Off topic: A 16yo Spanish girl who has been blind for two years, received her sight after the reception of the Holy Communion at World Youth Day in Portugal. Praise God.
Which Mass? One of the two with the Pope? Another Mass during the events? Or one of the Churches open most of the day giving regular Masses throughout?
Man St Ignatius really dropped some hard facts on those in schism. Didn't know he said that so directly. I definitely need to read the early church fathers
Definitely, Ignatius of Antioch is the Church Father that Protestants fear the most, in my experience. He is an apostolic father and as such is incredibly early, was a direct student of John the Apostle and knew Peter personally, and his writings are so blatantly Catholic that they can’t really be reasoned around. Pax Christi.
I guess what is more important. The revealed Words of God from the source in the Bible or studies of early church leaders. We are to test Scripture with Scripture and thus test teaching of any church leader with scripture. Please cite the area that Ignatius taught that Protestants disagree with and cite the verses you KNOW to be directly cited by Ignatius as support for his theology
@@nathangraham2189I would rather believe in Saint Augustine, Saint Thomas Aquinas, Saint Ignatius of Antioch, Ireneus, Saint Polycarp and the other early Church Fathers. Rather than believe in Martin Luther, John Calvin, Albert Zwingli, King Henry the VIII, John Knox and MANY other Reformers.
@@danielkim672 The Bible tells us that the Church is the foundation of Truth, and Paul commanded all they taught in written word and in oral tradition was to be followed, so tell us which verse justifies your privileged understanding.
It's crazy how you point to my 3 favorite protestant pastors... as I just recently decided to go to RCIA and become catholic. Thank you for all your hard work Trent!
@@jackdaw6359 _"...you sound exactly like the pagan detractors of early Christianity."_ Wait. Are you denying that the literal worship of propitiatory human sacrifice is the core tent of Christianity? You know, that cross and John 3:16... Christians believe that God sent one of his sons to be tortured and killed as a sacrificial offering (a practice adopted from Paganism). They worship this human sacrifice as part of a ritual intended to appease a god. In Christian theology, atonement refers to the forgiving of sin by using Jesus as the human sacrifice. Paul created Christianity in 48 AD and this is how he put it: Romans 8:32 "He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all." 1 Corinthians 5:7 "Christ our passover is sacrificed for us." Romans 3:25 "God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement." Romans 5:8 "God showed his great love for us by sending Christ to die for us." Hebrews 10:10 "We are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ."
Thank you Trent Horn! As an ex-Protestant who is joining the Catholic Church, I’m filled with joy I have brothers defending the Catholic faith! God bless your ministry and your family.
Praying for you brother, as I did the same, from being baptized in the presbyterian church to becoming a Roman Catholic in 2015! Welcome Home, brother! Praying for you!
God bless you in your quest to become Catholic! Enjoy plumbing the depths of the Catholic Faith. I was born into a Protestant family and longed to become Catholic throughout my adult life. Converted several years ago, and I’ve never looked back. Welcome home! Praying for you and your journey!
Welcome home brother, may you continue to find all the treasures of the Catholic faith. Look into the eucharistic miracles since this is the year of the eucharistic revival
@@ironymatt Great point, I was just writing about her 2day, & how there's all kinds of scripture proving God worked with Pagans, like King Nebuchadnezzar for example, but God always used Pagan kingdoms to punish Israel to, & in the NT Jesus tells Pontius Pilate in John 19:11; u only have this power because it was given to u from above. I'm a former Protestant believer, so all I do now is write articles like these to show my family that Catholic church is true... But that's a great point
@@matthewoburke7202 keep an eye out! The conspiracies are true. Jesuits are hiding everywhere! Hahaha I've even got things going on, like Gospel reflection videos etc
@weaponofchoice-tc7qs oh because I enjoy getting a good nights sleep, not being kept awake by Trent's theological challenges to my faith lol. It's nice to just sit back and watch him dismantle other doctrines. *just to note: I'm a protestant on a Catholic Apologetics page, obviously I am here because I am open to hearing the Catholic side of things, and I enjoy the charitable dialogues
Plenty of Muslims die for their god, maybe you should start listening to them then. Edit: Since my last comment, I have changed my mind and my anti-catholicism, and am in RCIA with hopes to join the Catholic Church next Easter Vigil.
@@EmberBright2077 Ignatius was taught by the Apostle John. Seven of his Epistles are extant. Πολύκαρπος attests to him as well. It’s not merely his martyrdom that is compelling. Ο Θεός να ευλογεί.
@@TheCounselofTrent Why did the APOSTLES refer to the Communion. Meal of believers in Christ as "gatherings for THE BREAKING IOF BREAD" n NOT "gatherings for THE PARTAKING OF THE BODY AND BLOOD OF JESUS"? It was only in later years that rc-approved church fathers came up with the doctrine of TRANSUBSTANTIATION.....that d rc chirch then ENFORCES that DOCTRINE merely coz it "SUPPORTED" by "d church fathers"... BUT why are the teachings of d later church fathers MORE IMPORTANT to d Roman catholic faith... than the TEACHINGS OF THE APOSTLES is to rc??? Why expect Christianity to REJECT BIBLICAL DOCTRINES just coz they hv NOT BN DOCUMENTED BY ROME to be from £d church fathers"???... Were there not CHURCH FATHERs MISSING from d Roman catholic ROLL???
Ita a two edge sword tough, many calvinist live in doubt and anxiety cuz they don't know if they are elect or may be even predestinatined to hell. Just like jansenism
I'm not even Calvinist, but even I can see this is a terrible strawman. They see election as God's grace, as in, they don't deserve it and can't earn it. It's the *complete opposite* of arrogance.
Catholics can be arrogant about their salvation, because they outperformed the unsaved. They *merited* salvation, whereas the unsaved did not. A Calvinist cannot be arrogant, because they did nothing to deserve it. It’s utterly and completely God’s Grace.
I went from staunch protestant to almost Catholic in the last two months in part because Trent's eternal security debate with James White dismantled my view of salvation. Most protestants have salvation, one of the most important doctrines, so wrong (if you're honest about historical context).
@@huntsman528 My grandpa was a Presbyterian pastor and I currently go to a Presbyterian church, but Calvinism has never made sense to me so I don't think i can really claim to have ever been Calvinist
@@anglicanaesthetics I don't either. One, I'm not Catholic. Two, I said this "in part" has contributed to the collapse of my protestant faith. I no longer believe in either Sola Scriptura nor Sola Fide which puts me on a super small island of Protestants. Every protestant I know of who has been on said island has gone on to Catholicism. Catholics have a comprehensive interpretation of sacred tradition and the church's role in salvation that is utterly lacking in protestantism.
Very interesting. When I was a Calvinist I never had any assurance, whatsoever, but that's because I considered myself unrepentant. Aside from that, though, I think Calvinistic readings of Scripture are entirely sound and consistent, and am surprised it's even possible to dismantle Calvinism in a debate. Just curious, what was so effective about Horn's approach (I might try it against some Calvinists, myself)?
The most irritating thing is that these same Protestant scholars/pastors/speakers will continue to open with the “we have the rediscovered teachings of the first Christians!” line, and then only reluctantly admit after adequate Catholic/Orthodox pushback that “yeah, it’s not actually contained in the early church… but it (somehow conveniently) doesn’t need to be.” I find that the appeal to antiquity for pretty much any and every Protestant theological doctrine to be completely untenable. It should be obviously clear that Protestant doctrine cannot fit within the framework of the corpus of Christian thought pre-1517, if nothing else because neither the main Protestant reformers nor the Catholic defenders of the time thought that the two could in any way coexist alongside or be reconciled with one another.
Iconography wasn’t a controversy until the 8th century. It was only when Islam came to play in its oppression and insistence that they began to question such a practice. Now, I would like to point out that councils are ONLY held to handle controversial topics! This is true of all of them: where the church held an opinion until people started to be led astray. This is where I have my issue: St. Peter said in his letters that “the church is the pillar and bulwark of truth.” At the second council of Nicaea we see that the church agreed unanimously that iconography was good! So my question is this: the church leaders, all set in place by God, before any large schism save for the ethiopian orthodox, all agreed that icons were a good thing. If the church is the pillar and bulwark of truth, all with free access to the spirit, are determining such an important doctrine, how is it that the spirit was so absent that he did not help the church? Why is it that the pillar and bulwark of truth did not uphold truth? Why did the spirit not convict them? How did both God and his church fail so clearly? Occam’s Razor says that the simplest answer that begs the least questions is that they were justified in their judgment, and to reject their dogma and and set beliefs would be to reject the church, and thus declare them anathema. Reject the entire church and you’ll have a great time, I think.
I was named after Zane Hodges since my dad was reading Absolutely Free when I was born. I became Catholic this last Easter and I find it even more ironic now 😂
In the last two months I have been debating Free Gracers. It is tough since they tend to be very prideful. They are the total opposite of Lordship Salvationists. Both equally arrogant.
I appreciate this video so much. I used to be a Fundamentalist Baptist who would fight tooth and nail for this doctrine. I became Catholic and my viewpoint changed. You have said before that in order to talk about various Catholic doctrines with Protestants, often times Sola Scriptura needs to be dealt with first. I have found this same point to be true with the Doctrine of Eternal Security when talking with our Fundamentalist brothers and sisters. Salvation from the Eucharist, Confession, etc. Makes no sense to them if they hold fast to the Once-Saved-Always-Saved mentality. I really appreciate both this video and what you do to further the Kingdom. God bless you.
I appreciate your honesty. The biggest problem within Fundamentalism and Baptist as a whole is a lack of good teaching of doctrine and theology. When you don’t have a true understanding and foundation in what you profess anyone who is willing to give an answer will sound correct. I apologize for that they failed you and I strongly recommend that you do as the Apostle Paul told the Thessalonians in 1 Thessalonians 5:21, TEST all things. Don’t take my word don’t take Trent’s word go test what is being said, and just ask yourself one question, who should I believe God or man? Good luck and God bless.
yea like "sola scriptura" cant be right huh? those crazy Baptists, who warn that once u start accepting traditions or additions to scripture, ANYTHING can happen! and so it has, from the catholic heresies of praying to the dead, indulgences, killing those who taught against their church (real christians huh?) to mormons and all their additional books and their "prophets" revelations and on and on and on. and both teach that gettin wet and calling is baptism, washes away sins...but thats not enough either! i will pray for u friend, the Jesus u have run into in the Catholic church is a weak one. has to be sacrificed daily in the mass, and he didnt quite do enough, so now u gotta "persevere" and since Trent says not everyone has been gifted with perseverance, u still come up short. its enough to cause schizophrenia
I'm sorry you were in a dead church, but thanks to the King James bible I was led away from the seducing Catholic spirit. I admit there is something compelling about Catholicism, but this "Catholic awakening" on the internet is not validation of it being the true church. Anywhere you look in the bible in just about any case the majority is in apostasy. Matthew 7 is clear about the gate being narrow. Over one billion people is not a narrow gate. I just want you to put this in perspective; you are leaving the heritage of bible believers who were burned at the stake for the word of God and joining the heritage of those that burned them at the stake. I'd feel guilty if that was my heritage. I'm praying for you.
To be fair, considering this “Protestant” isn’t really fair. It’s a specific strain of thought that the Perseverance/Preservation of the Saints falls into. Mainly believe it because it sounds nice, others believe it because they created a theology.
Thaks to Trent and other Catholic TH-camr and the writing of the church fathers, I'm entering RCIA September and will be received into church Easter🙏🙏🙏
Lately I've been dealing with this issue a lot. The conversations and debates seem to come to a screeching halt when you ask for references for the history they're talking about. Protestants seriously don't k ow church history
I live in Tennessee, southern baptists tend not to have any clue when the Baptist church was founded and when it split into their denomination, let alone anything that happened across the ocean 2000 years ago. It’s very frustrating because they talk about the Church “adding stuff” all the time, but they have 0 historical consciousness so they never have any idea when, where, or what was “added”.
Except for the ones that do. More often historic Protestants tend to be well educated in Church history. Off the top of my head,you can look up Gavin Ortlund, The Other Paul, Barely Protestant, Gospel Simplicity, or Jordan Cooper for some representation from that side of the fence.
@EmberBright2077 Yep I've listened to all of them debate catholics. Jordan cooper got crushed by jimmybakin and gavin got defeated by trent horn in a couple debates as well. They get trashed... gavins debate with trent horn on sola scriptura was a wash. Gavins entire argument failed in his opening statements when he said personal interpretation of scripture is a higher authority than scripture. Suan sunna also made a 3 or 4 hour video evicerating his argument against icon veneration. Historical protestants are in a pretty rough boat as well... the mainline churches have almost all fallen into heresy and if you try to restore it to luther and Calvin's day then you have to deal with how many of them believed in the Marian doctrines. Perpetual virginity, assumption, theotokos, etc. No current protestants hold the historical views on Mary that the reformers held. If you look up some of the off the wall comments that luther made over the years I can't imagine anyone still follows his teachings. Between throwing his excrement at the walls, imagining jewish conspiracies to ruin the church, his disdain for Hebrews, corinthians, James, revelation, and the deuterocanon makes me wonder how he ever assumed sola scriptura.
and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand
"no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand" Yet we have free will and can leave. God doesn't force us to love him. He doesn't force us to persevere. This is the whole point of the parable of the vine. A branch ATTACHED to Jesus Christ is 100% SAVED! Yet through unrepentant sin, can be cut off, bundled and thrown into the fire.
God bless you, brother in Christ! As a Catholic who tirelessly defends our Church amid constant anti-Catholic vitriol from some (not all) Protestants, I’m grateful for your channel. 🙏🏼✝️🕊️
@@Catholic-Christian _"It’s neither cannibalism nor human sacrifice."_ Wait. Are you denying that the literal worship of propitiatory human sacrifice is the core tent of Christianity? You know, that cross and John 3:16... Christians believe that God sent one of his sons to be tortured and killed as a sacrificial offering (a practice adopted from Paganism). They worship this human sacrifice as part of a ritual intended to appease a god. In Christian theology, atonement refers to the forgiving of sin by using Jesus as the human sacrifice. Paul created Christianity in 48 AD and this is how he put it: Romans 8:32 "He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all." 1 Corinthians 5:7 "Christ our passover is sacrificed for us." Romans 3:25 "God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement." Romans 5:8 "God showed his great love for us by sending Christ to die for us." Hebrews 10:10 "We are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ."
@@Catholic-Christian _"It’s neither cannibalism nor human sacrifice."_ Jesus: "Whoever gnaws my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink."
@@twitherspoon8954 Jesus real blood and flesh is eaten under the appearance and taste of bread, not flesh and blood. And human sacrifice is when humans offer an Innocent human being against their will to a false God. That’s not what happened in Jesus case, on the contrary Jesus willingly died for us as a pleasing sacrifice to God.
@@lufhopespeacefully2037 Guess you missed that part in the Bible when Jesus was baptized and all three interacted with the world at once. Or in Acts when it says that God anointed Jesus with the Holy Spirit.
For Protestants in the comments: what is your interpretation of The Prodigal Son Gospel? To Catholics, most agree that the son has his family (salvation) at the beginning, squanders his family's gifts on sin and loses his family, and then asks for forgiveness to get his family back. It seems to espouse the idea that you can lose your salvation, but can always get it back through repentance.
The Prodigal Son is the northern kingdom of Israel. What are these 2 Houses of Israel? A brief look at Biblical History After Moses led the 12 Tribes of Israel (the generations that came from the 12 Children of Jacob) out of Egypt, God appeared to “His People - Israel” and gave them Commandments and led them to the Land of Israel. At this time there was no King over Israel, and God Himself reigned King over His People. After Moses’ death, Joshua acted as “Judge” over Israel and many others were appointed after Joshua(Book of Judges) for a span of around 450 years(Acts 13:20). When Samuel was acting as Judge over Israel, the people asked for a King to rule over them, to much displeasure from Samuel & God Himself(1Sam 8:5-8). After Saul’s reign, David was appointed as King and he ruled over all 12 Tribes of Israel/Jacob (2Sam 5:3-5). After David, Solomon was anointed King and when Solomon was old, his many wives made him sin against God (1Kin 11:4-7). As punishment, Solomon’s servant Jeroboam received 10 tribes to rule over, and the rest were ruled by Solomon’s son, Rehoboam (1Kin 11:30,31/ 1Kin 12:16,17). Rehoboam ruled over the Tribe of Judah & Benjamin, collectively called the “House of Judah” (1Kin 12:23). From this point onwards in the Books of 1st & 2nd Kings, Jeroboam and his Sons ruled over what was called “The House of Israel” in the north of the land while Rehoboam and his Sons ruled over what was called “The House of Judah” in the south of the land. After much rebellion against God, and not giving ear to the Prophets, The House of Israel was taken captive to Assyria(2Kin 17:6,18,23). The Majority of them were scattered among the nations(Hos 8:8, Jer 31:10). Even though, The House of Judah, was much better than The House of Israel, they also disobeyed God and was taken captive to Babylon(Dan 1:1,2). But God let them return back to their land after 70 yrs in exile(Jer 29:10, Ezr 2:1, Neh 7:6). The people who are called Jews today, are mostly, the descendants of the House of Judah. And the House of Israel has been dispersed among nations according to all of the prophecies of Scripture. These descendants are worshiping there own gods without knowing who they are, living in countries around the world(Deut 28:64, Neh 1:8,9, Eze 12:15). And God has said that He will bring back these people from the ends of the Earth. These 2 Houses are specifically mentioned throughout the Scriptures 1Kin 12:21, 2Kin 23:27, Isa 5:7, Jer 3:18, 5:11, 11:10,17, 12:14, 13:11, 31:27, 31:31, 33:14, Eze 9:9, Hos 11:12, Mic 1:5, Zec 8:13, Heb 8:8 The scattering of His People was prophesied before it happened Lev 26:33, Deut 4:27, 28:63-68, 32:26, Jer 9:16, Ezek 20:23, 22:15, God has promised to bring back the scattered and rebuild His people Deut 30:1-5, Isaiah 11:10-13, 27:12, 43:5-7, Jer 3:12-15, Amos 9:9, Ezek 11:17, Ezek 37 These 2 houses will become one people Eze 37:16-19, Jer 3:18, 50:4, Hos 1:11 Yeshua was sent for the Lost sheep of the House of Israel Mat 15:24, John 11:52 Yeshua will rule over these 2 Houses forever Luk 1:33 (The House of Jacob is the “House of Judah” & the “House of Israel”, together) Everyone including the Apostles knew about the scattered John 7:35, 1Pet 1:1, James 1:1, Acts 21:21 So what does the Division of Israel have to do with the Parable of the Prodigal Son? I believe that the correct interpretation of this Parable can only be understood by someone after studying what happened to Israel, and what was prophesied about them throughout the Scriptures. consider the following explanation. (My Interpretation is added in underlined font) Luk 15:11 And he said, A certain man(Father God) had two sons(The two Houses of Israel - Hos 1:10,11): Luk 15:12 And the younger of them(The House of Israel/Ephraim - Jer 31:20) said to his father, Father, give me the portion of goods that falleth to me. And he divided unto them his living. (God blessed them abundantly with their inheritance - Eze 35:15) Luk 15:13 And not many days after the younger son gathered all together, and took his journey into a far country, and there wasted his substance with riotous living. (The House of Israel sinned against God, doing all that they pleased, and was finally exiled - 2Kin 17:18) Luk 15:14 And when he had spent all, there arose a mighty famine in that land; and he began to be in want. (In Exile, the house of Israel got scattered among the nations - Deut 4:27) Luk 15:15 And he went and joined himself to a citizen of that country; and he sent him into his fields to feed swine. (Among the nations they have become slaves to other God’s - Deut 4:28) Luk 15:16 And he would fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat: and no man gave unto him. (They fell to the depths of uncleanness - Hos 9:3) Luk 15:17-19 And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father’s have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger! I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee, And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants. (They will finally understand their error and return to the Father - Jer 31:16-19) Luk 15:20 And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him. (The Father showed His ways through Yeshua, to whomever was in error - John 14:24) Luk 15:21 And the son said unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son. (The House of Israel is coming back to him with repentance - Acts 5:31) Luk 15:22 But the father said to his servants, Bring forth the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet: (The Father accepts the repenting House of Israel, and gives them back their rightful position - Hos 14) Luk 15:23 And bring hither the fatted calf, and kill it; and let us eat, and be merry: (Yeshua was sent for the Lost of the House of Israel - Mat 15:24) Luk 15:24 For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry. (Through Yeshua the House of Israel is alive again through a renewed covenant - Heb 8:10) Luk 15:25-28 Now his elder son was in the field: and as he came and drew nigh to the house, he heard music and dancing. And he called one of the servants, and asked what these things meant. And he said unto him, Thy brother is come; and thy father hath killed the fatted calf, because he hath received him safe and sound. And he was angry, and would not go in: therefore came his father out, and intreated him. (The House of Judah has a hard time accepting that the Father could accept the children that had disobeyed Him - Acts 11:3&18 , as the House of Judah did not keep company with other Nations - Acts 10:28) Luk 15:29 And he answering said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends: (The House of Judah, for the most part, have always been obedient to God - Hos 11:12) Luk 15:30 But as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf. (The House of Israel, on the other hand has always been in harlotry with other gods - Jer 3:6) Luk 15:31 And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine. (The House of Israel, unlike Judah, was given a bill of divorce and put away by God, Almighty resulting in their exile and scattering- Jer 3:8) Luk 15:32 It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found. (God will accept the repenting House of Israel, making his brother, The House of Judah, jealous - Rom 11:11)
@EmberBright2077 thanks. I've never really understood the idea of "once saved, always saved." But I know some denominations believe that. So I was just curious.
The actions of the Prodigal Son when he fell away prove that he was not repenting or placing his trust in Christ, and I believe that one has to have faith (which shows trust and obedience) in Christ to go to Heaven. We believe the same thing on this one.
That is my exact story actually. I came back to my church last year and I have never felt better, I don't like to call myself protestant, I am just a Christian, I attend a church of Christ, and have love for anyone who has love for our Lord.
HE is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins if we in contrition confess. Not "the priest". Do not call anyone on earth "Father", for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Priests are truly an ancient heresy in Catholicism.
I saw this as a Protestant and was like “oh crud, what’s Trent gonna have me questioning today 😬.” As a Pentecostal from the Wesleyan tradition (non-Calvinist), I was relieved😂.
Great content, but it makes my realize what I need now is now apologetics, but the Word and the Sacraments. I'm so broken, I feel astranged from the church militant, but am comforted by the church suffering and triumphant. On his feast day, Saint Lawrence, pray for us!
What kind of father, when his own child turns to him in genuine repentance, would fail to provide the grace by which we can persevere in faith till the end? Especially when he promises to do so: Romans 8:32 - He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Matthew 7:9 - You parents-if your children ask for a loaf of bread, do you give them a stone instead? I do agree that we should not presume on the grace of God, but rather work hard to prove our faith is genuine: Philippians 2:12-13 - work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.
It's a pretty straightforward bit of conditional logic: IF the Bible teaches Eternal Security (but 1,500 years of Christians couldn't find it!), THEN the Bible is not Perspicuous on matters of salvation. But, conversely, IF the Bible is Perspicuous on matters of salvation, THEN it does not teach Eternal Security. ERGO, any form of Protestantism teaching Perspicuity and Eternal Security is false (law of the excluded middle).
Protestant here, and I think the novel character of this doctrine of Eternal Security stems from the Reformed tendency to start with God's sovereign decree in their theology, whereas a lot of other Christians start with man's response to grace. Of course, from God's perspective He already knows whom He has saved. This is why Jesus can say "of all those He has given me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day". And it's true from God's perspective, but I don't think it's a helpful doctrine from man's limited perspective and knowledge. From man's perspective I think it's more helpful to consider it as the author of Hebrews does "And let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us".
As a Protestant, my biggest problem with Eternal Security is that it undermines God's character. The argument goes, "God can save whomever he wants. He wants the elect to be saved. Ergo, the elect cannot lose Salvation." But its fundamental premise is wrong. God doesn't arbitrarily want the elect to be saved. God has saved the elect whom he foreknows will cooperate with grace. The implication of TULIP is that God's salvation is unjust and forced upon people who reject it and denied from people who love God.
@@sivad1025 This. TULIP renders God a moral monster and tyrant who purposefully made millions of people to send them to Hell, with NO chance or capacity on their part at all to repent or avoid this fate. It’s insane.
@@nathangraham2189 I get Limited Atonement and Irresistible Grace individually. They both seem superficially reasonable. But together, they really do compell you into the position you describe since you can't accept that the dammed resisted grace. It's shocking to me that Calvinists who have actually thought through these things aren't bothered by it
@ThoskaBrah Listen, I'm no Aquinas expert--I'm not even Catholic--so I'm not exactly going to have the best researched opinion. I lean towards Molinism as that makes the most sense to me in light of natural reason. But I'm open to change. That said, I find your assertion that Aquinas denies the role of cooperation with grace to be hard to believe. I was under the impression that Aquinas believes in a dual nature of God's sovereignty and man's freedom to respond to grace. I thought that was more or less the Catholic position even though the church hasn't formally defined any one theory. The catechism says, "When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of 'predestination', he includes in it each person's free response to his grace." That doesn't sound unconditional to me. That sounds like God's sovreign election is conditioned upon our cooperation
@@Justas399 do you think that I think that Jesus is a liar and therefore a sinner? Of course He didn't lie. No need to be inflammatory my friend. I have a different interpretation:)
@Justas399 no it just means your interpretation is wrong and needs to be revised. Why not take all of what the Lord had to say instead of proof texting. Also consider that no one until the reformation interpreted that passage the way you do😉
As a revert catholic ( Who was Protestant for 30 years) I have to say I have never heard a Catholic Apologist explain Protestant Doctrine so accurately. This is why Trent is a phenomenal apologist. “ If you know the enemy and know yourself you need not fear the result of hundreds of battles. “ The Art of War
Hi Trent. I was watching Isaiah Saldivar and he's talking about the dangers of the "Once Saved, Always Saved". If you don't know, Isaiah is a Charismatic Christian with his own channel. That's why I opted to listen to your perspective and knew that you're a Catholic apologist. Great video. Yours actually built on what I already heard.
Former believer in eternal security here! Still a protestant, though. Church history really did it for me. It wasn't hard to change my mind on it, except for fear of losing friends. Church history has just been really helpful to me in establishing the bounds of Christian belief and practice.
Out of curiosity, why are you still protestant? In the last two months, I had sola fide and sola scriptura completely dismantled which has really left my Protestantism hanging by a thread.
@UnbrokenBeliever It's just a bad argument to begin with. There are too many passages that indicate that believers can leave the faith. Historic belief helps support this, but is not necessary based on scripture.
@@UnbrokenBeliever First off, why does it have to be in the Bible to be true? Peter spoke infallibly in Acts even though he didn't write acts. John says many things were taught by Jesus and not written down. Paul says to hold onto the TRADITIONS passed down by the apostles. So where on earth do you get this notion that it has to be written in one of 27 books to be apostolic and true? Second, Hebrews 10 is clear that there "is no longer any sacrifice left for our sins" if "we go on sinning deliberately." And James 5 is clear that someone can wander away from the truth and come _back_ through intercession and confession and be saved from death. These two passages are very, very clear that you can sincerely believe in Jesus and compromise your faith and cause death to your soul through deliberate sin. The reason church history is important is because it shows that the Protestant proof-texts were never understood in the way Protestants interpreted them 1600 years later.
@@sivad1025 where does Paul instruct believers to pass on traditions of the Apostles? Acts is part of the Bible. Books by people taught directly by Christ is so different than teachings of men elected by men. 27 books is because that is all we have. If the Apostles wrote more books, we'd have more. Popes are not inspired however and they not apostles.
Calvinists love to quote (and twist) the writings of Paul. In my view, the very fact Paul was writing TO Christians (i.e. Corinth) admonishing them to abstain from various sins is proof enough that it would be possible for Christians to fall away. Why on earth would Paul or any other apostle waste parchment warning believers against something to which they were perpetually immune? Makes no sense
Proof enough that it would be possible for Christians to fall away? Well then, give two or three examples of any Christian who allegedly fell away from the Bible.
To Protestants in the comments, isn’t this troublesome that none of your teachers have succinct and coherent understanding of this? The historicity does not exist.
Yes. While John Calvin and some of his followers followed one line of reasoning regarding the doctrine of predestination, many of the reformed churches took a view more in line with the testimony of scripture and the early church fathers, from continental churchmen like Luther and Jacob Arminius to Anglicans and John Wesley. The possibility of apostasy is widely--though not unanimously--accepted among the 'Protestant' denominations today. The important part of the apostolic gospel, however, is found in all reformed churches: "But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ-by grace you have been saved- and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." (Ephesians 2:4-10)
This is probably the best discussion I have seen succinctly about the topic. I have seen Trent make similar "historical" arguments of theological development from present roots of a doctrine in early fathers.
Hello Trent. I think I would disagree. The preseverance of the saints/eternal security is not a doctrine that is transversal on protestantism (like the 5 solas, priesthood of belivers, 2 sacraments, etc...), so you can be protestant and NOT belive in this. However, for the sake of the argument, (and if I'm wrong, please correct me), doesn't the following quote from Augustine could indicate the notion of eternal security? "I assert, therefore, that the perseverance by which we peresevere in Christ even to the end is the gift of God. It is shown with sufficient clearness that the grace of God, which both begins a man’s faith and which enables it to persevere unto the end, is not given according to our merits, but is given according to His own most secret and at the same time most righteous, wise, and beneficent will; since those whom He predestinated, them He also called. When the gift of God is granted to them…none of the saints fails to keep his perseverance in holiness even to the end. (In De Perseverantiae)". Thank you Trent to provide a clear and truthful teaching of Catholicism so that we protestants can engage with it in a more sincere and honest way. God bless you brother.
I rejected "once saved always saved" as a 14 year old Baptist kid who began voraceously reading the Bible for himself. I was still a sola scriptura protestant in every way at the time. And it was painfully clear to me that scripture specifically teaches against this doctrine.
Once saved always saved isn't found in Scripture, so rejecting the error of the doctrine doesn't imply that sola scriptura is wrong. Sola scriptura simply means that when you have both Scripture and Tradition, Scripture is the norm that norms Tradition. In other words Tradition is everywhere and always subject to Scripture and the proper role of Tradition is to provide explanations of Scripture for the people as Paul clearly states in 2 Timothy 3. Scripture defines itself as "God breathed" whereas Tradition cannot make that same claim. At least not honestly. Sola scriptura basically means you cannot make stuff up and put it on par with Scripture.
@@pete3397 I'm not claiming the falsehood of once saved always saved proves or even implies sola scriptura is false. I made no appeal to tradition. Tradition had nothing to do with my rejection of the doctrine. I bring up sola scriptura because I came to reject once saved always saved based purely on scripture, long before I knew much of anything about the Catholic Church or had any concept of looking to tradition for any reason.
@@pete3397Scripture is one part of Tradition. That's why Scripture AND Traditiin along with the teaching authority of the Church work together and are important to look to for the fullness of the truth.
@@littleone1656 They do work together, but Tradition cannot supplant Scripture, nor can it be equal with Scripture. Scripture always norms Tradition and never the other way around. Tradition is valuable, it just needs to be recognized as not on par with Scripture. That is the actual meaning of sola scriptura: Scripture is the default, Tradition is the support.
Yep. Good old heretic Trent..he may be right . Obviously the early church certainly needs nothing of Mary's infallibly and numerous other heretical catholic doctrines.. This one of eternal security. Well one thing is for sure..baptism never saved anyone...and I'm secure in Christ.. you may want to lose your faith . I would if I 😢was .. As for me, why would I? and if I wanted to. . what for.. what would I get or want in exchange...
It does not come from Calvin. "Once saved always saved" comes from the Bible. As Jesus would say, "have you not read?" See... Ecclesiastes 3:14 - what God does, no one can undo. John 10:28-29 - Jesus keeps us in His hands, and no one is able to take us away. Romans 8:38-39 - nothing can separate us from the love of God. Romans 11:29 John 3:16 - believers have eternal life. Eternal life cannot end. Romans 11:29 - the gifts of God will never be taken away. And as the Bible says countless times, including in romans 6:23, salvation is a gift of God. Thus, it cannot be taken back. 1 Peter 1:4-5 - your salvation is imperishable and unfading, guarded by God himself. Hebrews 5:9 uses the phrase "eternal salvation." Can an eternal something end? No. Psalm 34:22 says that no one who takes refuge under God will be condemned. No one include those who later fall back into sin. I can go on, and on, and on.
@@aikonakamoto9030 Jesus said 16 So, because you are lukewarm-neither hot nor cold-I am about to spit you out of my mouth. A Christian in the Bible was in Christ or Jesus was in him. Denoting the Holy Spirit in us. To spit a Luke warm Christian out of his body is to cast you to hell. Perseverance of the Saints - "Once Saved, Always Saved" (a common expression, with the relative acronym OSAS): a doctrine of Calvinist conceptions (and of Free Grace Protestant conceptions) of the Protestant Christian faith. This False doctrine was thought up by a drunken John Calvin and is one of the five points of the False religion of Calvinism. The biblical version is Once Saved Always Saved in the light of the Father. Meaning you must repent and return and you must grow. OSAS has never been biblical. back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sins.” James wrote, “Brethren,” … So, we can know that this was written to saved Christians. James then wrote, “if anyone among you,” signifying that this statement is regarding other Christians. He stated that a Christian can wander from the truth! He also said that if a faithful Christian were to turn an unfaithful Christian back to God, that they would be turning back a Christian who, at that point, would now be defined as a lost sinner… and what does the text say that this faithful Christian would do? This faithful Christian would SAVE A SOUL FROM DEATH! James was not referring to physical death here; rather, he was referring to spiritual death! Here is a good question for those who subscribe to “Once Saved, Always Saved” … How can one save another Christian’s soul from death, if once a person is saved, they are always saved? One could not do that! If a soul is always in a saved state after one becomes a Christian, then it would be impossible for someone to fall from God’s grace… But… here in James 5:19, 20, we see that a Christian can fall and get themselves into such a state where the “error of his way,” as the text says, is leading them to spiritual death, which will result in them going to Hell! Passage #3 is 2 Peter 2:20-22. It says, “For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning. For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them. But it has happened to them according to the true proverb: ‘A dog returns to his own vomit,’ and, ‘a sow, having washed, to her wallowing in the mire.’” Notice the two-letter word “if” at the beginning of verse 20. I now want you to read these next few statements that a brother in Christ named Stephen Rogers said regarding this passage that breaks these verses down well. Brother Rogers said, “Christians have escaped the pollution of the world - sin. They escaped sin through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Tragically, Christians can become entangled in sin again and be overcome. It would have been better if such unfaithful brethren had never heard the Gospel than after hearing it to turn from it and return back into sin.” Here is another good question for those who subscribe to “Once Saved, Always Saved” … How can the latter end ever be worse for a Christian if they can never fall from grace? It can be worse because the Bible plainly teaches that a Christian can fall from grace! Passage #4 is 1 Corinthians 10:12. In this verse, Paul warned, “Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall.” Paul wrote to Christians here, and earlier in the chapter, in verse 6, he said, “Now these things became our examples, to the intent that we should not lust after evil things as they also lusted.” In verse 8, he said, “Nor let us commit sexual immorality, as some of them did, and in one day twenty-three thousand fell.” In verse 12, do you think Paul was saying to these Christians, “Take heed, take caution brethren… so that you do not fall and scrape your knee?” No! He was saying to be careful because they could fall spiritually and lose their souls! He was warning them not to allow themselves to get puffed up and then fall from grace! Passage #5 is 1 John 1:7. This verse says, “But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.” 1 John was written to Christians. This verse contains the word “if,” thus making it a conditional statement! If we as Christians walk in the light… in other words… if we are faithfully serving God, then Jesus’ blood continually cleanses us from all sin. Well… what if a Christian does not choose to walk in the light and instead, chooses to walk in darkness? Then that Christian no longer gets cleansed from their sins by the blood of Jesus, and if an individual does not have Christ’s blood applied to their sins, then they will not go to Heaven! I do want to make this point clear, and please do not misunderstand what I am saying… True Christians do believe in a Biblical view of “Once Saved, Always Saved” … We believe in a conditional “Once Saved, Always Saved.” You see, 1 John 1:7 teaches that once a sinner is saved, if that Christian keeps on walking in the light, they will always remain saved… But… this continual state of being saved depends upon our continual faithfulness to God and in no way does this verse, nor the entire Bible teach that we are incapable of falling from God’s grace! Passage #6 is Hebrews 3:12. This verse says, “Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God.” In this verse, the Hebrew writer wrote, “Beware, Brethren.” He was saying, “Beware Christians!” He also said that a Christian can depart from the living God! If a husband develops an evil heart and decides to abandon and depart from his wife, is that husband considered faithful? In this hypothetical situation, I am not talking about putting away a spouse for fornication, as Jesus declared was the only God-approved reason for getting a divorce in Matthew 19:9. In this hypothetical situation, the answer is: No! Such a husband would be considered unfaithful to his wife! Spiritually speaking, what if we decide to depart from God? Would we be considered faithful? No! If we are not found to be faithful to God when we stand before Jesus Christ on the judgment day, then we cannot go to Heaven! These six passages only scratch the surface of all of the various passages that reveal that a saved Christian can so sin as to lose their own soul! May we keep this sobering truth in our minds each and every day as we seek to put God first in our lives! (Matthew 6:33)
@@aikonakamoto9030 Yes, what God does no one else can undo, but we have free will and can leave God. In the Vine and Branches parable Jesus is the Vine supporting us, and he has the Father in him. We are the Branches and have the Holy Spirit and the Light in us. The light shines through us also. The source of the light is the Father. The Light allows us to talk to Jesus directly and hear from him. Staying in the light allows the Fruit of the Spirit to grow. And when mature enough we receive the Gifts of the Spirit. If we leave the light by sin, we must repent and return to the light. We also must grow If we don't we are sent to hell. This walk is the judgement for this life. A person can receive Jesus and die two hours later and enter heaven without water Baptism or baptism of the Spirit or works. Another person can be a Christian all their life and not grow from the point of entering the Church and go to hell. John 151"I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener.2He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes [1] so that it will be even more fruitful.3You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you.4Remain in me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.5"I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.6If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.7If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you.8This is to my Father's glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples.
Questioning Protestant here. I recently stumbled across Pints with Aquinas where I discovered your channel. I'm loving the conversations on Pints, and I love the information I can glean from The Council of Trent videos. My mother is a Baptist pk, so I was raised with Calvinism, but it has never sat right with me. Some of the arguments are clear fallacies, and it also brings up a lot of questions about free will that never get a satisfactory answer. Thank you for this very well-researched explanation of the doctrinal disputes! Separate question: can you do a video explaining the origins of the Church as an institution? Or do you already have one? I was listening to an old episode of Pints with Mother Natalia (love her so much), and my mom claimed, among other very anti-Catholic sentiments, that the Catholic church was formed as a power grab in the 6th century. I don't believe this is true, but like many Protestants, my grasp of church history is practically non-existent. If there is a video, can someone please share it in the comments? Book suggestions are also very welcome.
Study proto- Protestantism, like the Waldensians, Voudois and Albegenes. Catholics want you to think that Martin Luther completely invented something, but bible believing Christians have always been around being persecuted by the "mother church."
Read Ignatius of Antioch. He is a first generation disciple of the Apostles and describes the role of bishops and the importance of being in communion with them.
Kyler’s recommendation is really good. Ignatius was bishop of Antioch and knew John the apostle and wrote several letters(7?) while being taken to Rome to be martyred in 107ad. A modern source for the early Church being Catholic is Joe Heschmeyer who works for Catholic Answers. He is a TH-camr and also has written some very fine books. Your desire for truth is admirable and a sign of grace
“Now unto Him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy” Jude24…..if this verse does not affirm the doctrine of perseverance of the saint to final salvation I don’t know what else is
To those who who believe in the notion of “once saved always saved”, Jesus Himself debunks this in Scripture: Matthew 7:21-23 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 heavenly Father. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not perform many miracles in your name?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers!’
Thank you brother Trent Horn. You are amazing. Continue to defend our Catholic faith and traditions that have had existed for over two thousand years and will survive and stand time until the second coming of Jesus Christ. Again thank you Brother Trent Horn,,,, you are amazing,,,a true gift to our Catholic Church.
You have NOT done his commandments but broken them all. That's what you don't understand. Jesus Christ paid it all! th-cam.com/video/M4_pgXjq5X4/w-d-xo.html
@@Danaluni59 You have FORGOTTEN the works of God. That ye believe on HIM whom he hath sent. Do you EVEN remember HIS NAME brethren? Tell Me the truth, th-cam.com/video/lrAjMMM-R4M/w-d-xo.html
Don’t forget that it wasn’t only the apostles who were guiding the early church, Jesus and the Holy Spirit were guiding them. To suggest otherwise is to call Jesus a liar.
Hi Trent, Sure, eternal security was unknown in the early church, but this is really a specified critique against one aspect of the Reformed tradition as it developed from Calvin and to Westminster. But interestingly, notable Reformed voices seemed to dissent. John Davenant thought that a baby could receive justification in Baptism and lose it. This seems to have been Samuel Ward's position as well. Now, to be sure, this was a departure from the tradition of the church and I think it's clear Calvin was just wrong here. Luther (and the Lutheran Confessions) emphasizes the fact that you can lose your salvation through open and manifest sin, like David with Bathsheba--unrepentant sin leads to being cut off. I myself am one of those strange Reformed-Augustinian people who think you can lose your salvation, but also believe in unconditioned predestination. I know you mention that other Protestants disagree with Calvin on this, but it's important to say that this isn't really a good reason to reject the Reformation and become a Protestant who demands Rome's reform, since the vast majority of Protestant traditions do hold that you can lose your salvation through unrepentant sin. And it's not a good critique of the *overall* catholicity Calvin sought to retrieve, since he did think the core doctrines of the Reformation (what he held in common with the Lutherans) was from antiquity. I'll look forward to your sola fide video, and I may make a response myself!
I highly doubt Calvin was looking for some Catholicity when he was issuing anathemas to Protestant groups like the Anabaptists and calling Luther a "half-papist" due to Luther's love for the real presence. What schisms and denominations? Did Calvin believe that schism was wrong and evil?
Interesting post! Do you think St Augustine's soteriology would cohere well with a "TULI" (lol, TULIP minus P) view? To me, such a view sounds close to Jansenism. Obviously St Augustine's time was well before this or that Protestant synod, but I've often wondered which, if any, Protestant school or slight modification thereof the great Saint would find agreeable. I would guess the closest thing would be something like Arminianism in principle, but in practice such a theology tends to devolve to a view like "Well, you get in by grace, but you stay in through works" (eg with Methodists), which I doubt he'd approve of.
It’s not about church history, it’s about what the authoritative word of God says, what does the scripture say? “For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers,” Romans 8:38
I think that scriptures are in line with the perseverance of the Saints. I think John is the most explicit, besides saying that those that went away were never from us there are passages like Jn 2:23-25 (they are trusting jesus but Jesus is not trusting them) and 6:64-66 (where Jesus is saying they are following just for foor before it). Then there are passages like Jn 15:16 where Jesus is saying he chose his disciples (i don't think Judas proves this wrong when concidered in context i think he was the son of perdition, the one stealing money isn't somebody that is really a christian unless you think it is a mark of true salvation... Just like God chose Moses before, does not know what he is dooing?), Jn 10:27-30 saying nobody can take them out of his hand where he says it is the same as beeing in the hand of the father and passages like Ap 13:8, 17:8 where the names are in the book of life from before the foundation of the world. What do you make of these passages?
Yes! Perseverance of the Saints was the absolute lynchpin of my theology about everything as a protestant, so when I realized it was basically unknown before Calvin, I went back to examine my proof texts (John 6 mostly) and found they taught the opposite. A few months later, having already done my research on other topics, I was Catholic, and I’ve never been happier or closer to God!
I’m a Protestant who’s still where you were. Perseverance makes sense to me. The golden chain of redemption in Romans 8:28-30 speaks of the entire act of redeeming people from beginning to end as an act of God. If a truly saved person fails to reach glorification then God failed. The language of salvation used throughout the NT is so final. Adoption, resurrection, becoming a partaker of eternal life. It doesn’t sound like probation.
@@hettinga359 I hear you, Rom 8 was a big proof text for me too. Catholics believe that text of course - there is a people (the elect) that God has chosen from eternity past to be saved and those he foreknew, he predestined, called, justified, and ultimately glorified. That’s all true (I mean Paul said it, so…)!! Here’s the rub: there’s no contradiction between saying that God saves the elect all the way from foreknowledge to glorification AND saying that there is ANOTHER group of people who are once justified and later forfeit that grace of justification. Romans 8 and similar passages speak about the elect but don’t make the claim that ONLY the elect EVER come into a state of justification. That is the piece that Calvin seems to have inserted that wasn’t believed for the first 1500 years (outside of possibly those people in that Augustine quote in the video that he rejected). We all believe in perseverance of the ELECT, the question is whether ONLY the elect ever are SAINTS. As for the language being final, you’re right! Once someone has been believed and been baptized into Christ and thereby justified, he/she is God’s adopted son/daughter. So when we speak of people forfeiting justification, they aren’t losing their *sonship* so much as they’re losing their *inheritance* which is why Hebrews warns us not to be like Esau and give up our inheritance (salvation) in exchange for a single meal (in the context, sexual immorality - i.e. mortal sin) - Hebrews 12:6
I don't see why it couldn't just be a doctrinal development, like the excuse Catholics will use whenever they can't find historical backing for their beliefs.
@@EmberBright2077 I think the difference is that this doctrine wasn’t just something that hadn’t been fleshed out yet, it was something actively rejected by practically everyone until Calvin. So this wouldn’t be development, this would be reversal of what was (at least nearly) universally held prior
It's basically Satan slipping in the arrogance of presumption through a temptation to fear. 😈 "As long as you confess with your mouth and believe in your heart, you will be like gods, knowing good and evil."
I think the cheap grace sinner’s prayer fire insurance claim is the most dangerous. You have to first THINK you’re “saved” before you can STAY “saved!”
@@john-paulgies4313 I'm very thankful for the Sacrament of Confession. Each and every Confession gives sanctifying grace, purifies the soul and helps to sin no more... Jesus Christ Granted the Apostles His Authority to Forgive Sins John 20:21 - before He grants them the authority to forgive sins, Jesus says to the apostles, "as the Father sent me, so I send you." As Christ was sent by the Father to forgive sins, so Christ sends the apostles and their successors forgive sins. John 20:22 - the Lord "breathes" on the apostles, and then gives them the power to forgive and retain sins. The only other moment in Scripture where God breathes on man is in Gen. 2:7, when the Lord "breathes" divine life into man. When this happens, a significant transformation takes place. John 20:23 - Jesus says, "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven. If you retain the sins of any, they are retained." In order for the apostles to exercise this gift of forgiving sins, the penitents must orally confess their sins to them because the apostles are not mind readers. The text makes this very clear. Matt. 9:8 - this verse shows that God has given the authority to forgive sins to "men." Hence, those Protestants who acknowledge that the apostles had the authority to forgive sins (which this verse demonstrates) must prove that this gift ended with the apostles. Otherwise, the apostles' successors still possess this gift. Where in Scripture is the gift of authority to forgive sins taken away from the apostles or their successors? Matt. 9:6; Mark 2:10 - Christ forgave sins as a man (not God) to convince us that the "Son of man" has authority to forgive sins on earth. Luke 5:24 - Luke also points out that Jesus' authority to forgive sins is as a man, not God. The Gospel writers record this to convince us that God has given this authority to men. This authority has been transferred from Christ to the apostles and their successors. Matt. 18:18 - the apostles are given authority to bind and loose. The authority to bind and loose includes administering and removing the temporal penalties due to sin. The Jews understood this since the birth of the Church. John 20:22-23; Matt. 18:18 - the power to remit/retain sin is also the power to remit/retain punishment due to sin. If Christ's ministers can forgive the eternal penalty of sin, they can certainly remit the temporal penalty of sin (which is called an "indulgence"). 2 Cor. 2:10 - Paul forgives in the presence of Christ (some translations refer to the presences of Christ as "in persona Christi"). Some say that this may also be a reference to sins. 2 Cor. 5:18 - the ministry of reconciliation was given to the ambassadors of the Church. This ministry of reconciliation refers to the sacrament of reconciliation, also called the sacrament of confession or penance. James 5:15-16 - in verse 15 we see that sins are forgiven by the priests in the sacrament of the sick. This is another example of man's authority to forgive sins on earth. Then in verse 16, James says “Therefore, confess our sins to one another,” in reference to the men referred to in verse 15, the priests of the Church. 1 Tim. 2:5 - Christ is the only mediator, but He was free to decide how His mediation would be applied to us. The Lord chose to use priests of God to carry out His work of forgiveness. Lev. 5:4-6; 19:21-22 - even under the Old Covenant, God used priests to forgive and atone for the sins of others. The Necessity and Practice of Orally Confessing Sins James 5:16 - James clearly teaches us that we must “confess our sins to one another,” not just privately to God. James 5:16 must be read in the context of James 5:14-15, which is referring to the healing power (both physical and spiritual) of the priests of the Church. Hence, when James says “therefore” in verse 16, he must be referring to the men he was writing about in verses 14 and 15 - these men are the ordained priests of the Church, to whom we must confess our sins. Acts 19:18 - many came to orally confess sins and divulge their sinful practices. Oral confession was the practice of the early Church just as it is today. Matt. 3:6; Mark 1:5 - again, this shows people confessing their sins before others as an historical practice (here to John the Baptist). 1 Tim. 6:12 - this verse also refers to the historical practice of confessing both faith and sins in the presence of many witnesses. 1 John 1:9 - if we confess are sins, God is faithful to us and forgives us and cleanse us. But wemust confess our sins to one another. Num. 5:7 - this shows the historical practice of publicly confessing sins, and making public restitution. 2 Sam. 12:14 - even though the sin is forgiven, there is punishment due for the forgiven sin. David is forgiven but his child was still taken (the consequence of his sin). Neh. 9:2-3 - the Israelites stood before the assembly and confessed sins publicly and interceded for each other. Sir. 4:26 - God tells us not to be ashamed to confess our sins, and not to try to stop the current of a river. Anyone who has experienced the sacrament of reconciliation understands the import of this verse. Baruch 1:14 - again, this shows that the people made confession in the house of the Lord, before the assembly. 1 John 5:16-17; Luke 12:47-48 - there is a distinction between mortal and venial sins. Mortal sins lead to death and must be absolved in the sacrament of reconciliation. Venial sins do not have to be confessed to a priest, but the pious Catholic practice is to do so in order to advance in our journey to holiness. Matt. 5:19 - Jesus teaches that breaking the least of commandments is venial sin (the person is still saved but is least in the kingdom), versus mortal sin (the person is not saved).
@@mrjeffjobYou dont know what you are saying. Grace is paid for by the priceless powerful blood of the Lamb. Trying to buy salvation is a MOCKERY of the Cross. th-cam.com/video/M4_pgXjq5X4/w-d-xo.html
We are all sinners... Cutting to the core of the denominational squabbling of which there are valid differences. Are you going to church,professing the name of Christ yet still practicing sin at the same level ...cuss words,drunkeness,etc...than you need to re evaluate your stance with God. He will spit the lukewarm Christians out of his mouth......those who think they are right in their own eyes On the other hand do you progressively however slowly hate your sin and at times fall back in to your old habits...yet continue to repent,seek a change of heart...get on your knees pleading for grace and mercy each day...knowing ones condition...Then you are likely a child of God whatever your denomination Loving the lord with all your heart...and conquering our old selves whom Christ took to the cross is the Calvary road....hard but walking as he walked imitating him thru a life of love in the holy spirit Religion is relationship...just as Christ always partnered with his disciples....he calls us all to do likewise. Surrender the heart and flesh to him and strive to walk in the light ❤❤
The present Catholic biblical canon did not exist until 1546. Roman Catholic doctrine such as the bodily assumption of Mary and papal infallibility are also recent additions to the deposit of faith. And now uncle Frankie is poised to normalize homosexuality as priests can now officially bless them. Way to stand against the culture Frankie, just exactly what we would expect an infallible vicar to do 🙄. But hey, keep thinking that you are part of the one true unchanging church, but if one day you see the light, stop worshipping Mary, look away from your good works and your baptism and look to Christ alone for salvation, stop trusting in the church and the mythical treasury of merit to save you, Christ has all the merit and God will not share his glory with another.
I am a protestant myself, mainly lingering between non-denominationalism (probably spelled that wrong) and some aspects of pentacostalism but I think that this issue isn't really fully thought through. In my opinion, I believe in the permanent salvation of the elect mentioned in Romans and Ephesians but not permanent salvation of the non-elect. An example of someone who is not elect would be found in Hebrews 6, as they had faith but didn't strive to understand God more deeply and learn even fundamental doctrine. Such people have fallen away from the grace of God. Just as free will and election can exist together with no contradiction, losing your salvation and eternal security can as well as long as you define who is eternally secured. I also find that this doesn't really affect much of the doctrine of any protestants in a major way that tips them into Catholicism. I think a bigger question to answer would be why Catholics have priests and men acting in a way that appears to mediate between them and God, when all true believers are already high priest (1 Peter) and Jesus is our mediator and forerunner priest (Hebrews). That is an actual dividing issue that is worthy defending or responding to. I'd love to hear the thoughts of anyone who disagrees! Please just respond with an actual argument instead of bashing mainstream non-denom and pentecostal churches; and throwing out facts about the Catholic Church being the one true church as that is not even the topic of this comment.
I also would like to know why there is a Catholic Priest acting as a mediator. Is there something in Catholic doctrine that says a Catholic Priest is God or Jesus, or that the priest is a substitute?
Christ is the inly mediator. But Christ made the great commission ergo, Christ sent our his agents (apostles and disciples) to baptize and teach and administer his sacraments. As catholic we do not see our priests as men intervening between God and men, but as in persona christi (in the person of Christ).. it is not the priest who forgives us but Jesus. In the same way that the pope is not Christ but merely the grand vizier or prime minister of the kingdom of Christ. Just imagine this- the secretary of defense does not exercise his powers or his office in his own personal capacity but as the alter ego of the president..
@@markv1974 As far as the sacraments go, that makes sense. My only problem is that Catholicism, when defined by the statements of the council of Trent, adds onto that role of priest past just the sacraments such as the giving of grace. Another terrible doctrine is the infallibility of the Pope; which although it has been lessened in recent years, it still has led to heretical doctrine such as works after salvation and other silly issues such as Mary being a virgin despite Jesus having brothers.
@@kalebroberts5518 uhmmm sacraments are the means by which grace flows to us, the priests administer sacraments. In essence the sacraments administered by priests is the channel for grace but not the source of grace. God is the source of grace. If God give mana, then the sacraments are the containers and the priests are the ones serving them out. As for infallibility - it only concerns faith and morals and only when the pope teaches ex cathedra thats is from the chair of St. Peter. Its in the bible that Christ told Peter to feed his sheep, to pray for his brethren, to have the keys to bind and unbind, and is it not that Christ punished that Christ would pray for peter, and that the gates of hell would never conquer (that is no error) the church built on Peter. To say that the Church is going to be led astray would be to deem Christ’s promises as mere lies. So you have a choice, believe Christ and his promises or you believe the Church, led by Peter and the Popes would fall and be conquered by hell and believe that Jesus lied. So which would you choose to believe?
@@markv1974 Your setting up your entire doctrine on the fact that the church has always had a central leader (pope figure) throughout history, but that is utter nonsense. Early church writings of the bible include mentions of elders and deacons in 1&2 Timothy and give examples of those who acted as such, none of which act like the pope or priests in the catholic church. Also, grace is not administered by the sacraments but is rather a covenantal sign to point back and remember the sacrifice and glorification of Christ. Rather than trying to choose one or the other about priestly succession, you should look and see that there was no central authority over the Mediterranean churches. The earliest known mention of apostolic succession from Peter is to Linus, which is conveniently mentioned almost 120yrs from the time of his supposed succession by people in Rome. Peter himself doesn't make any suggestion that he has any special authority to pass out grace and he along with Paul talk about how everyone is a spiritual high priest in Christ. I'm not gonna defend a stance that has no historical or scriptural backing to back it up. You'd have to bring some evidence that this succession is biblical beside some out of context, extra biblical interpretations. I do believe in the leadership of elders and the deacons, which saddens me that most protestant churches are not unified. On the other hand, I refuse to believe in a church who has had multiple false doctrines that are based on loose or additive interpretations of scripture. And the same church you claim to not be led astray was clearly led astray during the various accounts of scandalous popes and practices such as indulgences, how am I supposed to trust its reliability if its a centralized authority and not just mistakes of a few men?
Jimmy Akin sounded like a junior apologist at Catholic Answers in that clip you gave. I'm used to hearing his senior apologist at Catholic Answers voice
Trent, I just considered that what you do as your life vocation and how you unpack and deliver the truths of our Catholic Faith is so appreciated. Your role in life is more important than many other secular disciplines in helping all of us on our faith journey. Thank you, and God bless you and your beautiful family!!
You are deceived then. Out of the abundance of heart the mouth speaketh. Do men gather Fruit of thorns and thistles? th-cam.com/video/M4_pgXjq5X4/w-d-xo.html
As a lutheran I must say that I'm looking forward to your take on justification by faith alone. I admit, that if there is really not that much support for sola fide in the early church, that would be a strong argument against this doctrine being true (I support sola scriptura, not solo scriptura).
Sola scriptura as is defined in this day and age is pretty much the Catholic position already. Catholicism affirms Scripture has material sufficiency. Historically, Protestantism claimed _formal_ sufficiency. Material sufficiency is that with enough study and by building upon the life's work of the Fathers, we can justify all doctrines. Formal sufficiency (what Sola Scriptura was supposed to be about) was that a plain reading of Scripture is sufficient. Anything not readily apparent is not important. In other words, material is that Scripture is the building blocks for a house (wood, etc.), formal is that Scripture is a built and furnished house. Things like the Perpetual Virginity of Mary were known through deep study and reference to the Fathers. Primarily St. Jerome's work in this case (who saw it as blatantly obvious from Scripture alone, but he was a native speaker of Greek, lived and died in Bethlehem, was fluent in Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin, professional translator, etc.)
You might find Casey Chalk’s book, “The Obscurity of Scripture,” to be an interesting read that challenges your view of sola scriptura. Trent did an episode with him not too long ago that’s solid, covers much of the arguments in the book, and would be worth listening to as well. God bless you my friend.
@@crusaderACR well, I have seen a lot of claims, that the mainstream protestant position (lutheran, reformed and anglican) has always been material sufficiency. At least in lutheran confessional documents (Concordia) there is a lot of appeal to church fathers and early ecumenical council. Supposedly only subsequent protestant movements really claimed formal sufficiency.
@@sillysyriac8925 I wouln't require church fathers to teach exactly the same doctrine of justification as protestants do, word for word. What I would like to see is a strong argument, that when church fathers spoke of "sola fide" (a lot of them did), they meant to exclude from (saving) justification only works of the (jewish) law, but still include works of merit.
My major problem with Protestants saying that Scripture only was the only basis for doctrine is that it seems that it depends on what the Scripture says. If the Scripture is problematic such as the Epistle of James, it can be ignored. Luther wanted to kick James out of the Bible. Even the Gospel of the Matthew and the sheep and goats judgement really puts the sword to the faith only doctrine.
The fruit of Sola Scriptura was and is, chaos and confusion. It's only grown exponentially since the day of Father Luther, Father Zwingli and the Catholic lawyer named Calvin. They all disagreed with each other, these 'reformers' yet Sola gave none the right to say the other was wrong.
Protestantism is as dependent on how any given pastor on any given day reinterprets scripture to suit whatever premise or position he is attempting to presume on any given Sunday.
I feel like this video is conflating two separate doctrines being eternal salvation and grace through faith. Grace through faith still requires faith, so if you fall away from faith, you fall from the grace of God. Jesus told us that there is one unforgivable sin, and by denying Christ it seems to me that you are blaspheming the Holy Spirit.
Regarding the belief that "even permanent apostasy won't disqualify you from salvation", just know most Protestants simply respond with "if you are actually saved you would have become a new creature so you wouldn't/couldn't have permanent apostasy". Essentially, people who become "really" saved don't ever leave the faith. Hard to overcome this logic as it is circular and always works in their favor. Essentially, only people who go to Heaven are saved.
@@Mattissaved Um no, they are not. A tautology is a term of logic: it’s a statement that is always necessarily true in every world, such as “when it’s raining, it is raining.” As such; they are statements that cannot convey any meaningful information about the world. As with my example herein, they are perfectly capable of having the same word within the statement. When broken down into symbolic logic they would indeed have the same symbolic value in both parts of the statement, such as “where A is, A is”. Similarly, the statement “those people who are saved, are saved people” would be a tautology. Pax Christi.
The doctrine of Eternal Security is denounced in the Lutheran Book of Concord. For example, the Formula of Concord Article IV (Good Works) states "We also reject and condemn the teaching that faith and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit are not lost through malicious sin, but that the holy ones and the elect retain the Holy Spirit even though they fall into adultery and other sins and persist in them." (False Antitheses Article 3).
This is certainly an interesting presentation of a matter of historical theology. I did not know that there was no significant teacher in the church who held to the saints' final perseverance before the 16th century. I learned something--thank you. At the same time, I am convinced that the Scritures teach that doctrine, so yes, it must have been overlooked by many, many theologians. Our Eastern brethren still don't see the filioque! That doesn't mean it's not true.
Peoples beliefs are nice but why not go to the scriptures. Eph 1:13-14 once one has believed the gospel and trusted in Christs death burial and resurrection, one is sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise which is a down payment on our souls until the day of redemption. It doesn't matter what folks believe now or long ago, the answer is in the Word. However, we do have to believe what it clearly teaches. These 2 verses alone can eliminate some false denominations.
Voddie Baucham was the pastor who helped to reignite my faith after many years as an atheist/ agnostic, and while I still have a lot of respect for him I do have to agree with you that the reformed position on this doctrine is untenable. I'm about halfway through your book, The Case for Catholicism, and I've gone to mass at a couple of different Catholic churches. I talked to the priest at one of them who was a very friendly guy who had been all over the map on denominations and was a former episcopal priest, but I'm still not sure where I should go whether it be to the Catholic Church or Orthodox Church or stay Protestant. Prayers and/or advice from others would be greatly appreciated
"Stay Protestant" is a very broad area, given the sheer number of Protestants. Personally, I would seriously investigate Catholicism and Orthodoxy first, then if you find neither of them true work your way through the various Protestants. Catholicism and Orthodoxy have very strong claims of who they are and claims of continuity, whereas every Protestant denomination fundamentally claims the the Church fell away at some point and had to be reformed. Investigate those on the claim/ground of if the Church fell away. If so, go Protestant. If not, go to one of them. As to advice, I would recommend attending services, talking to the priests/pastors, researching, and prayer. I would personally try to go to daily mass for Catholic, and Great Vespers (Saturday evening) for Orthodox. There tends to be fewer people there, and you often have a chance to talk with the priest afterwards and ask questions. Bring the questions that have always bugged you about Christianity and Protestantism, questions you have for them, and objections your Protestant friends have. Eventually, you can also bring Orthodox objections of Catholicism to the Catholic priests, and vise versa. Hopefully you can find a good local place to talk to someone, but if not there are a plethora of online resources. You'e found Trent Horn and Catholic Answers for Catholiv. I would also recommend Bishop Barron. For Orthodox, you cn check out Trisagion Films. I also think Fr Spyridon is good for short sermons. Regarding research, I would read some early writings, be it epistles, dogmatics, or early prayers, and see how well it comports to the Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant claims of Christian history. I would personally start with the seven epistles of St Ignatius because if how short and early they were, probably followed by St Athanasius "On the Incarnation" (also short). New Advent has a ton of early church writings for free on their website. Prayer of course is also important, but there's also the question of "how do I pray?" I would certainly pray the Our father, and at least one Psalm a day. Psalm 25 is a good one for guidance. You can pray more than this, including extemporaneous, but these should be part of it. The Our Father at least Jesus told us to pray, and the dideche (another good early Christian writing) recommended it daily). If you are unconvinced by Orthodoxy or catholicism...well, you have a lot of diffferent Protestants to investigate. I would start with the ones closest to the Reformation who are least ashamed of their heritage. Good luck, and God bless!
I'd go Orthodox or Catholic since you'd have all the valid sacraments and the Real Presence. there are some nice people in protestantism, but the theology is scattershot and often goofy.
@@EmberBright2077 well I’m more referring to the direct apprentices of the apostles like Ignatius of course people who were less informed such as different heretical sects sprung up later on. Please give me disagreements between church fathers
@@EmberBright2077 it’s on you to prove that Ignatius for example did not somehow inherit the proper faith from Saint John please provide a lock of evidence
Eternal security has always felt odd to me. To 'have' eternal life sounds like it was a gift that you were given. I don't know why anyone would claim an individual can't willfully throw it away.
Because God sows an INCORRUPTIBLE SEED INSIDE YOU and you receive the TRUE TREE OF LIFE AND YOU RECEIVE THE SPIRIT OF CHRIST AND HE WILL NEVER LEAVE YOU NOR FORSAKE YOU! Read John. Consider th-cam.com/video/M4_pgXjq5X4/w-d-xo.html
When I was in high school, I pointed out to my friend who wanted to be a Roman-Catholic priest: "Saying life is a gift doesn't mean I can't rightly discard it. Some people think it's a white-elephant gift." The same applies here.
,@@MichaelAChristian1 ,no need for wake up,what u said is church teaching,as far as i know trinity is an old worshipping for some an egyptians who have worshipped ezice,authorice&hurce ,later on the church has hijacked the notion&also The concept of a trinity predates the Bible. The concept of a trinity predates the Bible. The much older Hindu Vedas had a holy trinity.Called the trimurti, it was Brahma the creator, Vishnu the preserver, and Shiva the destroyer, three individual deities that are also a single deity
So let me get this straight. A person places their complete faith in Jesus Christ, and trust him completely for their salvation. They live by the power of the Holy Spirit according to his word, because they trust him and believe him that he in his hands holds their eternity. And you have a problem with that? And on the other hand, it seems that you believe someone places their faith in Christ, and Christ doesn’t secure it, but by our efforts and our works, we can barely hold on to the great salvation that Jesus almost provided us. I’ll take the first scenario all day long . If eternal security is correct, someone has genuinely and totally placed their faith in Christ, and has trusted him alone. If we are wrong, the person is guilty for placing all of their faith and trust in Christ alone. If Trent is right, Christ has done some work we have to do the rest, and it all works out in the end, if we finally get cleaned up through purgatory. If Trent is wrong, he has placed himself completely in his own hands, and therefore into eternal damnation. I choose to trust in Christ alone. And by the power of his spirit live accordingly. If I fail, he has got me because that’s one of the sins he died for. if I run away it’s because he never had me. But there is never any time that I personally hold on to a salvation that Jesus is unable to attain for me all by himself. The real danger is believing that Christ cannot manage it, and that we think we have to. Yes, we have a responsibility to persevere, but by the power of the Holy Spirit, the believer does so. But even that is attributed to the Holy Spirit, and not to us. No thanks Trent
Trent, I love your videos but you lost me at the very beginning. We do not want the faith of the early church, we want the faith that professes Jesus Christ as Lord, God, Savior and Master and want to honor him in a way that scripture outlines. That is where Protestantism and Catholicism are so different is the Catholic's desire to cling to the historical and traditional faith and protestants trying live out the faith not as it has historically been but rather than what aligns most with scripture.
I can't seem to do well in having discussions about this topic with protestant friends of mine as well as my protestant family. It's definitely a tough one for a lot of people and is seen as unloving (as far as my set is concerned) to suggest any teaching other than eternal security. I'm hoping to get to a better place in discussing this with those closest to me! This video is helping A LOT. It's like I know all of this but can't seem to get the words right...ugh 😩 I'm definitely no Trent Horn!
Eternal security violates reason. How many people do they know who were practicing Christians and who now do not follow the faith? Then I’m sure they’ll say they were never saved even though the believe sure did at one point. I’d ask them since they believe in Bible alone to point that verse to me out in the Bible where someone professes faith in Christ but does so as a fraud lives it out but wasn’t saved. Like where’s this at in Scripture?
@@DiscipleOfChrist77777 Jude 1:4 For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. And what is it you are referencing exactly?
@@DiscipleOfChrist77777 thats a good one. I usually like to refer to Judgment of All Nations and the Parable of the 10 virgins. I’ll remember this one as well. Thank you.
Off topic: A 16yo Spanish girl who has been blind for two years, received her sight after the reception of the Holy Communion at World Youth Day in Portugal. Praise God.
Glory to God
Which Mass? One of the two with the Pope? Another Mass during the events? Or one of the Churches open most of the day giving regular Masses throughout?
Thank God!
Does it matter? @@kevind.k7512
Just a “thought” how many are born blind or go blind as children. Must they visit Portugal on an auspicious day?
Just got home from work, got a pizza in the oven, lemon soda and a glass with ice, Trentons got a new video. Its a good day, lads
Enjoy🎉
I hear you. I'm always awaiting his new videos, too.
@@cristinamz2137 Me too, but then he talked about predestined, and lost me: more reading to do plus speak to my confessor.
I liked this Video. Calvinism is Philosophically Insane. Since God is not Insane Calvinism is False.
Man St Ignatius really dropped some hard facts on those in schism. Didn't know he said that so directly. I definitely need to read the early church fathers
Definitely, Ignatius of Antioch is the Church Father that Protestants fear the most, in my experience. He is an apostolic father and as such is incredibly early, was a direct student of John the Apostle and knew Peter personally, and his writings are so blatantly Catholic that they can’t really be reasoned around. Pax Christi.
I guess what is more important. The revealed Words of God from the source in the Bible or studies of early church leaders. We are to test Scripture with Scripture and thus test teaching of any church leader with scripture. Please cite the area that Ignatius taught that Protestants disagree with and cite the verses you KNOW to be directly cited by Ignatius as support for his theology
@@nathangraham2189I would rather believe in Saint Augustine, Saint Thomas Aquinas, Saint Ignatius of Antioch, Ireneus, Saint Polycarp and the other early Church Fathers. Rather than believe in Martin Luther, John Calvin, Albert Zwingli, King Henry the VIII, John Knox and MANY other Reformers.
Don’t forget Joel Olsteen, Kenneth Copeland and millions of other puffed up “preachers.”
@@danielkim672 The Bible tells us that the Church is the foundation of Truth, and Paul commanded all they taught in written word and in oral tradition was to be followed, so tell us which verse justifies your privileged understanding.
It's crazy how you point to my 3 favorite protestant pastors... as I just recently decided to go to RCIA and become catholic. Thank you for all your hard work Trent!
Praise God! Welcome home brother
_"...and become catholic."_
Because worshiping human sacrifice is insufficient. Cannibalism must be worshiped too.
@@twitherspoon8954 As if Protestants don't believe in this "human sacrifice" too. "Cannibalism" is what most of the early Christians believed, btw.
@@twitherspoon8954you sound exactly like the pagan detractors of early Christianity
@@jackdaw6359
_"...you sound exactly like the pagan detractors of early Christianity."_
Wait. Are you denying that the literal worship of propitiatory human sacrifice is the core tent of Christianity? You know, that cross and John 3:16...
Christians believe that God sent one of his sons to be tortured and killed as a sacrificial offering (a practice adopted from Paganism).
They worship this human sacrifice as part of a ritual intended to appease a god. In Christian theology, atonement refers to the forgiving of sin by using Jesus as the human sacrifice.
Paul created Christianity in 48 AD and this is how he put it:
Romans 8:32
"He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all."
1 Corinthians 5:7
"Christ our passover is sacrificed for us."
Romans 3:25
"God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement."
Romans 5:8
"God showed his great love for us by sending Christ to die for us."
Hebrews 10:10
"We are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ."
Thank you Trent Horn! As an ex-Protestant who is joining the Catholic Church, I’m filled with joy I have brothers defending the Catholic faith! God bless your ministry and your family.
Praying for you brother, as I did the same, from being baptized in the presbyterian church to becoming a Roman Catholic in 2015! Welcome Home, brother! Praying for you!
God bless you in your quest to become Catholic! Enjoy plumbing the depths of the Catholic Faith. I was born into a Protestant family and longed to become Catholic throughout my adult life. Converted several years ago, and I’ve never looked back. Welcome home! Praying for you and your journey!
Welcome home brother, may you continue to find all the treasures of the Catholic faith. Look into the eucharistic miracles since this is the year of the eucharistic revival
@@UnbrokenBelieverRahab was a harlot and God made her a heroine, so what's your point?
@@ironymatt
Great point, I was just writing about her 2day, & how there's all kinds of scripture proving God worked with Pagans, like King Nebuchadnezzar for example, but God always used Pagan kingdoms to punish Israel to, & in the NT Jesus tells Pontius Pilate
in John 19:11; u only have this power because it was given to u from above.
I'm a former Protestant believer, so all I do now is write articles like these to show my family that Catholic church is true...
But that's a great point
I wish I could subscribe to this channel twice.
Your comments are of much greater value in my view Fr, Ad majorem Dei gloriam!
Man I see you everywhere Father 🤣
@@matthewoburke7202 keep an eye out! The conspiracies are true. Jesuits are hiding everywhere! Hahaha I've even got things going on, like Gospel reflection videos etc
Why does the Trinity not appear in the Bible jo?peace;
@@lufhopespeacefully2037 It does, Just not explicitly.
As a Lutheran I always have a moment of relief when Trent's videos are about the other Protestants doctrines
This made me chuckle 😅
😂😂 I laughed out loud
Still smiling😊
@weaponofchoice-tc7qs oh because I enjoy getting a good nights sleep, not being kept awake by Trent's theological challenges to my faith lol. It's nice to just sit back and watch him dismantle other doctrines.
*just to note: I'm a protestant on a Catholic Apologetics page, obviously I am here because I am open to hearing the Catholic side of things, and I enjoy the charitable dialogues
Really? This gentleman completely denies everything Luther stood for in “On the Bondage of the Will”.
Wilkin’s interpretation vs Ignatius of Antioch…hmmm. I’ll go with the guy that died for Christ.
Plenty of Muslims die for their god, maybe you should start listening to them then.
Edit: Since my last comment, I have changed my mind and my anti-catholicism, and am in RCIA with hopes to join the Catholic Church next Easter Vigil.
@@EmberBright2077 Ignatius was taught by the Apostle John. Seven of his Epistles are extant. Πολύκαρπος attests to him as well. It’s not merely his martyrdom that is compelling.
Ο Θεός να ευλογεί.
@@EmberBright2077 Guess you changed your tune now. 😂😂. Just some lighthearted jabs don't worry. Welcome to the fullness of the truth :)).
@@shubhabrataray1313 Thanks 👍
@@EmberBright2077 ngl you had us in the first half
You are a theological beast! I can't wait for your debates with White. I pray the risen Lord enables you to put him in his place as you did last time.
This video was worthy of a like and share. 👍
I read this in Jason Maher's voice. -Kyle
Oh heck yes. I typed it in with his voice in my head. 😅
@@TheCounselofTrent
Why did the APOSTLES refer to the Communion. Meal of believers in Christ as "gatherings for THE BREAKING IOF BREAD" n NOT "gatherings for THE PARTAKING OF THE BODY AND BLOOD OF JESUS"?
It was only in later years that rc-approved church fathers came up with the doctrine of TRANSUBSTANTIATION.....that d rc chirch then ENFORCES that DOCTRINE merely coz it "SUPPORTED" by "d church fathers"... BUT why are the teachings of d later church fathers MORE IMPORTANT to d Roman catholic faith... than the TEACHINGS OF THE APOSTLES is to rc???
Why expect Christianity to REJECT BIBLICAL DOCTRINES just coz they hv NOT BN DOCUMENTED BY ROME to be from £d church fathers"???...
Were there not CHURCH FATHERs MISSING from d Roman catholic ROLL???
Imagine being as arrogant and full of pride as Calvinists. "I'm part of the elect and going straight to heaven."
Ita a two edge sword tough, many calvinist live in doubt and anxiety cuz they don't know if they are elect or may be even predestinatined to hell. Just like jansenism
"The elect are completely assured of their salvation and I might be one of them"
I'm not even Calvinist, but even I can see this is a terrible strawman. They see election as God's grace, as in, they don't deserve it and can't earn it. It's the *complete opposite* of arrogance.
But what about you bruh? Are you one of the elect and sure you're going straight to heaven?
Catholics can be arrogant about their salvation, because they outperformed the unsaved. They *merited* salvation, whereas the unsaved did not.
A Calvinist cannot be arrogant, because they did nothing to deserve it. It’s utterly and completely God’s Grace.
I went from staunch protestant to almost Catholic in the last two months in part because Trent's eternal security debate with James White dismantled my view of salvation. Most protestants have salvation, one of the most important doctrines, so wrong (if you're honest about historical context).
Where you Calvinist?
See my comment above--I don't think this is a good reason to become a Roman Catholic.
@@huntsman528 My grandpa was a Presbyterian pastor and I currently go to a Presbyterian church, but Calvinism has never made sense to me so I don't think i can really claim to have ever been Calvinist
@@anglicanaesthetics I don't either. One, I'm not Catholic. Two, I said this "in part" has contributed to the collapse of my protestant faith. I no longer believe in either Sola Scriptura nor Sola Fide which puts me on a super small island of Protestants. Every protestant I know of who has been on said island has gone on to Catholicism. Catholics have a comprehensive interpretation of sacred tradition and the church's role in salvation that is utterly lacking in protestantism.
Very interesting. When I was a Calvinist I never had any assurance, whatsoever, but that's because I considered myself unrepentant. Aside from that, though, I think Calvinistic readings of Scripture are entirely sound and consistent, and am surprised it's even possible to dismantle Calvinism in a debate. Just curious, what was so effective about Horn's approach (I might try it against some Calvinists, myself)?
The most irritating thing is that these same Protestant scholars/pastors/speakers will continue to open with the “we have the rediscovered teachings of the first Christians!” line, and then only reluctantly admit after adequate Catholic/Orthodox pushback that “yeah, it’s not actually contained in the early church… but it (somehow conveniently) doesn’t need to be.”
I find that the appeal to antiquity for pretty much any and every Protestant theological doctrine to be completely untenable. It should be obviously clear that Protestant doctrine cannot fit within the framework of the corpus of Christian thought pre-1517, if nothing else because neither the main Protestant reformers nor the Catholic defenders of the time thought that the two could in any way coexist alongside or be reconciled with one another.
Iconography wasn't official until the 8th century
Iconography wasn’t a controversy until the 8th century. It was only when Islam came to play in its oppression and insistence that they began to question such a practice. Now, I would like to point out that councils are ONLY held to handle controversial topics! This is true of all of them: where the church held an opinion until people started to be led astray. This is where I have my issue: St. Peter said in his letters that “the church is the pillar and bulwark of truth.” At the second council of Nicaea we see that the church agreed unanimously that iconography was good!
So my question is this: the church leaders, all set in place by God, before any large schism save for the ethiopian orthodox, all agreed that icons were a good thing. If the church is the pillar and bulwark of truth, all with free access to the spirit, are determining such an important doctrine, how is it that the spirit was so absent that he did not help the church? Why is it that the pillar and bulwark of truth did not uphold truth? Why did the spirit not convict them? How did both God and his church fail so clearly? Occam’s Razor says that the simplest answer that begs the least questions is that they were justified in their judgment, and to reject their dogma and and set beliefs would be to reject the church, and thus declare them anathema. Reject the entire church and you’ll have a great time, I think.
@@juandoming6688funny how you phrase your statement, as you know it was in practice, along with relic veneration from the beginning
New CoT video drops, I listen at work, this is just the natural order of things.
I was named after Zane Hodges since my dad was reading Absolutely Free when I was born. I became Catholic this last Easter and I find it even more ironic now 😂
Welcome HOME!
In the last two months I have been debating Free Gracers. It is tough since they tend to be very prideful. They are the total opposite of Lordship Salvationists. Both equally arrogant.
I appreciate this video so much. I used to be a Fundamentalist Baptist who would fight tooth and nail for this doctrine. I became Catholic and my viewpoint changed. You have said before that in order to talk about various Catholic doctrines with Protestants, often times Sola Scriptura needs to be dealt with first. I have found this same point to be true with the Doctrine of Eternal Security when talking with our Fundamentalist brothers and sisters. Salvation from the Eucharist, Confession, etc. Makes no sense to them if they hold fast to the Once-Saved-Always-Saved mentality. I really appreciate both this video and what you do to further the Kingdom. God bless you.
I appreciate your honesty. The biggest problem within Fundamentalism and Baptist as a whole is a lack of good teaching of doctrine and theology. When you don’t have a true understanding and foundation in what you profess anyone who is willing to give an answer will sound correct. I apologize for that they failed you and I strongly recommend that you do as the Apostle Paul told the Thessalonians in 1 Thessalonians 5:21, TEST all things. Don’t take my word don’t take Trent’s word go test what is being said, and just ask yourself one question, who should I believe God or man?
Good luck and God bless.
yea like "sola scriptura" cant be right huh? those crazy Baptists, who warn that once u start accepting traditions or additions to scripture, ANYTHING can happen! and so it has, from the catholic heresies of praying to the dead, indulgences, killing those who taught against their church (real christians huh?) to mormons and all their additional books and their "prophets" revelations and on and on and on. and both teach that gettin wet and calling is baptism, washes away sins...but thats not enough either! i will pray for u friend, the Jesus u have run into in the Catholic church is a weak one. has to be sacrificed daily in the mass, and he didnt quite do enough, so now u gotta "persevere" and since Trent says not everyone has been gifted with perseverance, u still come up short. its enough to cause schizophrenia
Welcome home!
I'm sorry you were in a dead church, but thanks to the King James bible I was led away from the seducing Catholic spirit. I admit there is something compelling about Catholicism, but this "Catholic awakening" on the internet is not validation of it being the true church. Anywhere you look in the bible in just about any case the majority is in apostasy. Matthew 7 is clear about the gate being narrow. Over one billion people is not a narrow gate.
I just want you to put this in perspective; you are leaving the heritage of bible believers who were burned at the stake for the word of God and joining the heritage of those that burned them at the stake. I'd feel guilty if that was my heritage. I'm praying for you.
Friend, why not Orthodox?
Before I watch this, I'm going to guess transubstantiation
Edit: I was wrong.
loooool
To be fair, considering this “Protestant” isn’t really fair. It’s a specific strain of thought that the Perseverance/Preservation of the Saints falls into. Mainly believe it because it sounds nice, others believe it because they created a theology.
Thaks to Trent and other Catholic TH-camr and the writing of the church fathers, I'm entering RCIA September and will be received into church Easter🙏🙏🙏
Lately I've been dealing with this issue a lot. The conversations and debates seem to come to a screeching halt when you ask for references for the history they're talking about. Protestants seriously don't k ow church history
I live in Tennessee, southern baptists tend not to have any clue when the Baptist church was founded and when it split into their denomination, let alone anything that happened across the ocean 2000 years ago.
It’s very frustrating because they talk about the Church “adding stuff” all the time, but they have 0 historical consciousness so they never have any idea when, where, or what was “added”.
Catholics seriously don't know what protestantism is
@bennyv4444 It's the same in southern MD. We have a lot of pentacostal influence here as well.
Except for the ones that do. More often historic Protestants tend to be well educated in Church history. Off the top of my head,you can look up Gavin Ortlund, The Other Paul, Barely Protestant, Gospel Simplicity, or Jordan Cooper for some representation from that side of the fence.
@EmberBright2077 Yep I've listened to all of them debate catholics. Jordan cooper got crushed by jimmybakin and gavin got defeated by trent horn in a couple debates as well. They get trashed... gavins debate with trent horn on sola scriptura was a wash. Gavins entire argument failed in his opening statements when he said personal interpretation of scripture is a higher authority than scripture. Suan sunna also made a 3 or 4 hour video evicerating his argument against icon veneration. Historical protestants are in a pretty rough boat as well... the mainline churches have almost all fallen into heresy and if you try to restore it to luther and Calvin's day then you have to deal with how many of them believed in the Marian doctrines. Perpetual virginity, assumption, theotokos, etc. No current protestants hold the historical views on Mary that the reformers held. If you look up some of the off the wall comments that luther made over the years I can't imagine anyone still follows his teachings. Between throwing his excrement at the walls, imagining jewish conspiracies to ruin the church, his disdain for Hebrews, corinthians, James, revelation, and the deuterocanon makes me wonder how he ever assumed sola scriptura.
As a Lutheran, I agree that Eternal Security is an incorrect teaching.
Thank you for your inspiring vocation, you are doing wonders for the world!
Gavin is a very bright protestant...but on this topic he is totally delusional.
All the oldest churchs had alters. No place for a rock band, sorry.
good point
and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand
"no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand"
Yet we have free will and can leave. God doesn't force us to love him. He doesn't force us to persevere. This is the whole point of the parable of the vine. A branch ATTACHED to Jesus Christ is 100% SAVED! Yet through unrepentant sin, can be cut off, bundled and thrown into the fire.
God bless you, brother in Christ! As a Catholic who tirelessly defends our Church amid constant anti-Catholic vitriol from some (not all) Protestants, I’m grateful for your channel. 🙏🏼✝️🕊️
_"...who tirelessly defends our Church amid constant anti-Catholic vitriol..."_
Should cannibalism and human sacrifice be condemned or worshiped?
@@twitherspoon8954It’s neither cannibalism nor human sacrifice.
@@Catholic-Christian
_"It’s neither cannibalism nor human sacrifice."_
Wait. Are you denying that the literal worship of propitiatory human sacrifice is the core tent of Christianity? You know, that cross and John 3:16...
Christians believe that God sent one of his sons to be tortured and killed as a sacrificial offering (a practice adopted from Paganism).
They worship this human sacrifice as part of a ritual intended to appease a god. In Christian theology, atonement refers to the forgiving of sin by using Jesus as the human sacrifice.
Paul created Christianity in 48 AD and this is how he put it:
Romans 8:32
"He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all."
1 Corinthians 5:7
"Christ our passover is sacrificed for us."
Romans 3:25
"God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement."
Romans 5:8
"God showed his great love for us by sending Christ to die for us."
Hebrews 10:10
"We are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ."
@@Catholic-Christian
_"It’s neither cannibalism nor human sacrifice."_
Jesus: "Whoever gnaws my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink."
@@twitherspoon8954 Jesus real blood and flesh is eaten under the appearance and taste of bread, not flesh and blood.
And human sacrifice is when humans offer an Innocent human being against their will to a false God. That’s not what happened in Jesus case, on the contrary Jesus willingly died for us as a pleasing sacrifice to God.
I have my masters in theological studies, and I still learn so much more from you from every video. Thanks, Trent!
I have a masters degree in astrology..same branch..amen
I would like to have my masters in theology.
@@johnpro2847your comment makes no sense, amen.
Why does the Trinity not appear in the Bible?peace;
@@lufhopespeacefully2037 Guess you missed that part in the Bible when Jesus was baptized and all three interacted with the world at once. Or in Acts when it says that God anointed Jesus with the Holy Spirit.
For Protestants in the comments: what is your interpretation of The Prodigal Son Gospel? To Catholics, most agree that the son has his family (salvation) at the beginning, squanders his family's gifts on sin and loses his family, and then asks for forgiveness to get his family back. It seems to espouse the idea that you can lose your salvation, but can always get it back through repentance.
The Prodigal Son is the northern kingdom of Israel.
What are these 2 Houses of Israel? A brief look at Biblical History
After Moses led the 12 Tribes of Israel (the generations that came from the 12 Children of Jacob) out of Egypt, God appeared to “His People - Israel” and gave them Commandments and led them to the Land of Israel. At this time there was no King over Israel, and God Himself reigned King over His People. After Moses’ death, Joshua acted as “Judge” over Israel and many others were appointed after Joshua(Book of Judges) for a span of around 450 years(Acts 13:20). When Samuel was acting as Judge over Israel, the people asked for a King to rule over them, to much displeasure from Samuel & God Himself(1Sam 8:5-8). After Saul’s reign, David was appointed as King and he ruled over all 12 Tribes of Israel/Jacob (2Sam 5:3-5). After David, Solomon was anointed King and when Solomon was old, his many wives made him sin against God (1Kin 11:4-7). As punishment, Solomon’s servant Jeroboam received 10 tribes to rule over, and the rest were ruled by Solomon’s son, Rehoboam (1Kin 11:30,31/ 1Kin 12:16,17). Rehoboam ruled over the Tribe of Judah & Benjamin, collectively called the “House of Judah” (1Kin 12:23). From this point onwards in the Books of 1st & 2nd Kings, Jeroboam and his Sons ruled over what was called “The House of Israel” in the north of the land while Rehoboam and his Sons ruled over what was called “The House of Judah” in the south of the land. After much rebellion against God, and not giving ear to the Prophets, The House of Israel was taken captive to Assyria(2Kin 17:6,18,23). The Majority of them were scattered among the nations(Hos 8:8, Jer 31:10). Even though, The House of Judah, was much better than The House of Israel, they also disobeyed God and was taken captive to Babylon(Dan 1:1,2). But God let them return back to their land after 70 yrs in exile(Jer 29:10, Ezr 2:1, Neh 7:6). The people who are called Jews today, are mostly, the descendants of the House of Judah. And the House of Israel has been dispersed among nations according to all of the prophecies of Scripture. These descendants are worshiping there own gods without knowing who they are, living in countries around the world(Deut 28:64, Neh 1:8,9, Eze 12:15). And God has said that He will bring back these people from the ends of the Earth.
These 2 Houses are specifically mentioned throughout the Scriptures
1Kin 12:21, 2Kin 23:27, Isa 5:7, Jer 3:18, 5:11, 11:10,17, 12:14, 13:11, 31:27, 31:31, 33:14, Eze 9:9, Hos 11:12, Mic 1:5, Zec 8:13, Heb 8:8
The scattering of His People was prophesied before it happened
Lev 26:33, Deut 4:27, 28:63-68, 32:26, Jer 9:16, Ezek 20:23, 22:15,
God has promised to bring back the scattered and rebuild His people
Deut 30:1-5, Isaiah 11:10-13, 27:12, 43:5-7, Jer 3:12-15, Amos 9:9, Ezek 11:17, Ezek 37
These 2 houses will become one people
Eze 37:16-19, Jer 3:18, 50:4, Hos 1:11
Yeshua was sent for the Lost sheep of the House of Israel
Mat 15:24, John 11:52
Yeshua will rule over these 2 Houses forever
Luk 1:33 (The House of Jacob is the “House of Judah” & the “House of Israel”, together)
Everyone including the Apostles knew about the scattered
John 7:35, 1Pet 1:1, James 1:1, Acts 21:21
So what does the Division of Israel have to do with the Parable of the Prodigal Son?
I believe that the correct interpretation of this Parable can only be understood by someone after studying what happened to Israel, and what was prophesied about them throughout the Scriptures. consider the following explanation. (My Interpretation is added in underlined font)
Luk 15:11 And he said, A certain man(Father God) had two sons(The two Houses of Israel - Hos 1:10,11):
Luk 15:12 And the younger of them(The House of Israel/Ephraim - Jer 31:20) said to his father, Father, give me the portion of goods that falleth to me. And he divided unto them his living. (God blessed them abundantly with their inheritance - Eze 35:15)
Luk 15:13 And not many days after the younger son gathered all together, and took his journey into a far country, and there wasted his substance with riotous living. (The House of Israel sinned against God, doing all that they pleased, and was finally exiled - 2Kin 17:18)
Luk 15:14 And when he had spent all, there arose a mighty famine in that land; and he began to be in want. (In Exile, the house of Israel got scattered among the nations - Deut 4:27)
Luk 15:15 And he went and joined himself to a citizen of that country; and he sent him into his fields to feed swine. (Among the nations they have become slaves to other God’s - Deut 4:28)
Luk 15:16 And he would fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat: and no man gave unto him. (They fell to the depths of uncleanness - Hos 9:3)
Luk 15:17-19 And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father’s have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger! I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee, And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants. (They will finally understand their error and return to the Father - Jer 31:16-19)
Luk 15:20 And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him. (The Father showed His ways through Yeshua, to whomever was in error - John 14:24)
Luk 15:21 And the son said unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son. (The House of Israel is coming back to him with repentance - Acts 5:31)
Luk 15:22 But the father said to his servants, Bring forth the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet: (The Father accepts the repenting House of Israel, and gives them back their rightful position - Hos 14)
Luk 15:23 And bring hither the fatted calf, and kill it; and let us eat, and be merry: (Yeshua was sent for the Lost of the House of Israel - Mat 15:24)
Luk 15:24 For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry. (Through Yeshua the House of Israel is alive again through a renewed covenant - Heb 8:10)
Luk 15:25-28 Now his elder son was in the field: and as he came and drew nigh to the house, he heard music and dancing. And he called one of the servants, and asked what these things meant. And he said unto him, Thy brother is come; and thy father hath killed the fatted calf, because he hath received him safe and sound. And he was angry, and would not go in: therefore came his father out, and intreated him. (The House of Judah has a hard time accepting that the Father could accept the children that had disobeyed Him - Acts 11:3&18 , as the House of Judah did not keep company with other Nations - Acts 10:28)
Luk 15:29 And he answering said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends: (The House of Judah, for the most part, have always been obedient to God - Hos 11:12)
Luk 15:30 But as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf. (The House of Israel, on the other hand has always been in harlotry with other gods - Jer 3:6)
Luk 15:31 And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine. (The House of Israel, unlike Judah, was given a bill of divorce and put away by God, Almighty resulting in their exile and scattering- Jer 3:8)
Luk 15:32 It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found. (God will accept the repenting House of Israel, making his brother, The House of Judah, jealous - Rom 11:11)
I mean I'm a Protestant and I do believe you can lose your salvation, so I probably just see it the same way you do.
@EmberBright2077 thanks. I've never really understood the idea of "once saved, always saved." But I know some denominations believe that. So I was just curious.
The actions of the Prodigal Son when he fell away prove that he was not repenting or placing his trust in Christ, and I believe that one has to have faith (which shows trust and obedience) in Christ to go to Heaven. We believe the same thing on this one.
That is my exact story actually. I came back to my church last year and I have never felt better, I don't like to call myself protestant, I am just a Christian, I attend a church of Christ, and have love for anyone who has love for our Lord.
HE is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins if we in contrition confess.
Not "the priest". Do not call anyone on earth "Father", for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Priests are truly an ancient heresy in Catholicism.
I saw this as a Protestant and was like “oh crud, what’s Trent gonna have me questioning today 😬.” As a Pentecostal from the Wesleyan tradition (non-Calvinist), I was relieved😂.
Well, I admire your inner strength. It takes some courage to unlearn some things :)
That's because Trent sometimes caricatures all protestants as Calvinists. Also saying Protestant in the youtube title is more clickbait than Calvinist
😂
Great content, but it makes my realize what I need now is now apologetics, but the Word and the Sacraments. I'm so broken, I feel astranged from the church militant, but am comforted by the church suffering and triumphant. On his feast day, Saint Lawrence, pray for us!
What kind of father, when his own child turns to him in genuine repentance, would fail to provide the grace by which we can persevere in faith till the end? Especially when he promises to do so:
Romans 8:32 - He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?
Matthew 7:9 - You parents-if your children ask for a loaf of bread, do you give them a stone instead?
I do agree that we should not presume on the grace of God, but rather work hard to prove our faith is genuine:
Philippians 2:12-13 - work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.
Why does the Trinity not appear in the Bible?peace;...;;;
Shouldn’t the title say Calvinism instead of Protestantism?
Some who are not Calvinists also embrace the doctrine of Eternal Security (e.g. many Baptists).
@@thomasjefferson6 which is totally contradictory to their "free will" belief
It's a pretty straightforward bit of conditional logic: IF the Bible teaches Eternal Security (but 1,500 years of Christians couldn't find it!), THEN the Bible is not Perspicuous on matters of salvation. But, conversely, IF the Bible is Perspicuous on matters of salvation, THEN it does not teach Eternal Security. ERGO, any form of Protestantism teaching Perspicuity and Eternal Security is false (law of the excluded middle).
Protestant here, and I think the novel character of this doctrine of Eternal Security stems from the Reformed tendency to start with God's sovereign decree in their theology, whereas a lot of other Christians start with man's response to grace. Of course, from God's perspective He already knows whom He has saved. This is why Jesus can say "of all those He has given me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day". And it's true from God's perspective, but I don't think it's a helpful doctrine from man's limited perspective and knowledge. From man's perspective I think it's more helpful to consider it as the author of Hebrews does "And let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us".
As a Protestant, my biggest problem with Eternal Security is that it undermines God's character. The argument goes, "God can save whomever he wants. He wants the elect to be saved. Ergo, the elect cannot lose Salvation." But its fundamental premise is wrong. God doesn't arbitrarily want the elect to be saved. God has saved the elect whom he foreknows will cooperate with grace. The implication of TULIP is that God's salvation is unjust and forced upon people who reject it and denied from people who love God.
@@sivad1025 This. TULIP renders God a moral monster and tyrant who purposefully made millions of people to send them to Hell, with NO chance or capacity on their part at all to repent or avoid this fate. It’s insane.
@@nathangraham2189 I get Limited Atonement and Irresistible Grace individually. They both seem superficially reasonable. But together, they really do compell you into the position you describe since you can't accept that the dammed resisted grace. It's shocking to me that Calvinists who have actually thought through these things aren't bothered by it
@ThoskaBrah Listen, I'm no Aquinas expert--I'm not even Catholic--so I'm not exactly going to have the best researched opinion. I lean towards Molinism as that makes the most sense to me in light of natural reason. But I'm open to change.
That said, I find your assertion that Aquinas denies the role of cooperation with grace to be hard to believe. I was under the impression that Aquinas believes in a dual nature of God's sovereignty and man's freedom to respond to grace. I thought that was more or less the Catholic position even though the church hasn't formally defined any one theory. The catechism says, "When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of 'predestination', he includes in it each person's free response to his grace." That doesn't sound unconditional to me. That sounds like God's sovreign election is conditioned upon our cooperation
As a 'protestant', I don't hold to the 5 points of calvinism. I believe that God never plucks you out of His hands but you can forfeit your salvation.
So you believe Jesus lied in John 10:27-30?
@@Justas399 do you think that I think that Jesus is a liar and therefore a sinner? Of course He didn't lie. No need to be inflammatory my friend. I have a different interpretation:)
@@jethrokingsley8903 I'm just pointing out that if a person can lose their salvation then John 10:27-30 is false. Christ lied.
@Justas399 no it just means your interpretation is wrong and needs to be revised. Why not take all of what the Lord had to say instead of proof texting. Also consider that no one until the reformation interpreted that passage the way you do😉
@@rickydettmer2003 where is the infallible official interpretation by your church on these passages that proves I’m wrong? I would like to see it.
As a revert catholic ( Who was Protestant for 30 years) I have to say I have never heard a Catholic Apologist explain Protestant Doctrine so accurately. This is why Trent is a phenomenal apologist. “ If you know the enemy and know yourself you need not fear the result of hundreds of battles. “ The Art of War
Most protestants don't believe in eternal security it's a Presbyterian belief
Quoting Chinese Art of War does not bode well
It's funny that the RCC denies divorce but believes that Christ will divorce us if we sin?
Hi Trent. I was watching Isaiah Saldivar and he's talking about the dangers of the "Once Saved, Always Saved". If you don't know, Isaiah is a Charismatic Christian with his own channel. That's why I opted to listen to your perspective and knew that you're a Catholic apologist. Great video. Yours actually built on what I already heard.
Former believer in eternal security here! Still a protestant, though. Church history really did it for me. It wasn't hard to change my mind on it, except for fear of losing friends. Church history has just been really helpful to me in establishing the bounds of Christian belief and practice.
Out of curiosity, why are you still protestant? In the last two months, I had sola fide and sola scriptura completely dismantled which has really left my Protestantism hanging by a thread.
Protestant here. I agree with you. What background did you come from?
@UnbrokenBeliever It's just a bad argument to begin with. There are too many passages that indicate that believers can leave the faith. Historic belief helps support this, but is not necessary based on scripture.
@@UnbrokenBeliever First off, why does it have to be in the Bible to be true? Peter spoke infallibly in Acts even though he didn't write acts. John says many things were taught by Jesus and not written down. Paul says to hold onto the TRADITIONS passed down by the apostles. So where on earth do you get this notion that it has to be written in one of 27 books to be apostolic and true?
Second, Hebrews 10 is clear that there "is no longer any sacrifice left for our sins" if "we go on sinning deliberately." And James 5 is clear that someone can wander away from the truth and come _back_ through intercession and confession and be saved from death. These two passages are very, very clear that you can sincerely believe in Jesus and compromise your faith and cause death to your soul through deliberate sin.
The reason church history is important is because it shows that the Protestant proof-texts were never understood in the way Protestants interpreted them 1600 years later.
@@sivad1025 where does Paul instruct believers to pass on traditions of the Apostles? Acts is part of the Bible. Books by people taught directly by Christ is so different than teachings of men elected by men.
27 books is because that is all we have. If the Apostles wrote more books, we'd have more. Popes are not inspired however and they not apostles.
Calvinists love to quote (and twist) the writings of Paul. In my view, the very fact Paul was writing TO Christians (i.e. Corinth) admonishing them to abstain from various sins is proof enough that it would be possible for Christians to fall away. Why on earth would Paul or any other apostle waste parchment warning believers against something to which they were perpetually immune? Makes no sense
Proof enough that it would be possible for Christians to fall away? Well then, give two or three examples of any Christian who allegedly fell away from the Bible.
To Protestants in the comments, isn’t this troublesome that none of your teachers have succinct and coherent understanding of this?
The historicity does not exist.
Yes. While John Calvin and some of his followers followed one line of reasoning regarding the doctrine of predestination, many of the reformed churches took a view more in line with the testimony of scripture and the early church fathers, from continental churchmen like Luther and Jacob Arminius to Anglicans and John Wesley. The possibility of apostasy is widely--though not unanimously--accepted among the 'Protestant' denominations today.
The important part of the apostolic gospel, however, is found in all reformed churches: "But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ-by grace you have been saved- and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." (Ephesians 2:4-10)
This is probably the best discussion I have seen succinctly about the topic. I have seen Trent make similar "historical" arguments of theological development from present roots of a doctrine in early fathers.
Calvinism is basically Islam with a North European flavouring.
How do you figure?
Dios te bendiga Trent.
Hello Trent. I think I would disagree. The preseverance of the saints/eternal security is not a doctrine that is transversal on protestantism (like the 5 solas, priesthood of belivers, 2 sacraments, etc...), so you can be protestant and NOT belive in this.
However, for the sake of the argument, (and if I'm wrong, please correct me), doesn't the following quote from Augustine could indicate the notion of eternal security?
"I assert, therefore, that the perseverance by which we peresevere in Christ even to the end is the gift of God.
It is shown with sufficient clearness that the grace of God, which both begins a man’s faith and which enables it to persevere unto the end, is not given according to our merits, but is given according to His own most secret and at the same time most righteous, wise, and beneficent will; since those whom He predestinated, them He also called.
When the gift of God is granted to them…none of the saints fails to keep his perseverance in holiness even to the end. (In De Perseverantiae)".
Thank you Trent to provide a clear and truthful teaching of Catholicism so that we protestants can engage with it in a more sincere and honest way. God bless you brother.
Knowledgeable Protestants became Catholic(mostly Pastors) but ignorant Catholic became Protestants...
Thanks Trent! I was just looking through the fathers for this very thing last night.
Calvinism means never having to say you’re sorry. 😆
No it doesn't.
😄
I rejected "once saved always saved" as a 14 year old Baptist kid who began voraceously reading the Bible for himself. I was still a sola scriptura protestant in every way at the time. And it was painfully clear to me that scripture specifically teaches against this doctrine.
Once saved always saved isn't found in Scripture, so rejecting the error of the doctrine doesn't imply that sola scriptura is wrong. Sola scriptura simply means that when you have both Scripture and Tradition, Scripture is the norm that norms Tradition. In other words Tradition is everywhere and always subject to Scripture and the proper role of Tradition is to provide explanations of Scripture for the people as Paul clearly states in 2 Timothy 3. Scripture defines itself as "God breathed" whereas Tradition cannot make that same claim. At least not honestly. Sola scriptura basically means you cannot make stuff up and put it on par with Scripture.
@@pete3397 I'm not claiming the falsehood of once saved always saved proves or even implies sola scriptura is false. I made no appeal to tradition. Tradition had nothing to do with my rejection of the doctrine. I bring up sola scriptura because I came to reject once saved always saved based purely on scripture, long before I knew much of anything about the Catholic Church or had any concept of looking to tradition for any reason.
@@timrichardson4018 Got you.
@@pete3397Scripture is one part of Tradition. That's why Scripture AND Traditiin along with the teaching authority of the Church work together and are important to look to for the fullness of the truth.
@@littleone1656 They do work together, but Tradition cannot supplant Scripture, nor can it be equal with Scripture. Scripture always norms Tradition and never the other way around. Tradition is valuable, it just needs to be recognized as not on par with Scripture. That is the actual meaning of sola scriptura: Scripture is the default, Tradition is the support.
"I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life" 1 John 5:13 ESV
you believe in the name of the Son of God _therefore_ you have eternal life. Cease to believe and still have eternal life?
Absent from history but present in Scripture? Is Scripture not historical? Weird.
7:17 wow James White has had a huge glow-up! not in his theology or apologetics, but he looks better! it’s the most inspiring thing about him!
Oh I just remembered there’s a conversation with Allie Beth Stuckey (Stucky?) and you right? Is there a released schedule on that?
God bless you, Trent! Your dedication to study and your humility are truly inspirational.
Yep. Good old heretic Trent..he may be right . Obviously the early church certainly needs nothing of Mary's infallibly and numerous other heretical catholic doctrines.. This one of eternal security. Well one thing is for sure..baptism never saved anyone...and I'm secure in Christ.. you may want to lose your faith . I would if I 😢was .. As for me, why would I? and if I wanted to. . what for.. what would I get or want in exchange...
Once Saved Always Saved part of the religion of Calvinism not a Christian Doctrine.
It does not come from Calvin. "Once saved always saved" comes from the Bible. As Jesus would say, "have you not read?"
See...
Ecclesiastes 3:14 - what God does, no one can undo.
John 10:28-29 - Jesus keeps us in His hands, and no one is able to take us away.
Romans 8:38-39 - nothing can separate us from the love of God.
Romans 11:29
John 3:16 - believers have eternal life. Eternal life cannot end.
Romans 11:29 - the gifts of God will never be taken away. And as the Bible says countless times, including in romans 6:23, salvation is a gift of God. Thus, it cannot be taken back.
1 Peter 1:4-5 - your salvation is imperishable and unfading, guarded by God himself.
Hebrews 5:9 uses the phrase "eternal salvation." Can an eternal something end? No.
Psalm 34:22 says that no one who takes refuge under God will be condemned. No one include those who later fall back into sin.
I can go on, and on, and on.
@@aikonakamoto9030
Jesus said 16 So, because you are lukewarm-neither hot nor cold-I am about to spit you out of my mouth.
A Christian in the Bible was in Christ or Jesus was in him. Denoting the Holy Spirit in us. To spit a Luke warm Christian out of his body is to cast you to hell.
Perseverance of the Saints - "Once Saved, Always Saved" (a common expression, with the relative acronym OSAS): a doctrine of Calvinist conceptions (and of Free Grace Protestant conceptions) of the Protestant Christian faith.
This False doctrine was thought up by a drunken John Calvin and is one of the five points of the False religion of Calvinism.
The biblical version is Once Saved Always Saved in the light of the Father. Meaning you must repent and return and you must grow.
OSAS has never been biblical.
back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sins.” James wrote, “Brethren,” … So, we can know that this was written to saved Christians. James then wrote, “if anyone among you,” signifying that this statement is regarding other Christians. He stated that a Christian can wander from the truth! He also said that if a faithful Christian were to turn an unfaithful Christian back to God, that they would be turning back a Christian who, at that point, would now be defined as a lost sinner… and what does the text say that this faithful Christian would do? This faithful Christian would SAVE A SOUL FROM DEATH! James was not referring to physical death here; rather, he was referring to spiritual death! Here is a good question for those who subscribe to “Once Saved, Always Saved” … How can one save another Christian’s soul from death, if once a person is saved, they are always saved? One could not do that! If a soul is always in a saved state after one becomes a Christian, then it would be impossible for someone to fall from God’s grace… But… here in James 5:19, 20, we see that a Christian can fall and get themselves into such a state where the “error of his way,” as the text says, is leading them to spiritual death, which will result in them going to Hell!
Passage #3 is 2 Peter 2:20-22. It says, “For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning. For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them. But it has happened to them according to the true proverb: ‘A dog returns to his own vomit,’ and, ‘a sow, having washed, to her wallowing in the mire.’” Notice the two-letter word “if” at the beginning of verse 20. I now want you to read these next few statements that a brother in Christ named Stephen Rogers said regarding this passage that breaks these verses down well. Brother Rogers said, “Christians have escaped the pollution of the world - sin. They escaped sin through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Tragically, Christians can become entangled in sin again and be overcome. It would have been better if such unfaithful brethren had never heard the Gospel than after hearing it to turn from it and return back into sin.” Here is another good question for those who subscribe to “Once Saved, Always Saved” … How can the latter end ever be worse for a Christian if they can never fall from grace? It can be worse because the Bible plainly teaches that a Christian can fall from grace!
Passage #4 is 1 Corinthians 10:12. In this verse, Paul warned, “Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall.” Paul wrote to Christians here, and earlier in the chapter, in verse 6, he said, “Now these things became our examples, to the intent that we should not lust after evil things as they also lusted.” In verse 8, he said, “Nor let us commit sexual immorality, as some of them did, and in one day twenty-three thousand fell.” In verse 12, do you think Paul was saying to these Christians, “Take heed, take caution brethren… so that you do not fall and scrape your knee?” No! He was saying to be careful because they could fall spiritually and lose their souls! He was warning them not to allow themselves to get puffed up and then fall from grace!
Passage #5 is 1 John 1:7. This verse says, “But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.” 1 John was written to Christians. This verse contains the word “if,” thus making it a conditional statement! If we as Christians walk in the light… in other words… if we are faithfully serving God, then Jesus’ blood continually cleanses us from all sin. Well… what if a Christian does not choose to walk in the light and instead, chooses to walk in darkness? Then that Christian no longer gets cleansed from their sins by the blood of Jesus, and if an individual does not have Christ’s blood applied to their sins, then they will not go to Heaven!
I do want to make this point clear, and please do not misunderstand what I am saying… True Christians do believe in a Biblical view of “Once Saved, Always Saved” … We believe in a conditional “Once Saved, Always Saved.” You see, 1 John 1:7 teaches that once a sinner is saved, if that Christian keeps on walking in the light, they will always remain saved… But… this continual state of being saved depends upon our continual faithfulness to God and in no way does this verse, nor the entire Bible teach that we are incapable of falling from God’s grace!
Passage #6 is Hebrews 3:12. This verse says, “Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God.” In this verse, the Hebrew writer wrote, “Beware, Brethren.” He was saying, “Beware Christians!” He also said that a Christian can depart from the living God! If a husband develops an evil heart and decides to abandon and depart from his wife, is that husband considered faithful? In this hypothetical situation, I am not talking about putting away a spouse for fornication, as Jesus declared was the only God-approved reason for getting a divorce in Matthew 19:9. In this hypothetical situation, the answer is: No! Such a husband would be considered unfaithful to his wife! Spiritually speaking, what if we decide to depart from God? Would we be considered faithful? No! If we are not found to be faithful to God when we stand before Jesus Christ on the judgment day, then we cannot go to Heaven!
These six passages only scratch the surface of all of the various passages that reveal that a saved Christian can so sin as to lose their own soul! May we keep this sobering truth in our minds each and every day as we seek to put God first in our lives! (Matthew 6:33)
@@aikonakamoto9030 Yes, what God does no one else can undo, but we have free will and can leave God.
In the Vine and Branches parable
Jesus is the Vine supporting us, and he has the Father in him.
We are the Branches and have the Holy Spirit and the Light in us.
The light shines through us also. The source of the light is the Father.
The Light allows us to talk to Jesus directly and hear from him.
Staying in the light allows the Fruit of the Spirit to grow.
And when mature enough we receive the Gifts of the Spirit.
If we leave the light by sin, we must repent and return to the light.
We also must grow
If we don't we are sent to hell.
This walk is the judgement for this life.
A person can receive Jesus and die two hours later and enter heaven without water Baptism or baptism of the Spirit or works. Another person can be a Christian all their life and not grow from the point of entering the Church and go to hell.
John 151"I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener.2He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes [1] so that it will be even more fruitful.3You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you.4Remain in me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.5"I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.6If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.7If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you.8This is to my Father's glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples.
Add forensic justification by imputation (rather than infusion) to the list
Questioning Protestant here. I recently stumbled across Pints with Aquinas where I discovered your channel. I'm loving the conversations on Pints, and I love the information I can glean from The Council of Trent videos. My mother is a Baptist pk, so I was raised with Calvinism, but it has never sat right with me. Some of the arguments are clear fallacies, and it also brings up a lot of questions about free will that never get a satisfactory answer. Thank you for this very well-researched explanation of the doctrinal disputes!
Separate question: can you do a video explaining the origins of the Church as an institution? Or do you already have one? I was listening to an old episode of Pints with Mother Natalia (love her so much), and my mom claimed, among other very anti-Catholic sentiments, that the Catholic church was formed as a power grab in the 6th century. I don't believe this is true, but like many Protestants, my grasp of church history is practically non-existent. If there is a video, can someone please share it in the comments? Book suggestions are also very welcome.
Study proto- Protestantism, like the Waldensians, Voudois and Albegenes. Catholics want you to think that Martin Luther completely invented something, but bible believing Christians have always been around being persecuted by the "mother church."
Read Ignatius of Antioch. He is a first generation disciple of the Apostles and describes the role of bishops and the importance of being in communion with them.
@@kyler9323 Thank you!
@@cassiemae7834 I'm trying to help you out too
Kyler’s recommendation is really good. Ignatius was bishop of Antioch and knew John the apostle and wrote several letters(7?) while being taken to Rome to be martyred in 107ad.
A modern source for the early Church being Catholic is Joe Heschmeyer who works for Catholic Answers. He is a TH-camr and also has written some very fine books.
Your desire for truth is admirable and a sign of grace
I have never felt the love of chrsit coming from James white. He’s more concerned with being right than the truth
@nathonoppy - that's called intellectual assent without Spiritual ascent! Sad for him!
“Now unto Him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy” Jude24…..if this verse does not affirm the doctrine of perseverance of the saint to final salvation I don’t know what else is
To those who who believe in the notion of “once saved always saved”, Jesus Himself debunks this in Scripture:
Matthew 7:21-23
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 heavenly Father. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not perform many miracles in your name?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers!’
Thank you brother Trent Horn. You are amazing. Continue to defend our Catholic faith and traditions that have had existed for over two thousand years and will survive and stand time until the second coming of Jesus Christ.
Again thank you Brother Trent Horn,,,, you are amazing,,,a true gift to our Catholic Church.
*cough cough* Orthodox *cough cough*
@@EmberBright2077 no one is asking you for your ouch......ooch.......you may keep your ouch ooch.....
@@MaranglikPeterTo-Rot-dm4nc ?
"Lord during my lifetime I didn't obey any of your commandments but punish me not , I had faith in them all"
Henry Fielding
You have NOT done his commandments but broken them all. That's what you don't understand. Jesus Christ paid it all!
th-cam.com/video/M4_pgXjq5X4/w-d-xo.html
No room in that for “faith without works is dead” is there?
@@Danaluni59 You have FORGOTTEN the works of God. That ye believe on HIM whom he hath sent. Do you EVEN remember HIS NAME brethren?
Tell Me the truth,
th-cam.com/video/lrAjMMM-R4M/w-d-xo.html
🇻🇦🇻🇦🇻🇦🇻🇦 My friend converted from Calvinism to Christianity after studying the Early Church Fathers.
Praise God!
By God's decree. Lol.
Don’t forget that it wasn’t only the apostles who were guiding the early church, Jesus and the Holy Spirit were guiding them. To suggest otherwise is to call Jesus a liar.
Uuhhhhhh…. John 6!!?!?
Ya just pretend that’s not there??
I guess you can believe whatever you want these postmodern days! Sad
I am a revert after 30 years. Praise God for leading me home to truth!🙏
Welcome home!
Hi Trent,
Sure, eternal security was unknown in the early church, but this is really a specified critique against one aspect of the Reformed tradition as it developed from Calvin and to Westminster. But interestingly, notable Reformed voices seemed to dissent. John Davenant thought that a baby could receive justification in Baptism and lose it. This seems to have been Samuel Ward's position as well. Now, to be sure, this was a departure from the tradition of the church and I think it's clear Calvin was just wrong here. Luther (and the Lutheran Confessions) emphasizes the fact that you can lose your salvation through open and manifest sin, like David with Bathsheba--unrepentant sin leads to being cut off. I myself am one of those strange Reformed-Augustinian people who think you can lose your salvation, but also believe in unconditioned predestination. I know you mention that other Protestants disagree with Calvin on this, but it's important to say that this isn't really a good reason to reject the Reformation and become a Protestant who demands Rome's reform, since the vast majority of Protestant traditions do hold that you can lose your salvation through unrepentant sin. And it's not a good critique of the *overall* catholicity Calvin sought to retrieve, since he did think the core doctrines of the Reformation (what he held in common with the Lutherans) was from antiquity.
I'll look forward to your sola fide video, and I may make a response myself!
I highly doubt Calvin was looking for some Catholicity when he was issuing anathemas to Protestant groups like the Anabaptists and calling Luther a "half-papist" due to Luther's love for the real presence.
What schisms and denominations? Did Calvin believe that schism was wrong and evil?
Interesting post! Do you think St Augustine's soteriology would cohere well with a "TULI" (lol, TULIP minus P) view? To me, such a view sounds close to Jansenism. Obviously St Augustine's time was well before this or that Protestant synod, but I've often wondered which, if any, Protestant school or slight modification thereof the great Saint would find agreeable. I would guess the closest thing would be something like Arminianism in principle, but in practice such a theology tends to devolve to a view like "Well, you get in by grace, but you stay in through works" (eg with Methodists), which I doubt he'd approve of.
There wasn’t even a 66 book cannon matching the Protestant bible used for the first 1,500 years
We’re not all Calvinist but they do have a stronghold on evangelical publishers so they appear to be a huge majority but they aren’t.
It’s not about church history, it’s about what the authoritative word of God says, what does the scripture say? “For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers,”
Romans 8:38
What about the name of Jesus, Rome took away from baptism??
The first church were baptized in Jesus name,
Thanks Trent for your honest and balanced teaching. As a Protestant, I have to do some serious thinking on this issue. Every possible blessing to you.
I think that scriptures are in line with the perseverance of the Saints. I think John is the most explicit, besides saying that those that went away were never from us there are passages like Jn 2:23-25 (they are trusting jesus but Jesus is not trusting them) and 6:64-66 (where Jesus is saying they are following just for foor before it). Then there are passages like Jn 15:16 where Jesus is saying he chose his disciples (i don't think Judas proves this wrong when concidered in context i think he was the son of perdition, the one stealing money isn't somebody that is really a christian unless you think it is a mark of true salvation... Just like God chose Moses before, does not know what he is dooing?), Jn 10:27-30 saying nobody can take them out of his hand where he says it is the same as beeing in the hand of the father and passages like Ap 13:8, 17:8 where the names are in the book of life from before the foundation of the world. What do you make of these passages?
Yes! Perseverance of the Saints was the absolute lynchpin of my theology about everything as a protestant, so when I realized it was basically unknown before Calvin, I went back to examine my proof texts (John 6 mostly) and found they taught the opposite. A few months later, having already done my research on other topics, I was Catholic, and I’ve never been happier or closer to God!
I’m a Protestant who’s still where you were. Perseverance makes sense to me. The golden chain of redemption in Romans 8:28-30 speaks of the entire act of redeeming people from beginning to end as an act of God. If a truly saved person fails to reach glorification then God failed. The language of salvation used throughout the NT is so final. Adoption, resurrection, becoming a partaker of eternal life. It doesn’t sound like probation.
@@hettinga359 I hear you, Rom 8 was a big proof text for me too. Catholics believe that text of course - there is a people (the elect) that God has chosen from eternity past to be saved and those he foreknew, he predestined, called, justified, and ultimately glorified. That’s all true (I mean Paul said it, so…)!!
Here’s the rub: there’s no contradiction between saying that God saves the elect all the way from foreknowledge to glorification AND saying that there is ANOTHER group of people who are once justified and later forfeit that grace of justification. Romans 8 and similar passages speak about the elect but don’t make the claim that ONLY the elect EVER come into a state of justification. That is the piece that Calvin seems to have inserted that wasn’t believed for the first 1500 years (outside of possibly those people in that Augustine quote in the video that he rejected). We all believe in perseverance of the ELECT, the question is whether ONLY the elect ever are SAINTS.
As for the language being final, you’re right! Once someone has been believed and been baptized into Christ and thereby justified, he/she is God’s adopted son/daughter. So when we speak of people forfeiting justification, they aren’t losing their *sonship* so much as they’re losing their *inheritance* which is why Hebrews warns us not to be like Esau and give up our inheritance (salvation) in exchange for a single meal (in the context, sexual immorality - i.e. mortal sin) - Hebrews 12:6
@@blakewolford8903 thanks, have to chew on that
I don't see why it couldn't just be a doctrinal development, like the excuse Catholics will use whenever they can't find historical backing for their beliefs.
@@EmberBright2077 I think the difference is that this doctrine wasn’t just something that hadn’t been fleshed out yet, it was something actively rejected by practically everyone until Calvin. So this wouldn’t be development, this would be reversal of what was (at least nearly) universally held prior
This topic is the most dangerous of the Protestant heresies - thank you for covering it, Trent. Liked
It's basically Satan slipping in the arrogance of presumption through a temptation to fear.
😈 "As long as you confess with your mouth and believe in your heart, you will be like gods, knowing good and evil."
I think the cheap grace sinner’s prayer fire insurance claim is the most dangerous. You have to first THINK you’re “saved” before you can STAY “saved!”
@@john-paulgies4313 I'm very thankful for the Sacrament of Confession. Each and every Confession gives sanctifying grace, purifies the soul and helps to sin no more...
Jesus Christ Granted the Apostles His Authority to Forgive Sins
John 20:21 - before He grants them the authority to forgive sins, Jesus says to the apostles, "as the Father sent me, so I send you." As Christ was sent by the Father to forgive sins, so Christ sends the apostles and their successors forgive sins.
John 20:22 - the Lord "breathes" on the apostles, and then gives them the power to forgive and retain sins. The only other moment in Scripture where God breathes on man is in Gen. 2:7, when
the Lord "breathes" divine life into man. When this happens, a significant transformation takes
place.
John 20:23 - Jesus says, "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven. If you retain the sins of any, they are retained." In order for the apostles to exercise this gift of forgiving sins, the penitents must orally confess their sins to them because the apostles are not mind readers. The
text makes this very clear.
Matt. 9:8 - this verse shows that God has given the authority to forgive sins to "men." Hence, those Protestants who acknowledge that the apostles had the authority to forgive sins (which this
verse demonstrates) must prove that this gift ended with the apostles. Otherwise, the apostles' successors still possess this gift. Where in Scripture is the gift of authority to forgive sins taken away from the apostles or their successors?
Matt. 9:6; Mark 2:10 - Christ forgave sins as a man (not God) to convince us that the "Son of man" has authority to forgive sins on earth.
Luke 5:24 - Luke also points out that Jesus' authority to forgive sins is as a man, not God. The Gospel writers record this to convince us that God has given this authority to men. This authority
has been transferred from Christ to the apostles and their successors.
Matt. 18:18 - the apostles are given authority to bind and loose. The authority to bind and loose includes administering and removing the temporal penalties due to sin. The Jews understood this since the birth of the Church.
John 20:22-23; Matt. 18:18 - the power to remit/retain sin is also the power to remit/retain punishment due to sin. If Christ's ministers can forgive the eternal penalty of sin, they can certainly
remit the temporal penalty of sin (which is called an "indulgence").
2 Cor. 2:10 - Paul forgives in the presence of Christ (some translations refer to the presences of Christ as "in persona Christi"). Some say that this may also be a reference to sins.
2 Cor. 5:18 - the ministry of reconciliation was given to the ambassadors of the Church. This ministry of reconciliation refers to the sacrament of reconciliation, also called the sacrament of confession or penance.
James 5:15-16 - in verse 15 we see that sins are forgiven by the priests in the sacrament of the sick. This is another example of man's authority to forgive sins on earth. Then in verse 16, James
says “Therefore, confess our sins to one another,” in reference to the men referred to in verse 15, the priests of the Church.
1 Tim. 2:5 - Christ is the only mediator, but He was free to decide how His mediation would be applied to us. The Lord chose to use priests of God to carry out His work of forgiveness.
Lev. 5:4-6; 19:21-22 - even under the Old Covenant, God used priests to forgive and atone for the sins of others.
The Necessity and Practice of Orally Confessing Sins
James 5:16 - James clearly teaches us that we must “confess our sins to one another,” not just privately to God. James 5:16 must be read in the context of James 5:14-15, which is referring to the healing power (both physical and spiritual) of the priests of the Church. Hence, when James says “therefore” in verse 16, he must be referring to the men he was writing about in
verses 14 and 15 - these men are the ordained priests of the Church, to whom we must confess our sins.
Acts 19:18 - many came to orally confess sins and divulge their sinful practices. Oral confession was the practice of the early Church just as it is today.
Matt. 3:6; Mark 1:5 - again, this shows people confessing their sins before others as an historical practice (here to John the Baptist).
1 Tim. 6:12 - this verse also refers to the historical practice of confessing both faith and sins in
the presence of many witnesses.
1 John 1:9 - if we confess are sins, God is faithful to us and forgives us and cleanse us. But wemust confess our sins to one another.
Num. 5:7 - this shows the historical practice of publicly confessing sins, and making public restitution.
2 Sam. 12:14 - even though the sin is forgiven, there is punishment due for the forgiven sin.
David is forgiven but his child was still taken (the consequence of his sin).
Neh. 9:2-3 - the Israelites stood before the assembly and confessed sins publicly and interceded for each other.
Sir. 4:26 - God tells us not to be ashamed to confess our sins, and not to try to stop the current of a river. Anyone who has experienced the sacrament of reconciliation understands the import of this verse.
Baruch 1:14 - again, this shows that the people made confession in the house of the Lord, before the assembly.
1 John 5:16-17; Luke 12:47-48 - there is a distinction between mortal and venial sins. Mortal sins lead to death
and must be absolved in the sacrament of reconciliation. Venial sins do
not have to be confessed to a priest,
but the pious Catholic practice is to
do so in order to advance in our journey to holiness.
Matt. 5:19 - Jesus teaches that
breaking the least of commandments
is venial sin (the person is still saved
but is least in the kingdom), versus
mortal sin (the person is not saved).
@@mrjeffjobYou dont know what you are saying. Grace is paid for by the priceless powerful blood of the Lamb. Trying to buy salvation is a MOCKERY of the Cross.
th-cam.com/video/M4_pgXjq5X4/w-d-xo.html
@@mrjeffjoba Baptist minister friend of mine calls that “greasy” grace.
We are all sinners...
Cutting to the core of the denominational squabbling of which there are valid differences.
Are you going to church,professing the name of Christ yet still practicing sin at the same level ...cuss words,drunkeness,etc...than you need to re evaluate your stance with God.
He will spit the lukewarm Christians out of his mouth......those who think they are right in their own eyes
On the other hand do you progressively however slowly hate your sin and at times fall back in to your old habits...yet continue to repent,seek a change of heart...get on your knees pleading for grace and mercy each day...knowing ones condition...Then you are likely a child of God whatever your denomination
Loving the lord with all your heart...and conquering our old selves whom Christ took to the cross is the Calvary road....hard but walking as he walked imitating him thru a life of love in the holy spirit
Religion is relationship...just as Christ always partnered with his disciples....he calls us all to do likewise.
Surrender the heart and flesh to him and strive to walk in the light
❤❤
The present Catholic biblical canon did not exist until 1546. Roman Catholic doctrine such as the bodily assumption of Mary and papal infallibility are also recent additions to the deposit of faith. And now uncle Frankie is poised to normalize homosexuality as priests can now officially bless them. Way to stand against the culture Frankie, just exactly what we would expect an infallible vicar to do 🙄. But hey, keep thinking that you are part of the one true unchanging church, but if one day you see the light, stop worshipping Mary, look away from your good works and your baptism and look to Christ alone for salvation, stop trusting in the church and the mythical treasury of merit to save you, Christ has all the merit and God will not share his glory with another.
I am a protestant myself, mainly lingering between non-denominationalism (probably spelled that wrong) and some aspects of pentacostalism but I think that this issue isn't really fully thought through. In my opinion, I believe in the permanent salvation of the elect mentioned in Romans and Ephesians but not permanent salvation of the non-elect. An example of someone who is not elect would be found in Hebrews 6, as they had faith but didn't strive to understand God more deeply and learn even fundamental doctrine. Such people have fallen away from the grace of God. Just as free will and election can exist together with no contradiction, losing your salvation and eternal security can as well as long as you define who is eternally secured.
I also find that this doesn't really affect much of the doctrine of any protestants in a major way that tips them into Catholicism. I think a bigger question to answer would be why Catholics have priests and men acting in a way that appears to mediate between them and God, when all true believers are already high priest (1 Peter) and Jesus is our mediator and forerunner priest (Hebrews). That is an actual dividing issue that is worthy defending or responding to.
I'd love to hear the thoughts of anyone who disagrees! Please just respond with an actual argument instead of bashing mainstream non-denom and pentecostal churches; and throwing out facts about the Catholic Church being the one true church as that is not even the topic of this comment.
I also would like to know why there is a Catholic Priest acting as a mediator. Is there something in Catholic doctrine that says a Catholic Priest is God or Jesus, or that the priest is a substitute?
Christ is the inly mediator. But Christ made the great commission ergo, Christ sent our his agents (apostles and disciples) to baptize and teach and administer his sacraments. As catholic we do not see our priests as men intervening between God and men, but as in persona christi (in the person of Christ).. it is not the priest who forgives us but Jesus. In the same way that the pope is not Christ but merely the grand vizier or prime minister of the kingdom of Christ. Just imagine this- the secretary of defense does not exercise his powers or his office in his own personal capacity but as the alter ego of the president..
@@markv1974 As far as the sacraments go, that makes sense. My only problem is that Catholicism, when defined by the statements of the council of Trent, adds onto that role of priest past just the sacraments such as the giving of grace. Another terrible doctrine is the infallibility of the Pope; which although it has been lessened in recent years, it still has led to heretical doctrine such as works after salvation and other silly issues such as Mary being a virgin despite Jesus having brothers.
@@kalebroberts5518 uhmmm sacraments are the means by which grace flows to us, the priests administer sacraments. In essence the sacraments administered by priests is the channel for grace but not the source of grace. God is the source of grace. If God give mana, then the sacraments are the containers and the priests are the ones serving them out. As for infallibility - it only concerns faith and morals and only when the pope teaches ex cathedra thats is from the chair of St. Peter. Its in the bible that Christ told Peter to feed his sheep, to pray for his brethren, to have the keys to bind and unbind, and is it not that Christ punished that Christ would pray for peter, and that the gates of hell would never conquer (that is no error) the church built on Peter. To say that the Church is going to be led astray would be to deem Christ’s promises as mere lies. So you have a choice, believe Christ and his promises or you believe the Church, led by Peter and the Popes would fall and be conquered by hell and believe that Jesus lied.
So which would you choose to believe?
@@markv1974 Your setting up your entire doctrine on the fact that the church has always had a central leader (pope figure) throughout history, but that is utter nonsense. Early church writings of the bible include mentions of elders and deacons in 1&2 Timothy and give examples of those who acted as such, none of which act like the pope or priests in the catholic church. Also, grace is not administered by the sacraments but is rather a covenantal sign to point back and remember the sacrifice and glorification of Christ.
Rather than trying to choose one or the other about priestly succession, you should look and see that there was no central authority over the Mediterranean churches. The earliest known mention of apostolic succession from Peter is to Linus, which is conveniently mentioned almost 120yrs from the time of his supposed succession by people in Rome. Peter himself doesn't make any suggestion that he has any special authority to pass out grace and he along with Paul talk about how everyone is a spiritual high priest in Christ. I'm not gonna defend a stance that has no historical or scriptural backing to back it up. You'd have to bring some evidence that this succession is biblical beside some out of context, extra biblical interpretations.
I do believe in the leadership of elders and the deacons, which saddens me that most protestant churches are not unified. On the other hand, I refuse to believe in a church who has had multiple false doctrines that are based on loose or additive interpretations of scripture. And the same church you claim to not be led astray was clearly led astray during the various accounts of scandalous popes and practices such as indulgences, how am I supposed to trust its reliability if its a centralized authority and not just mistakes of a few men?
Jimmy Akin sounded like a junior apologist at Catholic Answers in that clip you gave. I'm used to hearing his senior apologist at Catholic Answers voice
Trent, I just considered that what you do as your life vocation and how you unpack and deliver the truths of our Catholic Faith is so appreciated. Your role in life is more important than many other secular disciplines in helping all of us on our faith journey. Thank you, and God bless you and your beautiful family!!
I genuinely don't even know how to be saved 💀
and i've been christian for 16 years
I’m Anglican and I agree with Luther’s version
As a Protestant, I deny eternal security, and think this is a major weakness of many denominations.😊
You are deceived then. Out of the abundance of heart the mouth speaketh. Do men gather Fruit of thorns and thistles?
th-cam.com/video/M4_pgXjq5X4/w-d-xo.html
Same
As a lutheran I must say that I'm looking forward to your take on justification by faith alone. I admit, that if there is really not that much support for sola fide in the early church, that would be a strong argument against this doctrine being true (I support sola scriptura, not solo scriptura).
Sola scriptura as is defined in this day and age is pretty much the Catholic position already.
Catholicism affirms Scripture has material sufficiency. Historically, Protestantism claimed _formal_ sufficiency.
Material sufficiency is that with enough study and by building upon the life's work of the Fathers, we can justify all doctrines.
Formal sufficiency (what Sola Scriptura was supposed to be about) was that a plain reading of Scripture is sufficient. Anything not readily apparent is not important.
In other words, material is that Scripture is the building blocks for a house (wood, etc.), formal is that Scripture is a built and furnished house.
Things like the Perpetual Virginity of Mary were known through deep study and reference to the Fathers. Primarily St. Jerome's work in this case (who saw it as blatantly obvious from Scripture alone, but he was a native speaker of Greek, lived and died in Bethlehem, was fluent in Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin, professional translator, etc.)
You might find Casey Chalk’s book, “The Obscurity of Scripture,” to be an interesting read that challenges your view of sola scriptura. Trent did an episode with him not too long ago that’s solid, covers much of the arguments in the book, and would be worth listening to as well. God bless you my friend.
Well, Allister Mcgrath’s massive book on Sola fide conclude with him saying no one taught the Protestant view before Luther. And he’s a Protestant
@@crusaderACR well, I have seen a lot of claims, that the mainstream protestant position (lutheran, reformed and anglican) has always been material sufficiency. At least in lutheran confessional documents (Concordia) there is a lot of appeal to church fathers and early ecumenical council. Supposedly only subsequent protestant movements really claimed formal sufficiency.
@@sillysyriac8925 I wouln't require church fathers to teach exactly the same doctrine of justification as protestants do, word for word. What I would like to see is a strong argument, that when church fathers spoke of "sola fide" (a lot of them did), they meant to exclude from (saving) justification only works of the (jewish) law, but still include works of merit.
My major problem with Protestants saying that Scripture only was the only basis for doctrine is that it seems that it depends on what the Scripture says. If the Scripture is problematic such as the Epistle of James, it can be ignored. Luther wanted to kick James out of the Bible. Even the Gospel of the Matthew and the sheep and goats judgement really puts the sword to the faith only doctrine.
The fruit of Sola Scriptura was and is, chaos and confusion. It's only grown exponentially since the day of Father Luther, Father Zwingli and the Catholic lawyer named Calvin. They all disagreed with each other, these 'reformers' yet Sola gave none the right to say the other was wrong.
Protestantism is as dependent on how any given pastor on any given day reinterprets scripture to suit whatever premise or position he is attempting to presume on any given Sunday.
@@Danaluni59 For some. For others it depends on whether the pastor agrees with the Church of Self.
I feel like this video is conflating two separate doctrines being eternal salvation and grace through faith. Grace through faith still requires faith, so if you fall away from faith, you fall from the grace of God. Jesus told us that there is one unforgivable sin, and by denying Christ it seems to me that you are blaspheming the Holy Spirit.
haha yeah remember when an Ecumenical Council excommunicated the Pope that they are supposed to be subservient too? Yeah that was wild haha.
Regarding the belief that "even permanent apostasy won't disqualify you from salvation", just know most Protestants simply respond with "if you are actually saved you would have become a new creature so you wouldn't/couldn't have permanent apostasy". Essentially, people who become "really" saved don't ever leave the faith. Hard to overcome this logic as it is circular and always works in their favor. Essentially, only people who go to Heaven are saved.
Tautologies make for an empty theology, that’s my response. “Saved people are saved” is a tautology, and as such is completely meaningless.
@@nathangraham2189
Tautologies are 2 different words that mean the same thing ….words like choose & select are tautologies….not saved and saved…
@@Mattissaved Um no, they are not. A tautology is a term of logic: it’s a statement that is always necessarily true in every world, such as “when it’s raining, it is raining.” As such; they are statements that cannot convey any meaningful information about the world. As with my example herein, they are perfectly capable of having the same word within the statement. When broken down into symbolic logic they would indeed have the same symbolic value in both parts of the statement, such as “where A is, A is”. Similarly, the statement “those people who are saved, are saved people” would be a tautology. Pax Christi.
Protestant logic can’t be faulty, because if it’s faulty, it wasn’t actual Protestant logic. See?
As a Lutheran, this definitely does not apply to us.
The doctrine of Eternal Security is denounced in the Lutheran Book of Concord. For example, the Formula of Concord Article IV (Good Works) states "We also reject and condemn the teaching that faith and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit are not lost through malicious sin, but that the holy ones and the elect retain the Holy Spirit even though they fall into adultery and other sins and persist in them." (False Antitheses Article 3).
This is certainly an interesting presentation of a matter of historical theology. I did not know that there was no significant teacher in the church who held to the saints' final perseverance before the 16th century. I learned something--thank you. At the same time, I am convinced that the Scritures teach that doctrine, so yes, it must have been overlooked by many, many theologians. Our Eastern brethren still don't see the filioque! That doesn't mean it's not true.
Any reason it can't just be doctrinal development?
Peoples beliefs are nice but why not go to the scriptures. Eph 1:13-14 once one has believed the gospel and trusted in Christs death burial and resurrection, one is sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise which is a down payment on our souls until the day of redemption. It doesn't matter what folks believe now or long ago, the answer is in the Word. However, we do have to believe what it clearly teaches. These 2 verses alone can eliminate some false denominations.
The first believers were not Christians they were Messianic's and were all jews. Jesus Hebrew name is Yeshua.
Voddie Baucham was the pastor who helped to reignite my faith after many years as an atheist/ agnostic, and while I still have a lot of respect for him I do have to agree with you that the reformed position on this doctrine is untenable. I'm about halfway through your book, The Case for Catholicism, and I've gone to mass at a couple of different Catholic churches. I talked to the priest at one of them who was a very friendly guy who had been all over the map on denominations and was a former episcopal priest, but I'm still not sure where I should go whether it be to the Catholic Church or Orthodox Church or stay Protestant. Prayers and/or advice from others would be greatly appreciated
"Stay Protestant" is a very broad area, given the sheer number of Protestants. Personally, I would seriously investigate Catholicism and Orthodoxy first, then if you find neither of them true work your way through the various Protestants. Catholicism and Orthodoxy have very strong claims of who they are and claims of continuity, whereas every Protestant denomination fundamentally claims the the Church fell away at some point and had to be reformed. Investigate those on the claim/ground of if the Church fell away. If so, go Protestant. If not, go to one of them.
As to advice, I would recommend attending services, talking to the priests/pastors, researching, and prayer. I would personally try to go to daily mass for Catholic, and Great Vespers (Saturday evening) for Orthodox. There tends to be fewer people there, and you often have a chance to talk with the priest afterwards and ask questions. Bring the questions that have always bugged you about Christianity and Protestantism, questions you have for them, and objections your Protestant friends have. Eventually, you can also bring Orthodox objections of Catholicism to the Catholic priests, and vise versa. Hopefully you can find a good local place to talk to someone, but if not there are a plethora of online resources. You'e found Trent Horn and Catholic Answers for Catholiv. I would also recommend Bishop Barron. For Orthodox, you cn check out Trisagion Films. I also think Fr Spyridon is good for short sermons. Regarding research, I would read some early writings, be it epistles, dogmatics, or early prayers, and see how well it comports to the Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant claims of Christian history. I would personally start with the seven epistles of St Ignatius because if how short and early they were, probably followed by St Athanasius "On the Incarnation" (also short). New Advent has a ton of early church writings for free on their website. Prayer of course is also important, but there's also the question of "how do I pray?" I would certainly pray the Our father, and at least one Psalm a day. Psalm 25 is a good one for guidance. You can pray more than this, including extemporaneous, but these should be part of it. The Our Father at least Jesus told us to pray, and the dideche (another good early Christian writing) recommended it daily). If you are unconvinced by Orthodoxy or catholicism...well, you have a lot of diffferent Protestants to investigate. I would start with the ones closest to the Reformation who are least ashamed of their heritage.
Good luck, and God bless!
@billcynic1815 Thank you for the detailed answer. May God bless you as well!
I'd go Orthodox or Catholic since you'd have all the valid sacraments and the Real Presence.
there are some nice people in protestantism, but the theology is scattershot and often goofy.
@@Danaluni59 Well said!
The church fathers showed me out of evangelicalism, I settled in an Orthodox Church.
It's crazy to see how arrogant some of these protestants are when referring to the early church fathers in thinking they know better.
You know what, I do know better. Change my mind.
@@EmberBright2077 ok prove to me that the apostles somehow taught their predecessors wrong
@@Hithereitsme32 Well for one thing, if the Apostles passed down the canon, why were there disputes over it?
@@EmberBright2077 well I’m more referring to the direct apprentices of the apostles like Ignatius of course people who were less informed such as different heretical sects sprung up later on. Please give me disagreements between church fathers
@@EmberBright2077 it’s on you to prove that Ignatius for example did not somehow inherit the proper faith from Saint John please provide a lock of evidence
Eternal security has always felt odd to me. To 'have' eternal life sounds like it was a gift that you were given. I don't know why anyone would claim an individual can't willfully throw it away.
Because God sows an INCORRUPTIBLE SEED INSIDE YOU and you receive the TRUE TREE OF LIFE AND YOU RECEIVE THE SPIRIT OF CHRIST AND HE WILL NEVER LEAVE YOU NOR FORSAKE YOU!
Read John.
Consider
th-cam.com/video/M4_pgXjq5X4/w-d-xo.html
When I was in high school, I pointed out to my friend who wanted to be a Roman-Catholic priest: "Saying life is a gift doesn't mean I can't rightly discard it. Some people think it's a white-elephant gift."
The same applies here.
Why does the Trinity not appear in the Bible?peace;
@@lufhopespeacefully2037 You haven't read the Bible then. Wake up. The Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit; these three are one!
,@@MichaelAChristian1 ,no need for wake up,what u said is church teaching,as far as i know trinity is an old worshipping for some an egyptians who have worshipped ezice,authorice&hurce ,later on the church has hijacked the notion&also The concept of a trinity predates the Bible. The concept of a trinity predates the Bible. The much older Hindu Vedas had a holy trinity.Called the trimurti, it was Brahma the creator, Vishnu the preserver, and Shiva the destroyer, three individual deities that are also a single deity
So let me get this straight. A person places their complete faith in Jesus Christ, and trust him completely for their salvation. They live by the power of the Holy Spirit according to his word, because they trust him and believe him that he in his hands holds their eternity. And you have a problem with that?
And on the other hand, it seems that you believe someone places their faith in Christ, and Christ doesn’t secure it, but by our efforts and our works, we can barely hold on to the great salvation that Jesus almost provided us. I’ll take the first scenario all day long .
If eternal security is correct, someone has genuinely and totally placed their faith in Christ, and has trusted him alone. If we are wrong, the person is guilty for placing all of their faith and trust in Christ alone.
If Trent is right, Christ has done some work we have to do the rest, and it all works out in the end, if we finally get cleaned up through purgatory. If Trent is wrong, he has placed himself completely in his own hands, and therefore into eternal damnation. I choose to trust in Christ alone. And by the power of his spirit live accordingly. If I fail, he has got me because that’s one of the sins he died for. if I run away it’s because he never had me. But there is never any time that I personally hold on to a salvation that Jesus is unable to attain for me all by himself.
The real danger is believing that Christ cannot manage it, and that we think we have to. Yes, we have a responsibility to persevere, but by the power of the Holy Spirit, the believer does so. But even that is attributed to the Holy Spirit, and not to us.
No thanks Trent
Trent, I love your videos but you lost me at the very beginning. We do not want the faith of the early church, we want the faith that professes Jesus Christ as Lord, God, Savior and Master and want to honor him in a way that scripture outlines. That is where Protestantism and Catholicism are so different is the Catholic's desire to cling to the historical and traditional faith and protestants trying live out the faith not as it has historically been but rather than what aligns most with scripture.
I can't seem to do well in having discussions about this topic with protestant friends of mine as well as my protestant family. It's definitely a tough one for a lot of people and is seen as unloving (as far as my set is concerned) to suggest any teaching other than eternal security. I'm hoping to get to a better place in discussing this with those closest to me!
This video is helping A LOT. It's like I know all of this but can't seem to get the words right...ugh 😩 I'm definitely no Trent Horn!
Eternal security violates reason. How many people do they know who were practicing Christians and who now do not follow the faith? Then I’m sure they’ll say they were never saved even though the believe sure did at one point. I’d ask them since they believe in Bible alone to point that verse to me out in the Bible where someone professes faith in Christ but does so as a fraud lives it out but wasn’t saved. Like where’s this at in Scripture?
Have you ever read the parable of the sower with them? How do they respond?
@@DiscipleOfChrist77777 Jude 1:4 For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.
And what is it you are referencing exactly?
@@DiscipleOfChrist77777 thats a good one. I usually like to refer to Judgment of All Nations and the Parable of the 10 virgins.
I’ll remember this one as well. Thank you.
Keep striving