25 Reasons Peter Was NOT The First Pope! (REBUTTED)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 มิ.ย. 2024
- In this episode Trent rebuts two dozen arguments against Peter and the papacy from Protestant apologist Todd Friel.
To support this channel: / counseloftrent
Original Video: • 25 Reasons Peter Was N... - บันเทิง
![ภาพนี้ก็ฮาเหมือนกันนะเนี้ย #1 SS8 [ พากย์นรก MEME.EXE ] | easy boy](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ytc50m91QK8/mqdefault.jpg)
So many protestant arguments against the papacy rely on the Pope having characteristics that Catholics don't believe he has.
“There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.” blessed Fulton J. Sheen
They set up a straw man and then proceed to knock that down.
@@brianfarley926 it’s easy that way.
They build their nonsensical house of cards w/ misrepresentations of the holy faith, kinda like the false doctrine they impose that is mysteriously missing from scripture while at the same time asserting sola scriptura 🤔
James White moment
Some Protestants: "Peter was such a terrible guy, there's no way he could've been pope! Also, he was guided by the Holy Spirit to write sacred scripture."
Paul persecuted Christians before converting to Christianity and writing scripture. Just because someone wrote scripture does not make them good. In fact, the fact that Paul, Peter, and the other apostles were not good people emphasizes God's purpose for dying on the cross.
@@Gamerboy365ify do you mean sinners to saints?
@DeletedUser1892 I think you missed the point I was making. All I was saying is that just because someone wasn't good doesn't mean they couldn't write scripture. Otherwise, we wouldn't have scripture. Remember Romans 3:23-24: "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." That means that Peter is a sinner, and by extension, he is not a good person.
@@deleteduser1892 as were all the other apostles including Paul ; and all saved believers .
No one is good but God alone.
I find it truly ironic how the Pope and Bishops are mocked by Todd as not being humble because of their outfits, when Todd exudes what comes across as very prideful from his attitude and demeanour in both this and many of his videos. And I’m not Catholic and can clearly see the difference in his approach and Trent’s.
God bless you Trent. You are a challenging example, to us non-Catholics, of what a good Christian should be like when arguing and defending their position, whatever it may be, everything must be done in love. You do very well to stick to the arguments. We’ll done sir.
Completely agree. As another example, take a look at John MacArthur's remarks and mockery he makes about speaking in tongues and pentecostal Christians. He and others approach topics like that with no humility, no open mindedness, and little regard for the views of their fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.
Nah its just how he talks
@@d.rey5743 It is more than just his tone or the way he talks, it is his words.
Jason . Peter was not a pope in the Church at Rome There were no popes till the second century and historians say third Century , Peter died in the first Century 67AD it wasn`t called catholic till the 300s the Roman Emperor took control of the Church at Rome in 313 and brought in pagan practices and it became universal . and it still has pagan practices in it . A saved believer and bible believing Evangelist and pastors do not take it lightly when some cult or religion
fabricate unbiblical lies . and the Catholic have been deceiving millions with there
unbiblical lies with there traditions for years . The word of God says , rebuke them
and that is what fundamental bible believing Theologians , Evangelist , Pastors and we saved believers who are the Church are told to do . Catholic say the their Church is Christ Church , which is a lie from hell . Christ prophesied that he would build his Church on him self . which he did at his death . His Church is made up of saved believers who have been baptized by the spirit into his body . 1 Cor. 12 : 12 - 13 ; He is the head of his Church Eph. 1 : 22- 23 ; His Church is Holy , with out spot or blemish , it is the one he died for . it is His Bride , Eph. 5 : 25 - 27 ; It is the Church of the living God , the Pillar and Ground if the truth . It has no name or vicar , it is a spiritual body of believers who worship God in spirit and in Truth, in local fundamental , bible believing Gospel preaching denominations and assemblies here on earth .
and the word of God was written to his Church for guidance and instructions.
We as the Church , or saints , or saved believers they are all the same . Can not set back and watch the people be told lies that will send the lost to hell . That is what Christ gave his life for to save sinners and not to pat them on the back .
and say you do it your way . I am not only talking about fabricated lies about Peter and Mary but about there Doctrines , and dogmas and the Catechism .
of which 80% + not back by scriptures . Peter did not hold back he was not passive with the people in Acts 2 : 36 - 37 ; he told them they were wrong .
2 Tim. 3 : 15 - 16 - 17 ; God gives the instruction on how to teach others . the rights and the wrongs .
@Donald Cooley Fr Mike is doing a Chatechism in a year podcast, I invite you to take a listen and follow along for the year and learn about the faith and Church history
Even if they do not believe Peter was the first pope, I don't understand how they could mock Peter like that? Didn't they read the act of apostles?
They’ll result to mockery of a person in scripture to argue. They not only do it with Peter but also Mary. At least with Peter he was a fool like all of us.
Sadly, many of them act similarly toward our Blessed Mother.
Because they're inspired by their own self interest and disregard for anything religious or traditional, no matter how shaky their logic is. To be non conformist and revolutionary has always been trendy in America, has it not? They see the reformation as this cool shift and ignore everything sketchy (I'm being very charitable here) about the father of reformation. Beyond strange.
Protestantism began with the devil. Sorry, but it is the devil seems to divide and cause “chaos “. Protestantism is also responsible for Secularism. All makes sense, right?!
@@SheepofChrist818 That's certainly a Protestant interpretation, but clearly not a reliable interpretation as it portrays Jesus as publicly dishonoring His mother, and thus breaking a Commandment. As Catholics, we understand that verse as Jesus simply emphasizing that we cannot put anyone before God, even our closest friends and family.
This guy looks like an evangelical Bill Nye.
And he's just as annoyingly wrong about everything.
Trent exposed another Protestant scripture twister. I found Todd’s mocking tone to be evil.
I couldn't stand it... rather than respectfully disagree he ridiculed it all.
The challenge is for Trent to actually use scriptures and church history to refute a point. I'm interested in Trent's Greek exegesis of scripture to settle this. Trent's mocking doesn't trump a peasant armed with the Truth of scriptures.
@@IvanAlvarezCPACMA Trent did not mock... the creep Todd was mocking Catholics. Trent destroyed Todd's credibility.
@@mtaylor3771 my starting point is no one should mock anyone. I'm waiting to hear an argument. It's possible I missed it. I will listen again. Thanks.
@@IvanAlvarezCPACMA Trent refuted Todd with scripture.
My favorite video Todd made was when he spent the entire time explaining how his beliefs aren't found in the early church history as though it proved him right.
Link?
@@MarvelGamer2023 th-cam.com/video/tsjkYMigMIE/w-d-xo.html
It's an interesting exercise in being confidently wrong
Link?
@@MarvelGamer2023 There isn't any, Todd, regardless of his attitude, was still correct.
@@alwilson3204 Link?
My 7 year old son wasn't buying this guy's schtick.... God bless you Trent for addressing such insaneness.
17:11 - Yeah, Todd!!!
th-cam.com/video/u02sNHRNLCk/w-d-xo.html
You need to read the Bible my friend. Clearly you do not understand the Word of God enough to make the claim that you are making.
@@user-ob8sj9oo9wno buddy you dont understand tradition and scripture. We will read the bible through the lens of the universal church (meaning Catholic) and respect the Lord who gave us this church and you listen to your heart or pastor or your church at the end of the day if we are lead to Jesus (who is the head of the Catholic Church not the pope) that’s all that matters. We are all Christians we all acknowledge Jesus as Lord so enough with the division
I am not a Catholic, but honestly Trent's arguments were far superior to anything Todd had to say. Todd seems to try way too hard to be funny rather than actually presenting good points.
One point of Trent's that I do lean on in order to justify not following the Pope personally is no. 9 about scripture's silence on the nature of papal succession. Jesus explicitly described scripture as unbreakable and authoritative, and the apostles to which he gave authority declared the New Testament as this kind of divinely breathed scripture in their writings. Thus, the authority of scripture does not depend on an argument from silence.
Meanwhile, in order to establish the universal authority of the papacy over the Church, one has to add to this scripture the mandate to adhere to a arbitrary interpretation of the early tradition of succession as described in the Clement of Rome quote.
I am thankful that Trent rebutted a lot of Todd's flippant arguments, though.
Look into RCIA!!!
@@natorousab then you are focusing on sola scriptura too much.
Catholics and Orthodox both agree that the ancient traditions by the apostles give legitimacy to the church and are just as important as the scripture.
Aside from that, the word "Pope" is not in the bible, sure. It's a word that came much later from Italian. But it isn't relevant what names or titles Peter had been given, the fact that he had so much focus put on him by Jesus and the historical evidence shows his significance as the leader of the early church
@Nathan Rackers When Jesus spoke of scripture, the only scripture around at the time was the Jewish scriptures. What we now call the Old Testament. None of what we call the New Testament existed not a single word had been written then.
As for the apostles believing their writings where inspired such as the scriptures well the only reference I know of like that is where Peter says this about Paul's writings. That sort of solidifies that Peter was the head of the apostles and was already using his authority to point out which letters were scripture and which were not. Many of the apostles were writing letters. But we only hear from Peter about Paul's letters, and it's Paul's letters that made it into the New Testament. Every other reference is Paul referring to his own writings. Sort of like me saying this reply is correct because I say it is. Which is ludicrous to consider that as proof of anything.
@@johnyang1420 The Church was built on the Lord Jesus and we don’t have any objections to coming to Jesus 24/7❤
THE THUMBNAIL 😂😂😂😂😂
Perfection, ngl
It's over Todd! I have the high ground!
Everyone check out this guy's channel !
@@supernerd8067
Todd: "You underestimate my power!"
Trent: "Don't try it."
...We know what happens next
🤺🔥🔥🔥
Pray for Todd's conversion to the beautiful Church that Christ established.
Thank you Trent for communicating the truth in such a respectful manner.
Chris from Australia
The RC church is not 'The Church' and Peter was not the first pope, in fact he never even went to Rome, Paul did. Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles and Peter was the apostle to the Jews. Peter is a foundation stone as are all of the apostles and prophets. It is the Lord Jesus Christ, the Chief Corner Stone who is the Rock upon which He is building His Church ("for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." 1 Corinthians 10:4b). The Church is not a man-made organization, it is a spiritual temple made up of lively stones which is everyone who belongs to Christ..>>>>"Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the Chief Corner Stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit. Ephesians 2:19-22 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a Chief Corner Stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on Him shall not be confounded. Unto you therefore which believe He is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the Stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the Head of the Corner, And a Stone of stumbling, and a Rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of Him who hath called you out of darkness into His marvellous light. 1 Peter 2:5-9
But Jesus called them unto Him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you. Matthew 20:25-26a
And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man. Acts 10:25-26
Can you imagine Paul rebuking Peter if he was the pope and had authority over him? "But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed." Galatians 2:11
The keys of of the Kingdom were given to Peter in Matthew 16, but keep reading and you will see in chapter 18 that the keys were given to all of the Apostles, not just Peter.
chrismelcaroful , I guess you will be praying to Mary . What a joke . First the catholic church was
not established by Christ , that`s not scriptural .
Christ prophesied that on this rock I will build my Church Matt 16 : 18 ; and at his death the dispensation of Grace started and the Church age come at Pentecost , Christ Church is is body of saved believers , That when they got saved they were Baptized by the spirit into the body of Christ
1 Cor. 12 :13 ; He is the Head of the Church
Eph1 : 22-23 ; It is the Church he died for . It is Holy , without spot or blemish . Eph.5 : 25 - 27 ;
It is his Bride , It is the Church of the living God ,
the Pillar and Ground of the Truth . There is no biblical proof that Christ established a Church
on earth . All members of Christ`s Church worship God in spirit and in truth in local earthly denomination or Churches . The Church at Rome was established by converts from Pentecost
who established the Church on the teachings of Christ in the first century . There were no popes
till the second or third century . That leaved out Peter who was killed in 67 AD and the Roman Emperor took control of the church at Rome
in 313 AD and started pagan practices . and it become Catholic . Christ had nothing to do with establishing the Church at Rome , it is not biblical
Todd is the perfect snake-oil salesman
@@jeffrachelburkhalter3783 but you are wrong with the Bible that belongs to the Catholic Church! Not to Protestant twisters
@@harleymann2086 The Scriptures belong to God.
Dang it, Trent. I was working on a rebuttal to this. All well. Did a better job than I could have.
Do it anyway. The more of us speak up the more he might consider a differ approach next time. Like maybe actually speaking with a Catholic Christian to find out what the Church actually teaches.
God Bless
@@PatrickSteil wow thanks for the encouragement bro
@@PatrickSteil try to show how similar he is to a snake oil salesman, like Jimmy Swaggart. Then you would lots of attention
Yeah, i remember hearing the Petros/Petra meaning difference argument while I was in high school, and even though I was more partial to Protestant arguments back then, just a little bit of research was able to reveal there wasn't much backing it as opposition to the papacy
Peter never claimed to be the chief shepherd-vicar-pope of the entire church. Never claimed to be the rock on which the church is built on. The apostles never claimed he was the chief shepherd-vicar of the church. Nor the rock of the church.
@@Justas399 they didn't have to, Jesus already declared it. But I'd contest that they did, watch the video instead of going straight for the comment sections
@@johnhoelzeman6683 Peter nor the apostles ever understood him to be the chief shepherd of the church as Rome tries to make him out to be.
@@Justas399 you're responding like a bot 😂
@@Justas399 and how would you know?
I’ve been a Protestant my whole life, now looking into Catholicism, and I’ve never heard such unconvincing arguments against the papacy as I have heard here 😂
Yeah I was raised an atheist and taught all kinds of stuff about the pope and Catholics that I later found out was all nonsense. Tbh even looking into it as someone with no faith the anti-papacy arguments looked silly and petty to me, and now that God has called me they seem infinitely more so.
Does this bother you?
Peter never claimed to be the chief shepherd-vicar-pope of the entire church. Never claimed to be the rock on which the church is built on.
The apostles never claimed he was the chief shepherd-vicar of the church. Nor the rock of the church.
You've come to the right place. I was Evangelical for 45 years and found the truth in the Catholic church. I'll pray for you.
@@bennyv4444 well stated.
@@Justas399 Jesus never claimed to be God.
Does that bother you?
Heck yeah! Glad you rebutted this
Like I said to @gnomeresearch1666, go read the Bible, since you don't understand the truth behind what Todd is saying.
@@user-ob8sj9oo9w any point in particular that I am not understanding the truth of what Todd was saying? Would you be willing to discuss and provide reasoned, scriptural arguments?
I am open to being proved wrong.
@@user-ob8sj9oo9wTodd has as much truth as Satan.
The new studio looks great!
I always find the first objection pretty ridiculous. If you have taken any higher education classes on Koine Greek, you can pretty easily find out that there is virtually no difference between the masculine and the feminine forms of the word "petra" in this time period. Just as once in time the two verbs for "I love" (phileo and agapao) had distinct meanings in previous classical periods and then during NT period were practically synonymous, so it is with the apparent distinction between petros and petra. The most authoritative Greek Lexicon of NT and early Christian literature (BDAG) notes that Petros being used as a name is entirely post-Christian - meaning that Christ's changing of Simon's name to Peter was a unique moment in history. Further, any time someone's name is changed in Scripture, it is interpreted and given meaning by the promises which God attaches to the individual. So, it would not make sense for Jesus to arbitrarily change Peter's name in order to belittle him in comparison to the confession. As if Jesus was saying "behold, you are an insignificant little stone."
@YAJUN YUAN petros isn't used twice because it's not a common word anymore like petra, in the NT the word petros is only used for Peter. Karlo Broussard talks about this and this directly responds to Nemes point in the debate he had with Akin. Broussard also lists several other reasons why petros isn't used twice.
@YAJUN YUAN also please give us the reason that Christ changed Simon's name to Cephas in specific terms
@@shlamallama6433 Hello. Could you please provide us with the link of Mr Broussard. Sounds very interesting. Thank you.
Hey! Your videos have been popping up for me a lot lately. I'd like to connect with you sometime and would love to have you on my channel sometime.
@@KyleWhittington Hey man! I am totally down to connect and collaborate sometime. If you want to shoot me an email, I'm sure we could set something up. It should be in the about section on my channel. Thanks!
Thank you, Trent!
Why did Jesus change Simon's name to Peter if there was no shift in his role?
Protestants be like:
"Hey from now on I'm calling you wood, but actually you know what... I'm the wood and on this wood which is actually me... I'm building my church on it."
They literally throw away the reason Abram name changes to Abraham which literally means Father
They didn't know that naming someone makes the person who named it have the authority on the renamed person. Like Adam naming every animal because he has authority on it. Jesus named Simon as Peter because he is establishing his authority as building the church on it. Jesus is Rock but he calls Peter Rock too. Just as the Father calls Abram to Abraham which means Father.
My favorite argument. Every other time someone in the Bible receives a name change, they usually get a role/job change.
Jesus changed the name of two other apostles. We’re they also popes?
@@colepriceguitar1153 if you use the sons of thunder for James the Greater and John neither received it individually, as every time they appear they are John and James not John and/or James Boanerges. Yet Simon now appears as "Simon surnamed Peter" or in Paul's letters "Cephas".
Added every list of the Apostles in the gospels Peter is listed protas (head of a group/first) while Judas Iscariot is always listed last.
@@anthonyreynolds1995 So what?
Be careful you don’t accidentally absorb any of his theology. Calvinists are really obsessed with the idea that God “doesn’t share his glory” with anyone. But that’s exactly what he does through Christ in the new covenant. He allows us to become partakers in the divine nature, and we will ultimately be glorified in the new creation.
Calvinists are not Evangelicals
Jesus is God. One God. No glory shared with another person.
@@michaelbledsoe4355 Many would beg to differ. Matt Chandler, John Piper, D.A. Carson come to mind. And those people have had a huge influence in American evangelical Christianity in the past 20 years. Evangelicalism as an -ism takes many different forms, so some lean Arminian and others Calvinist. But I would assume any church that rejects infant baptism would want to be called evangelical. Now if you're talking about Presbyterian Calvinists? They would probably say they are Confessional before calling themselves Evangelical. Then there's CREC that actually has reformed and evangelical in its name.
@@EdgeOfEntropy17 God actually shares His glory with all who would accept it. That glory is called grace.
@@DakkogiRauru23 I obviously disagree because grace is in no way related to sharing glory. How do you even think that is even close to the same thing?
Grace is undeserved favor from God for the purpose of obtaining salvation. It is His goodness towards the underserving race of mankind. it is not sharing glory.
Objection 3 is merely a combination of the most prevalent, surface-level anti-Catholic myths that take a single sentence to debunk. It is sad, because I am willing to bet (as my own experience as a former Protestant) that most of Todd's viewers are misled by Todd's misrepresentation of Catholic theology. Why is that? Because the vast majority of Protestants do not learn about Catholicism from Catholic sources.
Same here. I grew up Protestant and only learned about Catholicism through the Protestant perspective. I even was a substitute teacher and the kids were given a small packet of the Protestant reformation history and it was not from a Catholic perspective at all.
@@justenhug632 It is so annoying! I went to a private Christian school from 5th grade until 12th grade and I remember being taught that Catholicism was a cult and that they weren't saved because they believed they could earn their salvation.
I was kept from Catholic teachings by my Luthern school, but I never hated Catholics. I was just told they had things wrong.
My brother's fall into athiesm and personal research have led him and me into Catholicsm, and we couldn't be happier.
I've watched a lot of Todd Friel. I usually find him enjoyable and his college campus preaching actually helped maintain/strengthen my faith in a dark time (his story is also compelling, mother divorced 3 times and he didn't hear of Christianity til the 8th grade). But his Catholic misrepresentations obviously leave a bad taste in my mouth now. He has great faith but also great misgivings about our Christian heritage. Agh, what pains it gives to see our Christ's body so divided!!! Todd would make for an amazing Catholic with all the history and saints at his side. We should pray for him.
The fact he has the most common miss conceptions at #3, tells a lot too! It’s just sad to know there’s so many videos out there making claims of the Church that are no where close to what the Church actually teaches 🤦🏻♂️
Thank you Trent as always. Watching these rebuttals strengthen my faith more each time :)
th-cam.com/video/u02sNHRNLCk/w-d-xo.html
RE-indoctrination
I would suggest that you read the Bible to find your faith rather than listen to baseless claims for faith.
@@user-ob8sj9oo9w
We do read our Bibles. This is why we know you are wrong.
The difference is that we understand the Bible in its ancient context and don't impose a modernist reading upon it.
Thanks much for this video.
Thank you Trent! Good job!
This is so great. It's hard not to feel some anger at how sarcastic and disrespectful Todd Friel is. It's one thing to not agree with someone's doctrine, but there is no need for him to be so disrespectful. Thank you for your intelligent and respectful rebuttal.
Rarely do I find a Protestant of any denomination who doesn’t rebut Catholicism (or other Protestant denominations) without a smug or self-righteous attitude
@@TheVCRTimeMachinefunny, I’ve heard a lot of the same from Catholics and orthodox people calling us names and telling us we cannot be truly saved outside the church. Also calling names and insults. It’s almost like there’s rude people in every camp 🤷🏻♂️
@@lakerfan0243 The different is that protestant use scriptures to back their comments . Let the word prove they are fabricating deceptive unbiblical lies and dogmas and doctrines about the CC and about Peter , and Mary and salvation which all saved believers know it is By Faith . The CC has nothing to do with salvation of sinners .
@@lakerfan0243 You were first doing the name calling ,we answer your questions over and over again you all hate Catholics so much , you just don't care for any answer we give you ,Yes .
@@donaldcooley897 yea , they don't know what there reading , they need to read the whole scripture not one sentence and not add a words like faith alone .
God bless you and love you trant for your patience and aptness to teach
Oh my...
Todd is not acting like someone who has the peace of the Lord...
That is undermining all the points he might have had.
I appreciate your calm response Trent!
He is a snake-oil salesman; money talks
The vast majority of Catholics and Orthos I've interacted with are the same way, clearly lacking in the Spirit.
Allow me, if you would have me, Todd can get quite animated, and here he was very frustrated with the baseless lies of the Catholic "Church", so, due to his personality, he behaved so passionately. I understand why he acts like that, as I myself am also quite drastic at times, but it must be controlled. As for Trent, I pray that the Lord save his soul, because he is lost, and falling for the lies of the Catholic "Church".
@@user-ob8sj9oo9w😂😂 keep making excuses for the snake, sorry prot but ur slander changes nothing the catholic church remains the bride and body of christ. No matter how many facts u call lies
@@user-ob8sj9oo9w
So let me get this straight, and correct me if I'm wrong here…
As soon as the apostles fell asleep in the Lord, the church took a nose dive into terrible apostasy and the church of Christ languished in hopeless apostasy for 1500 years until a random German miraculously resurrected the true Faith out of obscurity?
So who is correct? Should I be a Calvinist, an Anglican, a Lutheran, a Baptist, a Pentecostal, a Seventh-day Adventist, a Methodist?
So many churches of Christ to choose from.
And even if you had a point about the Catholic church, that still wouldn't disqualify the Orthodox Church which has no pope or supreme bishop but a council of bishops and elders that decide matters of doctrine through the ecumenical council established in the book of Acts.
I knew Friel's arguments were going pear-shaped from the gitgo when he brought up the old "Petros/Petra" argument. Jesus wasn't maybe, possibly or even likely speaking Aramaic to Peter. HE WAS speaking Aramaic and Kephas IS literally "rock!"
Well I've personally never interpreted Jesus as calling St Peter satan, the way I've always understood this passage is
satan put this thought in Peter's head to try and tempt Jesus into not being crucified and Jesus recognising the origin of the statement as not coming from Peter
Eureka! 🙏👍
Satan means adversary. In other passages Jesus refers to devil.
Jesus only uses the phrase "Get behind me (or 'get away'), Satan" twice in the Gospels: once in response to Satan himself in the desert, and the other here, in response to Peter. Clearly, we are meant to understand that when he says it to Peter he is addressing Satan.
But Peter is not Satan, so what gives? To my mind, this must mean that Peter is possessed by Satan at that moment, the supreme spirit of evil using him as a vehicle to tempt Jesus at this "opportune time" just as he had earlier in the desert.
Remember that Peter was not yet redeemed and justified, so there was as yet no indwelling of the Holy Spirit to keep the demons away. That wasn't a problem with the lesser demons, who were terrified of Jesus and wouldn't go near him or his friends--those possessing the wild pigs had rushed to their destruction in the sea in order to get away from him--but Satan was more bold and had been awaiting this moment ever since the desert.
This was a second Satanic temptation of Jesus, more ferocious and cunning than the first (three), and all the more so for coming through his most devoted friend.
#18 is an odd criticism given that he previously argued that Peter isn’t the pope because the pope is supposed to be humble.
This is one of those paradoxes where if Peter claimed to be chief apostle he would be attacked for not being humble. But since Peter was humble and didn’t lord his title over others, well that also proves Peter was not Pope.
He wants to have his cake and eat it too. Great Job Trent explaining why both criticisms don’t work.
As Chesterton pointed out, any stick will do for beating the Church.
Mainly because the title 'pope' is NO WHERE in the scriptures!! bAnd at the time Peter lived...there WAS NO Catholic Church! See how simple history is???
@@cliffordpearsonjr.9748 and the word Trinity is no where in Scripture and Unitarians will say it was invented hundreds of years later. So what?
You are using fallacious logic which creates all sorts of problems. So no, it is not as easy as you think it is.
@@joelpenley9791 ..no where near the same thing and you ought to know it.
@@cliffordpearsonjr.9748
No it is very much the same thing.
The word pope just means father. This is the title that has existed for Elders since the time of the apostles. Peter was the bishop of Rome just as he was also the bishop of Antioch at one point.
Language changes over time.
Saying Catholics added books to the bible to me amounts to admitting he has absolutely zero knowledge of basic bible history, church history and protestant history
Indeed the Luther Bible had all the aprochraphal books and Luther translated it into German for the benefit of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. Also the King James Bible also contained the apocrypha. It wasn't formally removed from the KJV until 1885.
@@markfrideres284 Thanks for the additional information! I only take issue with the word apocryphal. Its not apocryphal. Its just Holy Scripture, as had been from the times of the Fathers until the modern age... The irony of ironies on the side of protestantism is accusing our Catholic faith of being so "unbiblical" while making a defaced and vandalized bible the deposit of faith...
@@ThePhilosorpheus I'm a deuterocanonical guy too; just trying to use Protestant lingo.
@@markfrideres284 Im very thankful to you, I didnt know it was in the 19th century, I thought it was earlier, been looking it up, God bless you brother
For these types of Protestants, ignorance is the only way to keep their “sheep” within “their flock”.
I may be a protestant but Trent is winning the thumbnail war so far.
Absolutely
@@ForwardTalk th-cam.com/video/JPC0N0U0aco/w-d-xo.html
Do you dr gavin ortlund
Try RCIA!!!
You Catholic yet?
Point number 3 (and all of them really) just demonstrate he’s not serious about understanding Catholicism at all. I wish anti-Catholic rhetoric wasn’t always so boring. At least Truth Unites makes you think a little.
Anti-protestant rhetoric isn't any better.
@@EmberBright2077 congratulations, you’ve written a sentence.
@@EmberBright2077 you're right. And Horn never engages in bad faith anti-protestant rhetoric. The Council of Trent literally happened to address the real complaints that Martin Luther presented that were appropriate.
And Horn follows that. He says reformation was needed, but not a revolution.
@@mac3441 I wanted to apologise for my statement 9 months ago. In that time, I have come to believe in the Catholic faith, and am expecting to be confirmed next Easter Vigil.
@@shaulkramer7425 You are right. I have since seen my error and am in the process of becoming Catholic (just started RCIA).
This guys the modern televangelist with a great voice and salesmanship.
He’d make a great used car salesman
Great voice...?
Love you brother. You are awesome!
😲😲 tnx again Mr Trent. God bless u🙏
I'm not Catholic, but some of Protestant's examples makes you wonder if they believe that Peter could be an apostle.
Many of their examples just show a total misunderstanding of Christian history, and of actual Catholic beliefs. Sadly, their congregations don't have understanding either. I used to be protestant and just believed what my pastors told me about Catholics. I'm glad I know better now.
True. When I was protestant it disturbed me just how much some would diminish characters in the Bible, to a serious degree, just because they're important to Catholics. I thought," I get that Mary isn't sinless or whatever but my elders are trying to paint her as worse than common women. Like, what is going on?" I knew a guy that took the passage of when Mary and Jesus family came to seek an audience with him, or so it seemed, and Jesus says," the apostles are my family," in a faith sense. This guy , and many others, just rode into the night using it to justify how terrible Mary was as a person . guy's, she did maybe one thing wrong. It's just shocking how far some will go!
Luckily, they haven't discovered how important John the Baptist is so they haven't tried to bring him down.... Yet! 😂
@@mememe1468 I had the exact same feeling when I would hear prominent members of my Protestant church talk about Mary. I truly think many Protestants see her as no better than a surrogate, some random woman who was chosen by God to conceive Jesus. A bit awkward, theologically speaking, when the Bible says in reference to her that “the generations shall call me [Mary] blessed.”
Like most Protestants I didn’t understand the Catholic view of Mary. But one thing I knew for sure was Protestants degraded her to a level that never made sense.
"...and they've added books to the Bible..."
This has to be my favorite accusation. 🙂
Know you are wrong ,King James bible Also had 72 books , and the OT was never finish go to Dr. Brant Petri the 4 rabbi's in the first century 70 Ad , no council of Jamnia .The Church put what books they should put in .
@@ronaldeglewski3073As if you would even have the Bible at all without the CC.
THe CC HAS taken away the word of God!!! And added!!!
@@Earthtime3978 quote---As if you would even have the Bible at all without the CC. unquote
As if the CC wrote it all!!!
THe OT was written OVER 1000 years before the first Catholic!!!
The NT was wrtten over 300 years BEFORE Catholics collected the writings, translated it to latin, and bound it.
@@mitchellosmer1293What other church put the Bible together? And don’t tell me the Holy Spirit put it together without a church because Protestants can’t even agree on everything from salvation to baptism. God is not the author of confusion.
I like how you're quoting protestant scholars over and over again😂😂
@YAJUN YUAN @The Counsel of Trent
is that bad?
I think I understand the point you’re trying to make. I don’t really know what to say.
This probly means they are not very astute protestants.
Hahah there's no chance of him accepting that debate 😂
You knocked this one out of the park, Trent. Thank you for rebutting this guy!
Read the Bible before you make such a claim, my friend.
“God is the only rock!” Well, must have been pretty awkward when Jesus changed Peter’s name to Cephas.
And you don‘t think it is possible that Simon is renamed to Cephas to symbolize WHY Jesus gave him this name? Maybe that had something to do with a truth that Peter could not know by himself (i.e. It had to be given by him through revelation) about the fact WHO Jesus was-the very cornerstone upon which EVERYTHING is build (Eph 2:20)? Reading something into a text is very easy but if you would be honest no Apostle himself confirms the Roman-Catholic Eisegesis. In fact Paul the Apostle and even Peter the Apostle himself refutes it. Just read how Peter considered himself in his writings!
@semper reformanda The modern evangelical (I dont think this is even a mainline protestant view) view of Peter the silly screw up really flies in the face of the focus of the NT on Peter. Peter is a *major character* in the story, from his calling, his following, his denial and restoration to his being declared the premier of the Kingdom that Jesus came to establish and his ongoing leadership of the apostles. No other Apostle gets a narrative arc anywhere close to that. Peter gets the narrative as a major character in *every gospel* so it seems like that was pretty important.
Isn't it possible that Peter is an example of how God can turn even a humble, flawed, illiterate fisher into a mighty force to defend and strengthen the kingdom of God on earth, and that's why he was named Rock? That Peter is actually the rock that Jesus implicitly tells him to be when Jesus says he prayed for Peter to hold fast when Satan comes for the others and tests them? When Jesus commands Peter to be the servant and provider for all the faithful after his ascension?
That seems more plausible to me than the "Peter as Jarjar Binks" interpretation some protestants have going.
The problem protestants seem to have is that having respect for those Jesus entrusted with teaching authority seems icky to them and they mistake it for worship or idolatry - this is baked into the "protest' they have going on. The guy in this video does that over and over - but Jesus established a kingdom with offices handed down by the apostles and a primary office, which he gave to Peter. He did not establish a self-authorizing bible study class. Attempting to substitute ones own authority for the authority explicitly set up by Jesus is an error that protestants tend to and are predisposed to fall into.
@@misterkittyandfriends1441 Jesus and his words are the authority EVERYTHING has to submit…we are to submit to Christ, not to an institution that refuses to submit to Christ and his words. Christ‘s church is universal - that means there are some true Christians even in false churches as there are false Christians in true churches. Just read the New Testament and the book of revelation and you will clearly see that there is only Christ and local churches. There is no Roman-Catholic Church that has godlike authority. Explain to me the missing of EVERY roman-catholic dogma within the first 3 centuries! Explain to me why these dogmas were developed first in the 4th/5th century!
As an Eastern catholic who use east Syriac traditions and liturgy. We call Peter, Ceppa and Simon was his original name.
Funny that Protestants like you cannot even comprehent what others saying.
@@semper_reformanda What perplexes me is what protestant New Testament scholars say about Matthew 16:18 on the one hand and protestant anti catholics apologists say . I prefer to follow A.T Robertson who wrote a whole book on greek grammar when he said that Peter is the rock in Mathew 16:18 instead of protestants who insist on the lie that petros means little rock. What is not taught in the Bible anywhere is this: that the authority in the Church is every christian with his private interpretation of the Bible, a Church formed by dozens of churches that contradict each other using the same Bible. There are different versions of Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura not to mention the Doctrine of Salvation among other.
Acts 10:25-26
25 And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.
26 But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.
Amen,Amen,And a BIG AMEN BROTHER TOD FRIEL! THE TRUTH HAS TO BE TOLD!!
When he said that Catholics "added books to the bible" I burst out laughing. Luther himself, when writing about these books, acknowledges that they have been in the Christian Canon for centuries.
In fact, Luther's first translation of the Bible kept the Apocryphal writings, but separated them from the old and new Testaments. The other Reformers removed them altogether.
I recently was sent the video where Todd tries to explain how the Bible was assembled...
@@davidbates3353 please share link. Thanks
The 7 books weren’t removed until the 1820s. And please send a link
@@diannalaubenberg7532 the Anglicans kept Luther’s scheme with the apocrypha in the middle of the testaments
Peter displays authority and is shown to be honored: “THE GREATEST IN THE KINGDOM IS SUPPOSED TO BE HUMBLE.”
Peter shows humility: “PETER IS OBVIOUSLY TELLING YOU THAT HE DOESNT HAVE ANY AUTHORITY.”
This was very good.
Thank you Trent for rebutting Todd.
I saw a clip of him doing street evangelism to a Catholic woman and she says, "Mary was immaculately conceived" and Friel responds, "She didn't have a mom or dad?" I know that is a common mistake to make, but when you have been trying to convert Catholics for decades and you still don't know basic terms like that it implies you just don't care about or respect the beliefs enough to bother learning. His ministry is obviously geared primarily towards punchy entertainment so maybe that is good enough for him idk.
Cringe. I always find that when these evangelical fundamentalist Protestants (Ray Comfort, Tod Friel, Jeff Durbin etc.) are street preaching and upload an interaction with a nominal Catholic, they typically treat them as representative of the Catholic tradition as a whole. When I was a Protestant, I watched Ray Comfort all the time. He had this interaction with a "Catholic" Wiccan, and Comfort presented it as if this were the natural implications of Catholicism. It's so sad seeing people misrepresent the Church out of their own ignorance of what we teach officially.
@@thecatechumen damn good to see you here as well!
@@Tzimiskes3506 🙏
I was mistaken once into thinking that the Immaculate Conception was about the conception of Jesus. I am so dumb. I have to learn the catechism.
Sorry but people like him are just dumb. They think they are being so funny and edgy but they are just stupid because they are playing with fire. They will all have to answer to God for attacking His Church, attacking His Sacraments, attacking His mother, etc. I have strong doubts that the whole "well they are just ignorant" excuse is going to work with God.
In all honesty with how bad the arguments Wretched gave it was fairly easy to debunk them just in the comments alone. But I'm glad someone actually made a video doing it
Catholics keep thinking that Protestants are their enemies.
Not true.
The real ENEMY = The Deceiver,
(Satan, Serpent, Dragon) who wants to be “god”.
Lucifer wants to be equal to Holy
Father GOD in heaven. You can read his five “I WILL” statements in book of Isaiah.
If you ever wondered WHY the use of “holy father” and/or “vicar of christ” instead of bishop of Rome is so very disturbing to Christians, it’s because Lucifer. Cautionary Tale ! Anything Exclusive To GOD must stay exclusive to Holy God~
Tile, Position, Attribute
* Title “Holy Father” is only for THE Holy Father GOD in heaven, not any human sinner on earth.
“Vicar of Christ” means in the place of Christ. Every single human is much too INFERIOR to have that title or to think it’s an actual position. Lord & Savior is not repeatable or replaceable !!
*Position -King of Vatican aka Religious Ruler with a throne, ring, riches, power. Holy Father GOD and The Risen Christ is The King of kings have legitimate Thrones.
*Attributes- Holy and Infallible. No human is infallible at all, not ever.
That word/concept was made RC dogma in 1870.
Love this!
Thank you Trent Horn for sharing the truth with your brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus. God bless!
I would not even take such a man seriously.
Good responses, but Friel's objections were low hanging fruit. It's sad that there are people out there who find these kinds of arguments persuasive!
There are counterarguments made by Protestant Apologists to everything Trent just said here in his replies. I'm not sure how is Trent right and Todd wrong, a rebuttal video doesn't really prove anything, because the other person isn't given a say to defend their arguments. In fact, many things Trent said have very easy and common counters. For example, it's a fact that the early Church Fathers did not unanimously see the "rock" as Peter. Some would consider the rock to be Peter's confession. Others would see the rock as Jesus. Some would say Peter is the rock, but in a general sense, and that everybody is to called to be a rock, like Peter. Even those who would say that the rock is specifically Peter, would not give any specifics as to how does that contribute to the establishment of Papal office as it is seen much later on. Todd isn't wrong for pointing out that it's not what Jesus meant, in fact, his position is consistent with historical findings, and Trent's isn't. Appealing to authority and quoting a few people who theorize how petros and petra can be the same thing does not change that fact, it's a weak counter argument to Todd's very objectively difficult stumbling block for Catholics. The fact that the Pope is recognized in history so late and how you can't find any early Church Fathers who interpret those Peter passages like Catholics want to interpret them today is very persuasive. I've seen dozens of Papal debates and not once I've heard a Catholic building a good case against this argument.
Protestants are filled with Pride. They are their own Pope.
@@mitromney Sad to say, many Catholics, including myself, are not great defenders of the faith. I'm attempting to improve, but the issue is that there are so many more facets to Catholicism as compared to other religions/denominations (e.g. seven sacraments as opposed to two) which we must know how to defend in depth. I feel that it's sometimes easy for a Protestant to find an "error" in Catholicism and attack that point as a basis for why the faith is false. In this case, it's the papacy. I would like to suggest two books to you: for a defense of the papacy, Pope Peter by Joe Heschmeyer is fabulous. It might change your mind or at least help you second guess some Protestant theories. For an understanding of the church fathers and the early Church, I would suggest The Early Church was the Catholic Church by Joe Heschmeyer as well as The Four Witnesses by Rod Bennett. Obviously, you don't have to read these, but I think it may be good to understand the different arguments.
@@mitromney i think what makes Trent’s argument compelling is that he can find Protestant who actually argue the catholic way for the verses in question. On your example, it’s a good argument initially, until you find that early Church Fathers leaned on Rome, had this high esteem of Rome, by the time you have ecumenical councils it was common knowledge, nobody was denying it. We’re talking within the first 7 councils. When it comes to Church Fathers you have Ireneus of Lyons, who is from the East. Not because it was the city of Rome but they clearly believed this because it was established by Divine Institution.
@@drjanitor3747 has he debated Dimon?
Are we not going to talk about how awesome this thumbnail is?
The biggest problem with Todd and so many is that they don’t understand what the Pope and Magisterium actually do and how they serve us as Christians. It is truly beautiful, but hard to see when you just flippantly cast it aside.
Could you explain what role they actually perform?
presenting their ring for you to kiss@@EmberBright2077
quote---The biggest problem with Todd and so many is that they don’t understand what the Pope and Magisterium actually do and how they serve us as Christians. unquote
Catholics?? Catholics??? LOL--ROFL
OBVIOUSLY you have NO of what a Christian is!!!
CHRISTIAN
The Greek word Χριστιανός (Christianos), meaning "follower of Christ", comes from Χριστός (Christos), meaning "anointed one",
FOLLOWER of the TEACHINGS of Christ!!!
So, tell me, when did Jesus teach that Sunday is a Holy Day of worship???
Quote the verse that says Jesus taught anyone to pray to Mary.
Quote the verse that says Jesus taught anyone to pray to/with beads?
Quote the verse that says Jesus taught anyone that Mary wlil go/is in heaven.
Quote the verse that says Jesus taught anyone that Mary is out intercessor.
Quote the verse that says Jesus taught anyone that Peter was a pope.
Quote the verse that says Jesus taught anyone that we are to pray to/make idols.
Quote the verse that says Jesus taught anyone that a mere man will be the Head of His church.
etc, etc
Protestants, Evangelicals, Reformed, Non-Catholics Christians,
especially those in leadership are quite familiar with all things Catholic~ history, dogma, catechism, canon law, magisterium, sacraments,
practices, etc.
Out of the 52% of X-Catholics in USA many Pastors became their Shepherds so in some cases, education became necessary.
Some Christians know more about Catholicism than some Catholics.
@@ShirleyAnnPetrillo-oj7sc Has not been my expert at all. Most don’t have any need to know about about the Church until they realize theirs doesn’t make sense.
25 and not even one right
Sets a new record
Thank you Trent! Love the new set
Beautifully done trent 👏
I've always thought that Peter's many mistakes is what makes his role as the leader of the church so meaningful. God can use a flawed man to lead the church and he can end his earthly life as a great saint and martyr. It shows that we can serve God even though we will make mistakes and that our leaders won't always act how we expect. I've never understood the Peter bashing.
Exactly. Moses was fearful with a weak tongue and yet God chose him to free the Israelites from slavery!
I like Peter for this. He stumbles and waivers, but I love him anyway. It is the pattern of God that He uses the lowly to do the great. Jesus' birth in a stable, riding on a donkey, and also *being crucified* is huge proof of this.
God precisely chooses very ordinary non talented people to do His work so that people will know that it is God who actually does the work and not the humans to whom he funnels the work. And yes, humility is very important to God. He selects only the humble.
Excellent video. Great detail point on point. I like the passion of other channels, like Catholic Answers, but the back up here is head & shoulders above.
This protestant dude sounds like Reverend Lovejoy in the simpsons doesn't he?
Gonna be pretty difficult unhearing that from now on. Thanks a bunch!
except if Rev Lovejoy was pretending to be Bill Nye.
Great job Trent Horn! God bless you my catholic brother. 🙏
Thank you! May God bless you
The Petros/Petra objection seems really weird to me if you think about what it means in the context of the gospels as a whole and the early Church. Jesus is effectively the cool kid that gave Peter an embarrassing nickname that sticks through his whole life. Seems uncharacteristically juvenile for Christ, and while on brand for the apostles pre-Pentecost, after they're filled with the Holy Spirit, it's very strange to me that they'd still go around calling Peter by the name Jesus called him that one time just to make a point. Even Paul who wasn't there for the inside joke and only met the other apostles after Jesus died and resurrected goes around calling him Cephas.
That's a nice objection, I'll use it.
That thing you mentioned at the end should also point out the flaw in the argument, as Jesus also called Peter Cephas, which does not mean "pebble"
It is weird it makes Jesus into a bully. This passage from the gospel is so damaging to Protestant claims that they have to go so far to say Jesus was a bully of his friends even when they are correct.
@YAJUN YUAN Most protestants repeat the lie that petros means pebble. It cannot mean pebble for the reason explained by chickrnofbristol
@questasempliceanimazione7156 Peter said that we are all living stones/pebbles. He was including himself. So, are we all popes or not?
I'm a revert from protestantism. Left when I was a toddler !
One of the big questions that led to me rejecting protestantism was," why did Jesus change Peter's name?"
A question with serious theological, even ecclesiastical potential, that kept me up for a few nights. Every protestant apologetic is just negative apologies. Like," Catholics are just wrong and heres why!"
They've spent so long trying to refute Catholics they don't stop to build up their own theology in meaningful ways. I can't tell you how many evangelicals I ask the question," why did Jesus change Simons name?" And I just get," the papacy is false!" Answers.
Keep it up my friend!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I can see how ill-informed people will follow that guy. Thanks Trent for giving us the facts.
Great video tent. Loving the new studio!
Slick dude: speaking of humility in a haughty manner.
Trent: speaking about humility in humility
exactly
Christ: Calling Himself humble in humility.
@@Quekksilber Whether this is a joke or not it’s actually accurate.
@@jbar1 I would call it comically astonishing. :)
@@Quekksilber It is not how you say it it is what you say , you can speak
lovie , lovie with humility and still not tell the spiritual truth of the scriptures , and
most biblical illiterate catholic does not know the truth of the scriptures , and will
agree with him . Fact catholic church is
with it unbiblical dogmas and doctrines , and the Catechism , is next to being a false religion . with80% of it dogmas and teachings are unbiblical . and you jump on some for telling the truth about the church which is based on a false Gospel , believe in and worship a dead woman Mary with only her spirit living in heaven , and a deceptive
belief that salvation is only found in the apostate catholic church , which you ignorantly call Christ Church , and there is no salvation out side of the church , read your bibles and if you are saved you will be indwelled with the spirit and the spirit will teach you all thing spiritually ,John14 :26 1Cor. 2 :10-14 . The scriptures tell us to preach the word 2Tim. 4 : 1- 4 ; if it is the right time or not a good time . REPROVE
REBUKE , EXHORT WITH LONG SUFFERING
AND DOCTRINES .
Protestant Here. I like your podcast Trent. Some of these objections are just bad.
Some are good. Some of your rebuttals are pretty good too. Thanks for posting.
Try RCIA!
I have a feeling Todd will never address those actual positions Trent provided.
Praying for Todd’s recovery after the making of this video 🙏🏻
Nothing like a good gish gallop
You can always tell a respectable protestant apologist, like Gavin Ortlund, from a clown because their list of objections is usually reduced to 2-3 points, not some absurd number like 25 lol
Thank you.
Peter is obviously the first apostle with so many mentions of his primacy in scripture.
Does this guy think that God would have allowed His Church to be led by an illegitimate succession of popes for 1500 years before Martin Luther corrected the situation and started the Church that God intended? Jesus is God and would have known that such a misunderstanding would take place; and he would have said, "By the way, Peter, to be clear: you are not the leader of the Church when I die. I will still lead the Church and it shouldn't have any kind of hierarchy or further teaching outside of what's written about my life, as well as some writings by disciples you don't know yet." Further, why would God allow this to happen right at the beginning of the Church? I could understand if Protestants were claiming that someone several hundred years down the line suddenly claimed themselves to be pope and faked the papal succession somehow; then you could have a legitimate Church up to a certain point and then a schism. But that's not what's happening here.
"The brick that the builders rejected has become the corner-store of the building"
It's semantics /word plays by Protestants to downplay the head of the church
Rock, pebble used as foundation,reading literally in many different semantics.
Bottom line :
Why is St Peter the Apostle called the rock?
Foundation stone
Furthermore, according to the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, “evidence suggests that Jesus' words to Peter were originally spoken in Aramaic. In this language, the word kepha is the equivalent of Peter and denotes a 'sizeable rock' - one suitable as a building foundation
Oh everything is super clear in the Bible? 30,000 denominations blows a hole in that.
It takes everything in my being not to troll Wretched Radio’s comments
Pretty sure he turned comments off a long time ago. He’s like a used car salesman.
He has to be one of the most insufferable holier than thou protestants
@@takmaps Definitely, and He’s absolutely entertaining. When I was a Protestant I used to love his show and now that I’m Catholic I see how ridiculous his views are. He’d be an incredible salesman or administrator. Just not a theologian.
Well, he just recently turned his comments back on
@@ApostolicEchoes i was wondering what he reminded me of. you just hit the nail on the head!
Good Job Trent!
Todd Friel from Wretched Network (TV, Radio,
TH-cam).
I watched his (less than) 15 minute session.
There are many informative comments too.
I have seen many protestants say that the catholic priests are just like the pharisees, because they both wore robes. But obviously we shouldn't judge a person solely on his clothing, but on what he does. Jesus never objected to the fashion sense of the Pharisees. He only pointed out out their hypocritical behavior.
Todd Friel and James White have elementary school arguments
I doubt it
"Then Jesus called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of them, and said, “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 18:2-4)
The ONLY way you'll enter the kingdom my friend. Childlike, simple faith.
You can educate yourself ten ways to Sunday, but apart from Christ's grace, His shed blood on the cross alone for your forgiveness, it won't end well eternally (no matter what sophisticated arguments you come up with).
@@MakeRoomForGod so, you are justifying the false witness and false teaching of Todd and James White, then? This does not seem very holy.
@@harleymann2086 This is what's coming Harley, and unless you've placed your faith in Christ alone, His shed blood alone, for your forgiveness, you will be left behind this day. And if you are, remember why and don't believe the lies you'll hear where we all went, as even then you'll still have a chance to be saved.
When we read Luke 17:20-37 and 21, Matthew 24, 2 Peter 3, 1 Timothy 4:1-5, Romans 1:18-32, Jude, and Revelation 13, we can see very plainly that were told all these things would take place long ago. And what they are leading up to is Jesus coming for His born again Church.
You don't want to be here for what happens after that.
With each passing day, it's just a matter of time now until Jesus comes back, and with that, billions of people will suddenly be left in shock and horror.
Billions upon billions of people will be suddenly "left behind".
It won't be aliens or any other nonsense the government and media come up with, it'll be that Jesus came back (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17).
Whether it's days, weeks, or months, it sure seems likely that this generation will be THE generation Jesus spoke of in Matthew 24:34.
"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 6:23)
What can you do?
Believe and put your faith in Jesus, in His shed blood on the cross for the forgiveness of your sins, and you'll go up to meet Him that fateful day.
Grace through faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9), in the one who left heaven, became man, died for your sins, was buried, and rose again (1 Corinthians 15:1-4).
Receive Jesus' atonement, His "already made" payment for your sin debt, and let today be the day of your salvation (Romans 3:10/23, Romans 5:8, John 3:16/17, John 6:29/40, Romans 10:9-10, and Acts 2:21).
@@MakeRoomForGod unfortunately, you do not understand anything about catholic theology. The Catholic Church teaches that You must put your faith in the blood of Jesus. In fact, we drink it! (Jn chapter 6).
I do agree, that the world has chosen death over life. In fact, I would say we have much more in common than we disagree about.
SOME of the Catholic Scriptures you quote, and I’m sorry to say, are slightly out of context. These Scriptures are given to the church; not you, to teach with an authority you do not have (1 Tim 3:15). All of the Church Fathers knew the Church was “the Truth” because the Scriptures that belong to the Church were NOT Canonized until 359 AD. The Church HAD to speak for Christ because there was no printing presses around for you to own a copy.
Although God saves us by grace, we have a responsibility to “work out our salvation with fear trembling” (Phil. 2:12-13). I am not in the position to make a judgement on your soul; nor you on mine; but your our responsibility it to be transformed by the renewing of our minds” (Rom 12:2), and “following every word of Jesus” (Luke 6:46). And because Jesus founded a Church, not a book, you must honestly consider His One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Please remember: “You see that a person is justified by works and *not by faith alone”.* (Jam 2:24).
One Church, with ONE Head; the Head is Christ; but His Visible Head is the Papacy. It is Apostolic because we can trace the Papacy established by Jesus over 2000 years.
We are VISIBLE everywhere; Protestantism is not; it has too many voices to guide anyone; and everyone claims to “have the Holy Spirit” and teaches different things; even about the salvation which we seek. The Catholic Church teaches with One Voice; found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
You (the Protestants) are too divided, my brother, to make any claims, or give any direction. Sorry, but I speak in love and as a former Baptist minister. So, I have been there.
As Jesus established the Church on physical Apostles, not on a book canonized by the Church later on, it is the Church of Christ you seek. The ONE (Visible) Holy Catholic Church. If read Her Scriptures then you should consider joining the Catholics Church that recognized them to Canonize.
I sincerely pray you move beyond disdain for HIS ONE VISIBLE Church on earth; as He (Himself) was once VISIBLE on earth.
He will come again. Amen.
May God Bless you and your reflection.
While I have reasons to disbelieve Catholic accounts, I have to say I love your tone and DETEST his. Thank you for going at this thoughtfully and not matching theatrics with theatrics.
I love how protestant apologists go from insisting you read scripture literally until scripture says in plane language something they disagree with Catholics on. Then suddenly, it doesn't mean that it was a turn of phrase is all.
Says something "Catholic" in plain language?? LOLOLOL.
I appreciate this Protestant man who has laid everything out for Trent to so effectively fully explain the truth but he does turn my stomach a bit with his exaggerated way of speaking negatively. Thank God 💖 for you Trent! I'm tryN2 learn to be a good apologist but I have been learning 2B a good Catholic all my life! It's a battlefield out there! We need2 help each other 💖
The fact that he called Jan Huss “one if the early martyrs” at 8:25 is really strange to me. He doesn’t clarify that he was an early martyr during the reformation. Does he not think that Stephen, Peter, and Paul who were killed well over 1,000 years earlier are martyrs of the Christian faith?
I found that odd too - maybe he meant of the reformation?
Hus was prior to the Reformation and would have balked at Martin Luther and the others. He just wants to build a case out of nothing.
A lot of Protestants have a 1500 year gap in their knowledge of history.
They think Christianity ended after Paul and resumed with Luther after 1500 years of nonexistence.
Ignorance
Excellent rebuttal! Well-reasoned arguments and very charitable.
“Wretched” is facts + fun simultaneously.
Clear and Succinct Truth. ✝️ It’s sweet.
Yes, it's a great channel!
His obnoxious atittude only equals to his ignorance on the matter.
It is ignorance to dismiss what he is saying. Read the Bible before making such claims.
@@user-ob8sj9oo9w We're all pretty familiar with the Bible here. What do you think would make us agree with Mr Friel?
You refuted/debunked this man so badly.You have wisdom.Keep up the great work you're doing for the Kingdom of God.
he's a liar , and it is all he does is mock the Catholic Church
@@ronaldeglewski3073 Agree.He's a liar, Egocentric/Conceited and a false Pastor.He goes out into the street. victimized innocent and uninformed people and then, share his twisted biblcial version of Jesus gospel.
Thanks Trent.
Ah yes, but Trent, don't you know? If you present a bunch of straw man and weak arguments, they aggregate into a single good argument!
When he claimed Our Lady was a "sinful" woman...I just want to ask where exactly in scripture the "Sola Scriptura" crowd thinks say she sinned. Now that's the tradition of men!
All humans under the federal headship of Adam inherit the curse.
Because man was created for God and Man has headship over humanity and creation, all under Adam came under a curse.
The curse is passed through male lineage.
So if you are born of a man that is under Adam by a woman you bear a tainted and cursed flesh, with an evil nature.
Mary was born of a man by a woman, therefore yes she has sinned and yes she was not perfect, because as Paul says in Romans 3:12, “there’s is no one who does good, no, not even one”. In Luke Christ also says He is not Good, that there is only one good being, God. but Christ by the Father is given goodness, and through Christ does God’s goodness show. For Christ fully submitted to The Father, and lived solely for His Will, and by it.
Jesus is not under the headship of man, but of God. So inherited the flesh being fully man, but did not inherit the evil nature of it, because He was not if man, but of God.
So yes, Mary was not perfect. She most certainly sinned at some point.
Everyone needs God.
Everyone is sinful in nature, you are an evil being living in an evil flesh.
As long as you are born of the flesh under Adam, you are not naturally fit to serve God, although you can, it’s like filthy rags. In the Old Testament, obedience to God’s commands was credited as righteousness, but they weren’t inherently righteous. You cannot please God without faith. Christ justifies, and our deeds by the Spirit count for something but not for salvation. The deeds follow us, they do not preceded us.
They count for nothing, only in Christ are they then counted for something.
The scripture tells you thing directly in various ways. Christ may not have said “I am God, worship me”, but He mostly certainly did say He is God, and that He is worthy of worship.
I believe that unique profoundness of scripture is how it is to act as a stumbling block to fools.
They seek to understand scripture without believing so they can discredit God. It’s a fool’s errand. You need the Spirit to understand scripture, to have the Spirit you must believe in Christ.
All have fallen short, not all less one.
@@theonlytaco9511 The prophecy in Isaiah 66:7-8 tells of a woman who gives birth to a son without pain, indicating she is free from the curse of the Fall. "Before she goes into labor, she gives birth;
before the pains come upon her she delivers a son. Who has ever heard of such things? Who has ever seen things like this?" Eve was created without original sin, so it makes sense that Mary, by the merits of our Savior, was also born without original sin in order to have perfect free will and serve as a pure and holy vessel for our Savior. All have fallen short, except the one, blessed among women, who was redeemed by her Son and Savior at her Immaculate Conception.
Just to add to number 23. If calling Peter Satan and rebuking him proves he is not the pope, then it also proves he is not an apostle or that he shouldn’t ever be trusted.
Clearly though, that is not the case. Peter was just thinking wrongly in this instance and was corrected. Just as this doesn’t disqualify his apostleship, neither does it disprove his papacy.
I respect you for answer his dementia childish arguments ❤
When you keep in mind that the Roman Catholic church was never found in any of the documentation by the Councils of Nicea on the first churches founded by Paul and the rest of the disciples, including Peter, it is eady to see why "theologians" for the denominations originating from the corrupt root of the Catholic Church defends its false church hierarchy structures and its copies of the papalcy.
Todd's tone made him sound legit. Those interested in style rather than contents and contexts will easily fall into his salesmanship.
To me he only sounded arrogant and self-righteous.
He sounded hateful to me though, i can say he speaks without love, and not of Christ..
His tone made him sound about as legit as a used car salesman in a land without roads
Todd is a snake oil salesman
Always enjoy viewing your posts Trent. Happy New Year! Nice new studio BTW. A bit dark however.
This man's mannerisms are so offputting & condescending it's unbelievable anyone follows him. SMH
Indeed...dunno why ,but I find this kind of talk and mannerism rather irksome.
He's so passive aggressively dramatic. He'd make a great superhero villain
I genuinely tried to be receptive to these Roman Catholic rebuttal arguments but you (Trent) are so clearly moving the goalposts it is difficult to overlook.
Thanks love this channel I really want to convert to Catholicism and channels like this make me understand Catholicism is true keep up the good work God bless you ☺️
Thank you so much for this comment! This is so meaningful to us! We will be praying for you! -Vanessa