Whenever somebody asks about the bad popes, I always respond with "Yeah, our first pope denied Christ publicly three times and was called Satan by Jesus once or twice. We can really only go uphill from there."
Only problem is; A. Peter was never pope B. He repented and lived a life glorifying God. Now Alexander the 6th for example immersed himself in immorality. Not much of a comparison.
I also like to point out Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus, and was still one of the first 12 Apostles. As Trent pointed out, even the great kings in the OT started good then turned away from God. Kinda pops the idea that a follower of God will always be good. Man is still a sinner, after all, and God calls all to himself.
@@ContendingEarnestly if Peter was not the Pope, then why does Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen and Cyprian of Carthage all say differently???
Oh my gosh! I am old enough to recall the 80’s ChickTracks at the Baptists churches floating around. Lol.. I came into RCC Easter Vigil 2021. Mother Mary pray for us. St. Brendan Pray for us.
@@christianthinker2536 Yes and it makes no sense. Any demonic or satanic apparitions would try to turn you away from God, not make you do something that will bring you closer to Him.
@@IM-tl7qv They claim it's Satanic because she encourages us to pray the rosary and say "praying to Mary is idolatry". Demons hate Mary and the last thing they would want is to ask her to pray for us.
@@creatinechris For your guys information, I figured out about Papal infallibility from the current Pope. [I had to edit this comment to add that this is sarcasm. I apologize, I should have made this clear but I thought most people would realize this.] Beware who you follow, follow Christ. Follow those who follow Christ, I don't care if they are Catholic or not Catholic. Forgive me for barging in on papal infallibility and I'm quite sure it is infallibility in a limited sense in any case.
Can the Pope be voted out of his office, so to speak? It's much easier to be a follower of a man or a particular church, it's almost impossible to truly be a follower of Christ and if that is what you are seeking make sure you understand what the Bible says, that is His Word, regardless of what church you choose. Just my two cents as an unworthy Christian.
"In egypt the people worshiped the sun, and called it the great god osiris" oh. oh no. that feeling when you can't go a single sententce without being wrong.
@@robertnorris8831 typically. Egypt is really old, so multiple gods have had the sun role, but it was ra for most of it. And it was never at any point the king of the dead osiris! At least horus would be a *little* true depending on the time period.
Mr. Horn, I'm a reformed presbyterian (BTW, I haven't even watched this video yet- but your last video in this topic I had a few disagreements with but I thought it also had some true and challenging, and worthy points). But I just want to give you my sincere gratitude for being a such a genuine, kind, and brotherly fellow, for being thorough, detailed, and gracious, for giving such an organized effort rather than glossing over things superficially or merely opining. For showing an earnest desire to edify others, and for working to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. I (obviously) disagree with you/on a number if very important doctrines, but I've been greatly edified both by the substance of your work as well as example of your demeanor. Thanks, brother, the Lord Bless you and keep you.
Please stop being a Reformed heretic and join the Church founded by Christ. God didn't damn the Son in our place in a form of cosmic child abuse as your false religion wrongly asserts with it's man-made Penal Substitutionry Atonement doctrine.
@@lukebrasting5108 Well obviously I don't grant "cosmic child abuse" as any kind of a meaningful characterization. It's odd that you'd post that here on a video about protestants arguing like atheists, when this argument suffers much the same problem. I certainly don't begrudge Catholics objecting to reformed atonement doctrine, but Catholics and protestants both have to deal with certain scriptures that seem to imply one sort of punishment or another ("crushed for iniquities," "Lord laid on him our iniquities," "made him to be sin," " propitiation,") even if our doctrinal analysis of it varies. Suffice it to say that I have genuine regard for Catholics I their divergence from it in an attempt to work out their understanding of the atonement, but there's no reason to assent to the simple characterization of "cosmic child abuse." Cheers
@@Henry._Jones But that's exactly what it is, cosmic child abuse. God the Father sent God the Son to be tortured and damned in our place. But God is somehow suppose to be love at the same time and you see no contradiction in that. And those verses you quoted were never understood by the early Church in the way that Protestants understand them. Forensic Justification and Penal Substitution weren't taught at all by any Christian until Luther, Melancthon and Calvin came along, as the famed Protestant historian Alister McGrath proves in his book Iustitia Dei.
@@lukebrasting5108 So you say. I certainly don't claim the early church had a 16th century-style "reformed" articulation of the atonement, but I've always found the case that it was an out-and-out late innovation or development to be a weak case (besides, even if it were, what happened to Newman? Is development of doctrine unacceptable?). The reformed understanding usually assumes some overlap between the penal view and various elements of the ransom & satisfaction/Anselmian views, and tries to tease out a fuller articulation in conjunction with that which springs from good and necessary consequence from a wide reading of scripture. Of course, this gets us into how we are to read scripture, and the role of "theopneustos," sola scriptura, and the magisterium, something which you and I know we don't agree on. But I don't say that contentiously . . . it's a huge issue, it goes well beyond disagreement about how to read the early church. It's okay. I didn't come on here and attack Catholicism, I only mentioned being reformed in order to let Horn know that even some of us in that camp appreciate and are edified by his work. He has shown graciousness to protestants and I've heard him say he appreciates their viewer-ship. I was just offering him some well-deserved praise and encouragement to him. Cheers
@@lukebrasting5108 when you consistently frame penal substitution as child abuse, allowing no room for nuance (no proponent of PSA views it that way), you sound like a Muslim who just cannot understand the Trinity. They will say, no matter how much you try and explain in, that “you’re a polytheist!! It’s as simple as that. You believe in many gods.” They simply have no room for nuance and in trying to understand a different side.
In regards to bad popes, Jesus didn`t say that the gates of hell wouldn`t come against the church, only that it wouldn`t prevail. What greater proof that the papacy is divinely ordained than to allow Satan to attack it ferociously and for it to still prevail to this day.
"Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, 'The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.'" Matthew 23:1-3 If Christ wanted His disciples to respect the seat of Moses even if the people on it were morally corrupt, why should I not respect the seat of Peter?
Because he was talking about following Jewish Law, unless you are saying that Jesus or Peter abolish the Torah(Law of Moses), if you are saying what I think, Peter abolish the Torah?
@@michael119castro4 You understand what Covenant speak is, correct? The OT points to the coming of Jesus. The Crucifixion and the NT has a new Covenant! Just like there were different fulfilled Covenants prior. Adam, Abraham, Noah, Moses. All different and fulfilled.
@@michael119castro4 Also, the bible WASN'T translated from English to Greek or Aramaic. It was translated to English to describe (IN ENGLISH) what was said in Aramaic and to be understood what the scripture meant.
_The Death Cookie_ happens to be my "favorite" Chick Comic, which is like a Jew saying he has a "favorite" anti-Semitic cartoon. _Cookie_ is so over the top bad in both its lies and horrible derogatory propaganda, that it has its own basilisk like horrifying fascination.
We as Catholics really need to stop seeing ourselves in solidarity with modern practitioners of Judaism. It's comfortable, coming from Hollywood, but it is not historical or real.
"IHS" is sometimes interpreted as meaning "ΙΗΣΟΥΣ ΗΜΕΤΕΡΟΣ ΣΩΤΗΡ" (Iēsous Hēmeteros Sōtēr, "Jesus our Saviour") or in Latin "Jesus Hominum (or Hierosolymae) Salvator", ("Jesus, Saviour of men [or: of Jerusalem]" in Latin)[13] or connected with In Hoc Signo. English-language interpretations of "IHS" have included "In His Service".[14] Such interpretations are known as backformed acronyms.
Can we get a whole episode on Chick tracts? I have found them fascinatingly bizarre ever since I watched JonTron review the movie "Darkest Dungeon" which was based on a Chick tract decrying tabletop roleplaying games.
Those tracks always ended up in my Halloween candy as a kid, or in the school bathroom, etc. The anti-catholic lies I grew up with came right from those for the most part. Apparently my family read them too at some point.
@@Emper0rH0rde good one, you can bet it all started in the family. St John Paul II made that very clear about the breakdown of society we have been seeing for decades now originates from the family.
My friends and I picked up some kind of pamphlet that was like a Chick Tract. One of the guys ended up correcting the whole thing with proper scripture and reasoning 😂
Right. The whole "Works vs. Faith" argument is just absurd. It's like arguing whether vegetables are more important than meat & vice versa. They both have their own things to provide. Both provide some degree of nutrition. And depriving yourself completely of one thing or the other is *NEVER* a good idea. You benefit from them the most if used in tandem.
@@DF_UniatePapist wasnt the Inquisition in Spain actually driven mostly by Spains rulers, who wanted to root out infiltration after 700 years of fighting the reconquista? And those charged had representation and judging that was for its time, pretty darn good?
@@memememe843 I’m not sure, I haven’t done much research on that aspect of it. I have, however, researched the actual proceedings, and realized that no historian holds to the lies that the heretics have made up regarding the number of deaths due to the inquisition.
@@DF_UniatePapist exactly, Henry Kamen and Thomas F. Madden, both historians, debunked the many lies about the Inquisition from Atheists and Protestants.
“We should get our theology from the Bible, not the Bible from our theology.” Sound like sola scriptura? Trent Horn said that in his debate against Dr. James White.
It spawned Christian atheists. Just listen to the way protestant apologists, particularly James White, criticize Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. They use the exact same kind of argumentation that atheists use. "I can't fathom this, therefore it's impossible."
Lol no, that's about as ahistorical as prots who say catholicism is pagan. If you look at the prots who are faithful to the reformers, they are very strict in adherence to the Bible (yes, including some false doctrines) but with very high reverence. There's plenty, in fact tons, of liberal, atheistic cultural Catholics but this means nothing, just as lots of prot offshoots are completely liberalised, the only difference is they get to be separate but this has no causation. Not to mention liberal Protestantism only became popular after the greatest atheistic atrocities in human history.
@Phil Andrew *A "Christian atheist" is a Christian who uses atheistic arguments, not a Christian who is also a literal atheist.* And i disagree. Trents premises are off. Seems as though hes using this type of argumentation as the way we discuss catholicism. Not even close. Its a caricature of christian apologetics. *And he never said James White SIMPLY says "I can't fathom."* His comment about James White was minimalist at best. Here is the quote: *They use the exact same kind of argumentation that atheists use. "I can't fathom this, therefore it's impossible."* If anyone has seen his debates its never some 'oh well who knows'? Or 'i can't fathom this therefore its impossible.' When has he ever made any claim like that? He is theologically and historically correct in his debates, podcasts, books. Reducing it to 'oh well...' or it's impossible' is absurd.
@@IM-tl7qv the claim isn't that protestants are atheists, it's that protestants' descendants tend to become atheists. which is just a statistical fact. look at the pew forum religious landscapes map. Christianity has been in precipitous decline in all the countries in which protestantism dominated. it's only recently seeming to bottom out. and frankly I would chalk that up to the influence of the internet in spreading traditional Christianity like Catholicism and orthodoxy
Didn’t he have some conspiracy of the Jesuits infiltrating all the world powers and rounding up nonCatholics for execution or something? Been a while since I read it, but I do remember thinking “man, this guy makes the Jesuits sound way cooler than they actually are.”
I haven't watched this whole video, but I have met a few atheists in my life, and the ones I have met, after scratching the surface with questions, somehow believe in something greater than themselves. They cannot and will not acknowledge a singular all-powerful being or multiple beings. Thank you for your great work, Trent.
I have a question about the IHS thing. Why isn't it ΙΗΣ? When the s (σ) is capitalized, it is not S but Σ. Jesus = Ιησους JES = ΙΗΣ ≠ IHS Why would the Eta be from the Greek alphabet and the Sigma be from the Latin?
The messiness of literacy probably explains this. It can also sometimes be seen as IHC, with the C coming from the lunate sigma. Sigma itself varied in ancient Greek times between the form known today (Σ) and a form more similar to S (more pointy though, like a backwards Z).
That's actually something very uplifting: Pre-20th century, not even the popes with the worst private or public lives ever publicly proclaimed a heresy nor even hinted at it.
Trent, you mentioned Jephthah, I just read judges 11 and it did shake my faith a little bit, would you mind to explain this passage? Because it did mentions that the Spirit of the Lord was with him before he made the promise
I'm a bit confused by this trans-world depravity idea: you described it as "It's not feasible for God to make a world that's free from evil and also having a guy *like Bob* in it". But the quote from Mackie (sp?) at 27:30 seems to be rejecting the idea that *every possible* creature (or "creaturely essence") is like Bob in that way. Could you explain this in more detail?
@@myrddingwynedd2751 How so? Many them are Bible literalists and believe the world is 6000 years old with dinosaurs and humans roaming the Earth together.
@@christianthinker2536 Having been a Buddhist for more than 30 years before I became a Christian, I feel confident in saying that you are wrong. The deities in Buddhism are not worshipped, in fact it is not considered a fortunate rebirth to be born a deva (god with a lower case letter) all of whom are mortal like the demi-gods (asura), humans (manuṣa), animals (tiryak), hungry ghosts (preta) and hell denizens (naraka).. The devas (gods) according to the Buddha, are sentient beings trapped in the same cycle of Samsara and suffering as human beings and are not objects of worship. The Buddha neither confirmed nor rejected the existence of God as understood in Christianity, just as as he neither confirmed nor rejected the idea of an eternal universe, it just wasn't important. You are correct, Buddhism isn't a philosophy, it's a way of liberation from the wheel of becoming. The Buddha is venerated as are the Bodhisattvas, just as Mary is in Catholicism. In my experience Protestants often misunderstand the devotion that Catholics have to Mary, don't make the same mistake with Buddhists.
(Context: I'm an evangelical protestant.) I see the parallel you're pointing to at 24:00 (if moral failings of Christians aren't proof that Christianity isn't true then why would moral failings of popes be proof that the papacy isn't right?) But respectfully, I don't think that parallel quite works. There are two common answers to the question "Why does that Christian do those terrible things?" and neither of them seem to apply to the question of the pope, at least as far as I can see. 1) The "Christian" might not actually be known by God or have the Holy Spirit in them at all. We know such people will exist (from e.g. Matthew 7:21) and that not doing God's will is at least a sign of being one of them (same verse). An atheist might accuse you of the no true Scotsman fallacy if you used it in every case, but it's a valid explanation. This is pretty obviously not applicable to the choice of pope, since it's kind of essential to the papacy that yes, the Holy Spirit is always involved in the choice. You can't just say "Well, that was an atrocious choice so perhaps the Holy Spirit wasn't acting through the cardinals when they chose that pope". Right? I don't want to tell Catholics what your own doctrine is, but that seems pretty clear cut. 2) God might still be working on the Christian in that area. Sanctification is an ongoing process, and we never claimed that God puts a stop to all your sinful patterns the moment you become a Christian. It might take an entire lifetime (or more, if you believe in purgatory) for them to be purified of those particular sins. But again, it doesn't seem like this applies to the choice of a pope. It's consistent that God would make even a terrible sinner into a true Christian through the Holy Spirit, because saving sinners is the whole point of both Christ's coming, and of Christianity. But a forgiven sinner won't become more saved because they're the Pope. Indeed, would it be unreasonable to suggest that some of the bad popes moved further away from God personally as a result of becoming Pope and struggling with the corrupting earthly power that came with it? Some of the popes' appointments don't seem to have served either their own spiritual needs, or the needs of the Church, or anything except their own sinful desires for power, wealth, etc. I mean the Church has been tragically divided for the last five hundred years, and I doubt that would have been the case if better people had been appointed in place of those bad popes. So it seems hard to say that they were good for the church, all things considered. Which leads to the question: Why would God appoint them/allow them to become Pope, when there were so many other options who would have been better both for the Church, and for the individuals themselves? The issue boils down to this: When we're talking about someone becoming a Christian we're dealing with the eternal destiny of a single human being loved by God. But when we're talking about someone becoming a pope, we're merely talking about a (very important) job appointment. The situations are completely different. There *are* valid answers to the "bad popes" question, of course; you give some of them in the video. But those aren't answers that we Protestants will have used in answering the atheists. So as long as we're willing to hear you out and consider your answers seriously, it seems to me quite fair to ask you the "bad popes" question while answering the "bad Christians" question from atheists.
3:05 "Catholics that attack caricatures of Protestantism" Guilty! And I just found this out about, of all things, the Westboro Baptist Church. Check it out: th-cam.com/video/wVu9HcFmkC0/w-d-xo.html I'd love to hear Trent's reaction to it.
Ive noticed that Calvinist are the worst for this. I'm on the fence between Catholic and protestant (I've been protestant my whole life) and there has been quite discouraged times while listening to reformed people like White or Mcarthur. They spend their whole time telling people in the faith they are wrong and don't know their bible.
Excellent talk..you know I had a friend many years ago who was Protestant who loved pulling apart Catholics but I noticed he also did this to his fellow protestants and just about any one else in society. I wasn't a Catholic at that stage. The true a Christians I met never did this. A really good Christian friend of mine a Sikh Convert to the Weslian Christian Church talked to me about his experiences of the Holy Spirit in his life, this along with my wife brought me into the Catholic faith from my weak high Anglican background. I always believe in personal dicernment. I believe the Holy Spirit with guide us.
Hi Trent--I agree that argument 1 and 3 are bad, but I think you're not grasping the significance of argument 2. An argument from silence is when you argue a conclusion from the *mere* fact that some event isn't mentioned. Hence, we don't say "Nazareth didn't exist" because there is no contemporary reference, because we wouldn't expect to have a contemporary reference to a backwater hick town. But we *would* expect the papacy to have a mention by Ignatius or Clement. Now, no doubt, the *episcopate* is present in the second century; obviously, as an Anglican, I'd deny that this is sufficient for your case. We affirm the episcopate, and so do many Lutherans. But the silence is glaring. You wouldn't expect the East-West split to have been a plausible historical happening if the papacy were as prominent/prime as Roman Catholics thought it was; clearly by 1054, the whole Eastern church thought Papal claims were overblown--and that rejection didn't happen in a historical vacuum. Now, with respect to the claim we see evidence for the "primacy of the bishop of Rome", we just don't. We see evidence for the *respected place* and the *place of honor* of the Roman church--that it was seen as a model. But we *don't* see evidence for the idea that the Bishop of Rome was the bishop to whom all other bishops ought to submit. And that's glaring. Together with the fact that the whole Eastern church thought the Roman bishop arrogated himself beyond a place of honor to a place of authoritative primacy, confirms that the Roman episcopate let the honor and virtuousness of the church go to its head.
If you're Anglican, I recommend reading a short book called The Early Papacy by Adrian Fortescue. He was an Anglican of English noble heritage who converted to Catholicism and set out to refute arguments similar to yours by proving that Papal primacy was known to all during the first 5 centuries of Church history. You can probably find PDF copies online or I can give you my Kindle version if you want.
Here's why I experience such frustration trying to counsel protestant Christians. Any discussion on Predestination must account for the existence or denial of FREEWILL. Here is what I strongly believe why an all loving God must be totally supportive of our freewill. "It will determine a man’s position in regard to the most momentous issues that present themselves to the human 💖 and mind. On the one hand, does man possess genuine moral freedom, power of real choice, ability to love unconditionally, the true ability to determine the course of his thoughts and volitions, to decide which motives shall prevail within his mind, to modify and mould his own character? Or, on the other, are our thoughts and volitions, our character and external actions, all merely the inevitable outcome of circumstances beyond his control? Are they all inexorably predetermined in every detail along rigid lines by events of the past, over which he himself is nothing more than a random puppet of evolution or some capricious god ? This is the real import of the free-will problem. Atheist like Sam Harris believe there is no such thing as free will, it's just an illusion. We are just the end product of an endless series of causes and effects over which we have no control. Some protestants from what I gather, believe much the same, i.e in that God micro-manages every nano-cosmic event of our lives, and thus has predetermined our eternal fate from the beginning. Ergo, there is absolutely nothing we can do to change His WILL and thus our eternal fate. I believe as the catechism teaches, we have divine authority, if not a command to follow our conscience, having rightly formed it through careful study and self examination. To me the Protestant idea of Predestination or is it just Calvinism, that is an abomination to think that our individual fate was determined by some orchestrated script of a psychopathic god. There are just far too many verses throughout the Bible to indicate that God so loves the WHOLE world, (NOT JUST a SELECT FEW) that WHOSOEVER believes and returns that love to him, will be rewarded with eternal life. Now where did I read that?
We don't need you're counseling: that's you're first ignorant idea. All Protestants aren't Calvinists either: second l , idea . I actually believe in Molinism that it is a correct view of Predestination and Free Will, as an Evangelical : strange that Trent doesn't since it comes from a RCC Priest. All Protestants don't fit you're strawman argument. True Faith Always produces Good works: any Faith without works is a dead Faith. Paul would agree with James. But our works don't save us its Christ's Atonement and the Holy Spirit's washing us clean. Good works are a sign to others that we are saved: God sees our hearts , but we can't see others hearts, so Good works gives us a view of God's grace in the believer's life. The Pharasees also had a view of religious superiority to others . RCC and Mormons seem to have this attitude in dealing with others.
You also need to distinguish between "Determinism" and "Predestination" All Western Christians (following Augustine) hold to a form of Predestination or The Elect. This is not incompatible with Free Will because in this context, it does not imply fatalistic determinism of all outcomes, merely of the eternal decree of election of a select few unto salvation, which the Bible teaches in several places (an idea which is to be held in tension with the simultaneously Biblical notion of a Universal Atonement). Thus the Paradox: >>Jesus died for ALL, but NOT ALL are Predestined.
Funny thing: if Chick's information about ancient Egyptian religion had actually been correct, I (a Protestant) would have actually found that quite compelling evidence for the bread-and-wine-actually-become-flesh-and-blood doctrine. (Is there a simple term for that doctrine? It isn't transubstantiation, since that's also giving the mechanism by which it happens, and e.g. Lutherans believe the doctrine I'm talking about without accepting transubstantiation.) I know enough history to see it's ridiculous to suggest a connection in the normal sense, so if they *had* so accurately predicted the...um, traditional interpretation of mass/communion, then that would strongly suggest that the connection was through supernatural means. From which it would follow that it was probably revealed to them by God in some way, and therefore that the doctrine was correct after all. C.S.Lewis talks about this: having studied various Pagan religions academically, he saw many "pictures" in their myths of the reported historical events of Christianity, even though the historical sources couldn't possibly have known about those myths. That was a key element in his conversion from atheism, IIRC.
My mother, a very religious Catholic always admired Protestants for their political activism, when Catholics tent to avoid politics so not to offend anyone.
It's funny how it used to be exactly the opposite: many Protestants (especially Baptists) didn't engage in politics due to their strong belief in separation of Church and State, while Catholics, a discriminated minority, set up their own schools and political organisations. I guess this changed in the late 1970's or early 1980's.
Trent, the Lord chose Saul and Saul did not redeem himself! It is kind of naive to expect that a human being God chooses does not still have free will.
I am a Christian, because I was taught morals by people who used the Bible as their guide. But I am also an Atheist, because even though I accept those morals, I don't believe in the supernatural stories that are used to present them. Take the Golden Rule for example. It's true that you should treat others the way you want them to treat you. In fact, that moral is also taught in Aesop's Fable called "The Fox And The Stork". But if you think I can't learn the moral lesson, unless I "FULLY ACCEPT AS FACT" that a fox invited a stork to his house for dinner, then laughed because the stork couldn't eat from the fox's dishes, then you don't grasp the meaning of "parables". So I don't have to believe that Jesus was born of a virgin to "get" the Golden Rule. Furthermore, when Jesus was brought before King Herod, Herod began to exaggerate stories about Jesus, just to discredit him. "So, you're the leader of the people now? Are you their king? Are you their God? Can you perform miracles, like walking on water or raise the dead? If not, then you are NOT their leader!" I don't need miracles or fairy tales to learn moral lessons. At least I know they're only stories meant to present them. But the catalyst doesn't have to be real. Just sayin'
No. Read Leviticus. The penalty for heresy in Old Israel was the death penalty and that was instituted with God's approval. You can't act like ISIS in the lands of the New Israel, the Catholic Church, and not expect consequences. Protestants got what they deserved. So don't try and play the victim when your kind were the aggressors.
The funniest critique of Jesus I have seen is from an atheist would said that if Jesus was a real miracle worker, then the Romans would have used him to perform miracles for them once they had him in their custody
That is a fascinatingly bad critique. What if the Romans instead tended to be superstitious and wanted nothing to do with miracle workers? I wouldn’t be able to venture a guess an answer as to how Romans would have behaved and my guess is the atheist proponent presupposed several things without evidence to back it up.
Yeah, that is so dumb. It's much easier to believe that a godman could raise the dead and cure blindness with dirt and spit than it is to believe that his captors would attempt to take advantage of such incredible talents. Wait, no, that is obviously and completely wrong. Hm.
@@GODZILLA2915 Yes. Because if someone can cure any illness, raise the dead, walk on water, turn water into wine, and feed large numbers of people with small amounts of food it makes soooooooo much sense that he would be pursued by an angry mob crying for his death large enough to overcome the massive following he would have gained. Yet another suuuuuper believable part of the story clicks into place.
@@sapago4166 Don’t forget that this took place during a pilgrimage and I don’t recall the Bible saying Jesus won over every-single-person. It would have ended up like how when Trump won the election and people started vandalizing cities the next moment. Even if the Romans can eventually stopped them, it would still lead to massive damage that will cost money. Also the Romans have their own gods. Sure Jesus cured a servant for one Roman, but using a miracle man who’s claiming to come from another god that also claims his god is the only god would not look so good on their part.
Quick skeptical question: how can God allowing evil have an effect for greater good, if him only creating no evil creatures would be by definition PURE good! How can there be something greater than just pure good? Even if you raise free will, the middle knowledge defense can still get God out of the trap here, so really unless God wants evil for his own desire for it, there is no need to allow it. or, there is no God(as defined as all good and all powerful and all knowing)
I might need to reflect to make sure I've thought through this fully; but at least one initial reply is that 'pure good' doesn't necessarily correspond with 'greatest good'. By way of analogy, an ounce of pure water might not sustain me in crossing a desert while several gallons, though imperfectly pure, might.
@@John_Fisher thanks for responding.. I think my question remains this: who is this greater good benefitting? I can see that given our existing world of good and evil creatures, god could allow evil so that a greater number of sinners would eventually be saved. But in a world with no sinners at all, no one needs to be saved so why allow evil at all? It was already fine and he ruined it.
@@wingedlion17 I think I see what you're asking. I would say that the benefits are all of us though (or at least those who choose to accept it) - a version of us that is 'fine' because we were never allowed the freedom to choose good or evil is not as great of a good as the version of us that could freely choose and choose the good. The same with with versions of us that are essentially robots programmed to 'feel' love for God, yet not being allowed to actually choose that or not - most would say that that love is not real love, that it's certainly not as great of a good as a freely chosen love. But even taking middle knowledge as a given attribute that God has - one might suppose he could create beings that are truly free to choose good over evil, but only create the ones that He knows will choose good, so that we live free and only experience a world full of non sinners. Still, there exist goods that can only be attained in a world where there are evils: You cannot develop courage without things to fear. Also circumstances of suffering can help us both develop into more compassionate people, as well as develop depths of bonds with other individuals that we don't automatically develop; deeper levels of charity than we would have had had we not seen or gone through the suffering together. There are some difficulties in my own past that, if I could change the timeline and ensure they never happened to me, I would not make such a change and loose what I had gained from that evil. So not only is an us that freely chooses good better than an us who was good from the beginning without choice; but an us who chooses good in the face of and through overcoming some evils is all the more good. If we then have a God capable of bringing such comfort to all the evils we've ever endured that we can honestly say we no longer regret having gone through them even if there was nothing to gain from them; yet we can also identify goods that have been gained from them that we would never otherwise have; then we can see at least one possible reason that an all-knowing, all-powerful God could allow such evils to be committed by free creatures.
When I was non-denom I just figured we were baptists without the label. Since then I think it's more accurate to say non-denoms are atheists with bibles. It seems like the hyper relativism , cessationism, rejection of most saints, history, and things like that. the real separation between non-denoms and atheists is one rejects 7 books of the bible while the other rejects 73 books. Often, even baptism isn't something that separates them. I would also say Mormons are mystical non-denoms and low church baptists are rationalist non-denoms but that's another story.
Great explanation. Protestants are not Christians. The term Christian for 2000 years has always been a designation of those who are members of the Christian faith and its Church - the Catholic Church. Being validly baptized and then believing and supporting the rejection of Jesus Christ through rejection of his Church means you are not a Christian. Protestants who were baptized were Christian up until the moment they excepted heretical views and rejected the Church that Jesus Christ founded. It may have been an instantaneous separation from the body of Christ if they were an adult when they were baptized. The only loving thing to do is to speak clearly to our protestant family and friends that they need to join the body of Christ if they even want a chance at salvation.
@@verum-in-omnibus1035 I wouldn't say protestants aren't christians. Certainly, not all protestants are baptized correctly or at all, but the ones who are are christian. I was a christian when I was a protestant because of this. Further, all my protestant friends, who are all baptized, are christian because of this. This people should be called to the church but they are still christian. Non-denominational protestants are atheist-like in the sense their world views are almost the same. The thin divider is that one group holds to the infallibility of certain books.
Man when I was IFB I used carry chick tracts all the time, this takes me back. I use to go into Catholic Churches and stick them in the pew bibles and roll them up in the toilet paper in the bathrooms and put red Gatorade in the Holy water near the door. Bruh I had no chill!🤣
Here's a better question that probably hits home better: Why wouldn't you have titled your video something like "3 way Christians act like atheists." Then you would have all of Christendom covered. Not just half of it. Here's another thing for other people to consider that identify as Catholic or Baptist or whatever: There are other churches out there that are neither Protestant or Catholic which are commonly called Non-Denominational churches. They often spring up because they can't swallow man-made doctrines that creep into every church of any substantial size. Often these types of churches are centered on the Word of God, commonly known as the Bible. And then you have divisions of the Catholic church where the One True and Only Christian Church (as a couple people responded in so many words) didn't do it for many Catholics so they started their own brand of Catholicism with the doctrines they think are true.
@@robertbrown6879 funny statement ur arguments in diff comment section seems circular and none sense ur re search full of holes protestant is non denomination church , if this is thesis ur grade is 👎🏻
Id rather be an atheist than a catholic who says Jesus sacrifice wasnt enough to get rid of all sin. CC says men can pay for their own sins in some pergatory somewhere. God says he would you rather be cold or hot, but if you are luke warn(like catholics) he will spew you out of his mouth.
@@littleone1656 Poor catholics. You are forced to believe in pergatory but you deny what pergatory is because you know it sounds bad. Pergatory is where men pay for the punishment of sins by being burned in flames. So what your saying is that pergatory isnt official CC teaching. Well, i dont care if it is or isnt, catholics all believe it. The dirty filthy CC makes alot of money selling salvation get out of pergatory tickets. I should start selling them. No jive. Beautiful thing is, no one will come back for a refund. (;-D
@@from.archangels I think i know what you are getting at and it doesnt men men themselfs burn in a fire. It says their works are tried by fire, not the person. catholics try hard to justify their satanic beliefs. I dont blame them. They trust this religion for their salvation. They have to make it work. Other than that, it is appointed unto man to die, and then the judgment. Pergatory is just a money making invention to squeeze more money from the unfortunate dupes who belong to that horrible religion.
Friendly advice* if you want to get more attention from youtube and young people you should make your videos much shorter and put the information in a more compact way. That’s just my oppinion about what I think would help.
Hello, friendly atheist here to engage: Point #1 isn't really a way that Protestants are similar to Atheists, but rather, similar to Mythicists. Not all atheists are mythicists. I am an atheist (or an agnostic if you want to be particular about your definition) but I am not a mythicist. Point #2 (conspiracy theory) is again a comparison against mythicists. Now, I will go ahead and steelman your argument to say: "Protestant's are similar to atheists because both use arguments from silence". And while I agree that both atheists and protestants use arguments from silence, so does everybody. I assume that you do not believe in many things, due to a lack of evidence. One example could be Russell's Teapot. Although you cannot prove that Russell's Teapot doesn't exist, you have good reason to withhold belief - namely, there isn't sufficient evidence to believe that Russell's teapot does exist. So, if the argument is that Protestants are similar to Atheists because they both don't believe in things for which they don't see sufficient evidence, I would agree but also add every other type of person to that list: Catholics, Muslims, Hindus, etc Point #3 (meager moral fruit) - I am not positive about Draper himself, but anecdotally, in my experience, most atheists don't employ this argument as a knock-down 100% proof that Catholicism is false, but rather, they use that data point in a Bayesian argument that only suggests that Catholicism is less likely than it otherwise would be if this weren't the case.
Hi Kevin. You're certainly right, these examples that Trent gives aren't things that all atheists say (nor things that all Protestants say for that matter). The point he is trying to make is that Protestants have received these bad arguments from atheists (some specific atheists, that is, not arguments that are intrinsic to atheism) and identified them as fallacies when they hear them from an atheist, but then some Protestants will use a similar line of thought with the same fallacies to criticize Catholics. Ultimately, Catholic, Protestant, or Atheist, we are all at our best when we use the same level of critical thinking when looking at arguments proposed by those we agree with and those we disagree with.
Neither do all protestants as Trent points out, 1. Is really bottom of the barrel stuff, but sadly quite a few folks who should know better have bought into mythicist Stuff.
How about when Catholics read too much into typology and do the same arguments Islamists make to justify a parallelism (such as Muhammad is a type of Moses)
An opinion of a Catholic and actual doctrines are different. Here at home, we are all Catholics, yet we argue on some parts of our beliefs because I'm a traditionalist and some of us here are "modernist/progressivist" (in other words, catholics, but not really). But their opinions does not reflect actual Catholic doctrines. Trent is presenting an actual protestant doctrine here, so it's not really a good comparison.
@Brian Farley None of Muhammad’s miracles are mentioned in the Quran and the Quran even claims explicitly that Muhammad was unable to produce signs he ran away from a blind man all of his alleged miracles were written centuries later by non eyewitnesses who weren’t even from Arabia
If think you're unfair, Trent. Catholic also sound like atheists when asking questions that really seem to me to be meta-questions, like "Where in the Bible is sola scriptura?"
@Phil Andrew I see it as a strange question. Like I was asking "Where in the tradition or in Scripture, does it explicitly states, exactly what the Holy Tradition is?"
@Phil Andrew It's a meta question, a book, a car, a thing is what it is (I know tautology), not everything is, like in programming, a recursive acronym (an acronym that contains in itself the definition, like GNU stands for GNU's not UNIX)
@Phil Andrew It really is an obsessive question for me, like I was to present myself to you "Hi Phil, I'm Dan, nice to meet you", and you where to ask "Where, embedded in your core/kernel/substance it is affirmed that you are Dan?"
@Phil Andrew But I still don't get the critique, Phil. Sola Scriptura is the idea that yes, all binding dogmas need come from Scripture. Where is that in Scripture? Where is what is Scripture? Like, this is the ground we are sitting on. Could you clarify it for me, please?
I dunno if Trent has a video on this specific topic but if you search William Albrecht or Brant Pitre they have really good stuff on Marian topics like that
In the Davidic Kingdom, which is a type and foreshadowing of the Messianic Kingdom, the queen was the king's mother, not the king's wife. In the Messianic Kingdom, Jesus is the King. Mary is His mother. Therefore Mary is the Queen-Mother.
The king had hundreds of wives, but only one mother. So it made sense that the role of queen should belong the king's mother instead of one of the wives, for a variety of reasons.
Dude, Unless you're either Socrates or Cicero - and believe me, YOU AIN'T EITHER - the more you talk, the more dead ends you're going to lead yourself into.
3 Ways Catholics act like atheists They reject their own councils and magisterium with regards to Genesis 1-3 that taught uncomfortable truths de fide. As well as the unanimous consent of the fathers. Pride of life means more to them than faith, many would rather believe the church changed the view at the highest levels of magisterium than being seen as dumb. They reject the churches official stances on moral issues. They reject miracles and the literal interpretation of what was taught de fide to be taken as literal. Pride of scholarship over faith. I am Catholic
@@alvaroramos7564 no you need to have a balanced view of that incident not just the radical traditionalist view. If you look through out church history the church has in fact baptised certain pagan beliefs. An example is St Paul when he goes to Athens and sees the pagan philosophers with an unnamed god. Paul explains to them that that the god they were praying to was identified. Acts 17 for reference
Trent has already discussed Pachamama before. I also recommend: Pachamama [w/ Dr. Pedro Gabriel] - Reason and Theology th-cam.com/video/9gnV1ruKuks/w-d-xo.html Balancing Out Taylor Marshall on Pachamama and the Kissing of the Quran [w/ Michael Lofton] - Reason and Theology th-cam.com/video/IdctZuY1r8I/w-d-xo.html Also, yes, the Church has baptized pagan symbols. For instance, the ankh and the triquetra.
@@cormac5253 Oh man, probably the book "trail of blood." It's the protestant version of The Da Vinci code, except that they believe it's not fiction, lol
I don't like this "transworld" idea at all, the way i interpret it, the Spirit acts through the Church as a whole, and the Church has to fight with human works against evil. If God miraculously shielded the head of the Church from attacks of the Evil One, then He would have shielded the head of His Son from the beatings of the roman soldiers, but that's not how the divine operates among men. The Spirit gives every member of the church the capability of acting for the well being of the Church at all times, but the Evil One generally attacks the weak link of the chain, which explains why the church had different issues at different periods of the past, most 20th century popes were great but the christian community was the most lukewarm it has ever been in that same period. God entrusts us through the spirit to choose the successor of Peter, which he'll bless. God won't allow his church to die, He won't let for all of its parts perish to the attacks, because he promised us he wouldn't, that doesn't mean he frees its member from falling into heavy sin.
Thumbs down from a non-protestant. 1. Jesus clearly gave bread and wine to His apostles. Jesus never taught any thing similar to Transubstantiation. That means it makes sense for that idea to come from another place. Treating Mary as the Catholics do has no scriptural support. It makes sense to wonder if it came from... maybe... paganism. 2. We don't ever see a congregation having authority over another congregation in The Bible. After The Great Apostacy, maybe, but that doesn't matter. Peter's primacy has nothing to do with The Papacy. It disproves the protestantistic belief is God causing confusion anc chaos by not having an organization. 3. What did Abraham and Moses do that was bad? Jephthah??!! What does a successful military general have to do with a spiritual leader? Nothing. King David was a king, which doesn't mean a spiritual leader. I see a big difference between all christians having some sins and, the one person who is supposed to be the best to lead all christians at the time being a real stinker. 23:00 That atheist is wrong. If christianity is true then there is an enemy of God tempting us. The enemy would try hard to tempt people who believe in God so God would get bad PR. The enemy might also not tempt people who refuse to accept his reality because they are doing what the enemy of God wants. Christians sinning makes sense because of that.
1:40 almost as if the atheists have the most well thought out position (aka the consensus in most fields of study) while protestants and by extension Catholics have very poor inconsistent standards for evidence.
@@constantineofamerica1555 technically you are correct. Just because the consensus of geologists accept the earth is round does not make it so necessarily nor does it necessarily mean the round earth position is the most well thought out. If you were to become convinced that the consensus in philosophy is that the arguments for god fail and that atheism is the more rational position, would that lower your confidence in believing God exists?
@@TheCrusaderPub I think I understand where you are coming from. Is there anything that you feel atheists claim incredulity about that you believe theism can demonstrate credulity about?
@@creatinechris I’m honestly not sure I understand the question. To use a Christian example to make my point, Kent Hovind is the ultimate example of arguing from incredulity. His entire argument is that you shouldn’t believe in evolution because he finds it hard to believe. “Do you really believe the universe started as a dot the size of a period on a page?” He doesn’t care why a physicist would say this, it just sounds crazy to him and therefore it’s false. In this way the atheist will, as an example, ignore why the theist would describe God as a first cause and insist it must be special pleading.
You are not a Christian sir, and that pains me to say that because I wish you were. Christendom is the body of Christ, those who belong to his one true Church. You follow a brand new set of interpretations that have only been around anywhere between 20 to 500 years (depending on your brand of Protestantism). In the world of Christianity you are a brand new type of heretic. Protestants are not Christians, they have hijacked that title because Protestant America has thrived. And the idea that division is bad is antichrist. Jesus Christ told us he came to divide, those who are with him and those who are not. And you are not with him if you’re not within his Church.
@Phil Andrew Then turns around in the first three minutes and says that the same thing happens with Catholics. The title was to catch mainly people caught up in the us vs. them thing. Pretty darned obvious. That's why I called him out on it.
Argument from omission: Just went to Trent's website. He writes about Jesus and Christianity, however he has never written an account of Jesus life. Clearly Trent doesn't know about those mythological aspects. He just focuses on the Church Christ founded. Therefore Trent doesn't know about the Gospels. Yay logic. ha.
How about titling these talks, "How Protestants and Roman Catholics look like Atheists. And... citing "Chick Tracts" is not useful at all because that's way out there on the fringe. Not main line or even close. Most Protestants don't even know about these tracts.
Good point. The youtube channel Catholic Truth said that, although Chick Tracts are from a Baptist origin, most Baptists don't even believe and/or accept chick tract doctrines (for the lack of a better word). However, we cannot deny that some protestants do think like this.
@@TheCrusaderPub I'm just saying that to identify Protestants as a whole with any fringe element like Chick Tracts is misleading and even borders on the deceptive.
You don't have to be a Catholic to be a Christian. You don't have to be a follower of a Pope to be a Christian, or a follower of Cephas or a follower of Paul. The One you should follow as a Christian is Christ. All men are fallible, none are righteous, that's riddled throughout the Bible, the Word of God. You don't get into Heaven because you are a member of the Catholic church no more than you would in any other church that is a Christian church.
Actually you are 100% incorrect, on everything that you’ve said. The term Christian for 2000 years is a designation describing those who are in the Church that Jesus Christ founded, the Catholic Church. The heresy of “Americanism“ is pretending that those outside of the body of Christ are actually sort of still within the body of Christ. It has been popularized especially since the fall so humanism of Vatican II and the downfall of the visible church since then. Especially in the nation that is based on a heretical religion, protestant America. However papal teaching of the magisterium for centuries is very clear - only those who fully except Jesus Christ and his Church are Christians and even have a chance at salvation. The new Protestant sects with all of its thousands of offshoots are closer to the truth then let’s say an atheist, but they are not in the body of Christ, Christians. nor are they saved.
The Word of God is Jesus Christ, the word made flesh. The book that you speak of, is the canon of sacred scripture that bishops of the Catholic Church with the pope of the Catholic Church officially codified in the fourth century after Jesus Christ lived, died and resurrected. Since you are a Protestant you do not use the entire Bible as it has been recognized for two millennia almost, your religion’s founders took out seven books.
100% Nope bruh Christian is only Catholics from christ to apostle john to polycarp to Ignatius of Antioch Antioch people are the first christian's U should follow the Both Oral tradition to appostolic tradition bcoz god say so 2 thessalonian 2:15 Amplified Faith alone is nonsense!! Matthew 19:16-30 Dont forget it!!
A couple of these replies, one I think is serious regarding you're not a Christian if you aren't in the One True Church - do you think they mean those that worship Jesus in spirit and in truth?
A few ways many Roman Catholics act like Pharisees: 1. Saying our traditions go back to the Apostles so we have it all figured out (Pharisees claiming they are disciples of Moses). 2. Very knowledgeable but puffed up in pride and lacking the love of God and the fullness of his holy spirit. 3. If you're not part of our traditions you aren't in the fullness of the faith (The Pharisees looked down on Jesus and thought of him as less). 4. You must follow the rules according to our traditions or your communion is not valid ( Pharisees would claim Jesus was not following the Sabbath and he therefore was not in the fullness). . . Etc...
@@nickmedley4749 It would help if I knew how much you know about the origins of protestantism. It's essentially a rebellion against all the non-Biblical trappings the Catholic church acquired over a millennium of decadence and moral decay. Specifically, it was a rebellion started by Martin Luther over the sale of indulgences. Look it up. As for this video, the "death cookie" nonsense is unlike anything I've ever heard in any protestant church. Nearly all of them practice communion (wafers and wine), and some even believe in transubstantiation or have some vague belief that points in that direction (the body and blood exist "in with and under" the bread and wine). Protestants love the virgin Mary story, they just don't pray to/through her because they think worship should be directed to and reserved specifically for God. Mary was a human and from their perspective Catholics are deifying her and worshipping her as an idol. As an outsider, I have to agree with them on that one. The part about popes was pretty close to the actual protestant perspective. Popes are fallible men, proven time and again, and there is no biblical support for a pope, especially not for a man considered at times to be infallible (godlike) simply because he holds a position of power. The pretzels y'all twist yourselves into in order to excuse the behavior of past popes in the context of your beliefs about them is laughably sad.
@@sapago4166 1. The "death cookie" is an attack on the transubstantiation and the real presence of the Eucharist. Which most protestant churches don't adhere to. They may have a holy communion but most only hold that it's only symbolic. In the case of Chick, who was a Baptist, this would most definitely apply. Though this is anecdotal, living in the South I have most definitely had my practices been compared to pagan cannibalism. 2. This seems more like an issue with the veneration of saints in general. But considering almost every Church including Catholicism that predates Protestantism venerates the saint such as the Oriential, Eastern Orthodox, and Coptic Churches, it's a very moot point to say they all worship idols. Marian Devotion in general isn't something that's exclusive to Catholicism either, Eastern Orthodox have Marian devotions ingrained into their Liturgy, for instance. 3. To say that there is no biblical support is dishonest. Of course everyone knows Matthew 16:18 but also John 21. But even then there were many Early Church Fathers who repeat multiple times about the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome, such as Ignatius, Irenaeus, Origen, Clement, etc. Fundamentally protestant's don't understand how papal infallibility works. It's used in very specific circumstances, and the last time ex cathedra was used was over 70 years ago in Vatican II. I will give you the point that Catholics are too easy to excuse past popes. I think even more Catholics are critical of the current Pope today. But I also don't think its something worth forming a schism and potentially damning yourself over. Christ called sinners, not the just. Someone merely being a Pope does not make them without sin, only when they're speaking in ex cathedra.
You’re right the Protestants and Catholics need a savior. And the Lord Jesus Christ is the only savior. Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ will be forgiven. 95% of Protestants and Catholics are really not believers. No church or denomination saves but the Lord Jesus alone saves. Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ will be forgiven forevermore and have eternal life with Jesus forevermore ❤
Catholic Church, look at the mote in your own eye before trying to remove splinters from others. Pretty sad. I don't know what this video says and I'm not going there in the first place. A title like this is like a NEON sign - All Those Desiring to Divide and Conquer Christians Enter Here! Or maybe this guy is just trying to drum up volume to get more money from his TH-cam channel? Hmmmm?
"I don't know what this video says," you are the exact example of people commenting against the video without watching the video. At least you did not deny it, unlike others here. Let's imagine you giving a pamphlet to a Catholic about wrong Catholic teachings, and even before he opens it, he tells you that "you're just dividing Christians. This is nonsense. You just want attention!" How would you feel about that Catholic?
This is a textbook example of judging a book by its cover, except its not even the cover. The video is about suggesting Protestants not appeal to the same argument premises that atheists use to argue against the existence of God and truthbof Jesus Christ that Protestants also defend
@Phil Andrew Yeah, and he preaches about the "mote in your eye" as if protestants never critiqued Catholic teachings... They are called "protestants" for a reason.
And some athiest would argue that the story of Jesus is just copied from other pagan mythology and/or deities. Saying that we are praying to the dead is on the same level that an athiest will tell you that you believing on Jesus is just believing in magical flying spaghetti monster that has no historical evidences. The similarities on that is for you to say either of those statements is either you're highly ignorant in a level that you never investigated or discussed this with a Catholic or you are purposefully lying, in order to put a bad rep on the group.
@@josephjackson1956 can you show me from the Old Testament where we see anyone praying to a queen of Israel? Can you show me from the Old Testament where a Jew is praying to the dead and asking for help?
Whenever somebody asks about the bad popes, I always respond with "Yeah, our first pope denied Christ publicly three times and was called Satan by Jesus once or twice. We can really only go uphill from there."
Only problem is;
A. Peter was never pope
B. He repented and lived a life glorifying God.
Now Alexander the 6th for example immersed himself in immorality. Not much of a comparison.
I also like to point out Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus, and was still one of the first 12 Apostles. As Trent pointed out, even the great kings in the OT started good then turned away from God.
Kinda pops the idea that a follower of God will always be good. Man is still a sinner, after all, and God calls all to himself.
@@ContendingEarnestly if Peter was not the Pope, then why does Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen and Cyprian of Carthage all say differently???
@@henrybayard6574 cite them.
St. Peter was only promised the keys in Matt. 16.18 but only received the primacy in John 21, according to St. Robert Bellarmine and others. God bless
Oh my gosh! I am old enough to recall the 80’s ChickTracks at the Baptists churches floating around. Lol.. I came into RCC Easter Vigil 2021. Mother Mary pray for us. St. Brendan Pray for us.
Welcome home!
I am old enough to remember them also.though I never saw one.
Maybe because I a fro a small suburban town...not sure!
I came into the Church at Easter Vigil this year too, congrats!
Welcome home
Welcome home!
Another similarity is non Catholic responses to Fatima are a lot like atheist responses to the Resurrection.
You are exactly right. And the same with the Orthos towards the stigmata of our Saints and all post-Schism Catholic miracles.
@@Tannhauser45 Yeah, pretty much to anything that is in favour of Catholicism.
This. Also their response to the Eucharistic miracles. Some see Marian apparitions as Satanic which is blasphemy.
@@christianthinker2536 Yes and it makes no sense. Any demonic or satanic apparitions would try to turn you away from God, not make you do something that will bring you closer to Him.
@@IM-tl7qv They claim it's Satanic because she encourages us to pray the rosary and say "praying to Mary is idolatry". Demons hate Mary and the last thing they would want is to ask her to pray for us.
Trent - Just a thank you. I am now in the process of becoming catholic and you were instrumental in my journey.
Can I ask what convinced you Catholicism was true?
@@creatinechris sure, I think it would have to be the papal authority. If papal authority is true, then Catholicism logically follows.
@@grosty2353 gotcha. I can see how that makes sense.
How did you determine that papal infallibility is true?
@@creatinechris For your guys information, I figured out about Papal infallibility from the current Pope. [I had to edit this comment to add that this is sarcasm. I apologize, I should have made this clear but I thought most people would realize this.]
Beware who you follow, follow Christ. Follow those who follow Christ, I don't care if they are Catholic or not Catholic. Forgive me for barging in on papal infallibility and I'm quite sure it is infallibility in a limited sense in any case.
Can the Pope be voted out of his office, so to speak?
It's much easier to be a follower of a man or a particular church, it's almost impossible to truly be a follower of Christ and if that is what you are seeking make sure you understand what the Bible says, that is His Word, regardless of what church you choose. Just my two cents as an unworthy Christian.
"In egypt the people worshiped the sun, and called it the great god osiris"
oh. oh no. that feeling when you can't go a single sententce without being wrong.
Right, that isn't even the right Egyptian God 😅
@@Mrs_Homemaker c ome on! he's just like the greek sun god Hades! lol
It was Ra, right?
@@robertnorris8831 typically. Egypt is really old, so multiple gods have had the sun role, but it was ra for most of it.
And it was never at any point the king of the dead osiris! At least horus would be a *little* true depending on the time period.
@@robertnorris8831 yep.
Much love from your Eastern Orthodox Brother-Photios! I love your videos bro! Please, keep them coming! ☦️☦️
Brother? He doesn't have the same faith as you. Catholicism and EO are two different religions.
@@lukebrasting5108 Elaborate, I'm unaware of the distinctions
Mr. Horn, I'm a reformed presbyterian (BTW, I haven't even watched this video yet- but your last video in this topic I had a few disagreements with but I thought it also had some true and challenging, and worthy points). But I just want to give you my sincere gratitude for being a such a genuine, kind, and brotherly fellow, for being thorough, detailed, and gracious, for giving such an organized effort rather than glossing over things superficially or merely opining. For showing an earnest desire to edify others, and for working to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. I (obviously) disagree with you/on a number if very important doctrines, but I've been greatly edified both by the substance of your work as well as example of your demeanor. Thanks, brother, the Lord Bless you and keep you.
Please stop being a Reformed heretic and join the Church founded by Christ. God didn't damn the Son in our place in a form of cosmic child abuse as your false religion wrongly asserts with it's man-made Penal Substitutionry Atonement doctrine.
@@lukebrasting5108 Well obviously I don't grant "cosmic child abuse" as any kind of a meaningful characterization. It's odd that you'd post that here on a video about protestants arguing like atheists, when this argument suffers much the same problem. I certainly don't begrudge Catholics objecting to reformed atonement doctrine, but Catholics and protestants both have to deal with certain scriptures that seem to imply one sort of punishment or another ("crushed for iniquities," "Lord laid on him our iniquities," "made him to be sin," " propitiation,") even if our doctrinal analysis of it varies. Suffice it to say that I have genuine regard for Catholics I their divergence from it in an attempt to work out their understanding of the atonement, but there's no reason to assent to the simple characterization of "cosmic child abuse."
Cheers
@@Henry._Jones But that's exactly what it is, cosmic child abuse. God the Father sent God the Son to be tortured and damned in our place. But God is somehow suppose to be love at the same time and you see no contradiction in that. And those verses you quoted were never understood by the early Church in the way that Protestants understand them. Forensic Justification and Penal Substitution weren't taught at all by any Christian until Luther, Melancthon and Calvin came along, as the famed Protestant historian Alister McGrath proves in his book Iustitia Dei.
@@lukebrasting5108 So you say. I certainly don't claim the early church had a 16th century-style "reformed" articulation of the atonement, but I've always found the case that it was an out-and-out late innovation or development to be a weak case (besides, even if it were, what happened to Newman? Is development of doctrine unacceptable?). The reformed understanding usually assumes some overlap between the penal view and various elements of the ransom & satisfaction/Anselmian views, and tries to tease out a fuller articulation in conjunction with that which springs from good and necessary consequence from a wide reading of scripture.
Of course, this gets us into how we are to read scripture, and the role of "theopneustos," sola scriptura, and the magisterium, something which you and I know we don't agree on. But I don't say that contentiously . . . it's a huge issue, it goes well beyond disagreement about how to read the early church. It's okay. I didn't come on here and attack Catholicism, I only mentioned being reformed in order to let Horn know that even some of us in that camp appreciate and are edified by his work. He has shown graciousness to protestants and I've heard him say he appreciates their viewer-ship. I was just offering him some well-deserved praise and encouragement to him.
Cheers
@@lukebrasting5108 when you consistently frame penal substitution as child abuse, allowing no room for nuance (no proponent of PSA views it that way), you sound like a Muslim who just cannot understand the Trinity. They will say, no matter how much you try and explain in, that “you’re a polytheist!! It’s as simple as that. You believe in many gods.” They simply have no room for nuance and in trying to understand a different side.
In regards to bad popes, Jesus didn`t say that the gates of hell wouldn`t come against the church, only that it wouldn`t prevail. What greater proof that the papacy is divinely ordained than to allow Satan to attack it ferociously and for it to still prevail to this day.
Does what you wrote actually make logical sense to you or do you just like the way it feels to say it?
@@sapago4166 Both.
@@myrddingwynedd2751 For real though. When you go back and read through your comment do you really think that is the greatest proof?
Define prevail. Is it a process or an event?
@@sapago4166 So you weren't for real first time?
"Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, 'The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.'"
Matthew 23:1-3
If Christ wanted His disciples to respect the seat of Moses even if the people on it were morally corrupt, why should I not respect the seat of Peter?
Because he was talking about following Jewish Law, unless you are saying that Jesus or Peter abolish the Torah(Law of Moses), if you are saying what I think, Peter abolish the Torah?
Peter did not abolish the Torah but the one that taught him fulfilled it!!!
@@DaVinci3333 Do you know what fulfilled means in the Jewish context and the word used in Greek?
@@michael119castro4
You understand what Covenant speak is, correct? The OT points to the coming of Jesus. The Crucifixion and the NT has a new Covenant! Just like there were different fulfilled Covenants prior. Adam, Abraham, Noah, Moses. All different and fulfilled.
@@michael119castro4 Also, the bible WASN'T translated from English to Greek or Aramaic. It was translated to English to describe (IN ENGLISH) what was said in Aramaic and to be understood what the scripture meant.
_The Death Cookie_ happens to be my "favorite" Chick Comic, which is like a Jew saying he has a "favorite" anti-Semitic cartoon. _Cookie_ is so over the top bad in both its lies and horrible derogatory propaganda, that it has its own basilisk like horrifying fascination.
We as Catholics really need to stop seeing ourselves in solidarity with modern practitioners of Judaism. It's comfortable, coming from Hollywood, but it is not historical or real.
@@atrifle8364 bye
@@atrifle8364we need to love all people. Convert their hearts. They are our elder brothers, despite their turning away from God.
"IHS" is sometimes interpreted as meaning "ΙΗΣΟΥΣ ΗΜΕΤΕΡΟΣ ΣΩΤΗΡ" (Iēsous Hēmeteros Sōtēr, "Jesus our Saviour") or in Latin "Jesus Hominum (or Hierosolymae) Salvator", ("Jesus, Saviour of men [or: of Jerusalem]" in Latin)[13] or connected with In Hoc Signo. English-language interpretations of "IHS" have included "In His Service".[14] Such interpretations are known as backformed acronyms.
That's also where we get the humorous "Jesus H. Christ" from, as the forms "IHC" and "JHC". C is the medieval Greek uppercase S.
@TurtleMarcus so Jesus hOur Christ. 😂
Can we get a whole episode on Chick tracts? I have found them fascinatingly bizarre ever since I watched JonTron review the movie "Darkest Dungeon" which was based on a Chick tract decrying tabletop roleplaying games.
Jack Chick seemed like a deeply angry, deeply bitter man. I wonder what happened to him in his life.
Maybe a Catholic bullied him in a D&D game.
In all seriousness though I hope he let go of whatever made him so bitter before he passed away.
Those tracks always ended up in my Halloween candy as a kid, or in the school bathroom, etc. The anti-catholic lies I grew up with came right from those for the most part. Apparently my family read them too at some point.
@@Emper0rH0rde good one, you can bet it all started in the family. St John Paul II made that very clear about the breakdown of society we have been seeing for decades now originates from the family.
My friends and I picked up some kind of pamphlet that was like a Chick Tract. One of the guys ended up correcting the whole thing with proper scripture and reasoning 😂
My husband collect ls those Chick tracks. He reads them when he needs a good laugh. His favorite is the Death Cookie.
First! Listening to this after a long day at work. Great work Trent
Guess I’m second
Hey Trent, can you please refute MYTH VISION PODCAST's video on The Dead Scrolls and the Bible?
I don't like it when they say 'you just have to have faith' and ignore actions.
faith is a action
That's not true faith!
Right. The whole "Works vs. Faith" argument is just absurd. It's like arguing whether vegetables are more important than meat & vice versa. They both have their own things to provide. Both provide some degree of nutrition. And depriving yourself completely of one thing or the other is *NEVER* a good idea. You benefit from them the most if used in tandem.
"The Death Cookie" is a classic 😅 So much wrong in such a small comic.
How about ways Catholics are like atheists - the Spanish Inquisition was like the equivalent to an atheist gulag.
@@mugsofmirth8101 The Spanish Inquisition executed 4,000 people in 350 years. That’s less than 12 people per year. So it’s not even close.
@@DF_UniatePapist wasnt the Inquisition in Spain actually driven mostly by Spains rulers, who wanted to root out infiltration after 700 years of fighting the reconquista?
And those charged had representation and judging that was for its time, pretty darn good?
@@memememe843 I’m not sure, I haven’t done much research on that aspect of it. I have, however, researched the actual proceedings, and realized that no historian holds to the lies that the heretics have made up regarding the number of deaths due to the inquisition.
@@DF_UniatePapist exactly, Henry Kamen and Thomas F. Madden, both historians, debunked the many lies about the Inquisition from Atheists and Protestants.
I want to add on the first point that Osiris was the Egyptian god of the underworld and not the sun god... That was Ra.
So Jack also has that wrong.
Pro tip for Protestants don’t get your theology from a comic book 😆
“We should get our theology from the Bible, not the Bible from our theology.” Sound like sola scriptura? Trent Horn said that in his debate against Dr. James White.
@@BornAgainRN This is not Sola Scriptura because Trent did not say we should get our theology ONLY from the Bible.
The Protestant "Reformation" spawned atheism, in a nutshell.
It spawned Christian atheists. Just listen to the way protestant apologists, particularly James White, criticize Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. They use the exact same kind of argumentation that atheists use. "I can't fathom this, therefore it's impossible."
Lol no, that's about as ahistorical as prots who say catholicism is pagan. If you look at the prots who are faithful to the reformers, they are very strict in adherence to the Bible (yes, including some false doctrines) but with very high reverence. There's plenty, in fact tons, of liberal, atheistic cultural Catholics but this means nothing, just as lots of prot offshoots are completely liberalised, the only difference is they get to be separate but this has no causation. Not to mention liberal Protestantism only became popular after the greatest atheistic atrocities in human history.
@@Emper0rH0rde Christian atheist? Oxymoron anyone? And James White doesn't simply say 'i can't fathom'. That's your straw man.
@Phil Andrew
*A "Christian atheist" is a Christian who uses atheistic arguments, not a Christian who is also a literal atheist.*
And i disagree. Trents premises are off. Seems as though hes using this type of argumentation as the way we discuss catholicism. Not even close. Its a caricature of christian apologetics.
*And he never said James White SIMPLY says "I can't fathom."*
His comment about James White was minimalist at best. Here is the quote:
*They use the exact same kind of argumentation that atheists use. "I can't fathom this, therefore it's impossible."*
If anyone has seen his debates its never some 'oh well who knows'? Or 'i can't fathom this therefore its impossible.' When has he ever made any claim like that? He is theologically and historically correct in his debates, podcasts, books. Reducing it to 'oh well...' or it's impossible' is absurd.
@@IM-tl7qv the claim isn't that protestants are atheists, it's that protestants' descendants tend to become atheists. which is just a statistical fact. look at the pew forum religious landscapes map. Christianity has been in precipitous decline in all the countries in which protestantism dominated. it's only recently seeming to bottom out. and frankly I would chalk that up to the influence of the internet in spreading traditional Christianity like Catholicism and orthodoxy
Can you do a video on some of Jack Chick's more...out there conspiracies?
(For those unfamiliar, yes, the "secret Egyptian death cookie" conspiracy is nowhere near his strangest one)
Didn’t he have some conspiracy of the Jesuits infiltrating all the world powers and rounding up nonCatholics for execution or something? Been a while since I read it, but I do remember thinking “man, this guy makes the Jesuits sound way cooler than they actually are.”
I haven't watched this whole video, but I have met a few atheists in my life, and the ones I have met, after scratching the surface with questions, somehow believe in something greater than themselves. They cannot and will not acknowledge a singular all-powerful being or multiple beings. Thank you for your great work, Trent.
Wouldn't they be agnostics or 'spiritual'?
@@richardmadden8742 does sounds like an anti-thiest agnostic
I keep Chick Tracts in the restroom at all times. Read comedy while I do my business, and it also helps if I run out of toilet paper!
I have a question about the IHS thing. Why isn't it ΙΗΣ? When the s (σ) is capitalized, it is not S but Σ.
Jesus = Ιησους
JES = ΙΗΣ ≠ IHS
Why would the Eta be from the Greek alphabet and the Sigma be from the Latin?
The messiness of literacy probably explains this. It can also sometimes be seen as IHC, with the C coming from the lunate sigma.
Sigma itself varied in ancient Greek times between the form known today (Σ) and a form more similar to S (more pointy though, like a backwards Z).
@@spraffman
Cool! Didn't know that. Thanks for explaining.
That's actually something very uplifting: Pre-20th century, not even the popes with the worst private or public lives ever publicly proclaimed a heresy nor even hinted at it.
8:29 Horus ruins Christmas
Trent, you mentioned Jephthah, I just read judges 11 and it did shake my faith a little bit, would you mind to explain this passage? Because it did mentions that the Spirit of the Lord was with him before he made the promise
Alisa Childers has a pretty good short video about it.
@@PaulH I just watched, very good. Thank you.
3:30 where can we see these courses?
Chick tracts are so terrible.
They're amazingly funny though!
@@tayh.6235 What’s not funny is when people take them seriously. Though for me, they did elicit quite a few chuckles.
I'm a bit confused by this trans-world depravity idea: you described it as "It's not feasible for God to make a world that's free from evil and also having a guy *like Bob* in it". But the quote from Mackie (sp?) at 27:30 seems to be rejecting the idea that *every possible* creature (or "creaturely essence") is like Bob in that way. Could you explain this in more detail?
9:49 I’ll tell you why Mary is crying: because Jack Chick wrote a nonsensical bullcrap tract about her called “Why is Mary Crying?”
She weeps for his soul.
I call protestants the atheists of the religious world.
Why? Surely Buddhists better fit that description.
@@tonyoliver2750 It's a general attitude they share.
@@myrddingwynedd2751 How so? Many them are Bible literalists and believe the world is 6000 years old with dinosaurs and humans roaming the Earth together.
@@tonyoliver2750 Buddhists worship several Buddhist deities. Buddhists are polytheists. It's not just a philosophy like Westerners think.
@@christianthinker2536 Having been a Buddhist for more than 30 years before I became a Christian, I feel confident in saying that you are wrong. The deities in Buddhism are not worshipped, in fact it is not considered a fortunate rebirth to be born a deva (god with a lower case letter) all of whom are mortal like the demi-gods (asura), humans (manuṣa), animals (tiryak), hungry ghosts (preta) and hell denizens (naraka).. The devas (gods) according to the Buddha, are sentient beings trapped in the same cycle of Samsara and suffering as human beings and are not objects of worship.
The Buddha neither confirmed nor rejected the existence of God as understood in Christianity, just as as he neither confirmed nor rejected the idea of an eternal universe, it just wasn't important. You are correct, Buddhism isn't a philosophy, it's a way of liberation from the wheel of becoming.
The Buddha is venerated as are the Bodhisattvas, just as Mary is in Catholicism. In my experience Protestants often misunderstand the devotion that Catholics have to Mary, don't make the same mistake with Buddhists.
(Context: I'm an evangelical protestant.)
I see the parallel you're pointing to at 24:00 (if moral failings of Christians aren't proof that Christianity isn't true then why would moral failings of popes be proof that the papacy isn't right?) But respectfully, I don't think that parallel quite works. There are two common answers to the question "Why does that Christian do those terrible things?" and neither of them seem to apply to the question of the pope, at least as far as I can see.
1) The "Christian" might not actually be known by God or have the Holy Spirit in them at all. We know such people will exist (from e.g. Matthew 7:21) and that not doing God's will is at least a sign of being one of them (same verse). An atheist might accuse you of the no true Scotsman fallacy if you used it in every case, but it's a valid explanation. This is pretty obviously not applicable to the choice of pope, since it's kind of essential to the papacy that yes, the Holy Spirit is always involved in the choice. You can't just say "Well, that was an atrocious choice so perhaps the Holy Spirit wasn't acting through the cardinals when they chose that pope". Right? I don't want to tell Catholics what your own doctrine is, but that seems pretty clear cut.
2) God might still be working on the Christian in that area. Sanctification is an ongoing process, and we never claimed that God puts a stop to all your sinful patterns the moment you become a Christian. It might take an entire lifetime (or more, if you believe in purgatory) for them to be purified of those particular sins. But again, it doesn't seem like this applies to the choice of a pope. It's consistent that God would make even a terrible sinner into a true Christian through the Holy Spirit, because saving sinners is the whole point of both Christ's coming, and of Christianity. But a forgiven sinner won't become more saved because they're the Pope. Indeed, would it be unreasonable to suggest that some of the bad popes moved further away from God personally as a result of becoming Pope and struggling with the corrupting earthly power that came with it? Some of the popes' appointments don't seem to have served either their own spiritual needs, or the needs of the Church, or anything except their own sinful desires for power, wealth, etc. I mean the Church has been tragically divided for the last five hundred years, and I doubt that would have been the case if better people had been appointed in place of those bad popes. So it seems hard to say that they were good for the church, all things considered. Which leads to the question: Why would God appoint them/allow them to become Pope, when there were so many other options who would have been better both for the Church, and for the individuals themselves?
The issue boils down to this: When we're talking about someone becoming a Christian we're dealing with the eternal destiny of a single human being loved by God. But when we're talking about someone becoming a pope, we're merely talking about a (very important) job appointment. The situations are completely different.
There *are* valid answers to the "bad popes" question, of course; you give some of them in the video. But those aren't answers that we Protestants will have used in answering the atheists. So as long as we're willing to hear you out and consider your answers seriously, it seems to me quite fair to ask you the "bad popes" question while answering the "bad Christians" question from atheists.
Is the debate with Jay Dyer happening, Trent?
3:05 "Catholics that attack caricatures of Protestantism" Guilty! And I just found this out about, of all things, the Westboro Baptist Church. Check it out: th-cam.com/video/wVu9HcFmkC0/w-d-xo.html I'd love to hear Trent's reaction to it.
Anyone else got Korean subtitles??
Ive noticed that Calvinist are the worst for this. I'm on the fence between Catholic and protestant (I've been protestant my whole life) and there has been quite discouraged times while listening to reformed people like White or Mcarthur. They spend their whole time telling people in the faith they are wrong and don't know their bible.
McArthur comes from a long line of Freemasons. Look it up.
Excellent talk..you know I had a friend many years ago who was Protestant who loved pulling apart Catholics but I noticed he also did this to his fellow protestants and just about any one else in society. I wasn't a Catholic at that stage. The true a Christians I met never did this. A really good Christian friend of mine a Sikh Convert to the Weslian Christian Church talked to me about his experiences of the Holy Spirit in his life, this along with my wife brought me into the Catholic faith from my weak high Anglican background. I always believe in personal dicernment. I believe the Holy Spirit with guide us.
Wasn't the Egyptian sun god called Ra?
It would be great if Trent did a "when Orthodox argue like Protestants" video.
Thanks. I enjoy your stuff.
Question: Can prodastants go to heavin?
For me not dehumanizing Protestants it's about i find Protestantism too dysfunctional and being intellectually Honest
Hi Trent, I really would enjoy to see you in a debate with Frank Turek . He is a very learned apologist , I think He could be a good match .
He's also very kind to Catholics
Hi Trent--I agree that argument 1 and 3 are bad, but I think you're not grasping the significance of argument 2. An argument from silence is when you argue a conclusion from the *mere* fact that some event isn't mentioned. Hence, we don't say "Nazareth didn't exist" because there is no contemporary reference, because we wouldn't expect to have a contemporary reference to a backwater hick town. But we *would* expect the papacy to have a mention by Ignatius or Clement. Now, no doubt, the *episcopate* is present in the second century; obviously, as an Anglican, I'd deny that this is sufficient for your case. We affirm the episcopate, and so do many Lutherans. But the silence is glaring. You wouldn't expect the East-West split to have been a plausible historical happening if the papacy were as prominent/prime as Roman Catholics thought it was; clearly by 1054, the whole Eastern church thought Papal claims were overblown--and that rejection didn't happen in a historical vacuum.
Now, with respect to the claim we see evidence for the "primacy of the bishop of Rome", we just don't. We see evidence for the *respected place* and the *place of honor* of the Roman church--that it was seen as a model. But we *don't* see evidence for the idea that the Bishop of Rome was the bishop to whom all other bishops ought to submit. And that's glaring. Together with the fact that the whole Eastern church thought the Roman bishop arrogated himself beyond a place of honor to a place of authoritative primacy, confirms that the Roman episcopate let the honor and virtuousness of the church go to its head.
If you're Anglican, I recommend reading a short book called The Early Papacy by Adrian Fortescue. He was an Anglican of English noble heritage who converted to Catholicism and set out to refute arguments similar to yours by proving that Papal primacy was known to all during the first 5 centuries of Church history. You can probably find PDF copies online or I can give you my Kindle version if you want.
Here's why I experience such frustration trying to counsel protestant Christians. Any discussion on Predestination must account for the existence or denial of FREEWILL. Here is what I strongly believe why an all loving God must be totally supportive of our freewill.
"It will determine a man’s position in regard to the most momentous issues that present themselves to the human 💖 and mind. On the one hand, does man possess genuine moral freedom, power of real choice, ability to love unconditionally, the true ability to determine the course of his thoughts and volitions, to decide which motives shall prevail within his mind, to modify and mould his own character? Or, on the other, are our thoughts and volitions, our character and external actions, all merely the inevitable outcome of circumstances beyond his control? Are they all inexorably predetermined in every detail along rigid lines by events of the past, over which he himself is nothing more than a random puppet of evolution or some capricious god ? This is the real import of the free-will problem.
Atheist like Sam Harris believe there is no such thing as free will, it's just an illusion. We are just the end product of an endless series of causes and effects over which we have no control. Some protestants from what I gather, believe much the same, i.e in that God micro-manages every nano-cosmic event of our lives, and thus has predetermined our eternal fate from the beginning. Ergo, there is absolutely nothing we can do to change His WILL and thus our eternal fate. I believe as the catechism teaches, we have divine authority, if not a command to follow our conscience, having rightly formed it through careful study and self examination. To me the Protestant idea of Predestination or is it just Calvinism, that is an abomination to think that our individual fate was determined by some orchestrated script of a psychopathic god. There are just far too many verses throughout the Bible to indicate that God so loves the WHOLE world, (NOT JUST a SELECT FEW) that WHOSOEVER believes and returns that love to him, will be rewarded with eternal life. Now where did I read that?
We don't need you're counseling: that's you're first ignorant idea.
All Protestants aren't Calvinists either: second l , idea .
I actually believe in Molinism that it is a correct view of Predestination and Free Will, as an Evangelical : strange that Trent doesn't since it comes from a RCC Priest.
All Protestants don't fit you're strawman argument.
True Faith Always produces Good works: any Faith without works is a dead Faith.
Paul would agree with James.
But our works don't save us its Christ's Atonement and the Holy Spirit's washing us clean.
Good works are a sign to others that we are saved: God sees our hearts , but we can't see others hearts, so Good works gives us a view of God's grace in the believer's life.
The Pharasees also had a view of religious superiority to others .
RCC and Mormons seem to have this attitude in dealing with others.
You also need to distinguish between "Determinism" and "Predestination"
All Western Christians (following Augustine) hold to a form of Predestination or The Elect. This is not incompatible with Free Will because in this context, it does not imply fatalistic determinism of all outcomes, merely of the eternal decree of election of a select few unto salvation, which the Bible teaches in several places (an idea which is to be held in tension with the simultaneously Biblical notion of a Universal Atonement). Thus the Paradox: >>Jesus died for ALL, but NOT ALL are Predestined.
Funny thing: if Chick's information about ancient Egyptian religion had actually been correct, I (a Protestant) would have actually found that quite compelling evidence for the bread-and-wine-actually-become-flesh-and-blood doctrine. (Is there a simple term for that doctrine? It isn't transubstantiation, since that's also giving the mechanism by which it happens, and e.g. Lutherans believe the doctrine I'm talking about without accepting transubstantiation.) I know enough history to see it's ridiculous to suggest a connection in the normal sense, so if they *had* so accurately predicted the...um, traditional interpretation of mass/communion, then that would strongly suggest that the connection was through supernatural means. From which it would follow that it was probably revealed to them by God in some way, and therefore that the doctrine was correct after all.
C.S.Lewis talks about this: having studied various Pagan religions academically, he saw many "pictures" in their myths of the reported historical events of Christianity, even though the historical sources couldn't possibly have known about those myths. That was a key element in his conversion from atheism, IIRC.
Tim Gordon’s Catholic Republic talks about this in great detail, Prot-Enlight !
My mother, a very religious Catholic always admired Protestants for their political activism, when Catholics tent to avoid politics so not to offend anyone.
Political activism is hardly a good thing.
The American Catholics just shed their avoidance recently and became the greatest defender of american values
@@tracygriffin4439 but necessary and often God requires it.
It's funny how it used to be exactly the opposite: many Protestants (especially Baptists) didn't engage in politics due to their strong belief in separation of Church and State, while Catholics, a discriminated minority, set up their own schools and political organisations. I guess this changed in the late 1970's or early 1980's.
Good video. 🥰❤
Trent, the Lord chose Saul and Saul did not redeem himself! It is kind of naive to expect that a human being God chooses does not still have free will.
I am a Christian, because I was taught morals by people who used the Bible as their guide.
But I am also an Atheist, because even though I accept those morals, I don't believe in the supernatural stories that are used to present them.
Take the Golden Rule for example.
It's true that you should treat others the way you want them to treat you.
In fact, that moral is also taught in Aesop's Fable called "The Fox And The Stork".
But if you think I can't learn the moral lesson, unless I "FULLY ACCEPT AS FACT" that a fox invited a stork to his house for dinner, then laughed because the stork couldn't eat from the fox's dishes, then you don't grasp the meaning of "parables".
So I don't have to believe that Jesus was born of a virgin to "get" the Golden Rule.
Furthermore, when Jesus was brought before King Herod, Herod began to exaggerate stories about Jesus, just to discredit him.
"So, you're the leader of the people now? Are you their king? Are you their God? Can you perform miracles, like walking on water or raise the dead? If not, then you are NOT their leader!"
I don't need miracles or fairy tales to learn moral lessons.
At least I know they're only stories meant to present them.
But the catalyst doesn't have to be real.
Just sayin'
At 8:50 - God chose king saul too 👍
Do you think it's wrong that people deemed heretics used to be burnt to death?
By who?
No. Read Leviticus. The penalty for heresy in Old Israel was the death penalty and that was instituted with God's approval. You can't act like ISIS in the lands of the New Israel, the Catholic Church, and not expect consequences. Protestants got what they deserved. So don't try and play the victim when your kind were the aggressors.
The funniest critique of Jesus I have seen is from an atheist would said that if Jesus was a real miracle worker, then the Romans would have used him to perform miracles for them once they had him in their custody
That is a fascinatingly bad critique. What if the Romans instead tended to be superstitious and wanted nothing to do with miracle workers? I wouldn’t be able to venture a guess an answer as to how Romans would have behaved and my guess is the atheist proponent presupposed several things without evidence to back it up.
Yeah, that is so dumb. It's much easier to believe that a godman could raise the dead and cure blindness with dirt and spit than it is to believe that his captors would attempt to take advantage of such incredible talents.
Wait, no, that is obviously and completely wrong. Hm.
Sounds like a good idea, just as long as you ignore the large angry mob in front of a political building wanting the man dead.
@@GODZILLA2915 Yes. Because if someone can cure any illness, raise the dead, walk on water, turn water into wine, and feed large numbers of people with small amounts of food it makes soooooooo much sense that he would be pursued by an angry mob crying for his death large enough to overcome the massive following he would have gained. Yet another suuuuuper believable part of the story clicks into place.
@@sapago4166 Don’t forget that this took place during a pilgrimage and I don’t recall the Bible saying Jesus won over every-single-person. It would have ended up like how when Trump won the election and people started vandalizing cities the next moment. Even if the Romans can eventually stopped them, it would still lead to massive damage that will cost money.
Also the Romans have their own gods. Sure Jesus cured a servant for one Roman, but using a miracle man who’s claiming to come from another god that also claims his god is the only god would not look so good on their part.
Quick skeptical question: how can God allowing evil have an effect for greater good, if him only creating no evil creatures would be by definition PURE good! How can there be something greater than just pure good? Even if you raise free will, the middle knowledge defense can still get God out of the trap here, so really unless God wants evil for his own desire for it, there is no need to allow it. or, there is no God(as defined as all good and all powerful and all knowing)
I might need to reflect to make sure I've thought through this fully; but at least one initial reply is that 'pure good' doesn't necessarily correspond with 'greatest good'. By way of analogy, an ounce of pure water might not sustain me in crossing a desert while several gallons, though imperfectly pure, might.
@@John_Fisher thanks for responding.. I think my question remains this: who is this greater good benefitting? I can see that given our existing world of good and evil creatures, god could allow evil so that a greater number of sinners would eventually be saved. But in a world with no sinners at all, no one needs to be saved so why allow evil at all? It was already fine and he ruined it.
@@wingedlion17 I think I see what you're asking. I would say that the benefits are all of us though (or at least those who choose to accept it) - a version of us that is 'fine' because we were never allowed the freedom to choose good or evil is not as great of a good as the version of us that could freely choose and choose the good. The same with with versions of us that are essentially robots programmed to 'feel' love for God, yet not being allowed to actually choose that or not - most would say that that love is not real love, that it's certainly not as great of a good as a freely chosen love.
But even taking middle knowledge as a given attribute that God has - one might suppose he could create beings that are truly free to choose good over evil, but only create the ones that He knows will choose good, so that we live free and only experience a world full of non sinners. Still, there exist goods that can only be attained in a world where there are evils: You cannot develop courage without things to fear. Also circumstances of suffering can help us both develop into more compassionate people, as well as develop depths of bonds with other individuals that we don't automatically develop; deeper levels of charity than we would have had had we not seen or gone through the suffering together. There are some difficulties in my own past that, if I could change the timeline and ensure they never happened to me, I would not make such a change and loose what I had gained from that evil. So not only is an us that freely chooses good better than an us who was good from the beginning without choice; but an us who chooses good in the face of and through overcoming some evils is all the more good.
If we then have a God capable of bringing such comfort to all the evils we've ever endured that we can honestly say we no longer regret having gone through them even if there was nothing to gain from them; yet we can also identify goods that have been gained from them that we would never otherwise have; then we can see at least one possible reason that an all-knowing, all-powerful God could allow such evils to be committed by free creatures.
@@wingedlion17 one problem: God didn't want robots. But a family!
@@davidjanbaz7728 if God can't make robots then sin is possible in heaven. Can't have it both ways.
When I was non-denom I just figured we were baptists without the label. Since then I think it's more accurate to say non-denoms are atheists with bibles. It seems like the hyper relativism , cessationism, rejection of most saints, history, and things like that. the real separation between non-denoms and atheists is one rejects 7 books of the bible while the other rejects 73 books. Often, even baptism isn't something that separates them. I would also say Mormons are mystical non-denoms and low church baptists are rationalist non-denoms but that's another story.
@robert warner In what way were you atheist with a Bible? Did you think demons and angels didn't exist? Did you think Adam and Eve were metaphors?
Great explanation.
Protestants are not Christians. The term Christian for 2000 years has always been a designation of those who are members of the Christian faith and its Church - the Catholic Church.
Being validly baptized and then believing and supporting the rejection of Jesus Christ through rejection of his Church means you are not a Christian.
Protestants who were baptized were Christian up until the moment they excepted heretical views and rejected the Church that Jesus Christ founded. It may have been an instantaneous separation from the body of Christ if they were an adult when they were baptized.
The only loving thing to do is to speak clearly to our protestant family and friends that they need to join the body of Christ if they even want a chance at salvation.
@@verum-in-omnibus1035 I wouldn't say protestants aren't christians. Certainly, not all protestants are baptized correctly or at all, but the ones who are are christian. I was a christian when I was a protestant because of this. Further, all my protestant friends, who are all baptized, are christian because of this. This people should be called to the church but they are still christian.
Non-denominational protestants are atheist-like in the sense their world views are almost the same. The thin divider is that one group holds to the infallibility of certain books.
You are seriously over generalizing.
Man when I was IFB I used carry chick tracts all the time, this takes me back. I use to go into Catholic Churches and stick them in the pew bibles and roll them up in the toilet paper in the bathrooms and put red Gatorade in the Holy water near the door. Bruh I had no chill!🤣
Here's a better question that probably hits home better: Why wouldn't you have titled your video something like "3 way Christians act like atheists." Then you would have all of Christendom covered. Not just half of it.
Here's another thing for other people to consider that identify as Catholic or Baptist or whatever: There are other churches out there that are neither Protestant or Catholic which are commonly called Non-Denominational churches. They often spring up because they can't swallow man-made doctrines that creep into every church of any substantial size. Often these types of churches are centered on the Word of God, commonly known as the Bible.
And then you have divisions of the Catholic church where the One True and Only Christian Church (as a couple people responded in so many words) didn't do it for many Catholics so they started their own brand of Catholicism with the doctrines they think are true.
what a loser dude
Sorry, but these so-called “non-denominational” churches are Protestant in every way but name.
@@l21n18 Wrong. That's like Pro-Life being called Anti-Abortionist. It's a wuss attempt at control. Go back to the 1500's.
@@robertbrown6879 funny statement
ur arguments in diff comment section seems circular
and none sense ur re search full of holes
protestant is non denomination church , if this is thesis ur grade is 👎🏻
@@robertbrown6879 try hard protestant
Id rather be an atheist than a catholic who says Jesus sacrifice wasnt enough to get rid of all sin. CC says men can pay for their own sins in some pergatory somewhere. God says he would you rather be cold or hot, but if you are luke warn(like catholics) he will spew you out of his mouth.
Incorrect. There's no official Catholic document that teaches either of those things. Nice try, but please stop reaching.
@@littleone1656 Poor catholics. You are forced to believe in pergatory but you deny what pergatory is because you know it sounds bad. Pergatory is where men pay for the punishment of sins by being burned in flames. So what your saying is that pergatory isnt official CC teaching. Well, i dont care if it is or isnt, catholics all believe it. The dirty filthy CC makes alot of money selling salvation get out of pergatory tickets. I should start selling them. No jive. Beautiful thing is, no one will come back for a refund. (;-D
@@peterzinya1 Purgatory is biblical
@@from.archangels I think i know what you are getting at and it doesnt men men themselfs burn in a fire. It says their works are tried by fire, not the person. catholics try hard to justify their satanic beliefs. I dont blame them. They trust this religion for their salvation. They have to make it work. Other than that, it is appointed unto man to die, and then the judgment. Pergatory is just a money making invention to squeeze more money from the unfortunate dupes who belong to that horrible religion.
Protestant ministers use their title of pastors to avoid paying taxes They get quickie Bible courses to get their degrees
Osiris isn't even the sun god- it was Ra
Friendly advice* if you want to get more attention from youtube and young people you should make your videos much shorter and put the information in a more compact way. That’s just my oppinion about what I think would help.
Hello, friendly atheist here to engage:
Point #1 isn't really a way that Protestants are similar to Atheists, but rather, similar to Mythicists. Not all atheists are mythicists. I am an atheist (or an agnostic if you want to be particular about your definition) but I am not a mythicist.
Point #2 (conspiracy theory) is again a comparison against mythicists. Now, I will go ahead and steelman your argument to say: "Protestant's are similar to atheists because both use arguments from silence". And while I agree that both atheists and protestants use arguments from silence, so does everybody. I assume that you do not believe in many things, due to a lack of evidence. One example could be Russell's Teapot. Although you cannot prove that Russell's Teapot doesn't exist, you have good reason to withhold belief - namely, there isn't sufficient evidence to believe that Russell's teapot does exist. So, if the argument is that Protestants are similar to Atheists because they both don't believe in things for which they don't see sufficient evidence, I would agree but also add every other type of person to that list: Catholics, Muslims, Hindus, etc
Point #3 (meager moral fruit) - I am not positive about Draper himself, but anecdotally, in my experience, most atheists don't employ this argument as a knock-down 100% proof that Catholicism is false, but rather, they use that data point in a Bayesian argument that only suggests that Catholicism is less likely than it otherwise would be if this weren't the case.
Hi Kevin. You're certainly right, these examples that Trent gives aren't things that all atheists say (nor things that all Protestants say for that matter). The point he is trying to make is that Protestants have received these bad arguments from atheists (some specific atheists, that is, not arguments that are intrinsic to atheism) and identified them as fallacies when they hear them from an atheist, but then some Protestants will use a similar line of thought with the same fallacies to criticize Catholics. Ultimately, Catholic, Protestant, or Atheist, we are all at our best when we use the same level of critical thinking when looking at arguments proposed by those we agree with and those we disagree with.
Neither do all protestants as Trent points out, 1. Is really bottom of the barrel stuff, but sadly quite a few folks who should know better have bought into mythicist
Stuff.
We did get a good pope John - the XXIII was quite good as Johns go.
Why should you care if Catholics consider you a Christian
How about when Catholics read too much into typology and do the same arguments Islamists make to justify a parallelism (such as Muhammad is a type of Moses)
An opinion of a Catholic and actual doctrines are different. Here at home, we are all Catholics, yet we argue on some parts of our beliefs because I'm a traditionalist and some of us here are "modernist/progressivist" (in other words, catholics, but not really). But their opinions does not reflect actual Catholic doctrines. Trent is presenting an actual protestant doctrine here, so it's not really a good comparison.
@Brian Farley
None of Muhammad’s miracles are mentioned in the Quran and the Quran even claims explicitly that Muhammad was unable to produce signs he ran away from a blind man all of his alleged miracles were written centuries later by non eyewitnesses who weren’t even from Arabia
@Brian Farley
Even the Quran claims that Muhammad ran away instead of healing the blind man that came to him
also not everyone uses unleavened bread
thanks a lot
If think you're unfair, Trent. Catholic also sound like atheists when asking questions that really seem to me to be meta-questions, like "Where in the Bible is sola scriptura?"
@Phil Andrew I see it as a strange question. Like I was asking "Where in the tradition or in Scripture, does it explicitly states, exactly what the Holy Tradition is?"
@Phil Andrew It's a meta question, a book, a car, a thing is what it is (I know tautology), not everything is, like in programming, a recursive acronym (an acronym that contains in itself the definition, like GNU stands for GNU's not UNIX)
@Phil Andrew It really is an obsessive question for me, like I was to present myself to you "Hi Phil, I'm Dan, nice to meet you", and you where to ask "Where, embedded in your core/kernel/substance it is affirmed that you are Dan?"
@Phil Andrew But I still don't get the critique, Phil. Sola Scriptura is the idea that yes, all binding dogmas need come from Scripture.
Where is that in Scripture? Where is what is Scripture? Like, this is the ground we are sitting on. Could you clarify it for me, please?
I have seen people call Mary the "Queen of Heaven," what's up with that?
I dunno if Trent has a video on this specific topic but if you search William Albrecht or Brant Pitre they have really good stuff on Marian topics like that
In the Davidic Kingdom, which is a type and foreshadowing of the Messianic Kingdom, the queen was the king's mother, not the king's wife. In the Messianic Kingdom, Jesus is the King. Mary is His mother. Therefore Mary is the Queen-Mother.
The king had hundreds of wives, but only one mother. So it made sense that the role of queen should belong the king's mother instead of one of the wives, for a variety of reasons.
yooooo that's crazy, I posted this before becoming Catholic
@@skitsschist11 That's the "Trent effect"
Dude,
Unless you're either Socrates or Cicero - and believe me, YOU AIN'T EITHER - the more you talk, the more dead ends you're going to lead yourself into.
I want to see a video on all pagan practices
3 Ways Catholics act like atheists
They reject their own councils and magisterium with regards to Genesis 1-3 that taught uncomfortable truths de fide. As well as the unanimous consent of the fathers. Pride of life means more to them than faith, many would rather believe the church changed the view at the highest levels of magisterium than being seen as dumb.
They reject the churches official stances on moral issues.
They reject miracles and the literal interpretation of what was taught de fide to be taken as literal. Pride of scholarship over faith.
I am Catholic
You are citing Newman out of context
All Protestants or only the ones that are not followers of Christ? Could you please be a bit more specific?
None on them
@@alvaroramos7564 that’s not true. What the pope did with pachamama is one of the worst things I’ve seen in modern Christianity.
@@MrEvoXI I know its embarrassing
@@alvaroramos7564 no you need to have a balanced view of that incident not just the radical traditionalist view. If you look through out church history the church has in fact baptised certain pagan beliefs. An example is St Paul when he goes to Athens and sees the pagan philosophers with an unnamed god. Paul explains to them that that the god they were praying to was identified. Acts 17 for reference
Trent has already discussed Pachamama before. I also recommend:
Pachamama [w/ Dr. Pedro Gabriel] - Reason and Theology
th-cam.com/video/9gnV1ruKuks/w-d-xo.html
Balancing Out Taylor Marshall on Pachamama and the Kissing of the Quran [w/ Michael Lofton] - Reason and Theology
th-cam.com/video/IdctZuY1r8I/w-d-xo.html
Also, yes, the Church has baptized pagan symbols. For instance, the ankh and the triquetra.
If I have to hear pagan copy cat one more time 😂
Well dont you know that the SON of God is all about SUN worship! Because the ancient Hebrews and Greeks spoke English!
@@thomasbailey921 my uncle told me the pope got an army and killed all of the real Christians. Where does he get this stuff?
@@cormac5253 Oh man, probably the book "trail of blood." It's the protestant version of The Da Vinci code, except that they believe it's not fiction, lol
I don't like this "transworld" idea at all, the way i interpret it, the Spirit acts through the Church as a whole, and the Church has to fight with human works against evil. If God miraculously shielded the head of the Church from attacks of the Evil One, then He would have shielded the head of His Son from the beatings of the roman soldiers, but that's not how the divine operates among men. The Spirit gives every member of the church the capability of acting for the well being of the Church at all times, but the Evil One generally attacks the weak link of the chain, which explains why the church had different issues at different periods of the past, most 20th century popes were great but the christian community was the most lukewarm it has ever been in that same period. God entrusts us through the spirit to choose the successor of Peter, which he'll bless. God won't allow his church to die, He won't let for all of its parts perish to the attacks, because he promised us he wouldn't, that doesn't mean he frees its member from falling into heavy sin.
Im not a fan of the protestants at all tbh 😭 especially the Baptists and Pentacostal
And Zoroaster.
Thumbs down from a non-protestant.
1. Jesus clearly gave bread and wine to His apostles. Jesus never taught any thing similar to Transubstantiation. That means it makes sense for that idea to come from another place.
Treating Mary as the Catholics do has no scriptural support. It makes sense to wonder if it came from... maybe... paganism.
2. We don't ever see a congregation having authority over another congregation in The Bible. After The Great Apostacy, maybe, but that doesn't matter.
Peter's primacy has nothing to do with The Papacy. It disproves the protestantistic belief is God causing confusion anc chaos by not having an organization.
3. What did Abraham and Moses do that was bad? Jephthah??!! What does a successful military general have to do with a spiritual leader? Nothing. King David was a king, which doesn't mean a spiritual leader.
I see a big difference between all christians having some sins and, the one person who is supposed to be the best to lead all christians at the time being a real stinker.
23:00 That atheist is wrong. If christianity is true then there is an enemy of God tempting us. The enemy would try hard to tempt people who believe in God so God would get bad PR. The enemy might also not tempt people who refuse to accept his reality because they are doing what the enemy of God wants. Christians sinning makes sense because of that.
Gettem
1:40 almost as if the atheists have the most well thought out position (aka the consensus in most fields of study) while protestants and by extension Catholics have very poor inconsistent standards for evidence.
That’s nonsense. But even if I grant you have consensus, that doesn’t mean the most well thought out
@@constantineofamerica1555 technically you are correct. Just because the consensus of geologists accept the earth is round does not make it so necessarily nor does it necessarily mean the round earth position is the most well thought out.
If you were to become convinced that the consensus in philosophy is that the arguments for god fail and that atheism is the more rational position, would that lower your confidence in believing God exists?
No, it’s more like atheists can only argue from incredulity.
@@TheCrusaderPub I think I understand where you are coming from.
Is there anything that you feel atheists claim incredulity about that you believe theism can demonstrate credulity about?
@@creatinechris I’m honestly not sure I understand the question.
To use a Christian example to make my point, Kent Hovind is the ultimate example of arguing from incredulity. His entire argument is that you shouldn’t believe in evolution because he finds it hard to believe. “Do you really believe the universe started as a dot the size of a period on a page?” He doesn’t care why a physicist would say this, it just sounds crazy to him and therefore it’s false.
In this way the atheist will, as an example, ignore why the theist would describe God as a first cause and insist it must be special pleading.
I'll say one more thing. You should change your title. I say this as a Christian. It is divisive within Christendom.
You are not a Christian sir, and that pains me to say that because I wish you were.
Christendom is the body of Christ, those who belong to his one true Church. You follow a brand new set of interpretations that have only been around anywhere between 20 to 500 years (depending on your brand of Protestantism).
In the world of Christianity you are a brand new type of heretic. Protestants are not Christians, they have hijacked that title because Protestant America has thrived.
And the idea that division is bad is antichrist. Jesus Christ told us he came to divide, those who are with him and those who are not. And you are not with him if you’re not within his Church.
@@verum-in-omnibus1035 Wow, is that from the Book of Malarkey?
@@verum-in-omnibus1035 Another baloney reply. Looks like I hit the nest!
Yeah, you know what else is divisive within Christendom? Personal interpretation of Scripture.
@Phil Andrew Then turns around in the first three minutes and says that the same thing happens with Catholics. The title was to catch mainly people caught up in the us vs. them thing. Pretty darned obvious. That's why I called him out on it.
Argument from omission: Just went to Trent's website. He writes about Jesus and Christianity, however he has never written an account of Jesus life. Clearly Trent doesn't know about those mythological aspects. He just focuses on the Church Christ founded. Therefore Trent doesn't know about the Gospels. Yay logic. ha.
This is like listening to someone explicating the details; the minutia of Natal vs Horary astrology. Like it matters.
How about titling these talks, "How Protestants and Roman Catholics look like Atheists.
And... citing "Chick Tracts" is not useful at all because that's way out there on the fringe. Not main line or even close. Most Protestants don't even know about these tracts.
Is it not useful at all or less useful because you think it’s fringe?
Good point. The youtube channel Catholic Truth said that, although Chick Tracts are from a Baptist origin, most Baptists don't even believe and/or accept chick tract doctrines (for the lack of a better word).
However, we cannot deny that some protestants do think like this.
@@TheCrusaderPub I'm just saying that to identify Protestants as a whole with any fringe element like Chick Tracts is misleading and even borders on the deceptive.
@@seanfernandolopez9139 yes, but to identify Protestantism with this extremely fringe element is very misleading. Not honest.
@@rolandovelasquez135 there’s no such thing as “Protestants in general,” so when it comes to Protestants you have to cover a lot.
You don't have to be a Catholic to be a Christian. You don't have to be a follower of a Pope to be a Christian, or a follower of Cephas or a follower of Paul. The One you should follow as a Christian is Christ.
All men are fallible, none are righteous, that's riddled throughout the Bible, the Word of God.
You don't get into Heaven because you are a member of the Catholic church no more than you would in any other church that is a Christian church.
Actually you are 100% incorrect, on everything that you’ve said.
The term Christian for 2000 years is a designation describing those who are in the Church that Jesus Christ founded, the Catholic Church.
The heresy of “Americanism“ is pretending that those outside of the body of Christ are actually sort of still within the body of Christ. It has been popularized especially since the fall so humanism of Vatican II and the downfall of the visible church since then. Especially in the nation that is based on a heretical religion, protestant America.
However papal teaching of the magisterium for centuries is very clear - only those who fully except Jesus Christ and his Church are Christians and even have a chance at salvation.
The new Protestant sects with all of its thousands of offshoots are closer to the truth then let’s say an atheist, but they are not in the body of Christ, Christians. nor are they saved.
The Word of God is Jesus Christ, the word made flesh. The book that you speak of, is the canon of sacred scripture that bishops of the Catholic Church with the pope of the Catholic Church officially codified in the fourth century after Jesus Christ lived, died and resurrected.
Since you are a Protestant you do not use the entire Bible as it has been recognized for two millennia almost, your religion’s founders took out seven books.
100% Nope bruh Christian is only Catholics
from christ to apostle john to polycarp to Ignatius of Antioch
Antioch people are the first christian's
U should follow the Both Oral tradition to
appostolic tradition bcoz god
say so 2 thessalonian 2:15 Amplified
Faith alone is nonsense!!
Matthew 19:16-30
Dont forget it!!
@@aramaicboy2976 Book of Whatever Chapter 1, Verse 1: Whatever
A couple of these replies, one I think is serious regarding you're not a Christian if you aren't in the One True Church - do you think they mean those that worship Jesus in spirit and in truth?
A few ways many Roman Catholics act like Pharisees:
1. Saying our traditions go back to the Apostles so we have it all figured out (Pharisees claiming they are disciples of Moses).
2. Very knowledgeable but puffed up in pride and lacking the love of God and the fullness of his holy spirit.
3. If you're not part of our traditions you aren't in the fullness of the faith (The Pharisees looked down on Jesus and thought of him as less).
4. You must follow the rules according to our traditions or your communion is not valid ( Pharisees would claim Jesus was not following the Sabbath and he therefore was not in the fullness).
.
.
Etc...
That’s a very cute repetition of a very old lie and misrepresentation. But hey, good luck with the heresy 👍🏼
@@verum-in-omnibus1035
Do you pray to Mary?
@@Benjanath-Paaneah
If you ask a person to pray for you, do you worship that person?
@@davidstrelec610 Did Mary asked you to pray for or to her? Exactly no...
@@NCSiebertdesign No, we asked her to pray for us. Not the other way around.
Very bad argumentation. The gates of hell have prevailed against the Roman Catholic church.
This is a hilariously misguided attack on protestantism.
Can you maybe explain a bit about your main objection to the points discussed in the video?
@@nickmedley4749 It would help if I knew how much you know about the origins of protestantism. It's essentially a rebellion against all the non-Biblical trappings the Catholic church acquired over a millennium of decadence and moral decay. Specifically, it was a rebellion started by Martin Luther over the sale of indulgences. Look it up.
As for this video, the "death cookie" nonsense is unlike anything I've ever heard in any protestant church. Nearly all of them practice communion (wafers and wine), and some even believe in transubstantiation or have some vague belief that points in that direction (the body and blood exist "in with and under" the bread and wine).
Protestants love the virgin Mary story, they just don't pray to/through her because they think worship should be directed to and reserved specifically for God. Mary was a human and from their perspective Catholics are deifying her and worshipping her as an idol. As an outsider, I have to agree with them on that one.
The part about popes was pretty close to the actual protestant perspective. Popes are fallible men, proven time and again, and there is no biblical support for a pope, especially not for a man considered at times to be infallible (godlike) simply because he holds a position of power. The pretzels y'all twist yourselves into in order to excuse the behavior of past popes in the context of your beliefs about them is laughably sad.
It’s not an attack on Protestantism itself
@@l21n18 Sure it isn't. It's comparing them to godless heathens in a positive way.
@@sapago4166 1. The "death cookie" is an attack on the transubstantiation and the real presence of the Eucharist. Which most protestant churches don't adhere to. They may have a holy communion but most only hold that it's only symbolic. In the case of Chick, who was a Baptist, this would most definitely apply. Though this is anecdotal, living in the South I have most definitely had my practices been compared to pagan cannibalism.
2. This seems more like an issue with the veneration of saints in general. But considering almost every Church including Catholicism that predates Protestantism venerates the saint such as the Oriential, Eastern Orthodox, and Coptic Churches, it's a very moot point to say they all worship idols. Marian Devotion in general isn't something that's exclusive to Catholicism either, Eastern Orthodox have Marian devotions ingrained into their Liturgy, for instance.
3. To say that there is no biblical support is dishonest. Of course everyone knows Matthew 16:18 but also John 21. But even then there were many Early Church Fathers who repeat multiple times about the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome, such as Ignatius, Irenaeus, Origen, Clement, etc. Fundamentally protestant's don't understand how papal infallibility works. It's used in very specific circumstances, and the last time ex cathedra was used was over 70 years ago in Vatican II. I will give you the point that Catholics are too easy to excuse past popes. I think even more Catholics are critical of the current Pope today. But I also don't think its something worth forming a schism and potentially damning yourself over. Christ called sinners, not the just. Someone merely being a Pope does not make them without sin, only when they're speaking in ex cathedra.
You’re right the Protestants and Catholics need a savior. And the Lord Jesus Christ is the only savior. Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ will be forgiven. 95% of Protestants and Catholics are really not believers. No church or denomination saves but the Lord Jesus alone saves. Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ will be forgiven forevermore and have eternal life with Jesus forevermore ❤
Amen 🙏
Catholic Church, look at the mote in your own eye before trying to remove splinters from others. Pretty sad. I don't know what this video says and I'm not going there in the first place. A title like this is like a NEON sign - All Those Desiring to Divide and Conquer Christians Enter Here! Or maybe this guy is just trying to drum up volume to get more money from his TH-cam channel? Hmmmm?
exactly
Let’s pretend you’re right and his video of is just to get clicks…
He’s still right.
"I don't know what this video says," you are the exact example of people commenting against the video without watching the video. At least you did not deny it, unlike others here.
Let's imagine you giving a pamphlet to a Catholic about wrong Catholic teachings, and even before he opens it, he tells you that "you're just dividing Christians. This is nonsense. You just want attention!" How would you feel about that Catholic?
This is a textbook example of judging a book by its cover, except its not even the cover. The video is about suggesting Protestants not appeal to the same argument premises that atheists use to argue against the existence of God and truthbof Jesus Christ that Protestants also defend
@Phil Andrew Yeah, and he preaches about the "mote in your eye" as if protestants never critiqued Catholic teachings... They are called "protestants" for a reason.
No doubt some of catholic doctrines are influenced by paganism. Mary as queen and praying to the dead are a couple of examples.
Those are literally scriptural
And some athiest would argue that the story of Jesus is just copied from other pagan mythology and/or deities.
Saying that we are praying to the dead is on the same level that an athiest will tell you that you believing on Jesus is just believing in magical flying spaghetti monster that has no historical evidences.
The similarities on that is for you to say either of those statements is either you're highly ignorant in a level that you never investigated or discussed this with a Catholic or you are purposefully lying, in order to put a bad rep on the group.
Your not doubting it doesn’t make you right.
@@josephjackson1956 can you show me from the Old Testament where we see anyone praying to a queen of Israel? Can you show me from the Old Testament where a Jew is praying to the dead and asking for help?
@@seanfernandolopez9139 can show me an atheist document where he says praying to the dead is just like the Flying Spaghetti Monster?