Former Protestant Professor: Evangelicals Can't Agree on the Essentials (w/ Dr. Doug Beaumont)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 13 พ.ค. 2024
- In this episode of The Cordial Catholic, I'm joined by @DouglasBeaumont a former Evangelical seminarian professor and a convert to the Catholic faith, to unpack how trying to decipher the "Protestant essentials" led to his conversion.
Dr. Beaumont, a student of the late Evangelical theologian Dr. Norman Geisler, studied deeply into the history of the Church, the Bible, and tried to identify the "essentials" that all Evangelical Christians held in common. Using the Bible as the sole infallible rule for faith, could Protestants come to a conclusion on what were the most important parts of the Gospel? Could Protestants agree on how we're saved? What baptism was for? When to baptize? What happened at the Lord's supper? And many more theological points.
It was on this journey, studying under one of the greatest minds in Evangelical Christianity, that Dr. Beaumont came to realize that finding the "Protestant Essentials," what united all Protestants together, was an impossible task.
To find more from Dr. Beaumount visit his website:
www.douglasbeaumont.com
Check out his fantastic TH-cam channel as well:
@DouglasBeaumont
Send your feedback to cordialcatholic@gmail.com.
Sign up for our newsletter for my reflections on episodes, behind-the-scenes content, and exclusive contests at newsletter.thecordialcatholic.com
To watch this and other episodes please visit (and subscribe to!) our TH-cam channel.
Please consider financially supporting this show!
For more information visit the Patreon page. All patrons receive access to exclusive content and if you can give $5/mo or more you'll also be entered into monthly draws for fantastic books hand-picked by me at / cordialcatholic
If you'd like to give a one-time donation to The Cordial Catholic, you can visit the PayPal page at paypal.me/cordialcatholic
Thank you to those already supporting the show!
![[LIVE] ใครคุยเรื่องบอล "พ่องตาย" #คุยให้เด็กมันฟัง EP.43 (13/7/67)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/8bHYL8RuBqs/mqdefault.jpg)
Excellent content. I was a Baptist for more than 40 years. When I read the Church Fathers about the essential doctrines of Christianity, I realized that they were essentially Catholic. And that's what I became, a Catholic.
As a former Baptist, you should know better than to render worship toward the image of bread. Why do you give the Catholics a 'pass' on their idolatrous behavior? Haven't you see now they gaze upon the Eucharist and adore it as Almighty God? Catholics direct worship toward images!
Thanks for the encouragement! Glad you enjoyed it. And welcome!
Probably because he read the Catechism and understood what Catholics REALLY believe not this tired tripe. 😇
The first Church were allJews called The Way and their leader was James not Peter! Just like Peter never said he was the Pope of Rome he did say in First Peter how those who hold anyone high are heretics! Very sad how they built the Vatican on top of Peters tomb. Nothing could be as disrespectful to Peter who they venerate! And the fact that the Vatican was built on top of a Pagan Temple should wake up every Catholic!! They are so far from the first Church! The devil tries to get them to teach they were started by Jesus through Peter. Yet Peter never spoke about that! It wasn’t until centuries after Peter was dead! And Peter never made anyone his successor!! That’s all man made
Nothing that is much relief for me as a devout Catholic from 6 generations ago when I listened to testimonies from former Protestants and evangelicals when they CONVVERT. The reason being, it's not any human pressure but the deep inner voice to pursue the true Church and the Fullness of Truth that is the Roman Catholic Church. ❤❤❤❤
Hello, catholic brothers. There are more testimonials of catholic that converted to one of the Protestant churches by the way.
Members of Church and state helper of the family role groups do not convert other than to combining their helper activities with those of other such helper groups.
This is in keeping the inseparability and qualitative equality of their gift roles and of their roles with need of union of identities of spouses in consecrated marriages.
This is when this combining is authorised with an exercise of an absolute power by identity roles of consecrated marriages, celibate vowed to man in Christ or male female vowed to God in the keeping in uncertainty of belief of their inseparability and qualitative equality.
This triple keeping of roles, of roles and identities and of identities is the Trinity "multiplier" of economic procreation role gift processes and non-economic progress in meeting need of union of identities as infinite as the "I AM WHO I AM" (Exodus 3:14).
Exercise of this triple keeping in uncertainty of his belief was by Pope Francis' consecrated celibate marriage on 17 June 2021,
(a) ensuring by criminal indictments in the case of embezzlements of his procreation role gift charity donations of Cardinal Angelo Becciu and nine other Vatican state citizens/employees completed on 18 December 2023 by their criminal convictions for these embezzlements,
(b) simultaneously insuring need of union of his identity in the case of the Italian Parliament "Zan" anti-homophobia bill completed on 27 October 2021 by defeat of this bill as an unacceptable risk of fraud on his identity in his consecrated celibate marriage following simultaneous authorisations by this marriage on 17 June 2021 of these ensuring indictments and this insuring protest note.
Dr. Beaumont is great!
The greatest!
Gavin Ortlund is writing another book trying to identify the essentials. Less than a generation later. I really don’t think they see the irony.
😂
He is undergoing a fruitless and impossible task.
Itching ears lead to blindness.
⭐⭐⭐ CHRISTIANS! ⭐⭐⭐ Please consider reporting the malignant trolls who add nothing to the conversation except insults and hate speech. Then pray for their deeply troubled souls.
Even if they claim to be "Lutheran Catholic" - they are still angry trolls.
Joshua Charles recently released Eternal Christendom episode on same/similar topic.
And added to my watch list!
Thanks!
Yep. Intelligent Evangelicals coming to the same conclusion!
I just know Jesus and the Church are one”
St Joan of Arc
Amen!
to Pink, I do not purport to know but instead in my uncertainty to believe that God is three and God is one. In this uncertainty, I believe that the Church with the State are procreation role gift helpers of the family.
Catholics • one pope
Protestants • unlimited popes
7 BILLION potential Protestant popes on planet earth.
You nailed it!
Believers: no pope
@@EmWarEl
Pope means Father.
In Isaiah 22 we read how God will give us a father.
“In that day I will call Elikim, son of Hilkiah.
I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him and will commit your authority to his hand; and he SHALL be a FATHER to the people of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he SHALL open and none shall shut and he SHALL shut and none shall open.”
I guess u only believe the parts u like ?
@@EmWarEl Believers in self. Some scripture for you: PETER as Shepherd and first Pope: Scriptural evidence and the structure of the primitive Church make it absolutely undeniable that Christ chose Peter and that Peter was first among the twelve. Depending on the translation, Peter is mentioned 195 times. The closest is John (the beloved disciple) at just 29 times. The rest even less. Consider:
Jesus entered Peter’s house. (Matthew 8:14)
Jesus changed Simon's name to Peter. (John 1:42)
Jesus gave Peter the keys to the gates of Heaven. (Matthew 16:19)
Jesus declared Peter to the the rock. (Matthew 16:18)
Jesus made Peter shepherd. (John 21:15-17)
Jesus told Peter to strengthen his brothers (Luke 22:32)
Jesus paid the Temple tax only for Himself and Peter. (Matthew 17:24-27)
Jesus preached from Peter's boat. (Luke 5:3)
Jesus told Peter to "Follow me" (John 21:19)
Jesus called only Peter to walk on the water. (Matthew 14:29)
Jesus predicted Peter's three-fold denial. (Matthew 26:34)
Jesus predicted Peter's repentance and three-fold affirmation. (Luke 22:32)
Jesus prophesied only Peter's manner of death. (John 21:18-19)
Jesus taught Peter forgiveness 70 times 7 times. (Matthew 18:21-22)
Jesus spoke only to Peter at Gethsemane. (Mark 14:37)
Peter is always listed first of the Apostles. (Matthew 10:2, Luke 6:14, Acts 1:13)
Peter was first to confess Jesus as Messiah. (Matthew 16:18)
Peter alone spoke at the Transfiguration. (Matthew 17:4, Mark 9:5, Luke 9:33)
Peter pointed out the withered fig tree. (Mark 11:21)
Peter entered the tomb first - John deferring to him. (Luke 24:12, John 20:3-4))
Peter decided the manner of replacing Judas. (Acts 1:15-26)
Peter spoke for the eleven at the Pentecost. (Acts 2:14-36)
Peter was released from prison by the Angel. (Acts 12:6-11)
Peter spoke for the eleven before the Council. (Acts 4:8-12)
Peter held sin bound to Ananias and Sapphira. (Acts 5:1-10)
Peter's shadow healed. (Acts 5:15)
Peter declared the sin of Simony. (Acts 8:18-23)
Peter revealed the salvation of Gentiles to the Church at Jerusalem. (Acts 11:1-18)
The Angel told Cornelius to call for Peter. (Acts 10:3-8)
The Holy Spirit fell upon the Gentiles as Peter preached to them. (Acts 10:44-45)
At the empty tomb, the Angel said, "Go tell His disciples, and Peter." (Mark 16:7)
Mary Magdalene ran to tell Peter and the beloved disciple. (John 20:2)
The vision of all foods being clean was given only to Peter. (Acts 10:9-16)
Peter's words silence the first council in Jerusalem. (Acts 15:7-12)
Paul went to Peter to affirm that his Gospel was not in vain. (Galatians 1:18)
Peter was given the revelation of the end of the world. (2 Peter 3:10-11)
Peter taught that Paul’s words were easily twisted. (2 Peter 3:16)
Peter taught that baptism now saves you (1 Peter 3:21)
And many other references. One may deny that Peter was primary, but it takes an amazing ignorance or denial of scripture and history to do so.
Even conservative confessional Protestants can't agree on baptism, Eucharist, Church governance, salvation, etc. Sound pretty essential to me.
Once you cut the umbilical cord, you are on your own. Pretty sure that Christ did not leave us orphans.
Another beautiful video!!! God bless you both men of God! ❤sending my love ❤
Thank you so much!
This was an excellent conversation. l love anything revolving around the canon.
I once heard Kelly Powers debating on baptismal regeneration. So the Christian started with the essential Foundation of John 3:1-5. Then the proteatant Kelly Powers, said where does it say baptism in John 3🤦🏻♂️. Yes Kelly Powers was using the verbatim fallacy, just as Muslims do. So a lot of Protestants dont even see how they're being intellectually dishonest, & not holding to their own consistent standard of their own position.
I always like to turn the burden of proof on them. Then say where does the bible alone say it's not an essential to be baptized 🤔
Great video 💯
God bless u all 💯🙏🏼☦
I wish the Church Fathers played a bigger role in my conversation but excorsist and miracle stories , and prayed the Rosary and listen to debates , be Catholic as possible with in my own tradition and I felt I was missing something.
Great informative video I’m impressed with it thank you both for sharing this Amen 🙏
Glad you enjoyed it!
Live your show man !
Live you too!
@@TheCordialCatholic love your show. Sorry for the previous typo 👍
Dougy B in the house is must watch!
It’s a must-do! 🥳
Thanks for your time and effort, appreciate your short videos while in your car. Doug / Ottawa
Thank you so much!
Simple answer. They don't have Divinely instituted authority to infallibly interpret the scriptures. Catholics do.
Christ never gave anyone the authority to infallibly interpret the Scriptures. The RCC has never done so.
@@Justas399 The Catholic Church was founded by Christ. With the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Catholic Church gave us the New Testament and compiled the Bible. If we trust the Church with giving us the Holy Scriptures, why not trust them to interpret them? By your logic, if the Church cannot be trusted, then the Bible cannot be trusted. Authority in Protestantism lays on the hands of the interpreter, not the Bible. For this reason, there are denominations that are non-denominational but are essentially multi-denominational because they are guided by the interpretations and writings of Luther, Calvin, the Anabaptists etc. You will not see the words Scripture Alone mentioned anywhere in the Bible, it is a man-made 16th century doctrine.
@@Justas399 Stop this immature trolling!
not to interpret Scripture, but to be faithful to the apostolic teaching, as transmitted in the beginning to the Church - and, of course, that is decisive for interpreting Scriptures because the apostilic teaching is what Scripture is all about
@@Justas399 So the apostles never received authority to interpret Scriptures infallibly? So when they interpret the Old Testament in their NT writings, they are not doing so infallibly? The NT authors could not exercise infallibility? The NT is not inerrant?
God has always entrusted some leaders/institution with interpreting Scripture authoritatively. We don't even need to demonstrate infallibility to disprove Protestantism; demonstrating authority is sufficient.
"...the Levites, helped the people to understand the law, while the people remained in their places. And they read from the book, from the law of God, clearly; and they gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading." Neh 8:7-8
Though Judaism later fractured, this principle never went away and continued in Christianity.
You think the Apostles thought it legitimate for non-apostles to question their interpretations of Scripture?
🙏❤️
They cannot agree because it keeps them relevant within the denomination’s bounds
They are like the news media: THEY are the message.
So much for their vaunted "Sola Scriptura".
Sola Scriptura= the Scriptures alone are the inspired-inerrant Word of God. Therefore they are the ultimate authority for the Christian. There is no equal nor greater authority than the Scriptures.
@@Justas399Scriptures do not interpret scripture. The law cannot interpret the law.
@@user-ks3qr5fk6m Scripture interpreting Scripture means Scripture will not contradict itself.
@@Justas399 That we agree on 👍
@@Justas399 From wiki
Sola scriptura (Latin for 'by scripture alone') is a Christian theological doctrine held by most Protestant Christian denominations, in particular the Lutheran and Reformed traditions,[1] that posits the Bible as the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice.[1] The Catholic Church considers it heterodox and generally the Orthodox churches consider it to be contrary to the phronema of the Church.
They cannot be the ultimate authority because they cannot be separated from the Church, the body of Christ.
"Why can't Evangelicals agree on the essentials?"
Easy: Because the Evangelical "epistemic paradigm" provides no way to distinguish essentials from non-essentials, and never has, and never could. No such distinction is possible for any group that claims to derive such information from Scripture alone, because Scripture never offers us any way of distinguishing essentials from non-essentials _other than_ the Matthew 18/Acts 15 paradigm of discipline! But Protestants violated _that_ when separating from the Catholic Church! ...so, they can't now _re-instate it_ without contradiction! That's why Evangelicals never can, and never will, achieve wide agreement on how to distinguish dogmas from matters of indifference.
That's not the only way the Evangelical epistemic system is broken. Scripture is also "underdetermined" for discerning _who is right,_ on many plausibly-important but contentious topics. That is: It yields many equally-authoritative-but-contradictory answers from the same starting data. (You can tell which topics these are by just looking at the history of doctrinal positions that one church has divided from another church about.)
When splits happen over doctrine, evangelicals claim this as _evidence_ that they know what the "essentials" are. "Why did we split over this, if it wasn't essential?"
But that's an illusion caused by any given individual having an overly-narrow experience of the changes in his denomination/church over time. Anything that's _currently_ deemed "essential" or "non-essential" only came to have that status as a matter of evolving popular opinion, which is formed by a mix of denominational tradition, cultural influences, and ill-considered reactions to the previous generation's bugbears.
As a result, a certain "script" predictably plays out whenever a church splits over a doctrinal dispute:
1. Persons in the church discover they have different opinions on Doctrine X;
2. At least one person thinks Doctrine X is important enough to be worth splitting over;
3. They try to argue it out, but no-one is persuaded to change their view;
4. Someone proposes, "Hey, let's just agree to disagree" but the other person says, "No, I think this is one of the essential items";
5. There's no way to prove who's right about the _importance_ of the disputed doctrine;
6. So, the church splits.
This doesn't just mean evangelical churches that start with identical doctrines will evolve to different doctrinal positions over time. It means that evangelical churches that start with identical lists of "which doctrines are essential" and "which doctrines are not worth dividing over" will evolve different lists over time. Sixty years ago, a very different mix of things were deemed "essential"; and sixty years from now, the mix will be different again.
As a result, nothing can claim to be a "settled matter" on any principled basis, and nobody attending an evangelical church can have any well-founded confidence that if their grandchildren attend the same church, they'll be taught the same faith.
No wonder they are dizzy.
“Essentials: it makes something be what it is” 👍🏻
Catholics: “Historical pedigree” 👍🏻
I know we have the Nicene and Apostles Creed... Isn't that our essentials?
Eh, disregard this comment as you discuss the Creed somewhere are the 40-minute mark.
Appreciate you watched that far in, thank you!
Why does it seem so simple to me and I hear so many talking about this issue of essentials? What am I missing?
“They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” Acts 16:31
It seem simple that you need to believe in the Jesus that scripture reveals. Not a Jesus any one else made up.
I know this is likely reveals my lack of understanding of the issue. So please enlighten me why it isn’t that simple. 🙏
Sometimes I wonder if these types of arguments are “always learning but never coming to the knowledge of truth”
“At that time Jesus answered and said, “I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and have revealed them to babes. Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Your sight. All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him. Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.” Matt 11:25-30
Why is the recognition of truth confused with somehow being an authority over that truth? I can recognize that the sun is a star, and also realize that I have no authority over the sun. Recognition of the canon does not give anyone authority over it.
How do YOU recognize the canon?
So you are infallible?
I accept the definition of the canon as it was handed down to me, as I accept the definition of the sun as it was handed down to me.
@@Gcod3x Traditions of men are bad.
I am raised as catholic and want to make remark about what speaker said about eating Jesus' body and drinking Jesus' Blood as an essential and therefor concluding it to be defence for tra substantiation. Joh 6:35-40 and 6:51-56 are parallel passages. The first part puts the accent on seeing and believing for obtaining eternal life, the second on eating bis body and drinking his blood. When bishop Barron uses this passages, he wisely misses to state vers 6:63. "What I have said is spirit and thruth. But some of you do not believe... because Jesus knew from the beginning who would believe or not. " There is therefor reason to have another take than a literal interpretation. The fact that Jesus didn't correct the objection of the listeners is no defence for accepting a literal view, because he knew upfront who would and would not believe. There is more to be said about it. Misunderstanding of listeners is an element John uses to make a point. By the way, if you have to literally interpret the eating and drinking, it would mean that Jesus, being present, would have called them there and then to an act of canibalism. There was no way that the listeners could have made a connection to the bread and wine of the eucharist. Only God could have opened the eyes of the listeners to the real meaning as vers 65 says.
Greetings!!!
Everybody has their own take on the scriptures these days. Mormons, Unitarians, Liberal Evangelical, Conservative Evangelical, JWs, SDA’s, Christadelphians, Pentecostals, Calvinist, Armenian, Reformed, Anglican, Dispensationalist, Antinomianism… ALL will use the scriptures to their ‘own understanding”. The bottom line is the following with ALL the implications that follow…
History shows us that Jesus didn't leave us a bible, - the apostles didn't tell us which books belong in the bible, - the church fathers never agreed on the 27 books of the NT through the 4th century, - not only did they not agree but their individual lists of would-be NT canons were GROWING during this time, growing in numbers of hundreds of “inspired” NT writings.
Therefore, if it wasn't the Catholic/Orthodox church that compiled the 27 books of the NT in the 5th century with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and preserved it by laboriously hand copying them over and over throughout the centuries before the invention of the printing press, the “rule of faith” for many, please tell us who did? And if this church no longer exists today, what good is the text which came forth from her if she couldn't sustain herself?
If Bishop Barron misses to state Jn 6:63, it is because he in uncertainty does "not believe" instead asserting knowing "a higher way of love" of consecrated celibate marriage vowed to man in Christ to consecrated male female marriage vowed to God in the You Tube podcast at time 51:45 of his interview by Lex Fridman on "Christianity and the Catholic Church" on 20 July 2022.
The term "Evangelical" is confusing to me. Are these the same groups who call themselves "non-denominational"? And the pastors all go to these Bible Colleges, isn't that like seminary?
"Protestantism" is undefinable - by design.
A) Pride
B) Ignorance
C) Arrogance
D) All the above
D) All the above
Great conversation. As a Lutheran, I appreciate the rich heritage of my Roman brothers, and agree that the Bible makes the sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist essential, however, I disagree with you presupposing the Roman church is The church. I think the reasoning behind what you say is too simplistic. Your argument might work if your premise is true, but I and all other churches, eastern or western, disagree.
If we’re honest, we’re all trying to seek truth and go to Scriptures and history, and try to think soundly to find the church that aligns best with Scripture and History. For me, that’s the Lutheran Catholic Church.
I have some questions:
So, is the Nestorian church, the Coptic and other Monophysite churches heretics and condemned to hell?
By that standard, are Roman Catholics and other western churches heretics and condemned to hell by affirming the filioque, which is considered heresy in the Orthodox Church?
Also, how does the difference in essential dogmas from the Roman Church and eastern churches not create the same problem for you?
I think you “forget” that disunity has present among Christian churches for over a thousand years before the different Protestant movements (plural) started in Europe in the 16th century.
Thanks
You have that right. But, history.
@@HAL9000-su1mz have you studied church history?
@@Solideogloria00 Well, yes. NOT from Lutherans.
Ridiculous assumptions. Logical fallacies.
@@HAL9000-su1mz I haven’t studied histories from Lutherans either. In what “history” do you not see that the church was already fragmented before the time of the reformation?
Christians have had unity in Christ. For 2000 years we have all agreed that salvation came from only Jesus. Let's look where catholics believe salvation comes from
There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)
“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)
“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)
These are de fide, ex cathedra dogmas of Faith. They are the measure. Every teachiing on salvation must conform to them. As Vatican I defined “definitions are by their very nature irreformable.” It is a terrible sin against charity (and truth) to give an impression, nevermind direct assurance, that non-Catholics can be saved without converting. Everyone gets the help of grace to see the true Faith and seek baptism. That is clear from scripture. Saint Alphonsus was saying nothing really new in bringing forth TRUE devotion to Mary, and perseverance therein, as a sign of salvation. Anyone who refuses to believe in Our Lady’s defined titles, and refuses to say the angelic prayer the Hail Mary cannot be saved in that state.
Christ. Catholics believe salvation comes from Christ. If you’re genuinely interested in learning the answer read the Catechism not randomly Cherry-picked quotes from the internet.
@TheCordialCatholic Seminary graduate with 25 years of Biblical studies here. These aren't cherry picked quotes. Maybe you should research your church and see for yourself what popes have said. I've got 100"s more to show.
Galatians 5:22-23 "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such there is no law."
Which of these, oh proud and contentious "seminarian", do you exhibit here?
If you are Christian the faith is false.
@HAL9000-su1mz 2 things I learned today from you. 1 - Stating your experience to back up your opinion is being proud. 2 - A stranger can judge another's Salvation in Christ simply by reading a sentence, and apparently, that encapsulates that persons entire life with Christ.
@CyprianofCarthage-lb4hh Did Jesus say salvation was found in the catholic church or through Him?
is the leadership of the Catholic Church preaching/teaching/living the essentials? Or how about this-watch the movie 'Spotlight' and then tell me that the RCC is now the Church Christ founded.
You might as well slander the Church and Jesus because of Judas' betrayal and Peter's denial.
How about you humble yourself and stop trolling?
@@tonyl3762 He is already persecuting Christ's Body. But he is no Saul of Tarsus.
Great point! I saw plenty movies with Protestant slave owners. Maybe canceling all white people and their religion for the mistakes of their ancestors is probably a good choice. And defund the police for the mistakes of others. You are judging the majority by the faults of others.
@@HAL9000-su1mz how about answering my question.
Gal 1:8 allows us to ignore the Church, magesterium and the Pope.
But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed. - Galatians 1:8
Can you offer an example of something the Catholic Church preaches that is opposed to the Bible?
@@KipWords maryoligy... indulgances... infallibility.
@HAL9000-su1mz to quote scripture is to curse God? Maybe you could explain your response.... or is this just the way RCC respond to questioning?
@CyprianofCarthage-lb4hh and we can judge all your examples by Gal 1:8 and find them wanting... the RCC is included in the wanting category.
@CyprianofCarthage-lb4hh so I mention an objection I have and you call me the Devil(or in league with him) then say I should come home to something Paul calls anathema.
He is mistaken All Protestants believe in the FIVE Solas.
Even Mormons and JWs?
Here is an essential doctrine that roman catholics must believe or be damned:
“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)
Is the Church One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic or not?
Also things happened, like the reformation and people through no fault of their own have become separated bretheren, so to say Catholics MUST believe what you quoted has some nuance there.
I can see how someone would read that to mean everyone must be an official card carrying Catholic to be saved. But if you step back and think about it, Protestants and Orthodox who don’t realize they are rejecting the true faith are still under the authority of the pope and the Church by virtue of their baptism and acceptance of the gospel they read in the Bible. They wouldn’t have a Bible or baptism if it weren’t for the Catholic Church. The gospel wouldn’t have come to them without the Catholic Church. The problem is when you know the Church was established by Christ, you know the Pope has authority from Christ, you’ve heard the Church’s gospel proclaimed, and you choose your own life of sin anyway.
@@retrocalypse The roman catholic church separated itself from the rest of the Christian church with its unbiblical doctrines and papacy.
@@PuzzlesC4M There was no office of a papacy in the NT. Christ did not establish the roman catholic church. He never mentions it.
If it were not for the Jews we would have no OT canon.
If thete is any church that is not qualified to define Christianity it would be Rome since it is so encumbered by it's own long human tradition. Rpme elevates it's own tradition above the Bible. For instance, the doctrine of Purgatory changes the whole equation of the Gospel of grace.
You think Christians before the 1520s were unable to define Christianity.
Too late .
Already did define it.
And you agree.
You'll argue but in the end
The tennents of Christian doctrine,all of them, Infallibly stated are in the Catholic Church.
You can stroll through the cafeteria and pick out what you want. You better be sure.
@@iggyantioch No Christian in the 1st century believed that the bishop of Rome was the chief shepherd of the church nor the marian dogmas.
Reported for harassment/hate speech.
Why are you so fearful? So insecure and fearful that you violate Christian charity as well as the secular TH-cam Community Guidelines?
"Evangelicals Can't Agree...."
You are absolutely correct that various Evangelical groups and others have failed to arrive at a uniform list of essentials, often leading to significant differences among them. Where things go weird is your claim that Rome doesn't do this or is some kind of solution. The reality is that Rome is merely one more among the many groups that vary on the essentials. Indeed, the Roman Catholic Church has repeatedly changed and added to what is "essential" over the centuries, claiming that anyone who doesn't agree with the new list is anathema.
Your desire for some kind of certainty, unity, or similar is not unusual or bad. Many of us are (or were) drawn to Rome for this and similar reasons. However, your belief that Rome provides this and others do not is -- and I mean this with all charity -- rather delusional.
Do you believe John 6:26-69 is essential? Jesus commanded this and said that unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood there is no life in you.
Protestants like to refer to the Church as "Rome". That's not what we call it. The Church is called "catholic", which simply means universal. Rome was simply evangelized by the Catholic Church.
The first time the Church "came up with a new essential" can be found in Acts, and that was in response to rogues who thought they could tell Gentiles they had to be circumcised to be saved. Those guys didn't have the _authority_ to make that decision or teach that. So we see Paul and Barnabas meeting with Peter James and John (who had the authority given by Christ to rule definitively on such matters) at what we call the Council of Jerusalem. An answer to this early controversy had to be formulated, and they decided the Gentiles of course did not need to be circumcised
All this to say, any time a "new essential" (as you labeled it) seems to pop up, it's _in response_ to new controversies and heresies that crop up from people who come up with innovative ideas about things (like Arius' ideas about who Jesus is in relation to the Father). Rome has the authority to make these decisions, and not Open Bible Bob's Church in the rented space down the street.
@@00TheRealTC writes: "Rome has the authority to make these decisions, and not Open Bible Bob's Church in the rented space down the street."
Rome has the authority to make decisions for Rome. Open Bible Bob's Church has the authority to make decisions for Open Bible Bob's Church. Your error is the assumption that Rome has unilateral, immediate authority over everyone else -- the very same error that ripped the Church into pieces a thousand years ago (and persists to this day). You appeal to the council of Jerusalem, but that was the apostles acting in concert/council, not some individual Bishop of Rome acting on his own imagined authority. Even Rome admits today that the rest of the Church of Christ has never accepted Papal Supremacy.
You falsely imply that Rome made the determination regarding Arius. That is a lie. The Arian controversy was ultimately settled not by Rome, but by an ecumenical council (and if that is not without question). This is the sin of Rome (and its apologists): pride and the lust for domination over others -- the two great temptations and sins that haunt us all, and to which even Rome eventually succumbed.
Is it essential to salvation to believe in Papal Supremacy? Is it essential to salvation to believe that Mary was immaculately conceived? Is it essential to the Gospel to believe that Mary was assumed bodily into heaven? Is it essential to salvation to believe that the Bishop of Rome is infallible? We could continue, but the point is made. These and so many other innovations, found nowhere in the words of Christ or the apostles or in the example of the early Church, are additions invented by Rome.
@@philoalethiaTROLL. Reported. Again.
Go away and pray - if you do at all.
Dr. Doug is a nice guy but seems seriously ignorant of the Bible. First Paul actually argued against the need for or even possibility of an infallible authority (in Galatians) . Then he uses the tired Catholic ploy of isolating that one saying of Peter like it should override dozens of other plain statements that testify that salvation is by faith in Christ. That's not the way you make doctrine. He may have read the Bible but he has not examined it.. There is really one essential that stands out and that is justification ny faith in Christ alone because he knows that this is one thing that disqualifies Rome. Dr. Doug has some intellectual knowledge but it doesn't seem like he has ever had a saving encounter with Christ. A person who is spiritual is able to recognize another.
Protestants tend to ignore Jesus and focus on Paul.
Where in Galatians?
Hmm… it seems that that you had a saving encounter with a Christ that claims to be “the Ways, the Truths, and life”?
He was a Professor in your finest Seminary. So this ignorant guy was training your seminarians??? Ha
🔥