hence not water baptism.* you said 1 Peter 3:21 is discussing water baptism, which when accompanied by an internal change (not filth removed from the body), accomplishes an appeal to God for a clear conscience. Peter says "baptism now saves you" when connecting the flood waters to baptismal waters.
No where does Peter say "water only cleanses dirt" That is simply an addition. Paul clearly states that although water baptism is regenerative, it is not a work. Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but because of his mercy he saved us through the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit whom he poured out generously on us through Jesus Christ our Savior so that having been justified by grace...... From Titus 3:5 The washing of regeneration referred to baptism. This is what the early Church taught and believed. Baptism is the means by which God pours the Holy Spirit on us and we are justified by his grace....(unmerited favor). It seems strange to day that those most unable to "work"....little babies ....would be required to "work" to get Gods unmerited favor. Gods grace and mercy is given freely to us and the means by which God does it is through water baptism. Baptism has two concurent parts...the external application of water and the internal movement of the Holy Spirit. Both are necessary. When I went to a so-called "independent Bible Church" the doctrinal statement said that those that profess Christ as Savior "may be baptized with water." But many did not. They were told they did not have to. It was optional! But what did Jesus Christ say in the Gospels......He Commanded them to go, preach, teach, make disciples...and to baptize. God commanded baptism. He didn't say it was optional.
@@prairiemark4084 *It's implied. Who could clear the conscience? God. What could clear dirt? Water.* 1Pet 3:21 Baptism, which is symbolized by that water, now saves you also, not by removing dirt from the body, but by asking God for a clear conscience based on the resurrection of Jesus, the Messiah, you said No where does Peter say "water only cleanses dirt"
@@prairiemark4084 *Nowhere in the Bible says "washing of regeneration refers to water baptism". That's clearly an addition.* *Early Church? False claim. NT Church did not teach that.* you said The washing of regeneration referred to baptism. This is what the early Church taught and believed.
@@prairiemark4084 *False claims again. THat's not water baptism. That's baptism of the HS. They are not one and the same. There are 7 baptisms in the whole Bible.* you said Baptism is the means by which God pours the Holy Spirit on us and we are justified by his grace....(unmerited favor).
@@prairiemark4084 *Jesus commanded a lot of things. Not everything Jesus commanded "save". Does preaching say? Does teaching save? No. Does making disciples save? Clearly not.* *Bible is clear: believe in Jesus to be save. John 3:16. It's only Christ who saves. Not other works. Eph 2:8-9.* you said He commanded them to go, preach, teach, make disciples...and to baptize. God commanded baptism. He didn't say it was optional.
my Methodist friends were quick to point out their quadrilateral of authority (scripture, tradition, reason and experience... the latter interpreted not on the individual but church community level led by learned scholars), but yes apart from that sola scriptura, variously understood, is the authority for traditional protestants (mainline or liberal protestants may tend to veer off into individual reason and culture even at the expense of scripture).
@@mikewilliams6025 Sure, fair enough. The ability to baptize is very broad as long as it's done in the valid form, I was thinking of the Eucharist at the time
So perhaps it is fitting in commencing discussions with members of other religious traditions to ask which premises are operative, and therefore whether the discussion is proceeding in good faith. This to forestall the "heads I win, tails you lose", "you're bound to the fathers, so I can use them to refute you, but I am not bound to the fathers, so they cannot be used to refute me" double standard, which masks the prior commitment to particular theological conclusions. G. K. Chesterton spoke well of identifying and making explicit layers of assumptions and commitments to the point of discovering both common ground and points and bases of divergence, so that arguments which can be shown to be sound and which have premises which are acknowledged as valid lead inescapably to conclusions which in turn become acknowledged premises for further identification of previously unrecognized truth. Of course, all of this is possible only if the ignorant or erring dialogue partner either is indifferent to the matter under discussion or is sufficiently secure in his knowledge that the fundamental structure of reality is such a truth, goodness, beauty, and unity as operates for his benefit, that he is willing to discover that the fuller understanding to which he is being exposed more strongly reinforces that fundamental understanding.
Near the end where Trent mentioned to not get baptized near the end of your life, i believe most Roman kings and generals did that because they felt if they did they would have to adhere to the Church more lol.
I have been watching the Chosen and I have the Chosen app. What can we do to help these protestants come to know the full truth of Jesus in His Church, the Catholic Church? The season 2 ending episode is about the sermon on the mount and the trailer/behind the scenes guys were talking about John 6. ...the great bread of life discourse. This would be the perfect time to show them that Jesus said what He meant and meant what He said Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, you have no life within you,etc.
Pray for the producers. And keep in mind the show does have many theological experts on hand from different denominations including Catholics. Also Jesus is Catholic in the Chosen (the actor portraying Jesus)
@Elijah Sheets the faithful are indeed trying to do just that. The Magisterial Authority of the Church is the same for 2000 years, nothing has changed there. It is just the infiltration of the freemasons, these wicked men have it in their own writings that their sole goal is to destroy the Catholic Church from within. Many of the current bishops around the world are caught up in the heresies of modernism, secularism, and relativism. The faithful laity are working to get rid of these heretics, starting with the child molesters . Michael Voris on his Church Militant channel has begun this process.
@Elijah Sheets the only idol was that pachamama thing. If you are a protestant and are talking about ordinary statues, those aren't idols. Only a statue that is worshiped as a God is an idol.
@Elijah Sheets as far as "atrocities ", many of these have been exaggerated and twisted up beyond belief. So many lies have been spread by anti-catholics.
@Empyreal we humans can only plant the seeds bc only HE can "convince" u. Be ever so humble in ur prayers during ur journey. God Bless and Peace Be With You. Jesus We Trust in You.
If Baptism saves then it is a work that merits our salvation. I know that's taken for granted in Catholicism, but those of us who actually know and believe the scriptures remember Ephesians 2:8-9, "For it is by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, NOT BY WORKS, so that no one can boast."
"Actually know and believe scripture..." You've taken it out of context! See point no. 2 for this. 1) If Ephesians is misinterpreted (as you have) then this nullifies Matthew 7:21, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who DOES THE WILL of my Father in heaven." Take note that this quote came from Jesus himself. PAUL HIMSELF says that works are needed as well. Romans 2:5-6 says, "By your stubbornness and impenitent heart, you are storing up wrath for yourself for the day of wrath and revelation of the just judgment of God, who will repay everyone according to his works: eternal life to those who seek glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in good works." See how many times he said "works"? Imagine being Paul and seeing Christians misinterpreting your letter to the Ephesians by taking it out of context. By the way, it is also known that Paul wrote the Epistle to the Romans (around 57 AD or so) before the Epistle to the Ephesians (around 60+ AD or so). SOURCES: - Matthew 7:21 - Romans 2:5-6 - Date of Paul's Epistle to the Romans: www.britannica.com/topic/Letter-of-Paul-to-the-Romans (fact checked by Britannica) - Date of Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians: The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings by Bart D. Ehrman (www.amazon.com/New-Testament-Historical-Introduction-Christian/dp/0199757534) 2) In Romans 2:17 Paul says, "Now if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast of God." Now this is an obvious repetition/reiteration that is seen in Ephesians. The law/works that Paul meant were works from/by the Law of Moses, and in the context of Romans 2:17-29 Paul states that the Jews cannot boast of a closer relationship to God vs. the Gentiles just because they follow the Law of Moses. Further proof that these 2 letters are to be interpreted in the same light CAN BE SEEN IN EPHESIANS 2 ITSELF. Ephesians 2:8-19 states: 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God; 9 it is not from works, so no one may boast. 10 For we are his handiwork, created in Christ Jesus for the good works that God has prepared in advance, that we should live in them. 11 Therefore, remember that at one time you, Gentiles in the flesh, called the uncircumcision by those called the circumcision, which is done in the flesh by human hands, 12 were at that time without Christ, alienated from the community of Israel* and strangers to the covenants of promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have become near by the blood of Christ. 14 For he is our peace, he who made both one and broke down the dividing wall of enmity, through his flesh, 15 abolishing the law with its commandments and legal claims, that he might create in himself one new person* in place of the two, thus establishing peace, 16 and might reconcile both with God, in one body, through the cross, putting that enmity to death by it. 17 He came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near, 18 for through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. 19 So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the holy ones and members of the household of God Now COMPARE this to Romans 2:17-29 (which was written BEFORE Ephesians): 17 Now if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast of God 18 and know his will and are able to discern what is important since you are instructed from the law 19 and if you are confident that you are a guide for the blind and a light for those in darkness 20 that you are a trainer of the foolish and teacher of the simple because in the law you have the formulation of knowledge and truth- 21 then you who teach another, are you failing to teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal 22 You who forbid adultery, do you commit adultery? You who detest idols, do you rob temples? 23 You who boast of the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? 24 For, as it is written, “Because of you the name of God is reviled among the Gentiles.” 25 Circumcision, to be sure, has value if you observe the law; but if you break the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.t 26 Again, if an uncircumcised man keeps the precepts of the law, will he not be considered circumcised? 27 Indeed, those who are physically uncircumcised but carry out the law will pass judgment on you, with your written law and circumcision, who break the law. 28 One is not a Jew outwardly. True circumcision is not outward, in the flesh. 29 Rather, one is a Jew inwardly, and circumcision is of the heart, in the spirit, not the letter; his praise is not from human beings but from God. Look how similar the texts are! Tell me now that we are not to interpret both passages in the same light and that they are of the same breadth of teaching to the Jews reading the epistles. The Sola Scriptura defenders always advise reading in context, and now they themselves take Ephesians 2:8-9 out of context. At Catholic Mass we have several readings from the Bible. One from the Old Testament, another from the Psalms, then we read 2 passages from the New Testament with one of those passages always being from the 4 gospels. These readings are all picked systematically since they all correspond to each other. By the end of the year we've covered all 4 gospel books, the Old Testament passages relating to them, and the epistles that correspond to those as well. We don't just /know/ and read our scripture. We theologically study and compare scripture in context. While some of your pastors are stiil busy interpreting the text for their next preaching, we already have the whole Bible broken down and dissected by the Church fathers. We even have a "cheat sheet" for it so we won't miss out when in Mass.
@@axeldelumen I'm only going to respond to point one because a TH-cam comment section is not the place for the length of what you put out. First, the only people who do the will of the father are those who have already been saved. The works come after. That is James' point, that works are the evidence of genuine faith. It's so embarrassing that you would claim I am taking scripture out of context and then immediately pull Paul out of context. When Paul says that God will repay us for evil, that is true. The greater our iniquity, the greater the punishment. In the same way, the greater our good works, the greater our reward. BUT, that reward is NOT salvation. Consider also Paul's letter to the Corinthians: [11] For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. [12] Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw- [13] each one’s work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. [14] If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. [15] If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire." (1 Cor. 3:11-15). Notice that the foundation is Jesus Christ and what is built on top of that are works. When God judges us, he determines whether those works are valuable or not. If they are, we receive a reward, if they are not, we lose that reward BUT are still saved. That is the clear teaching of the passage. (As a side note, it is ONLY the work which is tested by fire, not the man, so don't you dare try to claim this verse is about purgatory.) Now, what is truly egregious is the way you ignore the rest of the book of Romans. I would venture a guess that you have no idea what the book is even about. Consider this passage, Romans 4:1-5, "[1] What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? [2] For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. [3] For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” [4] Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. [5] And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness." When you read the book of Romans it clearly contrasts faith and works over and over again so as to pound it into our brains that salvation comes through faith, not by works. This is such a consistent theme in Paul's writing (and the New Testament more broadly) that it honestly baffles me how badly Catholicism has butchered this doctrine.
@@joelpierce1453 I see that this all stems from what you think Catholics teach about faith and works. Let me explain below using your points: 1) "The only people who do the will of the father are those who have already been saved. The works come after" Then you agree that works are a part of living in union with the Will of Christ? That works are a part of our practice of faith? Also, many protestants who believe in Sola Fide do not interpret it the same way you do. There are those who continue to live in sin because of that error. There are those who live Christian lives doing the bare minimum as lukewarm believers thinking that just their faith will save them. We need to strive for Heaven! "You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Matthew 5:48). Of course, we can't achieve this without the grace and mercy of God since we are imperfect and broken sinners, but we are tasked to try! 2) I don't feel embarrassed at all because it seems that you have missed the point entirely. Catholics DO NOT believe in whatever you think we teach about faith and works. We know we DO NOT need to earn our place before God by our own efforts. In fact there's a reason I mentioned Matthew 7:21 (it seems that you have disregarded this passage entirely as well), “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who DOES THE WILL of my Father in heaven." You can live believing in Jesus as our Lord and Savior but not be saved because you have not done His commands! Imagine being unrepentant, for example, and assuming you can be saved. Repentance is a NEEDED work. The problem is how Protestants define justification and how we are justified. At the start of our Christian life (believing that Jesus is our Savior), God may declare us righteous because of our faith (aka "saved"). BUT our justification is also a continuous process. We need to grow and improve as Christians, removing our sinful ways bit by bit. That is what the Catholic faith teaches. In fact, we have the concept of theosis. We are to be like God (Matthew 5:48), and in union with His will ("Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven"). Which means we have to continuously and consciously act accordingly (which is a work) by His grace. The Catholic Church DOES NOT teach that good works are needed in order to be forgiven and saved. God is the only one who can do that. In fact, WE DO teach that James 2:24 relates to works and actions done after conversion (believing in Jesus), and throughout Christian life. But all of these passages, whether Romans, or James, or Matthew, still emphasize that faith AND works are both essential. Only Jesus saves, but we must believe in Him and do His commands! If I die an unrepentant murderer (e.g. justifying my murder my whole life) who has faith in Christ, am I saved? 3) "When Paul says that God will repay us for evil, that is true. The greater our iniquity, the greater the punishment. In the same way, the greater our good works, the greater our reward. BUT, that reward is NOT salvation." So it is agreed that God will repay us for evil deeds AND good works, then? You even quoted Corinthians which is good! Does that not mean that we need to work on our Christian life? We shouldn't be done with things like finishing a game just because we believe. What if I believe but do not work on my faith, and just stop at believing? How do you even put God's grace to good use if not by works? Remember the parable of the talents and the lazy servant (Matthew 25:14-30)? Take note that this is a parable from Jesus Himself. The lazy servant was thrown into the darkness (Matthew 25:30). Also, since the greater the works the greater the reward, should we not work all the more to have even greater rewards in Heaven? Shouldn't we live saintly lives and not be content with the bare minimum ("just having faith")? Also, you boast about "knowing" Romans and thinking that you have the best/fullest interpretation and such. Even belittling my intelligence by saying "I would venture a guess that you have no idea what the book is even about." Well, you need to go back to Matthew 23:12 - a personal message from me to you. Moreover, don't you know that your interpretation (at least part of it) is what the Catholic Church teaches and is most likely from Catholic Theology? In fact, you can read the USCCB commentary on Romans 2 here: bible.usccb.org/bible/romans/2 If you scroll to the bottom and search, you can clearly read: "Basic, of course, is the understanding that God accepts no bribes." You can also check out the commentary on Romans 4 here: bible.usccb.org/bible/romans/4 If you scroll to the bottom, you can clearly read "Paul is able to argue that Abraham’s faith involved receipt of forgiveness of sins and that all believers benefit as he did through faith." Most of the errors you think you are pointing out are because of your wrong understanding of Catholic teaching. Faith in works (the following statement is an oversimplification btw) are both needed in that we believe in Christ and His saving grace WHILE continuously working on our lives - living it the way Jesus wants us to. Maybe someone has indoctrinated you into thinking what Catholics teach is like this or that without knowing what we actually say. I suggest you rethink this (if it's the case) and always look for Catholic teachings readily available online before criticizing us. In fact you can read the whole faith and works teaching here: www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/faith-and-works-0 The added bonus in the link is that it specifically clarifies the misconceptions that Protestants hold about what we teach when we say "faith and works".
✝️🙏🏻👑❤️ 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, world without end. Hallelujah. Amen.
But is it not true that some of the Fathers held heretical doctrine as truth but the Catholic Church doesn't acknowledge that because it wasn't dubbed heresy when they believed in it? I believe in baptismal regeneration.
It is a free gift for those that understand what that gift is. A child of a very young age does not know anything about sin or sin behavior. God will not send them to hell. Baptism is a sign that you have been saved. It alone does not save your soul.
@@bcalvert321 Did you watch the video at all... ALL THE EARLY CHURCH DISAGREE WITH YOU... ALL OF THEM... YOU'RE AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT TRENT IS TALKING ABOUT.
One of the biggest reasons I can’t except baptismal regeneration is that I had spoken in tongues even before I was watered baptized. I was an alcoholic, drug addict, womanizer, and violent criminal street thug. So when the night I gave my life to Christ and got baptized in the Spirit, I was radically changed! Something supernatural happened to me in an instant. I felt this hot liquid-like-love enter into me as I called to Jesus and they prayed for me. All the lust, murder, violence, rage, pride, etc., that I had in my heart was washed out. I had the biggest smile on my face. But I knew that I knew I had met the risen Christ. No one could change my mind. It was too real. And yes, I did get water baptized three days later (and what was crazy about that, was I started dilating to the top of the water when I got baptized). But still, I knew I got saved before water baptism.
@@ProphetGreg94 I converted to Christianity because the evidence for Jesus Christ resurrecting was beyond any other religions. I get it too man, I used to burn weed drink vodka and was also a womanizer back in the day. Of course I felt very emotional coming to Christ but that was a secondary reason for my conversion and testimony.
@@ProphetGreg94 as for being saved before baptism. You can be saved before baptism if you desire to be baptized. So let’s say you die before you get baptized but you were planning to get baptized in like two weeks. You wouldn’t go to hell just because you weren’t baptized. This is called baptism of desire.
But yet the Scriptures teach baptism forgives sin Acts 2:38, and washes away sin Acts 22:16. Have you read what baptism is and how God works through it?
Jesus does not need the sacraments, but he has established them as the ordinary means of grace. He can work outside of them, But he also works through them
CLAIMS of the RCC 1. Catholics claim CHURCH refers to Roman Catholic Church. BIBLE says CHURCH refers to all churches. Acts 5:11, Acts 8:1, Mat 16:18. HISTORY tells us Roman Church was just one local Church a member of the Pentarchy. 2. Catholics claim Roman Church was the CHURCH CHRIST founded (First Church) or one true church. BIBLE says First Local Church was Jerusalem Church. Acts 2. Not Roman Catholic Church. 3. Catholics claim there is only One Church. BIBLE mentions both CHURCH and Churches. “CHURCH” refers to the Body of Christ Eph 5:30, Col 1:18 consisting of all churches. Acts 5:11, Acts 8:1 Mat 16:18. “Churches” refers to local churches Acts 9:31, Acts 15:41 and believers Romans 16:5, 1 Cor 16:19, 4. Catholics claim to be the first believers. BIBLE says first believers were Jewish Christians. Acts 2, Acts 11:26, NOT roman catholics. 5. Catholics claim Pope is the head of the CHURCH. BIBLE says JESUS is the HEAD OF THE CHURCH. Eph 1:22, Eph 5:23, Col 1:18. 6. Catholics claim outside Roman Church there is NO SALVATION. BIBLE says : The mouth of the Lord has spoken.”apart from Jesus there is NO SALVATION”. Acts 4:12, 1 Cor 3:11. 7. Catholicss claim the first day of the week is a Holy day, made by God. . The Holy Bible says: Isaiah 58:13-14 13 “If you turn away your foot from the Sabbath, From doing your pleasure on MY HOLY DAY, And call the Sabbath a delight, The holy day of the Lord honorable, And shall honor Him, not doing your own ways, Nor finding your own pleasure, Nor speaking your own words, 14 Then you shall delight yourself in the Lord; And I will cause you to tride on the high hills of the earth, And feed you with the heritage of Jacob your father. The mouth of the Lord has spoken.”part from Jesus there is NO SALVATION”. Acts 4:12, 1 Cor 3:11. ----Catholics claim devote to Mary to be saved. BIBLE says “apart from Jesus there is NO SALVATION”. Acts 4:12, 1 Cor 3:11. . BIBLE says “believe in Jesus to be saved”. Acts 16:30-31, John 3:16. 10. Catholics claim Roman Church inherited infallible authority from Peter. BIBLE does not say that in Mat 16 or John 20 or John 21. 11. Catholics claim Roman pontiff inherited infallible authority from Peter. BIBLE does not say that in Mat 16. 12. Catholics claim bishop of ROME = the pope. BIBLE does not say that. 13. Catholics claim there is an office of bishop of bishops/universal bishop/pope. BIBLE does not speak of such an office. History tells us the first bishop of bishops came in AD590-600s. 14. Roman Church has all the false unbiblical clergies - Roman priests, roman cardinals, roman pontiff, monks, nuns, friars, … BIBLE mentions only pastors, teachers, evangelists, prophets, apostles, deacons, bishop, elders. Titus 1:5, Eph 4:11, 1 Tim 3. 15. Roman Church claim its doctrines come from traditions of Apostles. BUT 95% of roman doctrines are Not from traditions of Jesus or Apostles or Scriptures; neither practised by the Church of the Bible. --If you decide to reply, QUOTE the Bible to refute any of these!!!! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It never ceases to amaze me that prots actually think a 500 year old heresy, started by a mentally unstable monk is true, and yet the One True Church, established by Christ Himself and with all Her great Saints and doctors is somehow wrong. How absolutely arrogant that is.
@@noobitronius While “pot meet kettle” may sound good to throw out there, I wasn’t trying to be charitable. The prot heresy is responsible for pulling untold millions of souls out of the One True Church and into danger of damnation. No, I’m not going to be charitable about heresy. Do you have any more bumper sticker slogans to throw out there? And, I just love it when people try to attribute the word “aggressive” to words. Wow.
@@noobitronius Luther was excommunicated and called a heretic in his time. I don't think recalling that fact is being agressive. If you think the Holy Catholic Church is the one true church that Jesus established then you'd understand how leading people out of it is a very serious thing.
@@TheBadTrad I am simply saying that your arrogance also shows. Pot meet kettle = hypocrisy. At least my protestant friends try to represent Catholicism fairly.. using charged statements like "mentally unstable monk" is simply mean and not Christ-like at all. A huge reason I de-converted from Catholicism is that the love of Christ was never demonstrated to me in my Catholic education or life, along with little to no evidence for papal infallibility. It appears that you, too, are not showing that love right now. Thankfully we are not saved by our works - you or I could never merit our salvation with actions or sacrifice - but we are saved by faith alone. As long as we agree on that, you are my brother in Christ.
@@Dan_Capone Have you studied the history of the church without the catholic bias? I was raised Catholic, went to Catholic school, and was fed their version of history. Once I listened to actual historians, protestant/atheist/agnostic and the like, many many holes appear. I would highly encourage you to look outside the catholic bubble - if you do and remain a catholic, that is fine, but at least give other voices a chance.
@alonso19989 *Sola Scriptura* *180+ verses say Jesus, Apostles and NT Church appealed to Scriptures Only for doctrines. Not once they took doctrines from traditions of Moses or Pharisees. This already proves Sola Scriptura.* *Roman ct members love defying God and His Words.* 31 Verses Found, 31 Matches Mar 12:10 Have you not even read this Scripture: 'THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED HAS BECOME THE CHIEF CORNERSTONE. Mar 15:28 So the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "AND HE WAS NUMBERED WITH THE TRANSGRESSORS." Luk 4:21 And He began to say to them, "Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing." Joh 2:22 Therefore, when He had risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this to them; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said. Joh 7:38 He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water." Joh 7:42 Has not the Scripture said that the Christ comes from the seed of David and from the town of Bethlehem, where David was?" Joh 10:35 If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), Joh 13:18 "I do not speak concerning all of you. I know whom I have chosen; but that the Scripture may be fulfilled, 'HE WHO EATS BREAD WITH ME HAS LIFTED UP HIS HEEL AGAINST ME.' Joh 17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled. Joh 19:24 They said therefore among themselves, "Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be," that the Scripture might be fulfilled which says: "THEY DIVIDED MY GARMENTS AMONG THEM, AND FOR MY CLOTHING THEY CAST LOTS." Therefore the soldiers did these things. Joh 19:28 After this, Jesus, knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, said, "I thirst!" Joh 19:36 For these things were done that the Scripture should be fulfilled, "NOT ONE OF HIS BONES SHALL BE BROKEN." Joh 19:37 And again another Scripture says, "THEY SHALL LOOK ON HIM WHOM THEY PIERCED." 21 Verses Found, 21 Matches Mat 21:42 Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the Scriptures: 'THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED HAS BECOME THE CHIEF CORNERSTONE. THIS WAS THE LORD'S DOING, AND IT IS MARVELOUS IN OUR EYES' ? Mat 22:29 Jesus answered and said to them, "You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. Mat 26:54 How then could the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must happen thus?" Mat 26:56 But all this was done that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled." Then all the disciples forsook Him and fled. Mar 12:24 Jesus answered and said to them, "Are you not therefore mistaken, because you do not know the Scriptures nor the power of God? Mar 14:49 I was daily with you in the temple teaching, and you did not seize Me. But the Scriptures must be fulfilled." 127 Verses Found, 132 Matches Mat 2:5 So they said to him, "In Bethlehem of Judea, for thus it is written by the prophet: Mat 4:4 But He answered and said, "It is written, 'MAN SHALL NOT LIVE BY BREAD ALONE, BUT BY EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS FROM THE MOUTH OF GOD.' " Mat 4:6 and said to Him, "If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down. For it is written: 'HE SHALL GIVE HIS ANGELS CHARGE OVER YOU,' and, IN THEIR HANDS THEY SHALL BEAR YOU UP, LEST YOU DASH YOUR FOOT AGAINST A STONE.' " Mat 4:7 Jesus said to him, "It is written again, 'YOU SHALL NOT TEMPT THE LORD YOUR GOD.' " Mat 4:10 Then Jesus said to him, "Away with you, Satan! For it is written, 'YOU SHALL WORSHIP THE LORD YOUR GOD, AND HIM ONLY YOU SHALL SERVE.' " Mat 11:10 For this is he of whom it is written: 'BEHOLD, I SEND MY MESSENGER BEFORE YOUR FACE, WHO WILL PREPARE YOUR WAY BEFORE YOU.' Mat 21:13 And He said to them, "It is written, 'MY HOUSE SHALL BE CALLED A HOUSE OF PRAYER,' but you have made it a 'DEN OF THIEVES.'" Mat 26:24 The Son of Man indeed goes just as it is written of Him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born." Mat 26:31 Then Jesus said to them, "All of you will be made to stumble because of Me this night, for it is written: 'I WILL STRIKE THE SHEPHERD, AND THE SHEEP OF THE FLOCK WILL BE SCATTERED.' Mat 27:37 And they put up over His head the accusation written against Him: THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS. Mar 1:2 As it is written in the Prophets: "BEHOLD, I SEND MY MESSENGER BEFORE YOUR FACE, WHO WILL PREPARE YOUR WAY BEFORE YOU." Mar 7:6 He answered and said to them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: 'THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR FROM ME. Mar 9:12 Then He answered and told them, "Indeed, Elijah is coming first and restores all things. And how is it written concerning the Son of Man, that He must suffer many things and be treated with contempt? Mar 9:13 But I say to you that Elijah has also come, and they did to him whatever they wished, as it is written of him." Mar 11:17 Then He taught, saying to them, "Is it not written, 'MY HOUSE SHALL BE CALLED A HOUSE OF PRAYER FOR ALL NATIONS' ? But you have made it a 'DEN OF THIEVES.'" Mar 14:21 The Son of Man indeed goes just as it is written of Him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had never been born." Mar 14:27 Then Jesus said to them, "All of you will be made to stumble because of Me this night, for it is written: 'I WILL STRIKE THE SHEPHERD, AND THE SHEEP WILL BE SCATTERED.'
the fathers argument they use to attack our notion of "tradition" (vs. their belief of sola scriptura). they will say "but if it's not in scripture, it doesn't matter how many church fathers agreed with it." of course, which is more likely, that something was universally known and taught consistently (and therefore it goes back to apostolic teaching) or that some secret guys preserved it (their writings all lost and nobody commented on them even to refute them) and it was only re-discovered millennia later? show the historical pedigree for these teachings. if we can find it in scripture, great, but if we find an ancient tradition, we should take that seriously.
In my opinion, 2 issues are being mixed: the meaning of baptism, and the appropriate age for baptism. The emergency baptisms mentioned right before the death of a child indicate they were NOT baptized as infants, and also to the high importance of baptism before death. (when possible).
Trent. You are one of many Catholics who are converting me from Calvinist/Evangelicalism. Please don’t stop with the videos. ✝️
I was Calvinist/evangelical and I watched pretty much every catholic protestant debate on TH-cam, and watched many of Catholic answers, and Dr. David Anders videos 4 years ago, and now I am Catholic! Keep seeking truth!
God bless you guys.
Keep studying and praying.
@@Stygard
God Bless both you and Evan. May God bless your families.
Trent was a key player in my conversion! Started about a year ago and I was fully received into the Church this last Easter.
Stay on the narrow path, I'm sure we'll see you Home soon! 😁
My wife, autistic daughter and I went on a pilgrimage to Israel with a group of American evangelical Christians in 2016 (we're from England). Our daughter is severely autistic (19 at the time), does not understand propositional faith, but wanted to be baptized when we went to the river Jordan. Nothing was explained to her, but when she came out she said "all my sins have been washed away". This was not something she had heard from us. All I can think is that the Spirit explained the significance of the event to her. Certainly her words were consistent with the understanding of the church fathers with no obvious reason for the correlation.
Omg that is so beautiful!! I have an Autistic daughter too.
I love that story. Thank you for sharing.
Congratulations! Praise be to God!
If she'd come out neurotypical and Jewish I'd be interested.
makes me cry.... Blessed be God forever.
Trent’s most common phrase “but that’ll be a whole other video.” 😆
"Without further ado"
He still does this 😂
I'm a Catholic being converted to Catholicism. Thank you Trent! ;)
I love this comment. God Bless.
How can a Catholic covert to Catholicism?
@@phillipjones2924I'm the same way. I'm going from being luke warm to on fire for the faith
As are we all Marky 🙂Thank the good Lord and His holy church .
@@phillipjones2924he was temporarily distracted by protestant lies!!!
I started studying Catholicism due to studying Eastern Orthodoxy (Orthodoxy feels safer when you are a Protestant because the Reformation wasn't a protest against the Orthodox Church). I was shocked about how many beliefs I thought were false teaches from Catholicism were actually accepted among all historic churches with little controversy. This included:
- Primacy of the Bishop of Rome (who's authority traces back to St. Peter the Apostle)
- Baptismal regneration
- Prayers to Mary and the Saints
- Mary remained a virgin her whole life
- The bread and wine of the Eucharist literally turns into the body and blood of Jesus Christ
- Justification is by faith, but not by faith alone
- The scripture is authoritative in the Church, but not the only authority in the Church
- The One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church is ACTUALLY a visible church
- Man's will co-operates with Grace (no monergism)
- Seven sacraments
- Salvation is a community effort and not individual (this one really blew my mind)
Yes, you can say the Early Church Fathers didn't teach modern Catholicism word for word verbatim. However, it is very hard not to see Catholicism is more historically linked to the Early Church Fathers than any Protestant denomination.
The Synod of Jerusalem 1675, was the Eastern church's, version of the Catholic Council of Trent 1545.
It was a response to the Protestants. - by reaffirming the 7 sacraments and affirmed the teaching role of the church and therefore of tradition against Protestant sola scriptura
Many fathers absolutely taught sola scriptura.
@@colepriceguitar1153 no apostolic fathers ever teach the satanic cult of sola scriptura a man made tradition invented by a devil possessed man , introduced just five hundred years ago.
@@ddzl6209 “On consideration...of the reason wherefore men have so far gone astray, or that many - alas! - should follow diverse ways of belief concerning the Son of God, the marvel seems to be, not at all that human knowledge has been baffled in dealing with superhuman things, but that it has not submitted to the authority of the Scriptures” - Ambrose
“For how can we adopt those things which we do not find in the holy Scriptures?” - Ambrose
“The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth” - Athanasius
“Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith's sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture” - Athanasius
“These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, ‘Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures.’ And He reproved the Jews, saying, ‘Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of Me” - Athanasius
“If anyone preaches either concerning Christ or concerning His church or concerning any other matter which pertains to our faith and life; I will not say, if we, but what Paul adds, if an angel from heaven should preach to you anything besides what you have received in the Scriptures of the Law and of the Gospels, let him be anathema.” - Augustine
“Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, but the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God.” - Augustine
“Whatever they may adduce, and wherever they may quote from, let us rather, if we are His sheep, hear the voice of our Shepherd. Therefore let us search for the church in the sacred canonical Scriptures.” - Augustine
“For among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life.” - Augustine
“What more shall I teach you than what we read in the apostles? For Holy Scripture fixes the rule for our doctrine, lest we dare be wiser than we ought. Therefore I should not teach you anything else except to expound to you the words of the Teacher” - Augustine
“What is the mark of a faithful soul? To be in these dispositions of full acceptance on the authority of the words of Scripture, not venturing to reject anything nor making additions. For, if ‘all that is not of faith is sin’ as the Apostle says, and ‘faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God,’ everything outside Holy Scripture, not being of faith, is sin” - Basil
“The hearers taught in the Scriptures ought to test what is said by teachers and accept that which agrees with the Scriptures but reject that which is foreign.” - Basil
“If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favour of that side will be cast the vote of truth” - Basil
“For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.” - Cyril of Jerusalem
“We endeavored as far as possible to hold to and confirm the things which lay before us, and if the reason given satisfied us, we were not ashamed to change our opinions and agree with others; but on the contrary, conscientiously and sincerely, and with hearts laid open before God, we accepted whatever was established by the proofs and teachings of the Holy Scriptures.” - Dionysius
“We are not entitled to such licence, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings” - Gregory of Nyssa
“There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source… so all of us who wish to practise piety will be unable to learn its practice from any other quarter than the oracles of God. Whatever things, then, the Holy Scriptures declare, at these let us look; and whatever things they teach, these let us learn.” - Hippolytus
"I do not, like Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. They were apostles.” - Ignatius
“We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith” - Irenaeus
“Regarding the things I say, I should supply even the proofs, so I will not seem to rely on my own opinions, but rather, prove them with Scripture, so that the matter will remain certain and steadfast” - John Chrysostom
“They say that we are to understand the things concerning Paradise not as they are written but in a different way. But when Scripture wants to teach us something like that, it interprets itself and does not permit the hearer to err. I therefore beg and entreat that we close our eyes to all things and follow the canon of Holy Scripture exactly.” - John Chrysostom
“It is impossible either to say or fully to understand anything about God beyond what has been divinely proclaimed to us, whether told or revealed, by the sacred declarations of the Old and New Testaments” - John of Damascus
“I revere the fullness of His Scripture, in which He manifests to me both the Creator and the creation. In the gospel, moreover, I discover a Minister and Witness of the Creator, even His Word. If it is nowhere written, then let it fear the woe which impends on all who add to or take away from the written word.” - Tertullian
@@colepriceguitar1153 this is exactly what the devil want the satanic cult believing protestants of sola scriptura, to think and behave like hypocrites , they believe what st. Augustine said but never follow what he actually practiced, because st. Augustine was a Catholic Bishop of Hippo.
Trent, as a Protestant, I love your content.
But I've got a criticism here: at 8 minutes, you say "It should be an even playing field."
You are right to say that it is not even, and that Protestantism wins by default. But let me explain why this must be the case:
When a claim is being made, there are essentially 3 (to be nitpicky, technically 4) different states that one can believe regarding that claim.
1.) The claim is more likely than not to be true.
2.) The claim is more likely than not to be false.
3.) I do not know how likely the claim is to be true or false.
But to believe a claim necessarily means 1. And if to be a member of the church means to necessarily hold in mind beliefs that pertain to certain things, then they require a heavier burden of proof than those who do not make those claims.
When it comes to Christianity, all of the three primary sects or 'groupings' of Christianity agree that Scripture is an infallible rule of faith. Because we agree on this point, it does not have to be proven more-so, or less-so than any other point.
However, whenever you add more required beliefs that others deny, the skeptic is not the one who has the burden of proof, unless they are claiming explicitly that your claim is false.
But that is not what the claim of Protestantism in general is.
This is why the Catholic Church must demonstrate why it is infallible, and or why the Pope is infallible, or why the assumption of Mary is truth. If these dogmas are required to be held, then, *why* should we believe them?
One of the biggest strengths, and admittedly, largest criticisms of Protestantism as the severe lack of history and traditional leanings to Protestant-flavored Christianity. No doubt are there serious warnings to be held against protestants to deny the traditions of those who came before them, however due to this freedom, we are able to examine these traditions without burden. We are free to challenge them and to question whether or not they are truly apostolic.
The burden the church has placed on you is to accept them by default. Is this wrong? I do not know! However, because of this burden, and the heavy historical content, it makes Catholicism epistemologically heavy, but Protestantism epistemologically light.
Does that mean Catholicism is wrong? No! However, it does mean that it must bear a greater burden to prove its case. It isn't an even playing field because the number of commitments one must hold are vastly different.
Your argument is indeed logical, the one “adding more” has the burden of proof. Might we refine this to be “the one adding a change”. One could say, it is the Protestants’ burden of proof to show that a belief universally held by the early Church Fathers, like Baptismal Regeneration, should no longer be believed.
@@dreistheman7797 Indeed, one could say that! But you must recall that:
1.) There are a great number of Protestants that do believe in Baptismal Regeneration (Lutherans, Anglicans, and to a lesser extent Presbyterians).
2.) Those that don't do give arguments that show it is an accretion. For example, take Gavin Ortlund's videos on Infant Baptism - while not the exact same topic, it is certainly a deeply related topic.
To someone that is already convinced that it is a later accretion, the burden of proof has been met, and will likely be a Baptist or something similar. Likewise, someone who is already convinced that it is not a later accretion, would likely turn to some high church denomination such as Lutheranism, not necessarily Catholicism.
There are still many other commitments in order for one to become Catholic - not just Baptismal Regeneration.
@@Narikku That is a high burden to overcome, if it can be, something unanimous among the Fathers. On high church denominations also affirming Baptismal Regeneration, yes one might look into those first. What I found from Protestant pastors and leaders that convert to Catholicism, like Newman who became one of the great Catholic theologians, is that the early church is Catholic, put simply. It is not only Baptismal Regeneration, that might be the inspiration of Newman for "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant" - the deeper you go, the more you find the early church had and taught the same beliefs as the Catholic Church, and not what their denomination teaches.
@@dreistheman7797 It is precisely because of this notion, my friend, that I bring up the specific issues I did in my first post. The more that I study church history, the less confident I am than any one denomination has it "completely correct" - for if the early church is our standard, then the assumption of Mary, Papal Infallibility and even Ecclesial Infallibility is not something that is found in the apostolic fathers - not to mention veneration of icons, and other such practices! Additionally, these are not things to be taken lightly - assent is required to be of the Catholic Faith with threats as strong as a anathema for some issues!
Rather, the more I look, these seem to be later medieval additions to the Catholic faith. I am Protestant *precisely because* I look at the history, and see that it is messy - not because I am ignorant of the history. I may not think that Baptists or Lutherans line-up perfectly with the Church Fathers - yet, when I look at Orthodox or Roman Catholicism, neither of those seem to match quite up, either, but for different reasons.
I appreciate you and your willingness to discuss. However, I would encourage you to cease from using that phrase, as it directly implies that all Protestants are simply "not well studied", and leads to a dismissal of their arguments and words, rather than taking them seriously and examining the claims they are making.
Assuming that someone is a Protestant merely because they do not know history only encourages you to dismiss their claims. Have you ever considered what it may look like if Protestants were correct?
@@Narikku I apologize if that came out as dismissive, I will take your admonition to heart. Regarding the Marian Dogmas, Papal Infallibility, and Ecclesial Infallibility (councils you mean I assume), say there is zero attestation I'll grant for discussion, the early Church is at best, silent. They might not have gone deep in it, nor there is a need to, until potentially-dividing heretical ideas sprung up. That is then when a doctrine needs to be officially defined/given boundaries to.
Zero attestation may be accepted, that is different than the early Church believes A and my denomination teaches B. What it will look like if the Protestants were correct, is the early Church believes and has written something opposite to those Catholic doctrines/dogmas, instead of being silent. This then goes into the discussion of Church Authority and who can settle disputes on the what the Bible and the early church is silent about. Historically, it was the Catholic Church, on Christ's divinity, the Canon of Scripture, and many more heresies, until the present.
I'm Lutheran and believe in baptismal regeneration ;) Greetings from Poland!
Christ be with you
what is faith in Jesus Christ held to be in the Lutheran Church?
God bless you
Boh ta poženaj brat!
It's not biblical.
@@larrybedouin2921 Neither is sola scriptura
@@slynt_
Jesus taught using sola scriptura!
“Sanctify them through thy truth: *thy word* is truth.”
{John 17:17}
But he answered and said, "IT IS WRITTEN, Man shall not live by bread alone, *but by every word* that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.”
{Matthew 4:4}
Jesus said unto him, "IT IS WRITTEN again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.”
{Matthew 4:7}
Then saith Jesus unto him, "Get thee hence, Satan: for IT IS WRITTEN Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.”
{Matthew 4:10}
“For this is he, of whom IT IS WRITTEN, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.”
{Matthew 11:10}
And said unto them, "IT IS WRITTEN, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.”
{Matthew 21:13}
Then saith Jesus unto them, "All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for IT IS WRITTEN, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.”
{Matthew 26:31}
He answered and said unto them, "Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as IT IS WRITTEN, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me."
{Mark 7:6}
And he answered and told them, "Elias verily cometh first, and restoreth all things; and how IT IS WRITTEN of the Son of man, that he must suffer many things, and be set at nought.
But I say unto you, That Elias is indeed come, and they have done unto him whatsoever they listed, as IT IS WRITTEN of him.”
{Mark 9:12-13}
“The Son of man indeed goeth, as IT IS WRITTEN of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born.”
{Mark 14:21}
And Jesus saith unto them, "All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for IT IS WRITTEN, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered."
{Mark 14:27}
“IT IS WRITTEN in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.”
{John 6:45}
“Search THE SCRIPTURES; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.”
{John 5:39}
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he [Jesus] expounded unto them *in all the scriptures* the things concerning himself.
{Luke 24:27}
For I [Paul] delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins *according to the scriptures*
And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day *according to the scriptures*
{1 Corinthians 15:3-4}
And *the scripture* foreseeing that God would justify the heathen *through faith* preached before *the gospel unto Abraham* saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
{Galatians 3:8}
Contrasting,
And he said unto them, "Full well you reject *the commandment of God* that you may keep your own TRADITION."
...
“Making *the word of God* of none effect through your TRADITION, which you have
delivered: and many such like things you do.”
{Mark 7:9&13}
But he answered and said unto them, "Why do you also transgress *the commandment of God* by your TRADITION?”
{Matthew 15:3}
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the TRADITION OF MEN, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
{Colossians 2:8}
*Tradition* in the context of men
Greek παράδοσις / paradosis = 666
by counting the letter values of the Greek transliteration;
P(80), A(1), R(100), A(1), D(4), O(70), S(200), I(10), S(200).
When I was a protestant, I did exactly what you said on 8:20 onwards: I considered myself a christian (that means I pressuposed the christian belief that Jesus Christ is God) and them compared protestantism, orthodoxy and catholicism. I'm now catholic.
Welcome home!
Me too brother!
If you would like to strengthen your Catholic faith, perhaps my videos can be of a help to you. I’m publishing a weekly TH-cam video on episodes from the life of Don Bosco, entitled ST JOHN BOSCO by JOE ZAMMIT. In this series I’m narrating events and miracles from the splendid life of Don Bosco. St John Bosco used to perform a miracle almost every day, through the intercession of Mary Help of Christians. From the lives of saints we can learn how to love God more and draw closer to him. Thank you.
@@quinnroddy Welcome home Quinn!
@@josephzammit8483, thanks a lot! Dom Bosco is actually the patron of my city, Brasília (capital of Brazil). We have a bone from his right arm here on his cathedral.
Hey Trent, could you do a video on the Church’s stance on Islam? Being a convert from Islam I’d like to learn more about what the Church believes.
Sam Shamoun did a video on the subject a few days ago. This is part one, make sure to watch part 2 as well.
th-cam.com/video/HB1Aw9Hlbg8/w-d-xo.html
@@zena7006 awesome for sure will check it out and watch both parts
@Pedro Moreira I’ll definitely read it thanks 🙏🏼
Since Vatican II the Church teaches that we must respect and admire the parts that are true in Islam since they claim to worship the same God, but that the only way to live a fully complete religious life is by following Jesus and accepting his divinity, and it asks Christians to treat Muslims with respect and no discrimination.
@@Dan_Capone amen brother, I’ve heard about Vatican II definitely gonna check out what it’s all about
Trent you are such a wonderful speaker! You talk so clearly on subject and in an easy-to-understand manner. Thank you for dedicating your time to talk about our faith! May God bless
Question - isn’t. Anabaptist similar to Catholicism in that Confirmation completes Baptism?
I got to say, I really Love the more frequent content. Thank you Trent and keep up the good work
Great episode today Trent. I was raised Lutheran and I was just yesterday having a conversation with my parents about "what it means to be Christian." This conversation was brought about by a Jewish friend of my mother, who was confounded when my mother explained to her that unlike Jewish law, Christian faith isn't something that is merely hereditary.
I brought up the subject of baptism, and how, at the very least, to be a Christian you must be baptized, even if the only option is by desire. My dad, who is a practicing Lutheran, and who struggled with infant baptism throughout his life(my parents baptized my eldest sibling, but left the rest of ours until we were older), and himself was raised in the Reformed/Presbyterian tradition, has a hard time fully accepting baptismal regeneration.
Ironically, it was me seeking to revert to more strict Lutheran roots that has led me down the path to more traditional Christianity, seeing what has happened in the ELCA in the last 20 years or so. Finding Lutheran and Anglican authors who support Church tradition(since the ELCA is in open communion with the Anglican church) has been very helpful in equipping me for conversations with my parents about whether or not their church is upholding the truth, or whether or not these other, more traditional and orthodox churches(Catholicism and Orthodoxy) are.
Suffice it to say, your Lutheran and Anglican authors mentioned today will be taken to heart.
As a Baptist pastor for 40 years I came to exactly the same conclusion as Beasley-Murray; namely the New Testament DOES NOT support the notion that baptism is merely a symbol or and outward sign of faith. In fact, St. Paul's whole defense of the inclusion of the Gentiles without circumcision and the moral life of the believer are built on the theology of baptismal regeneration. I was driven to this conclusion by the sheer weight of the biblical record.
I'm a convert from protestantism to Catholicism. When I was in my teen years that was one of the things that I could not make sense of. Why do we believe that baptism is merely a symbol when the bible never describes baptism that way even once? In fact it appears to be directly tied to the forgiveness of sins in the acts of the apostles multiple times.
As a Protestant that was one of the things that didn't make sense to me. And it wasn't helped by the fact that our pastor reminded us constantly that it was just a symbol, nothing else, and that we should remember that. Same with the Eucharist, every time we did it he said that it was just to remember Jesus, that in no way was it the actual body of Jesus, but then you go to the Gospels and you read that when Jesus did it some people were also weirded out and they didn't understand, at which point Jesus didn't say: "oh, don't worry, it's just a symbol, sorry if I wasn't being clear". On the contrary, he doubled down on it and he said it was his body.
My senior pastor is super respected and a former Baptist, himself. My church separated from the Baptist Church once they started promoting homosexuality, though, among other things like this, that they were just absolutely wrong about.
They sued us for the land, but we won the lawsuit and are now our own little “denomination.” We really don’t have any; we’re for all denominations, but we teach a specific version, all the same.
@@matthewoburke7202 Agreed well put and a similar thing could be said regarding the Eucharist. The evidence in the bible seems to clearly indicate that it really changes us and that we are transformed into the life of Christ within his body the Church. John 6 & 1 Cor 11
...not merely symbols
@@disguisedcentennial835 Blessings!
I feel like many many non Catholics have been led astray due to the “tradition” of their respective denomination and have never even heard the Catholic Tradition that is so full and deep and logical and effective for drawing us into deep relationship with Jesus.
I pray y’all will figure out a way back to the Catholic Church someday :)
Nice video Trent. I'm glad to be a part of Team Jesus!
I’m a Protestant and I totally agree that Scripture and the Fathers teach that God offers grace - including regenerating grace - in baptism (including infant baptism). I know Baptists and non-denominational type evangelicals reject that, but Lutherans, Anglicans, many Methodists and Presbyterians affirm it, following the Reformers. There are a whole lot of Roman Catholic apologetics channels on TH-cam, and many (such as yours) are quite thoughtful and charitable and faithful; but one problem i consistently see is lumping all Protestants together as if they were all the same. The truth is few, if any, go to a “Protestant” church - they go to an Anglican Church, or a Methodist, or a Lutheran, or a Baptist church, or what have you, with all of the specificity and different nuance that entails.
Yes, obviously Protestants aren’t all the same, but the definition of a Protestant is someone who is not Catholic. The whole Protestant reformation was in opposition or to protest it.
Yeah Trent is wrong here about traditional Reformed rejecting it. I think he should read Westminster confession chapter 28. That doesn't mean Presbyterians hold to it in the same sense as Lutherans/Catholics; but certainly not in agreement with Baptists either.
If the Church Fathers could be wrong on something universally, then they could also be wrong in which books are Scripture... think about it.
Moreover, if the entire body of the early Church could be wrong, what makes you, the Protestant, the individual or small church, think you aren't wrong, no matter what kind of consensus you have?
This is actually a belief that groups like the 7th day adventists have. They believe that the early Church was wrong and that the “spirit” given to the Church was lost until Ellen G. White rediscovered the spirit. Oh and also their real “church” was hidden for 1500 years until the Reformation when these real “Christians” started to come out into the open and profess their Protestantism. Kinda weird and just makes them sound like they are making up their own beliefs.
The church is the people. The first century communities taught by the apostles had one message. Later councils simply formalized what had been accepted from the beginning. (An interesting book which describes the unity of the apostolic message in comparison to the false teachings that arose is by Darrell L. Bock called "The Missing Gospels". )
I do believe that as time went on certain traditions arose which were extra-biblical but perfectly acceptable as cultural expressions of the time. But over time other traditions arose which were anti-Biblical, antithetical to the apostolic message, and it is those that must be spoken against. They endanger people's understanding of the correct object of faith.
It's not about 'Catholic' vs. 'Protestant'. I don't believe the Lord looks at the sign on the church house door. No, he looks at the hearts of men and women to see where their faith is. And the apostolic message found in scripture is a sufficient source of grace so that we know where our faith should be. As Paul said, "I am determined to know nothing but Jesus Christ and him crucified."
Amen!
@@stephenbailey9969 "But over time other traditions arose which were anti-Biblical"
But people call things like priestly celibacy 'anti-biblical' even though literally St. Paul the Apostle said he was celibate and wished everyone was and that it's easier to serve the Lord when celibate than married.
They call things like that Mary was a virgin her whole life 'anti-Biblical' even though Mary herself explicitly says in Scripture from her own mouth 'but gabriel how can I have this son since I don't have sex?'
This is what you're up against, individuals who read the Bible and conclude otherwise than the church does. What then? Everyhing is subject to question. They declare a tradition of the Apostles 'contrary to Scripture' in EXACTLY the same way - EXACTLY THE SAME WAY - that atheists and heretics conclude that St. Paul and St. James contradicted each other on justification.
if the individual is the judge of Scripture, then every individual and those who agree with him must be granted the right to be called 'the church.' If you deny him this right or them this right, by what authority do you do so except an alternative interpretation which is no more infallible than his/theirs???
@@AveChristusRex The Holy Spirit is the judge of scripture since he inspired it.
I have been to a number of churches of various denominations over the years and I've heard things which the Holy Spirit tells me in my heart aren't exactly so. But he had me remain in that church because of the people he wanted me to serve with. And so I remained until he and circumstances told me to move on.
In the end, our faith is not in ourselves or our own understanding, nor in the explanations of men. It is in the living Christ and what he did for us at Calvary. He will guide you in the way that is right.
Thank you for fighting for Truth! May God bless your family and you for your efforts and sacrifices that takes place to help us seeking for God.
Hi, Trent. I know a Catholic priest who at a time was very keen on debating baptism with me. I am a Christian who is not Roman Catholic. I really can't see the issue, since I have been baptized, and the Christians I know have all been baptized.
Where Catholics and I agree is on what I think are the two most important side notes of baptism. What's not a side note is that we must be baptized. What the two side notes are, they are these: Not everyone who is baptized is saved. Someone can be saved without having been baptized.
When I say that someone can be saved without being baptized, I mean without the physical water in a ceremony or sacrament or demonstration of baptism.
Regardless of whether there is physical water or not, all Christians must undergo some type of baptism in order to be saved: an identification with the death, burial and resurrection of Christ; the baptism of the Spirit where God comes indwells the person in new birth or regeneration; an identifying with the deliverance of God's people out of bondage (as through the Red Sea, and out of sin); a public confession of loyalty to Christ and the willingness to suffer with him; ... etc. All these I think are ways of describing the baptism that Church fathers would agree equate to regeneration and are necessary for salvation, as well as the NT. (If there is a chance to use physical water along with the waterless baptism, by all means water should be used! It has always been the way of the Church to do so, and there is no reason to stop doing so. If someone has undergone a water baptism without any aspects of the waterless baptism just described, they will not be saved.)
The problem when it comes to regeneration, then, is if a Protestant thinks "Once regenerated, always regenerated." This means that if the person has a water baptism sacrament without any aspects of the waterless aspects of baptism, the Catholic will say the person has truly been regenerated, but then later on rejects that new life to die outside of a state of grace, while the Protestant "once-regenerated-always-regenerated" will conclude that the person was never regenerated in the first place, not even in the water baptism sacrament.
The area of disagreement is not of any practical interest then. If someone has been baptized in the Catholic Church, the Catholic clergy will still do what they can to assist the person to die in a state of grace, believing that regeneration is not the final word in salvation. If someone has been baptized as a Protestant, the Protestant clergy will still do what they can to assist the person to die in a state of grace, believing it is possible they were never truly regenerated in the first place.
I don't find the insistence on baptism odd at all in either tradition. What I do see that is odd in many Catholic and Protestant churches is the delay in water baptism while the person is on probation and in training as a new believer in Christ. I don't see that as lining up with Scripture or the Church fathers, yet it is commonly done.
We Lutherans always held to baptismal regeneration. You could even say that Luthers view on justification flows from his understanding of the efficacy of baptism.
@ZachCICM The next sentence says, “Both no doubt are ours, but yet they are called God's, and Christ's, because it is by their bounty that these gifts are bestowed upon us.”
@ZachCICM “The righteousness of God, then, by faith of Jesus Christ, is unto all that believe; for there is no difference, for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God”
"Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." (Matthew 11:28-30)
Thank you for interacting with some of Dr Ortlund objections about catholic faith. You should really do more.
I'm a protestant that embraces baptismal regeneration. The question I have, related to 1 Peter 3:21, concerns what precedes the assertion that Baptism saves you (by the resurrection of Christ). Peter states that Baptism is "a pledge of a clear conscience toward God." Could it be that baptism is regenerative AND is (normatively) a conscious pledge ("choice" for lack of a better term)? Are we to treat baptism as a salvation dispenser that we can "pledge" for others (e.g., infants) because it is (always) regenerative? This would seem similar to Paul's rhetorical question "Should we go on sinning that grace may abound?". I.e. Just because it is efficacious does not render how it is effected irrelevant.
Did the thief get baptized to be saved?
@@jonathanbontrager The problem with that stance is that both cannot be true. Either one is true and the other is false. That's the reason this topic is discussed so much amongst protestants and catholics.
@@ninjason57 The guy you responded to seems to have the orthodox view on baptism.
To use Catholic terminology, baptism is the *ordinary* path to salvation. It is not the only one out there, but is the only path God straight up told us.
Popular among Catholics is, for example, "baptism by blood". Meaning martyrs got their baptismal regeneration by being "washed" through the blood they shed for Christ, even though some never got the chance to be baptized in the ordinary way. Some others believe there are "unknowing Christians" (of which Justin Martyr mentions, basically those that found out about the Trinity and righteous live through the Logos by reason alone, his prime examples of such being Plato and Socrates) they, by definition, don't have access to the sacraments, thus they God may have saved them anyway? But who are we to know? We are only certain of the ordinary baptism.
The thief that died next to Jesus is also a case of someone saved through an extra-ordinary method.
Now don't go speculating which are all of these ways. There's no hope to deduce out of scripture but a handful of those, if we can even be sure of any!
As Catholics say "God saves whoever he wants to save." Yet we have but one 100% _known_ way to salvation.
So if anything, you could see baptism as assurance. And also, even if you had reason to be sure you were baptized in an "extra-ordinary" way, Jesus would still prefer you go through with it all the same, given the chance.
@@jenex5608 see my other reply
@@jenex5608 Was the thief "saved" before or after the Church was established and Peter declared "Repent and be baptized everyone of you in the Name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sin"? And then he went on to say that this gift of baptism was for you, for your children, and for all who God will call to himself in the future. That includes us, surely.
Most protestant don't even agree with one another on Baptism regeneration.
I couldn't help myself to see the comments. I spoiled it and now I'm sad :(
Us Catholics can't argue well against Protestants if we see them as one entity. They were at one generation only a handful of denominations, but now can't agree on anything wholly, and denominations in the hundreds of thousands.
@@elf-lordsfriarofthemeadowl2039 truly, for the Protestant, there are as many versions of Christianity as there are Christians.
@@elf-lordsfriarofthemeadowl2039 for most Protestants every single church building is basically its own denomination.
i know right? heck i never knew the wealth of inspiring information of faith until i dove into the founding church fathers, saints, and martyrs.
I thought at first you weren't going to point out that we Anglicans and Lutherans hold to Baptismal Regeneration. Thanks for qualifying it and not misrepresenting us!
Why not f̶u̶l̶l̶y̶ truly(!) Catholic, my separated brother?
@@paxcoder I am fully, truly Catholic.
@@barelyprotestant5365 Anglicans and Lutherans are Protestants, not Catholics.
Why not in communion with Rome or Constantinople? By their definitions, not yours.
@@T_frog1 nope. We've consistently maintained our Catholicity.
Totally agree, that’s why I became I Lutheran, the most balanced and Christ centered view in my opinion :)
Lutheranism is Luther centered.
@fantasia55 How is it when they preach about Christ? I hope you're not a romanist, otherwise the irony would be strong.
@@reformedcatholic457none of the reformed churches can be the Church which Christ instituted 1500 years before them. They are man made . I will not go into details. The Gates of Hell will not overcome my church, Jesus said. They have tried from day one , 2000 years ago but Christ knows what He said.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
02:50 🌊 Baptismal regeneration is a universally attested doctrine among the Church fathers.
04:15 🛑 Not all Protestants deny every Catholic doctrine; there's a spectrum of beliefs within Protestantism.
06:51 📖 The argument that if apostles taught something, it should be universally found among Church fathers is inconsistent.
10:24 🎓 Scholars acknowledge universal consent among Church fathers on baptismal regeneration, regardless of their own beliefs.
14:09 📜 Early inscriptions and writings support infant baptism and the concept of baptismal regeneration.
17:54 📚 Historical writings reveal that Tertullian and others didn't universally oppose infant baptism; they questioned its timing.
20:22 ⏳ Delaying baptism until deathbed distorts the understanding of baptismal regeneration.
21:19 📖 Recommended resources for studying Church fathers and their teachings.
I think there are other clearly universally accepted doctrines among the ECFs, too: Real Presence, Bishop/Priest/Deacon governance, liturgical worship, etc. This is primarily what motivated my switch to Anglicanism in the 90's, then Catholicism in 2005.
hello Aaron. Just to respond a little to your comment that there are many RC distinctives universally taught by Early Church Fathers, two responses: 1. there are a number of ECF who are light years away from Trent on the eucharist, for example. This article will at least get you started on that if you're interested. onefold.wordpress.com/early-church-evidence-refutes-real-presence/
2. As I say in reply to the baptismal regeneration video, the Apostles (e.g. Paul in Galatians) make it very clear that heresy is present from day 1, let alone the 2nd or 3rd centuries. Therefore, from the protestant point of view even the unanimous voice of the "Early Church" is not a clincher. You have to believe in the absolute authority of Tradition, with all the problems that entails, to be swayed by that kind of argument.That's what makes protestants protestants and catholics catholics, of course.
@@TheMharnett Nice try. I actually read the ECFs.
I interpret your answer as meaning that I'm trying to hoodwink you banking on your being ignorant when in fact you're an Early Church expert. I am not an expert but I wasn't trying to deceive you. I was trying to find out if you really believed there was universal support for Real Presence (and the other things you mentioned) ideas in the Early Church. Apparently you do. Right? I'm not looking for an argument, just confirmation that you've read things like the Didache, Justin Martyr, Athanasius etc.and still think they were teaching what Rome teaches. I take it the answer is "yes".
@Eucharist Angel ... with gentleness and respect... (1 Pe. 3;15).
@Eucharist Angel Going back to 1 Peter 3 15, I just thought your apologetics were a little heavy on rhetoric and light on reasons. It wouldn't have hurt to actually cite some Fathers who, for example, did not believe in a Real Presence; there are some as you probably know e.g. Clement of Alexandria or Cyprian to name two). Judging people's hearts/intentions is also questionable ("you know damn well...choose...") and insulting RCC beliefs does not help much (they adore the host, which you compare to a Ritz cracker). Having said that, perhaps we can agree to disagree on this one as you clearly feel you have biblical warrant for your tone. Gently and respectfully yours...
It’s almost as if… the New Testament clearly teaches that baptism regenerates 🤷🏻♂️
Lol
@Sage of Synergism Unless you are born of WATER and SPIRIT.
Both, not Unless you are born of Creed and Spirit
@Sage of Synergism Just as the Israelites were saved by "baptism" walking through the parted Sea and Noah/family was saved by "baptism" of the flood so too are we baptized by water and spirit.
“God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were SAVED THROUGH WATER” (v.20)
37When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and asked Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” 38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39This promise belongs to you and your children and to all who are far off-to all whom the Lord our God will call to Himself.”…
@Sage of Synergism Read the entirety of the references.
Acts 10 Cornelius & his household were the 1st Gentiles to enter the Church. The Holy Spirit sent Pope St Peter to preach the Gospel to them after a series of visions. While he was preaching the Holy Spirit came upon them. Everyone with Peter was astonished. Peter commanded that they be baptized. Spirit & water are required.
1Cor 1:10-17 This was an established community, hence mostly baptized, on the verge of schism over who had a better baptism. Paul, of course, says he didn’t go to baptize then, proceeds to list people he did baptize.
@@TrixRN Did the thief on the cross go to hell?
St. Emperor Constantine didn’t delay his baptism to “exploit a loophole.” He waited because it was his expressed intention to make a pilgrimage to the Holy Land and be baptized in the Jordan River. However, he fell ill before he could make the trip and so had to be baptized on his deathbed.
Nah he was baptized by a semi Arian
@@gumbyshrimp2606 no he wasn’t. That is a myth.
I love your videos and books recommendation, very helpful. Gbu
Excellent video, thanks for sharing!
Question: Where does the Roman Catholic church get the idea that infants can depend on their parents faith for baptism? 14:53 "In order for the sacrament of baptism to be valid, the person receiving it, there must be faith connected to that person. . .Now for an infant, of course, an infant cannot freely desire baptism. He has no cognitive awareness of it. The parents can desire it, they are the ones gifted with faith who bring the child for baptism. So the parents renounce Satan on the child's behalf, receive baptism on behalf of their [the parents] faith."
The fact that there is such factional disagreement over baptismal degeneration despite the universal teaching of the Church Fathers also demonstrates how disagreement can emerge over time despite a clear doctrinal concensus at the beginning.
Trent at 3:00 "Baptism is the means by which we become Christian. Baptism regenerates us. It takes away the stain of original sin, of personal sin. It removes all the punishments related to sin. ... It is the waters of baptism--they become the channel of God's grace for our souls to be renewed, for us to become a new creation in Christ."
This was not universally taught by the church fathers, nor in Scripture.
Justin Martyr, "First Apology," chapter 61, “This washing [baptism] is called illumination because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. In the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate and in the name of the Holy Spirit, who through the prophets foretold all things about Christ, he who is illuminated is washed.”
Tertullian, "On Baptism," chapter 1, "A treatise on this matter [baptism] will not be superfluous, instructing not only such as are just becoming formed in the faith, but them who, content with having simply believed, without full examination of the grounds of the traditions, carry in mind through ignorance an untried though probable faith.”
Tertullian, "On Baptism," chapter 9, “How mighty is the grace of water in the sight of God and His Christ for *the confirmation* of baptism!”
Tertullian, "On Baptism," chapter 12, "They [the Apostles] followed Him who was wont to promise salvation to every believer. ‘Your faith,’ He would say, ‘has saved you,’ and, ‘Your sins shall be remitted you,’ on your believing, of course, albeit you be not yet baptized.”
Tertullian, "On Baptism," chapter 18, "According to the circumstances and disposition and even age of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable, principally, however, in the case of little children, for why is it necessary-if baptism itself is not so necessary-that the sponsors likewise should be thrust into danger?”
Tertullian, "On Repentance," chapter 6, "A sinner is bound to bemoan himself before receiving pardon because the time of repentance is coincident with that of peril and of fear. Not that I deny that the divine benefit-the putting away of sins, I mean-is in every way sure to such as are on the point of entering the baptismal water, but what we have to labor for is that it may be granted us to attain that blessing. Who will grant you, a man of so faithless repentance, one single sprinkling of any water whatsoever?”
Tertullian, "On Repentance," chapter 6, "Is there one Christ for the baptized, another for the learners? Have they some different hope or reward? Some different dread of judgment? Some different necessity for repentance? That baptismal washing is a sealing of faith, which faith is begun and is commended by the faith of repentance. We are not washed in order that we may cease sinning, but because we have ceased, since in heart we have been bathed already. The first baptism of a learner is this: a perfect fear. Thenceforward, in so far as you have understanding of the Lord, faith is sound, the conscience having once for all embraced repentance. Otherwise, if it is only after the baptismal waters that we cease sinning, it is of necessity, not of free will, that we put on innocence.”
"Apostolic Tradition" 19:2, "If any catechumens are apprehended because of the name of the Lord, let them not be doublehearted because of martyrdom. If they may suffer violence and be executed with their sins not removed, they will be justified, for they have received baptism in their own blood.”
Cyprian, "Treatise 5," chapter 25, "Because we may not hate, and because we please God more by rendering no return for wrong, we exhort you while you have the power, while there yet remains to you something of life, to make satisfaction to God, and to emerge from the abyss of dark superstition into the bright light of true religion. We do not envy your comforts, nor do we conceal the divine benefits. We repay kindness for your hatred, and for the torments and penalties which are inflicted on us, we point out to you the ways of salvation. Believe, and live, and rejoice with us for eternity, you who persecute us in tithe. When you have once departed there, there is no longer any place for repentance, and no possibility of making satisfaction. Here, life is either lost or saved. Here, eternal safety is provided for by the worship of God and the fruits of faith. Nor let anyone be restrained either by his sins or by his years from coming to obtain salvation. To him who still remains in this world, no repentance is too late. The approach to God’s mercy is open, and the access is easy to those who seek and apprehend the truth. Do you entreat for your sins, although it be in the very end of life and at the setting of the sun of time, and implore God, who is the one and true God, *in confession and faith of acknowledgement of Him, and pardon is granted to the man who confesses.* Saving mercy is given from the divine goodness to the believer, and a passage is opened to immortality, even in death itself. This grace Christ bestows. This gift of His mercy He confers upon us by overcoming death in the trophy of the cross, by redeeming the believer with the price of His blood, by reconciling man to God the Father, by *quickening our mortal nature with a heavenly regeneration.* If it be possible, let us all follow Him. Let us be registered in His sacrament and *sign* [baptism]."
Eusebius of Caesarea, "Church History," book 1, chapter 11, section 5, "Herod slew him [John the Baptist], a good man and one who exhorted the Jews to come and receive baptism, practicing virtue and exercising righteousness toward each other and toward God, for baptism would appear acceptable unto Him when they employed it, not the remission of certain sins, but for the purification of the body, as the soul had been already purified in righteousness.”
Eusebius of Caesarea, "Church History," book 7, chapter 9, sections 2-4, "One of the brethren that assemble, who has long been considered a believer and who, before my ordination and I think before the appointment of the blessed Heraclas, was a member of the congregation, was present with those who were recently baptized. When he heard the questions and answered, he came to me weeping and bewailing himself. Falling at my feet, he acknowledged and protested that the baptism with which he had been baptized among the heretics was not of this character, nor in any respect like this because it was full of impiety and blasphemy. He said that his soul was now pierced with sorrow and that he had no confidence to lift his eyes to God because he had not set out from those impious words and deeds. On this account, he besought that he might receive this most perfect purification and reception and grace. But I did not dare do this and said his long communion was sufficient for this, for I should not dare to renew from the beginning one who had heard the giving of thanks and joined in repeating the amen, who had stood by the table and had stretched forth his hands to receive the blessed food, and who had received it and partaken for long while of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. But I exhorted him to be of good courage and to approach the partaking of the saints with firm faith and good hope.”
Council of Elvira, canon 77, "If a deacons serving a community without a bishop or elder baptizes, the deacon shall then give his blessing to those baptized. If someone dies before receiving the blessing, that person is to be regarded as justified by his or her faith.”
Cyril of Jerusalem, "Catechetical Lectures," lecture 3, section 4, " Cornelius was a just man, who was honored with a vision of angels and had set up his prayers and alms as a good memorial before God in heaven. Peter came, and the Spirit was poured out upon them who believed, and they spoke with other languages and prophesied. After the grace of the Spirit, the Scripture says that Peter commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, in order that, the soul having been born again by faith, the body also might by the latter partake of the grace."
Baptismal regeneration is not universally taught by the church fathers.
Hello everyone, hi Trent
This is why I’m likely becoming Lutheran
The writings of the early Church Fathers are a profound witness that Catholicism is historic, true and the fullness of the Christian life.
Why you say that?
@@Solideogloria00 their writings attest to it. Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, Iraneaus of Lyon, Justin Martyr, etc. These are the people who knew the apostles or people who knew them. We have many writings from them you can read. I suggest you Four Witnesses by Rod Bennett as a start.
And many fathers confirmed sola scriptura.
@@colepriceguitar1153 That's very interesting. I would love to see some quotes from some of them. Was this before the Bible was codified in the 300s, or after?
@Filius Vivam *You are admitting to Roman Catholic ct taking m m doctrines from early writers who had deviated from Jesus, Apostles and NT Church. How "profound" is that? Lol. Early writers wrote about Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura too. Why dont Roman ct believe in these doctrines?*
you said
The writings of the early Church Fathers are a profound witness that Catholicism is historic, true and the fullness of the Christian life.
For a good time, read the Westminster confession on Baptism slowly to any modern Evangelical. When it says, “the grace offered is not only offered, but exhibited and conferred,” watch them freak out.
Trent Horn has a very high power level.
The Spirit is strong with this one
Fr. Pacwa would eat Horn’s lunch, with half of his formidable brain tied behind his back.
@YAJUN YUAN it absolutely is missing the purpose. But Horn is Sola Ecclesia, not Sola Scriptura. The Roman Catholic Church says that Baptism is done to cover original sin, and she (according to Catholic faithful), is the ONLY entity with the authority to interpret the Bible. So, while Horn will use a verse out of context to support a Church teaching, that’s as far as he (or any of them), will go in Biblical study. They simply don’t interpret or study anything that doesn’t match the Church’s teachings.
@@KristiLEvans1 this seems to fly in the face of people who have studied their way INTO the Catholic Church from other denominations, like Scott Hahn. There are many things that influence whether we reject or accept a certain idea, such as preconceived notions or cultural upbringing, so disagreeing with someone else’s interpretation does not necessarily mean they are approaching the text dishonestly. It is difficult to get everyone to reach the same conclusions. Which is why it is good Jesus gave the Church the ability to clear up such confusions
@@0GodJudges0 yes. If you are convinced by gnostic gospels (“Ascension of Isaiah”, “Odes of Solomon”), and incorrectly derived types and shadows, you *can* do it. I’ve heard Hahn. I’m not sure he admitted to drawing from the gnostic gospels, but he definitely, actually cited the types and shadows. I, too, wanted to convert, and so studied for a few years. There is A LOT I love about the RC faith, but I could not study my way into Marian dogmas or the apostolic succession of the Papacy. If you want the high-church, liturgy and lifestyle of worship, badly enough, the brain can justify anything, I suppose. Mine could not.
Great content! Thank you 🙏🏽
As a Baptist, I fully affirm Baptismal Regeneration as the normative way that a new Christian receives Regeneration, provided they confess and repent of their sins and put their faith in Christ (i.e. Credo-Baptism).
Around 19:45 you mention what if you die suddenly. Why make one wait to partake off the Eucharist or become Catholic. As the eunuch said, "what hinders me from being baptized?"
Phillip: commands the Chariot to stop and baptizes.
Catholic Church: RCIA classes in the fall... if you even are acknowledged by the "father".
This is a very interesting topic. I can honestly say I've never even heard an argument for baptism being required for salvation. It was well done and could certainly be the case. How do you interpret what John the Baptist says in Matt. 3:11? I always took that to mean that the "baptism" of salvation was more symbolic rather than a literal baptism. Regardless, the Bible clearly states that you should be baptized whether you think it saves you or not. Seeing as how Christ himself was baptized, we as CHRISTians should all follow him in baptism. Great job on these videos Trent, I love hearing different interpretations of scripture. While I doubt that I will ever agree with you on everything, I know that my interpretations are not infallible. I appreciate what you are doing and keep fighting the good fight brother!
If it’s just a symbol and not required for salvation, why do it? It would be pointless and a waste of time.
At the same time, baptism must have faith in the life of the believer (whether at the time of the baptism or afterwards for infants) for its salvific power to be applied to the person.
It’s the sign/test/initiation our Lord chose for us to enter into the faith. It is a means of grace, and a means by which we show our obedience to God. It’s brilliant, because it’s an easy test.
I like to think of baptism and its regeneration as a process. The process begins when you first have salvific faith towards God, then you begin the catechumen process (Heb 6, instructions about ritual washings), and it is capped off by the actual act of baptism.
I agree with you much more in this episode than usual. 😅
Even when I don’t, I respect your sincerity & scholarship.
There is good reason the Church Fathers agreed on this - the solid witness from Scripture.
I was 2 years old when I got baptised; my Mum was a Roman Catholic and my Dad an Anglican. They certainly believed in infant baptism and my older sister had all ready been baptised, so why they left it that long I just don't know. The fact that they left it a bit late certainly can't be used to support Dr. Ortlund's position.
@Григорий Фэша I don't think you can use the Book of Mormon to argue against the Christian baptism of infants - you might just as well quote from the Lotus Sutra.
@@tonyoliver2750 quote--Christian baptism of infants--unquote
Please quote the Bible that mentions "Baptism of infants"!!!
How can an infant know who Jesus is? Why He died? What salvation is?
THe Jews DO NOT baptise anyone until they are age 8!!!!
----What age does the Bible say a child should be baptized?
But when exactly was that? The answer finally came when the Lord described how parents should teach their children about the gospel. He said, “And their children shall be baptized for the remission of their sins when eight years old, and receive the laying on of the hands” (Doctrine and Covenants 68:27).
----Infant baptism (or pedobaptism) is the practice of baptizing infants or young children. Infant baptism is also called christening by some faith traditions.
Antiquity
Scholars disagree on the date when infant baptism was first practiced. Some believe that 1st-century Christians did not practice it, noting the lack of any explicit evidence of infant baptism. Others, noting the lack of any explicit evidence of exclusion of infant baptism, believe that they did, understanding biblical references to individuals "and [her] household" being baptized as including young children.
(The issue here is that the verse says NOTHING about "infants". )
And the words " including young children", how young is young???
----Again, Jews do not baptise until the "young child" is age 8!!!
The New Testament includes three passages that explicitly refer to “households” being baptized: “She was baptized, with her household” (Acts 16:15) “He was baptized at once, with all his family” (Acts 16:33; 18:8 also implicitly implies it) “I did baptize also the household of Stephanas.” (1 Corinthians 1:16)
NOT ONE of those mentions "infants"!!!
Since the ones doing the baptism were Jews, there is NO Way they would have baptised anyone under the age of 8!!!
We Reformed Protestants have also historically taught Baptismal Regeneration. It is a modern thing for the Protestant churches to begin to move away from this because of the interaction with Baptists.
I have a question. Peter said Baptism saves you, but in acts we see the house of Cornelius saved and receiving the spirit before baptism. How do you harmonize that? Please, no attacks. Thanks. 😊
As far as I'm aware, the Cornelius episode was a special occurrence that God used to prove that He wills Gentiles to become Christian as well. Catholics don't deny that in rare circumstances God can give the Holy Spirit to unbaptized individuals (see the thief on the cross), but that the norm is for baptism to be the place where the Spirit comes. Notice how even Cornelius and his household were required to be baptized by Peter. Thanks for the question.
Baptism by water isn't the ONLY way someone can be saved by God. If Cornelius could be counted as "Double Saved" he would, but that's not possible.
If Peter was speaking poetically, the issue is resolved.
All for this. Lets also agree that it should be done by full immersion which is even more attested!
Robert Sungenis claims the fathers universally agreed on geocentrism and therefore he have to submit to that teaching. Obviously a fringe topic but I'd love to see actual experts debate that.
@@Apologetyczny Cosmology always affects theology. Regardless of intention.
@@Apologetyczny unfortunately it is about scriptural interpretation. And the fathers unanimously interpreted Scriptures on this issue. Scriptural interpretation is a matter of faith.
In every Mass the creator of the universe comes to nourish His people in the Eucharist. I believe in geocentrism, insofar as, it is here on this very planet that I encounter Him who is God and source of all.
@Corbin Castle Sungenis has been open to debating this, whether scripturally, scientifically or the magisterially but there are no takers.
I think this is why most modern Americans (Protestant/Catholic) are becoming more and more agnostic. The constant ‘my way is the true way and the facts back my way’ (all Christian groups) has turned so many people away from religion as a whole.
The fact that there are so many protestant denominations clearly tell us they dont agree amongst themselves. So, when it comes to different views on baptismal regeneration amongst protestants is just one of the many consequences. It's no brainer. You cannot propose a win-win solution to protestants because you will end up relaxing your own belief and doctrines.
@Eucharist Angel All Catholics formally agree with the Truths which are taught by the Catholic Church.
Yes, many Catholics argue among themselves on the executions of those teachings, but such divisiveness is in no way comparable to the infinite Schisms of Denominations that came out of the Protestant Reformation.
@Greg Elchert I mean the same is true of religion in general. How are you so sure of your religion when there are so many?
If it must be found in the teachings of Church fathers, where do Evangelical Protestants find “let Jesus into your heart as your personal Lord and Savior” in Church father’s teachings? Or how about pointing to the date and time they got
“saved”? Or, a myriad of other such beliefs they hold?
I was a little disturbed when I first heard someone would baptize not just a second time but a third, fourth, or fifth time because they feel like they are still committing sins. Like how was this possible? I didn’t know any of the church fathers really back when I heard this. No one really talked about sin in the churches I used to go to except to say, “You don’t want to end up like this girl, do you?” It breaks my heart to think how hard everyone was on appearing to be saved and not preaching what it takes through their own actions, reaching that girl who is going through trouble but isn’t so far gone to be unreachable.
We also see this idea of multiple Baptisms rejected at Nicea, " I believe in one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins".
I suspect a person who seeks multiple baptisms does so because they don't understand or know about the Sacrament of Confession/ reconciliation. Multiple baptisms are probably motivated by sin guilt. Though they may have been sincerely seeking God at their baptism, I suspect they may have not understood that we are to become new creations in Christ, and thus leaving our past sins behind us.
Also seems to go against “salvation by Grace through Faith” is NOT a work. It would appear one has to do something “be baptized” in order to be saved and it is adding to what Christ did on the cross (couldn’t help myself to use their common retort against anything Catholic).
Multiple baptisms was a hallmark of the Anabaptists.
Please put the Bodily Assumption of Mary video link into the description below the video, as you said you would. Thanks! 😍
Trent, Please debate Gavin Ortlund on this!
@andrewkline1813 *You have an English issue. Proximity is Not Causality. Being in the same statement does not imply its Causal.*
*Example:*
*"Open the drawer, take out the medicine, eat and you will be saved; if you do not eat of the medicine you will die".*
*Opening the drawer did not save. It's the medicine that saves. It's also seen in the latter sentence "if you do not eat of the medicine you will die".*
*Similarly Mark 16:16. It takes certain intelligence to understand proper English constructs.*
Mar 16:16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
you said
read mark 16:16 "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." Belief and baptism is required. You must not be intelligent
God bless you brother Trent keep making them videos love your channel Jesus Mary and Joseph Pray for Us Saint Anthony of Padua Pray for Us Christ Save us 🛐🗝️🗝️😇🙏📖💯 Catholic
High church and the view of the sacraments brought me to the Lutheran church. Dr. Jordan Cooper’s content on baptism is great by the way, Trent is right to suggest it.
I had no idea so many evangelicals do not embrace baptism as an ordinary means of entrance to Christianity. I thought there were fringe elements, but thanks to Trent, popular pastors of You tube are moving the goalpost that baptism is not really necessary. Crazy
Baptism is an outward sign you are saved. It does not save your soul. Only asking Jesus to be your Lord and Savior does that. Baptism is a very good thing to do but baptizing a young children does not save their souls.
@@bcalvert321
Why is it good?
@@bcalvert321 1 Peter 3:21 seems to disagree with you.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj Because it is an outward sign to the Church that you have accepted Jesus as Your Savior.
@@mx_moi1964 18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit. , 21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also-not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God.[b] It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand-with angels, authorities, and powers in submission to him. Water is a symbol of salvation. You go down into the water symbolizing where you were in life. You come up from the water symbolizing you are a new creation. Salvation comes from accepting Jesus as Your Lord and Savior. You do that by confessing your sins to Him and then turning away, repenting, from them.
Confessional Reformed and Lutheran Christians believe that baptism "confers what it promises" as the Westminster Confession teaches.
Will you guys do a show about why there is so much homosexuality in the Vatican
Read the book of gomorrah
Corruption always happens among God's people whenever they turn from God. 'Return to me, ye revolting children, and I will give you pastors according to my own heart.'
@YAJUN YUAN If you haven't gathered as much already, I would say there is no hope for your salvation.
@YAJUN YUAN One of the most popular catechisms in use in America and elsewhere before they released the gigantic CCC in 1980. It puts the faith far more simply, and breaks it down into bitesized, easy to understand chunks.
Can a Catholic clarify? At 3:20 he quotes saying "anyone who receives the sacrament of baptism, there is nothing that will hinder him entering heaven". Do Catholics believe it is impossible to fall away and forfeit your inheritance after being baptized?
As a Protestant(theologically Lutheran) is inquiring of the catholic and orthodox faith, I’ve reached the point where it upsets me that these Protestant theologians completely disregard the witness of the church fathers and go their own way. How arrogant! I affirm both baptismal regeneration and the Eucharist!
As a former protestant, many actually sincerely do not understand why thry should care about the church fathers. They think it's all just people studying the Bible for the last 2000 years, with no reason why anyone else's interpretation should be considered more valuable than their own. They view theology like science, only instead of a universe to study with experiments, they have scripture. They think thay just like with our science and technology, we have reached a greater understanding of scripture.
They don't know or understand that Christianity did not start with the Bible. They don't necessarily deny it, they just genuinely don't understand. When it was explained to me, I dropped Protestantism like a sack of potatoes.
quote--I’ve reached the point where it upsets me that these Protestant theologians completely disregard the witness of the church fathers ....unquote
Church gods???
Let’s discuss the idea of calling priests “father.” In Matthew 23:9, when Jesus says, “And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven,” does Jesus mean that literally or is he just driving home a point using strong terminology? I would say it’s the latter. Catholics are criticized for this because Catholics call priests “father.”
When Jesus said to “call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven,” he is using an expression that has deep roots in the Hebrew Scriptures. To “call” someone by a “name” in the Hebrew tradition meant something closer to “identifying the essence” of a person. For example, when the prophet Isaiah says of the Messiah that “his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, the Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace,” he certainly does not mean that those titles will be commonly used as names of the Messiah by his contemporaries. None of Jesus’ contemporaries, not even the Apostles themselves, called him those things. Rather, the “name” here means the essence, and Isaiah is describing the nature of the Messiah, who will be, in his very nature, the “Mighty God” who shares the essence of the “Wonderful Counselor” (the Holy Spirit) and the “Everlasting Father” (God the Father).
So, in this Hebrew tradition, when Jesus says, “Call no one on earth your father,” he means, “Recognize no one on earth as your father in his essence for by nature and by essence, there is only one Father, that is, God the Father.” In a very real sense, all other fathers, even one’s own biological father, are imitation fathers, because God is the true Father who begets children in a way that only He, as God, can. When you were conceived, God created your soul de novo, “new,” and ex nihilo, “from nothing.” That is true fatherhood!
Your biological father did not create anything de novo or ex nihilo. Your biological father contributed to your body in a physical process that was wondrously fashioned by God, but nonetheless completely natural and according to physical laws. In a very real sense, your physical father is only a father by analogy, that is, human fatherhood is similar to true fatherhood, which God alone exercises. Another way to look at it is that we can call our biological fathers “Father” only because God is our true Father. All paternity is an imitation of the paternity of God the Father, as St. Paul says: “I bow my knees before the Father, from whom all fatherhood [Greek patria] in heaven and on earth is named” (Eph 3:14-15, my translation).
---
*R Catholicism has nothing to do with God and His Words. R Catholic Church contradicts Scriptures in every possible ways!*
1. Catholics say Mary was sinless. But BIBLE says Mary offered a sinner's offering. She was a sinner. Bible says Mary needed a Saviour. Lk 2:23-24, Lev 12:6-8, Rom 3:10.
2. Catholics say clergies must be celibate. Yet BIBLE says Peter (supposed R Church first leader) had mother in law. Bible says celibacy is not a qualification for clergies. Mat 8:14-15, Mar 1:30-31, Luk 4:38-39.
3. Catholics say Mary was forever virgin. Yet BIBLE says Jesus had brothers and sisters. Mary was not perpetually virgin. Mk 6:3, Mat 13:55, Mat 27:56, Mar 6:3, Mar 15:40, Mar 15:47.
4. Catholics say confess to R priests in a box. BIBLE says nothing about confessing to priests in a box. Bible says confess to GOD only. 1 John 1:9, Mat 6, Romans 10:9-10.
5. Catholics say drink of the physical blood of Jesus. Yet OT and NT both say do not drink blood. Acts 15, Lev 7:26.
6. Catholics say pray to passed on Mary and "saints". Yet BIBLE says do not contact the dead. NT Church did not record a single case of NT believers asking passed on saints to pray for them. Deut 18:11, Isaiah 8:19.
7. Catholics make and bow down to statues. BIBLE says do not bow down to graven images (statues). Deut 4, Exo 20:4-5.
8. Catholics sprinkles “holy water”. But NT Church of the Bible mentioned nothing about “holy water”. There was no record of any Apostles sprinkling “holy water” on believers. Catholics claimed “holy water” came from OT. Yet Num 5:17 says “holy water” was water used to test adulterous women in OT temple. Hardly the same. Those were for Old Covenant Jews. Not New Testament Christians.
9. Catholics say Peter was pope - bishop of all bishops. Yet BIBLE says Peter was just a leader of the Jerusalem Church. Bible says nothing of the office of bishop of bishops. Gal 2:9, Mat 16:18.
10. Catholics say there is a seat of Peter. Yet BIBLE says nothing about it. Jesus said “not to lord over others”.
11. Catholics has clergy priesthood. Bible says clergy priesthood was done away with in New Testament. There is no clergy priesthood in NT. Heb 7:27, 9:12, 10:10.
12. Catholics preaches Works Salvation (faith + good works + partake R sacraments + submit to R pontiff + be in R Church + devote to Mary = to be saved). Yet Bible says “believe in Jesus to be saved”. Bible says Works Salvation is cursed. Gal 1:8-9. Acts 16:30-31, John 3:16, Romans 10:9-10.
13. Catholics says they must do Penance to atone for their sins. Yet Bible says repent, confess and sins will be forgiven. Catholic Bible changes the word “repentance” in NT into “penance”. Original Greek NT does not use or mean the word penance. Penance = work to atone for sins. Repentance = change of heart. 1 John 1:9, Mat 6.
14. Catholics say Mary went straight to heaven without dying. Yet Bible says nothing about it.
15. Catholics say Islam and Christianity have the same GOD. Yet Islam doesn't believe in death and resurrection of Jesus and Trinity.
I never did understand why a priest would not baptize an infant? Even if being pressured by grandma this is a good thing and if it is truly efficacious you would want to baptize them right away. The couple could walk across the street to a Lutheran Church have their infant baptized and the Catholic Church would recognize that baptism as valid....at first I did think this was going to be about Eucharist...I don't think it is possible to find any Church father that proclaims it as only a symbol and not truly the body and blood of Christ. You might find a few examples closer to the Lutheran position but you will also not find a conservative Lutheran that will tell you it is just a symbol and Christ is not present.
Baptisms are meant to be a testament of faith. Kids can be baptized as long as they can reason for their faith. How can’t infants do this? They cannot and therefore ought not to be baptized until they receive Christ in their hearts. Baptizing infants are sort of forced conversions in a way. People think they can sin till death and go to heaven because they have-been baptized as babies without really believing in Jesus. It has been used as a scapegoat for reckless behavior and entitlement.
@andrewkline1813 *You are totally misquoting Scriptures again. 1 Pet **3:21** says "water baptism is a symbol". It does not save.*
1 Pet 3:21 *Baptism, which is symbolized by that water,* now saves you also, not by removing dirt from the body, but by asking God for a clear conscience based on the resurrection of Jesus, the Messiah,
you said
o get a clear conscience 1 Peter 3:21. Of course faith is required for the efficacy of baptism
he is not getting notified of these replies...
@@tafazzi-on-discord *WHy is that so? THis channel is blocking all the comments. How despicable.*
@@jediv9910 Read my username
@tafazzi-on-discord *Scriptures does not tell us exactly which books. But it tells us CHurch (not referring to Roman ct) and Apostles/leaders knew. The Church discovered the canon over centuries.*
*Jesus, APostles and NT Church already called "partial Scriptures", Scriptures, in their days. They did not say believers needed to wait 300 years for Scriptures to be "made inspired" as per the false claims of ROman ct.*
you said
And how many scriptures tell you what the Bible is? Which books are and which books aren't inspires for example.
8:21 what about just staying in that “mere Christianity” stage? Most of my friends and family, despite being Protestant by church, like to identify themselves as being nondenominational, and solely focus of one’s relationship with Jesus. What should I say to them
It's impossible to "solely focus on one's relationship with Jesus" without running into denominational questions. After all, if Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist, then that's going to be a BIG part of building that relationship with Him. If Jesus gave authority to men to forgive sins, then that's how I restore my relationship with Christ after serious sin.
C.S. Lewis made the term "Mere Christianity" famous. I'd suggest he has the best advice for your friends and family:
***
I hope no reader will suppose that "mere" Christianity is here put forward as an alternative to the creeds of the existing communions-as if a man could adopt it in preference to Congregationalism or Greek Orthodoxy or anything else. It is more like a hall out of which doors open into several rooms. If I can bring anyone into that hall I shall have done what I attempted. But it is in the rooms, not in the hall, that there are fires and chairs and meals. The hall is a place to wait in, a place from which to try the various doors, not a place to live in. For that purpose the worst of the rooms (whichever that may be) is, I think, preferable.
It is true that some people may find they have to wait in the hall for a considerable time, while others feel certain almost at once which door they must knock at. I do not know why there is this difference, but I am sure God keeps no one waiting unless He sees that it is good for him to wait. When you do get into your room you will find that the long wait has done you some kind of good which you would not have had otherwise. But you must regard it as waiting, not as camping. You must keep on praying for light: and, of course, even in the hall, you must begin trying to obey the rules which are common to the whole house. And above all you must be asking which door is the true one; not which pleases you best by its paint and paneling.
***
I would sincerely not want to bring people that have a real walk with the Lord into the world of debates (which frankly is exhausting and sometimes fruitless). I'm a protestant who wants no part of certain catholic beliefs. I have had a lot of opportunity to wreck the "catholic faith" of some catholics, but it seemed wicked to their conscience to bring them into a lot of doubt and questions which may wreck their faith in the blessed Lord. Please be careful and prayerful about what you do with them. All these debates forget that wreck can come to some christians because of thesame. God bless, brother 😊
@@chiagookonta3239 That attitude is pretty much unknown to Christian history though. St. Paul cared enough about truth to argue with those he thought were in the wrong. So did all the apologists of the early centuries. The Church as a whole called Ecumenical Councils so that the authentic Christian Faith could be proclaimed so that people would not be in heresy.
@@davidbates3353 I'm not sure about it being unknown. I think Paul would rather someone be protestant than lost because of an argument with catholics or vice versa. I am all for arguments, but if it will affect someone's faith negatively, one should be content with the fact that this person is a brother. Although this depends on whether you believe that one can be saved and have a good walk with the Lord without being catholic.
@@chiagookonta3239 Protestants regularly tell me that Catholics are doing the same thing as the Galatians and Paul opposed them in the strongest of terms.
Let's just assume that the Catholic position is true... I would say that it would be the most unloving thing in the world for a Catholic to let a Protestant friend live a life unknowingly deprived of Jesus' Body and Blood, the graces of Confession, to be dismissive about the Blessed Virgin, to abandon the Pope, and to be deprived of Saintly and angelic intercessors.
Protestant apologists may try to use the argument that such and such a doctrine is not found explicitly in the Early Church Fathers before Year X and therefore cannot be part of Apostolic teaching but a lot of them are very happy to try to use St Augustine's writings to support their own doctrines. It doesn't seem to bother them that the doctrines they think are to be found in the writings of St Augustine are not found in writings from earlier Fathers.
The argument in the first part of this video seems to be:
1. If the apostles taught X, the Church Fathers universally taught X.
2. The Church Fathers universally taught X.
3. Therefore, the apostles taught X.
This fallacy is called “Affirming the consequent”.
No, the argument would be if the Church Fathers universally taught X, then the Apostles taught X.
@YAJUN YUAN That's besides my point, if the Church Fathers who address a given topic do so with a great chorus of assent, and it is a consistent teaching without rebuke from whatever point in the Early Church onwards, then that is a sure sign for veracity.
@YAJUN YUAN With all due respect, your point on the Deuterocanon is completely wrong - I presume you haven't read any Catholic literature on the topic? And your idea that Catholics only do baptism to remove original sin is also wrong. The Catechism plainly contradicts that.
@YAJUN YUAN Every single one of those affirmed the deuterocanon lol, Jerome by the end of his life. You haven't touched Catholic scholarship if you think all of this.
As an Anglican with a Lutheran mix I'm aware that I don't need to be roman to be catholic, I can hold to catholic doctrines without the papacy. Nor do I need to convert to Eastern orthodox to be orthodox although i consider both to be brothers in Christ.
I hold baptism forgives sin and unites us to Christ, as God grants whenever he pleases. As for the Holy Eucharist, Christ is present but it's a mystery if I was to go into detail. The fathers are a mix, no church can claim them as theirs.
Strawmanning the reformed calvinist tradition as evangelical baptists part idk
Read the reformed confessions on baptism or the institutions of Calvin on baptism. It's not fair to blame reformed theology for mistakes made by one of the three other protestant movements.
@Prasanth Thomas But he did not reject it in the way it's framed in this video at all. He says baptismal regeneration teaches that baptism is not purely a symbolic rite. Reformed Christians agree with that. It's not merely a sign to show people that you have become christian. Reformed christians agree with that. Baptism is the means by which we become christian. Agree. It takes away your sins. Calvin will accept this truth even more than Roman-catholics, since he thinks the sacrament of saying sorry to a priest (sorry I can't find the English name) is an underestimation of baptism. Read the institutions 4.15 (he summarizes in 4.15.14) to see he is really misrepresented here. Reformed christians believe we are really saved with baptism, but not because the Holy Spirit needs to work exclusively in that water. We are saved by the the Holy Spirit and that happens before our eyes during baptism. Something really happens there, while we can only sensually experience the symbols of the thing that happens. Therefore we can say baptism saves or baptism does not save, as long as we're meaning the same thing. We're not merely symbolists like evangelicals, so I cannot find where the Church fathers universally disagree with us.
And just as you say, Calvin defended infant baptism. Every Reformed confession that talks about baptism, affirms infant baptism. 5:30 of this video just plainly denies that.
If you want to know what the official Reformed teachings are on baptism, read the Heidelbergse Catechismus 65-74 and Confessio Belgica 33-34. It's just not fair to say that there are reformed christians believing that baptism is not a real mean of grace and it's not fair to say that there are reformed christians against infant baptism. Those people are by definition not reformed (denying the creeds), so they are baptists having some teachings in common with reformed christians
@Prasanth Thomas www.reformation21.org/articles/calvin-and-baptism-baptismal-regeneration-or-the-duplex-loquendi-modus.php
Maybe this will help
@Saint Charbel Miracleworker *Roman Ct members love misquoting 1 Pet **3:21**. It clearly says "water baptism is a symbol".*
1 Pet 3:21 *Baptism, which is symbolized by that water,* now saves you also, not by removing dirt from the body, but by asking God for a clear conscience based on the resurrection of Jesus, the Messiah,
you said
Just as the Israelites were saved by "baptism" walking through the parted Sea and Noah/family was saved by "baptism" of the flood so too are we baptized by water and spirit.
“God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were SAVED THROUGH WATER” (v.20)
The Reformed Traditions official position is to baptize infants too. Only the Calvinistic baptists teaches “believers” baptism which puts them outside of the reformed tradition
even if that is true, they still think it's just a sign and seal of faith and that the promises in baptism are not given until quickening. Meaning, you don't exactly know if the holy spirit is working through the waters of baptism, which is another way of denying baptismal regeneration
@@mcfadden139 I felt the Holly Spirit before I was baptized after me conversion from atheism.
@@mcfadden139 for sure, that’s is a problem I have with them. They reject BR when that is actually the best explanation for how the NT presents baptism.
@YAJUN YUAN yes, baptism forgives your sins and then you are received into the Church. There you commune daily with the Lord and Believers where there is daily repentance, adoration, and sanctification.
@YAJUN YUAN adults can make decisions for their children, that includes baptism. There the faith of the parents covers for the infant so the young one can receive the forgiveness of sins and be received in to the church. Or in simple terms “by grace alone” not “mental assent” alone or “verbal confirmation” alone.
If a baby is baptized what need is there for faith in Jesus as the Baby grows? In your beginning argument with John 3 a man cannot enter the kingdom of God unless through water and Spirit. So a baby is baptized shouldn’t their also have to be a person faith In the savior?
First here..
Never been first in my school 😀
That's messed up
@@AngelatHeaven 😂😂😂
Acts 8, Simon was baptized but not regenerated. Acts 10, the Cornelius household experienced regeneration before baptism. The thief on the cross, he came to faith (conviction) without baptism.
The act of baptism in and of itself does not cause regeneration. However, baptism in everything that it entails may include regeneration. This is dependent upon Gods mercy (Titus 3:5-8). We see it is entirely up to God, John 3:8. John 6:44 also applies, which the Father by His choice, brings one to Christ. So when Peter mentioned we are saved by baptism, he was including Christs resurrection. No one can come to Christ, unless the Father draws them.
Your view of baptism Trent, pushes what God does off to the side.
You will have a difficult time uniting believers in your understanding of baptism.
You are also building your theology off of church fathers. Is this what Paul had in mind? Ephesians 2:20. Are you aware there have been a lot of modifications through “church fathers” by Eusebius? This is why this is a bad idea on your part. Eusebius tried to define a “orthodox “ view of the relationship between church and state for Constantine. Not a good way to build your theology Trent.
@andrewkline1813 *You are totally misquoting 1 Pet **3:21**. Water only cleanses dirt ==> water baptism did not save. It's the Holy Spirit who cleansed the conscience, not water.*
*In the case of Noah's ark. Water represents the instrument of judgement. Water destroyed. It did not save. The ark saves (represented by Jesus saves). Not the water. Hence not water baptism.*
you said
1 Peter 3:21 is discussing water baptism, which when accompanied by an internal change (not filth removed from the body), accomplishes an appeal to God for a clear conscience. Peter says "baptism now saves you" when connecting the flood waters to baptismal waters.
No where does Peter say "water only cleanses dirt" That is simply an addition. Paul clearly states that although water baptism is regenerative, it is not a work.
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but because of his mercy he saved us through the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit whom he poured out generously on us through Jesus Christ our Savior so that having been justified by grace...... From Titus 3:5
The washing of regeneration referred to baptism. This is what the early Church taught and believed.
Baptism is the means by which God pours the Holy Spirit on us and we are justified by his grace....(unmerited favor).
It seems strange to day that those most unable to "work"....little babies ....would be required to "work" to get Gods unmerited favor. Gods grace and mercy is given freely to us and the means by which God does it is through water baptism. Baptism has two concurent parts...the external application of water and the internal movement of the Holy Spirit. Both are necessary. When I went to a so-called "independent Bible Church" the doctrinal statement said that those that profess Christ as Savior "may be baptized with water." But many did not. They were told they did not have to. It was optional! But what did Jesus Christ say in the Gospels......He Commanded them to go, preach, teach, make disciples...and to baptize. God commanded baptism. He didn't say it was optional.
@@prairiemark4084 *It's implied. Who could clear the conscience? God. What could clear dirt? Water.*
1Pet 3:21 Baptism, which is symbolized by that water, now saves you also, not by removing dirt from the body, but by asking God for a clear conscience based on the resurrection of Jesus, the Messiah,
you said
No where does Peter say "water only cleanses dirt"
@@prairiemark4084 *Nowhere in the Bible says "washing of regeneration refers to water baptism". That's clearly an addition.*
*Early Church? False claim. NT Church did not teach that.*
you said
The washing of regeneration referred to baptism. This is what the early Church taught and believed.
@@prairiemark4084 *False claims again. THat's not water baptism. That's baptism of the HS. They are not one and the same. There are 7 baptisms in the whole Bible.*
you said
Baptism is the means by which God pours the Holy Spirit on us and we are justified by his grace....(unmerited favor).
@@prairiemark4084 *Jesus commanded a lot of things. Not everything Jesus commanded "save". Does preaching say? Does teaching save? No. Does making disciples save? Clearly not.*
*Bible is clear: believe in Jesus to be save. John 3:16. It's only Christ who saves. Not other works. Eph 2:8-9.*
you said
He commanded them to go, preach, teach, make disciples...and to baptize. God commanded baptism. He didn't say it was optional.
my Methodist friends were quick to point out their quadrilateral of authority (scripture, tradition, reason and experience... the latter interpreted not on the individual but church community level led by learned scholars), but yes apart from that sola scriptura, variously understood, is the authority for traditional protestants (mainline or liberal protestants may tend to veer off into individual reason and culture even at the expense of scripture).
Antisacramentalism in Protestant circles is waning.
They can't move forward without a priesthood, they have no choice
@@Qwerty-jy9mj not true. It could be that the Roman definition of sacrament is skewed.
Even Aquinas says that regenerated, unordained women have the ability to baptize
@@mikewilliams6025
Sure, fair enough. The ability to baptize is very broad as long as it's done in the valid form, I was thinking of the Eucharist at the time
@@Qwerty-jy9mj we have a Cohen Gadol whose name is Jesus and he attest for us on heaven. 👋
@the counsel of trent How do you suppose baptising babies can 'bring them into the body of Christ' when it is by grace through faith you are saved?
they are receiving Grace meatball
So perhaps it is fitting in commencing discussions with members of other religious traditions to ask which premises are operative, and therefore whether the discussion is proceeding in good faith. This to forestall the "heads I win, tails you lose", "you're bound to the fathers, so I can use them to refute you, but I am not bound to the fathers, so they cannot be used to refute me" double standard, which masks the prior commitment to particular theological conclusions. G. K. Chesterton spoke well of identifying and making explicit layers of assumptions and commitments to the point of discovering both common ground and points and bases of divergence, so that arguments which can be shown to be sound and which have premises which are acknowledged as valid lead inescapably to conclusions which in turn become acknowledged premises for further identification of previously unrecognized truth.
Of course, all of this is possible only if the ignorant or erring dialogue partner either is indifferent to the matter under discussion or is sufficiently secure in his knowledge that the fundamental structure of reality is such a truth, goodness, beauty, and unity as operates for his benefit, that he is willing to discover that the fuller understanding to which he is being exposed more strongly reinforces that fundamental understanding.
Near the end where Trent mentioned to not get baptized near the end of your life, i believe most Roman kings and generals did that because they felt if they did they would have to adhere to the Church more lol.
I have been watching the Chosen and I have the Chosen app.
What can we do to help these protestants come to know the full truth of Jesus in His Church, the Catholic Church?
The season 2 ending episode is about the sermon on the mount and the trailer/behind the scenes guys were talking about John 6. ...the great bread of life discourse.
This would be the perfect time to show them that Jesus said what He meant and meant what He said
Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, you have no life within you,etc.
Pray for the producers. And keep in mind the show does have many theological experts on hand from different denominations including Catholics. Also Jesus is Catholic in the Chosen (the actor portraying Jesus)
@Elijah Sheets the faithful are indeed trying to do just that.
The Magisterial Authority of the Church is the same for 2000 years, nothing has changed there.
It is just the infiltration of the freemasons, these wicked men have it in their own writings that their sole goal is to destroy the Catholic Church from within.
Many of the current bishops around the world are caught up in the heresies of modernism, secularism, and relativism.
The faithful laity are working to get rid of these heretics, starting with the child molesters .
Michael Voris on his Church Militant channel has begun this process.
@Elijah Sheets the only idol was that pachamama thing.
If you are a protestant and are talking about ordinary statues, those aren't idols. Only a statue that is worshiped as a God is an idol.
@Elijah Sheets as far as "atrocities ",
many of these have been
exaggerated and twisted up beyond belief. So many lies have been spread by anti-catholics.
@Empyreal we humans can only plant the seeds bc only HE can "convince" u. Be ever so humble in ur prayers during ur journey.
God Bless and Peace Be With You. Jesus We Trust in You.
12:45 - Webster and baptismal regeneration throughout church history
13:58 and 16:09 - Responding to Ortlund
If Baptism saves then it is a work that merits our salvation. I know that's taken for granted in Catholicism, but those of us who actually know and believe the scriptures remember Ephesians 2:8-9, "For it is by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, NOT BY WORKS, so that no one can boast."
"Actually know and believe scripture..." You've taken it out of context! See point no. 2 for this.
1) If Ephesians is misinterpreted (as you have) then this nullifies Matthew 7:21, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who DOES THE WILL of my Father in heaven." Take note that this quote came from Jesus himself.
PAUL HIMSELF says that works are needed as well. Romans 2:5-6 says, "By your stubbornness and impenitent heart, you are storing up wrath for yourself for the day of wrath and revelation of the just judgment of God, who will repay everyone according to his works: eternal life to those who seek glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in good works." See how many times he said "works"? Imagine being Paul and seeing Christians misinterpreting your letter to the Ephesians by taking it out of context.
By the way, it is also known that Paul wrote the Epistle to the Romans (around 57 AD or so) before the Epistle to the Ephesians (around 60+ AD or so).
SOURCES:
- Matthew 7:21
- Romans 2:5-6
- Date of Paul's Epistle to the Romans: www.britannica.com/topic/Letter-of-Paul-to-the-Romans (fact checked by Britannica) - Date of Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians: The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings by Bart D. Ehrman (www.amazon.com/New-Testament-Historical-Introduction-Christian/dp/0199757534)
2) In Romans 2:17 Paul says, "Now if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast of God." Now this is an obvious repetition/reiteration that is seen in Ephesians. The law/works that Paul meant were works from/by the Law of Moses, and in the context of Romans 2:17-29 Paul states that the Jews cannot boast of a closer relationship to God vs. the Gentiles just because they follow the Law of Moses.
Further proof that these 2 letters are to be interpreted in the same light CAN BE SEEN IN EPHESIANS 2 ITSELF.
Ephesians 2:8-19 states:
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God;
9 it is not from works, so no one may boast.
10 For we are his handiwork, created in Christ Jesus for the good works that God has prepared in advance, that we should live in them.
11 Therefore, remember that at one time you, Gentiles in the flesh, called the uncircumcision by those called the circumcision, which is done in the flesh by human hands,
12 were at that time without Christ, alienated from the community of Israel* and strangers to the covenants of promise, without hope and without God in the world.
13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have become near by the blood of Christ. 14 For he is our peace, he who made both one and broke down the dividing wall of enmity, through his flesh,
15 abolishing the law with its commandments and legal claims, that he might create in himself one new person* in place of the two, thus establishing peace,
16 and might reconcile both with God, in one body, through the cross, putting that enmity to death by it.
17 He came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near, 18 for through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father.
19 So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the holy ones and members of the household of God
Now COMPARE this to Romans 2:17-29 (which was written BEFORE Ephesians):
17 Now if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast of God
18 and know his will and are able to discern what is important since you are instructed from the law
19 and if you are confident that you are a guide for the blind and a light for those in darkness
20 that you are a trainer of the foolish and teacher of the simple because in the law you have the formulation of knowledge and truth- 21 then you who teach another, are you failing to teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal
22 You who forbid adultery, do you commit adultery? You who detest idols, do you rob temples?
23 You who boast of the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law?
24 For, as it is written, “Because of you the name of God is reviled among the Gentiles.”
25 Circumcision, to be sure, has value if you observe the law; but if you break the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.t
26 Again, if an uncircumcised man keeps the precepts of the law, will he not be considered circumcised?
27 Indeed, those who are physically uncircumcised but carry out the law will pass judgment on you, with your written law and circumcision, who break the law.
28 One is not a Jew outwardly. True circumcision is not outward, in the flesh.
29 Rather, one is a Jew inwardly, and circumcision is of the heart, in the spirit, not the letter; his praise is not from human beings but from God.
Look how similar the texts are! Tell me now that we are not to interpret both passages in the same light and that they are of the same breadth of teaching to the Jews reading the epistles. The Sola Scriptura defenders always advise reading in context, and now they themselves take Ephesians 2:8-9 out of context.
At Catholic Mass we have several readings from the Bible. One from the Old Testament, another from the Psalms, then we read 2 passages from the New Testament with one of those passages always being from the 4 gospels. These readings are all picked systematically since they all correspond to each other. By the end of the year we've covered all 4 gospel books, the Old Testament passages relating to them, and the epistles that correspond to those as well.
We don't just /know/ and read our scripture. We theologically study and compare scripture in context. While some of your pastors are stiil busy interpreting the text for their next preaching, we already have the whole Bible broken down and dissected by the Church fathers. We even have a "cheat sheet" for it so we won't miss out when in Mass.
@@axeldelumen I'm only going to respond to point one because a TH-cam comment section is not the place for the length of what you put out.
First, the only people who do the will of the father are those who have already been saved. The works come after. That is James' point, that works are the evidence of genuine faith.
It's so embarrassing that you would claim I am taking scripture out of context and then immediately pull Paul out of context.
When Paul says that God will repay us for evil, that is true. The greater our iniquity, the greater the punishment. In the same way, the greater our good works, the greater our reward. BUT, that reward is NOT salvation. Consider also Paul's letter to the Corinthians: [11] For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. [12] Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw- [13] each one’s work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. [14] If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. [15] If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire." (1 Cor. 3:11-15).
Notice that the foundation is Jesus Christ and what is built on top of that are works. When God judges us, he determines whether those works are valuable or not. If they are, we receive a reward, if they are not, we lose that reward BUT are still saved. That is the clear teaching of the passage. (As a side note, it is ONLY the work which is tested by fire, not the man, so don't you dare try to claim this verse is about purgatory.)
Now, what is truly egregious is the way you ignore the rest of the book of Romans. I would venture a guess that you have no idea what the book is even about. Consider this passage, Romans 4:1-5, "[1] What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? [2] For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. [3] For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” [4] Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. [5] And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness."
When you read the book of Romans it clearly contrasts faith and works over and over again so as to pound it into our brains that salvation comes through faith, not by works. This is such a consistent theme in Paul's writing (and the New Testament more broadly) that it honestly baffles me how badly Catholicism has butchered this doctrine.
@@joelpierce1453 I see that this all stems from what you think Catholics teach about faith and works. Let me explain below using your points:
1) "The only people who do the will of the father are those who have already been saved. The works come after"
Then you agree that works are a part of living in union with the Will of Christ? That works are a part of our practice of faith? Also, many protestants who believe in Sola Fide do not interpret it the same way you do. There are those who continue to live in sin because of that error. There are those who live Christian lives doing the bare minimum as lukewarm believers thinking that just their faith will save them. We need to strive for Heaven! "You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Matthew 5:48). Of course, we can't achieve this without the grace and mercy of God since we are imperfect and broken sinners, but we are tasked to try!
2) I don't feel embarrassed at all because it seems that you have missed the point entirely. Catholics DO NOT believe in whatever you think we teach about faith and works. We know we DO NOT need to earn our place before God by our own efforts. In fact there's a reason I mentioned Matthew 7:21 (it seems that you have disregarded this passage entirely as well), “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who DOES THE WILL of my Father in heaven." You can live believing in Jesus as our Lord and Savior but not be saved because you have not done His commands! Imagine being unrepentant, for example, and assuming you can be saved. Repentance is a NEEDED work.
The problem is how Protestants define justification and how we are justified. At the start of our Christian life (believing that Jesus is our Savior), God may declare us righteous because of our faith (aka "saved"). BUT our justification is also a continuous process. We need to grow and improve as Christians, removing our sinful ways bit by bit. That is what the Catholic faith teaches. In fact, we have the concept of theosis. We are to be like God (Matthew 5:48), and in union with His will ("Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven"). Which means we have to continuously and consciously act accordingly (which is a work) by His grace.
The Catholic Church DOES NOT teach that good works are needed in order to be forgiven and saved. God is the only one who can do that. In fact, WE DO teach that James 2:24 relates to works and actions done after conversion (believing in Jesus), and throughout Christian life.
But all of these passages, whether Romans, or James, or Matthew, still emphasize that faith AND works are both essential. Only Jesus saves, but we must believe in Him and do His commands! If I die an unrepentant murderer (e.g. justifying my murder my whole life) who has faith in Christ, am I saved?
3) "When Paul says that God will repay us for evil, that is true. The greater our iniquity, the greater the punishment. In the same way, the greater our good works, the greater our reward. BUT, that reward is NOT salvation."
So it is agreed that God will repay us for evil deeds AND good works, then? You even quoted Corinthians which is good! Does that not mean that we need to work on our Christian life? We shouldn't be done with things like finishing a game just because we believe.
What if I believe but do not work on my faith, and just stop at believing? How do you even put God's grace to good use if not by works? Remember the parable of the talents and the lazy servant (Matthew 25:14-30)? Take note that this is a parable from Jesus Himself. The lazy servant was thrown into the darkness (Matthew 25:30).
Also, since the greater the works the greater the reward, should we not work all the more to have even greater rewards in Heaven? Shouldn't we live saintly lives and not be content with the bare minimum ("just having faith")?
Also, you boast about "knowing" Romans and thinking that you have the best/fullest interpretation and such. Even belittling my intelligence by saying "I would venture a guess that you have no idea what the book is even about." Well, you need to go back to Matthew 23:12 - a personal message from me to you.
Moreover, don't you know that your interpretation (at least part of it) is what the Catholic Church teaches and is most likely from Catholic Theology? In fact, you can read the USCCB commentary on Romans 2 here: bible.usccb.org/bible/romans/2
If you scroll to the bottom and search, you can clearly read: "Basic, of course, is the understanding that God accepts no bribes."
You can also check out the commentary on Romans 4 here: bible.usccb.org/bible/romans/4
If you scroll to the bottom, you can clearly read "Paul is able to argue that Abraham’s faith involved receipt of forgiveness of sins and that all believers benefit as he did through faith."
Most of the errors you think you are pointing out are because of your wrong understanding of Catholic teaching. Faith in works (the following statement is an oversimplification btw) are both needed in that we believe in Christ and His saving grace WHILE continuously working on our lives - living it the way Jesus wants us to.
Maybe someone has indoctrinated you into thinking what Catholics teach is like this or that without knowing what we actually say. I suggest you rethink this (if it's the case) and always look for Catholic teachings readily available online before criticizing us.
In fact you can read the whole faith and works teaching here: www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/faith-and-works-0
The added bonus in the link is that it specifically clarifies the misconceptions that Protestants hold about what we teach when we say "faith and works".
@@axeldelumen I'm not reading all that. You need to learn to summarize better.
✝️🙏🏻👑❤️ 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, world without end. Hallelujah. Amen.
Protestantism has long outlived its usefulness
It had uses?
@@thepalegalilean At the time it started
Catholics used up their's over a thousand years ago.
It hasn't and it will always be a refuge for those Christians not ready to submit to everything Rome says.
@@bcalvert321
Is true correct and righteous Christianity will always be of use to mankind and especially those that want to be children of God.
But is it not true that some of the Fathers held heretical doctrine as truth but the Catholic Church doesn't acknowledge that because it wasn't dubbed heresy when they believed in it? I believe in baptismal regeneration.
Salvation is a free gift thats why we catholics baptise infant because they cannot decide themselves
It is a free gift for those that understand what that gift is. A child of a very young age does not know anything about sin or sin behavior. God will not send them to hell. Baptism is a sign that you have been saved. It alone does not save your soul.
@@bcalvert321 Did you watch the video at all... ALL THE EARLY CHURCH DISAGREE WITH YOU... ALL OF THEM... YOU'RE AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT TRENT IS TALKING ABOUT.
@@ezekielizuagie7496 honestly
@@bcalvert321 ofc baptism alone does not save your soul! No one is claiming this
@@mx_moi1964 Most Catholics do. I have had many that say baptism is a big part of being saved. I am glad to hear not all of them do.
One of the biggest reasons I can’t except baptismal regeneration is that I had spoken in tongues even before I was watered baptized. I was an alcoholic, drug addict, womanizer, and violent criminal street thug. So when the night I gave my life to Christ and got baptized in the Spirit, I was radically changed! Something supernatural happened to me in an instant. I felt this hot liquid-like-love enter into me as I called to Jesus and they prayed for me. All the lust, murder, violence, rage, pride, etc., that I had in my heart was washed out. I had the biggest smile on my face. But I knew that I knew I had met the risen Christ. No one could change my mind. It was too real. And yes, I did get water baptized three days later (and what was crazy about that, was I started dilating to the top of the water when I got baptized). But still, I knew I got saved before water baptism.
So your emotions triumph over what the Bible and early Christian’s believed and taught? Got it
@@st.ignatiusantioch My emotions? Lol. Is your conversion to Christ your “emotions?”
@@ProphetGreg94 I converted to Christianity because the evidence for Jesus Christ resurrecting was beyond any other religions. I get it too man, I used to burn weed drink vodka and was also a womanizer back in the day. Of course I felt very emotional coming to Christ but that was a secondary reason for my conversion and testimony.
@@ProphetGreg94 as for being saved before baptism. You can be saved before baptism if you desire to be baptized. So let’s say you die before you get baptized but you were planning to get baptized in like two weeks. You wouldn’t go to hell just because you weren’t baptized. This is called baptism of desire.
@@ProphetGreg94 and if you truly follow Jesus you’ll follow 1 Peter 3:21 that says “Baptism now saves you”
Do a rebuttal of Jay Dyer and Eastern "Orthodoxy"
Why?
As a Lutheran, we also hold to baptismal regeneration. God bless my Catholic brothers and sisters ✝️❤️
dang! what a shame that Jesus lied to the thief on the cross. should've read the church fathers.
or Jesus contradicted Himself ( Jn 3:5 ), would He lie ? But He never lied ( 1 Pe 2:22 )! so what to do ? How do we reconcile these facts ?
But yet the Scriptures teach baptism forgives sin Acts 2:38, and washes away sin Acts 22:16.
Have you read what baptism is and how God works through it?
Jesus does not need the sacraments, but he has established them as the ordinary means of grace. He can work outside of them, But he also works through them
CLAIMS of the RCC
1. Catholics claim CHURCH refers to Roman Catholic Church. BIBLE says CHURCH refers to all churches. Acts 5:11, Acts 8:1, Mat 16:18. HISTORY tells us Roman Church was just one local Church a member of the Pentarchy.
2. Catholics claim Roman Church was the CHURCH CHRIST founded (First Church) or one true church. BIBLE says First Local Church was Jerusalem Church. Acts 2. Not Roman Catholic Church.
3. Catholics claim there is only One Church. BIBLE mentions both CHURCH and Churches.
“CHURCH” refers to the Body of Christ Eph 5:30, Col 1:18 consisting of all churches. Acts 5:11, Acts 8:1 Mat 16:18.
“Churches” refers to local churches Acts 9:31, Acts 15:41 and believers Romans 16:5, 1 Cor 16:19,
4. Catholics claim to be the first believers. BIBLE says first believers were Jewish Christians. Acts 2, Acts 11:26, NOT roman catholics.
5. Catholics claim Pope is the head of the CHURCH. BIBLE says JESUS is the HEAD OF THE CHURCH. Eph 1:22, Eph 5:23, Col 1:18.
6. Catholics claim outside Roman Church there is NO SALVATION. BIBLE says : The mouth of the Lord has spoken.”apart from Jesus there is NO SALVATION”. Acts 4:12, 1 Cor 3:11.
7. Catholicss claim the first day of the week is a Holy day, made by God. .
The Holy Bible says:
Isaiah 58:13-14
13 “If you turn away your foot from the Sabbath, From doing your pleasure on MY HOLY DAY, And call the Sabbath a delight, The holy day of the Lord honorable, And shall honor Him, not doing your own ways, Nor finding your own pleasure, Nor speaking your own words, 14 Then you shall delight yourself in the Lord; And I will cause you to tride on the high hills of the earth, And feed you with the heritage of Jacob your father. The mouth of the Lord has spoken.”part from Jesus there is NO SALVATION”. Acts 4:12, 1 Cor 3:11.
----Catholics claim devote to Mary to be saved. BIBLE says “apart from Jesus there is NO SALVATION”. Acts 4:12, 1 Cor 3:11.
. BIBLE says “believe in Jesus to be saved”. Acts 16:30-31, John 3:16.
10. Catholics claim Roman Church inherited infallible authority from Peter. BIBLE does not say that in Mat 16 or John 20 or John 21.
11. Catholics claim Roman pontiff inherited infallible authority from Peter. BIBLE does not say that in Mat 16.
12. Catholics claim bishop of ROME = the pope. BIBLE does not say that.
13. Catholics claim there is an office of bishop of bishops/universal bishop/pope. BIBLE does not speak of such an office. History tells us the first bishop of bishops came in AD590-600s.
14. Roman Church has all the false unbiblical clergies - Roman priests, roman cardinals, roman pontiff, monks, nuns, friars, … BIBLE mentions only pastors, teachers, evangelists, prophets, apostles, deacons, bishop, elders. Titus 1:5, Eph 4:11, 1 Tim 3.
15. Roman Church claim its doctrines come from traditions of Apostles. BUT 95% of roman doctrines are Not from traditions of Jesus or Apostles or Scriptures; neither practised by the Church of the Bible.
--If you decide to reply, QUOTE the Bible to refute any of these!!!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It never ceases to amaze me that prots actually think a 500 year old heresy, started by a mentally unstable monk is true, and yet the One True Church, established by Christ Himself and with all Her great Saints and doctors is somehow wrong. How absolutely arrogant that is.
Quite aggressive and uncharitable words there. Pot, meet kettle.
@@noobitronius While “pot meet kettle” may sound good to throw out there, I wasn’t trying to be charitable.
The prot heresy is responsible for pulling untold millions of souls out of the One True Church and into danger of damnation. No, I’m not going to be charitable about heresy.
Do you have any more bumper sticker slogans to throw out there? And, I just love it when people try to attribute the word “aggressive” to words. Wow.
@@noobitronius Luther was excommunicated and called a heretic in his time. I don't think recalling that fact is being agressive. If you think the Holy Catholic Church is the one true church that Jesus established then you'd understand how leading people out of it is a very serious thing.
@@TheBadTrad I am simply saying that your arrogance also shows. Pot meet kettle = hypocrisy. At least my protestant friends try to represent Catholicism fairly.. using charged statements like "mentally unstable monk" is simply mean and not Christ-like at all.
A huge reason I de-converted from Catholicism is that the love of Christ was never demonstrated to me in my Catholic education or life, along with little to no evidence for papal infallibility. It appears that you, too, are not showing that love right now. Thankfully we are not saved by our works - you or I could never merit our salvation with actions or sacrifice - but we are saved by faith alone. As long as we agree on that, you are my brother in Christ.
@@Dan_Capone Have you studied the history of the church without the catholic bias? I was raised Catholic, went to Catholic school, and was fed their version of history. Once I listened to actual historians, protestant/atheist/agnostic and the like, many many holes appear. I would highly encourage you to look outside the catholic bubble - if you do and remain a catholic, that is fine, but at least give other voices a chance.
@alonso19989 *Sola Scriptura*
*180+ verses say Jesus, Apostles and NT Church appealed to Scriptures Only for doctrines. Not once they took doctrines from traditions of Moses or Pharisees. This already proves Sola Scriptura.*
*Roman ct members love defying God and His Words.*
31 Verses Found, 31 Matches
Mar 12:10 Have you not even read this Scripture: 'THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED HAS BECOME THE CHIEF CORNERSTONE.
Mar 15:28 So the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "AND HE WAS NUMBERED WITH THE TRANSGRESSORS."
Luk 4:21 And He began to say to them, "Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing."
Joh 2:22 Therefore, when He had risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this to them; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said.
Joh 7:38 He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water."
Joh 7:42 Has not the Scripture said that the Christ comes from the seed of David and from the town of Bethlehem, where David was?"
Joh 10:35 If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken),
Joh 13:18 "I do not speak concerning all of you. I know whom I have chosen; but that the Scripture may be fulfilled, 'HE WHO EATS BREAD WITH ME HAS LIFTED UP HIS HEEL AGAINST ME.'
Joh 17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.
Joh 19:24 They said therefore among themselves, "Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be," that the Scripture might be fulfilled which says: "THEY DIVIDED MY GARMENTS AMONG THEM, AND FOR MY CLOTHING THEY CAST LOTS." Therefore the soldiers did these things.
Joh 19:28 After this, Jesus, knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, said, "I thirst!"
Joh 19:36 For these things were done that the Scripture should be fulfilled, "NOT ONE OF HIS BONES SHALL BE BROKEN."
Joh 19:37 And again another Scripture says, "THEY SHALL LOOK ON HIM WHOM THEY PIERCED."
21 Verses Found, 21 Matches
Mat 21:42 Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the Scriptures: 'THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED HAS BECOME THE CHIEF CORNERSTONE. THIS WAS THE LORD'S DOING, AND IT IS MARVELOUS IN OUR EYES' ?
Mat 22:29 Jesus answered and said to them, "You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God.
Mat 26:54 How then could the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must happen thus?"
Mat 26:56 But all this was done that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled." Then all the disciples forsook Him and fled.
Mar 12:24 Jesus answered and said to them, "Are you not therefore mistaken, because you do not know the Scriptures nor the power of God?
Mar 14:49 I was daily with you in the temple teaching, and you did not seize Me. But the Scriptures must be fulfilled."
127 Verses Found, 132 Matches
Mat 2:5 So they said to him, "In Bethlehem of Judea, for thus it is written by the prophet:
Mat 4:4 But He answered and said, "It is written, 'MAN SHALL NOT LIVE BY BREAD ALONE, BUT BY EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS FROM THE MOUTH OF GOD.' "
Mat 4:6 and said to Him, "If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down. For it is written: 'HE SHALL GIVE HIS ANGELS CHARGE OVER YOU,' and, IN THEIR HANDS THEY SHALL BEAR YOU UP, LEST YOU DASH YOUR FOOT AGAINST A STONE.' "
Mat 4:7 Jesus said to him, "It is written again, 'YOU SHALL NOT TEMPT THE LORD YOUR GOD.' "
Mat 4:10 Then Jesus said to him, "Away with you, Satan! For it is written, 'YOU SHALL WORSHIP THE LORD YOUR GOD, AND HIM ONLY YOU SHALL SERVE.' "
Mat 11:10 For this is he of whom it is written: 'BEHOLD, I SEND MY MESSENGER BEFORE YOUR FACE, WHO WILL PREPARE YOUR WAY BEFORE YOU.'
Mat 21:13 And He said to them, "It is written, 'MY HOUSE SHALL BE CALLED A HOUSE OF PRAYER,' but you have made it a 'DEN OF THIEVES.'"
Mat 26:24 The Son of Man indeed goes just as it is written of Him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born."
Mat 26:31 Then Jesus said to them, "All of you will be made to stumble because of Me this night, for it is written: 'I WILL STRIKE THE SHEPHERD, AND THE SHEEP OF THE FLOCK WILL BE SCATTERED.'
Mat 27:37 And they put up over His head the accusation written against Him: THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
Mar 1:2 As it is written in the Prophets: "BEHOLD, I SEND MY MESSENGER BEFORE YOUR FACE, WHO WILL PREPARE YOUR WAY BEFORE YOU."
Mar 7:6 He answered and said to them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: 'THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR FROM ME.
Mar 9:12 Then He answered and told them, "Indeed, Elijah is coming first and restores all things. And how is it written concerning the Son of Man, that He must suffer many things and be treated with contempt?
Mar 9:13 But I say to you that Elijah has also come, and they did to him whatever they wished, as it is written of him."
Mar 11:17 Then He taught, saying to them, "Is it not written, 'MY HOUSE SHALL BE CALLED A HOUSE OF PRAYER FOR ALL NATIONS' ? But you have made it a 'DEN OF THIEVES.'"
Mar 14:21 The Son of Man indeed goes just as it is written of Him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had never been born."
Mar 14:27 Then Jesus said to them, "All of you will be made to stumble because of Me this night, for it is written: 'I WILL STRIKE THE SHEPHERD, AND THE SHEEP WILL BE SCATTERED.'
Is interesting that Paul didn't baptize people... If is essential for salvation why he didn't do?
the fathers argument they use to attack our notion of "tradition" (vs. their belief of sola scriptura). they will say "but if it's not in scripture, it doesn't matter how many church fathers agreed with it." of course, which is more likely, that something was universally known and taught consistently (and therefore it goes back to apostolic teaching) or that some secret guys preserved it (their writings all lost and nobody commented on them even to refute them) and it was only re-discovered millennia later? show the historical pedigree for these teachings. if we can find it in scripture, great, but if we find an ancient tradition, we should take that seriously.
In my opinion, 2 issues are being mixed: the meaning of baptism, and the appropriate age for baptism. The emergency baptisms mentioned right before the death of a child indicate they were NOT baptized as infants, and also to the high importance of baptism before death. (when possible).
As the story goes:
King Louis XIII: "Now, what's your name, son?"
5yo prince Louis, who had just been baptised: "It's Louis XIV, my father."