@YAJUN YUAN that’s an incredibly simplistic if not outright ignorant take; and I’d believe a Muslim who used Koran and Hadith to argue their case much more consistently over a Muslim who denied the Hadith and argued for “Sola Koran”. A catholic who uses scripture and tradition to argue is saying “these are the words of scripture AND this is how these words have historically been interpreted for centuries” A Christian who denies tradition just like a Muslim who denies the hadith is basically fabricating things as they go along. And more often than not their interpretation in one area explicitly contradicts the very words of scripture in another.
My favorite ones are the ones who say the Catholic Church started Islam. So the pope sent a nun to seduce a certain Arabian to create Islam - so the story goes. What are the odds it worked the first time.
@YAJUN YUAN The Church Fathers believed in the real presence. This alone contradicts your entire point, because it shows that the Church Fathers believed in Apostolic tradition
Who else is thinking?: Protestant: If it's not in the Bible, then it doesn't exist. Muslim: If it's not the Qur'an, then it's corrupted. Atheist: If it's not in the physical, then it doesn't exist. 🚶♂️🚶♂️🚶♂️🚶♂️🚶♂️
@@aGoyforJesus But Jesus never gave his apostles any bible. Rather, he left a Church in which he domiciled the richness of his teachings. So, anyone who wanted to be Christian in the first century had no bible or letters to study, but must have to resort to the utterances of the apostles, which existed only as a deposit of Tradition. Don't forget we are talking about an oral culture here. Bible is simply a collection of the Church's living Tradition. So, what is known as bible today existed as separate letters of exhortation written for individual churches across Europe and the middle East. The New Testament is only a record of the first few decades of Christianity. Is it, therefore, reasonable to expect it contain every single thing the Church has ever believed and taught? How did we arrive at the current books in the Bible? Who chose these books out of other tens and hundreds of books making the rounds from the first centuries of the Church? What criterion was used in making the choice of books in the Bible? These and more are the relevant questions one must ask, instead of simply talking as though Jesus threw down the Bible from heaven after his ascension.
@@thedomesticmonk772 Incorrect; start learning the bible over men's opinions. Matthew 4:4 But Jesus said, “It is written, ‘Man is not to live on bread only. Man is to live by every word that God speaks.’”
@@nightshade99 refuted as the only authority by Scripture itself. The Ethiopian eunuch is the Biblical proof that without an authority on Scripture it can be misinterpreted and twisted. Even he, an unbaptized person, had the wisdom to ask how he could really understand without instruction. Apostolic Tradition is the answer to clarifying Sacred Scripture.
@@ohseven4150 YOU: refuted as the only authority by Scripture itself. ME: Your statement didn't make any sense. YOU: The Ethiopian eunuch is the Biblical proof that......he could really understand without instruction. ME: Incorrect. Catholic officials sometimes refer to the case of the Ethiopian nobleman in which Philip asked if he understood what he was reading, and the reply, "Why, how can I, unless someone shows me?" and argue that every one must depend on an official interpreter. However, the Eunuch only had the prophecy of Isaiah in his hands which words could not be understood without a knowledge of what had happened at Calvary. (See Acts 8:29-35). Of course, in this formative period when the gospel message had not been fully revealed and the story of the cross had not been told, one would have to be guided to the fulfillment of this dark prophecy to know who it was that "was led like a sheep to slaughter; and just as a lamb dumb before its shearer, so did he not open his mouth." However, now that we have the inspired record of the exact literal fulfillment of the prophecy, we do not need an interpreter to tell us what it means. YOU: Apostolic Tradition is the answer to clarifying Sacred Scripture. ME: Incorrect. Catholic officials follow up this claim by stating that one can get the true meaning only from the Catholic Church but have no passages which mention an official interpreter and, thus, they try to support their claim through human logic and reasoning. Any time men do such, it amounts to nothing more than human philosophy rather than Scriptural proof. The Bible says, "Let God be true, but every man a liar..." (Rom. 3:4). It also warns, "See to it that no one deceives you by philosophy and vain deceit, according to human traditions, according to the elements of the world and not according to Christ." (Col. 2:8). The inspired writers taught that we most certainly can understand the Scriptures. "For we write nothing to you that you do not read and understand." (2 Cor. 1:13). "...How that, according to revelation the mystery has been made known to me, as I have written above in few words, as you reading may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ." (Eph. 3:3-4) "Therefore do not become foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is." (Eph. 5:17). There is no difference between the "private interpretation" argument and the one on understanding. The inspired writers taught that men can privately interpret or understand the Scriptures. The reasoning of the RCC is utterly ridiculous. They argue that when one makes a private interpretation of the Scriptures, he claims for himself a personal infallibility. When an individual reads and interprets the Bible, it no more makes him infallible than reading the facts about Abraham Lincoln makes him Abraham Lincoln. The individual with his own feelings and emotions does not constitute an infallible authority; the Word itself is the infallible authority. Infallibility gets from the printed page to the mind of the reader simply by the reader comprehending what he reads. Catholics raise tremendous opposition to private interpretation of the Bible; however, a study of the Holy Scriptures plainly reveals that God requires and expects man to make private interpretations of His Word. The powers and blessings of the Word of God comes only to those who privately interpret the Word. For example: "refreshing the soul" (Psalm 19:8), "giving understanding to the simple" (Psalm 119:130), "which is able to build you up" (Acts 20:32,) "a discerner of the thoughts and intentions of the heart" (Heb. 4:12), "I write to you in order that you may not sin" (1 John 2:1), "that the man of God may be perfect, equipped for every good work" (2 Tim. 3:16-17). These things are not received and are not accomplished unless one makes a private interpretation of the Word, thus, showing that a private interpretation is required. Man must exercise his senses upon the Word of God that he might be able to discern between good and evil (Heb. 5:14). Jesus expected the people of His day to privately interpret the Scriptures. He used such terms as "search the Scriptures" (John 5:39), "have you not read?" (Matt. 12:3; 12:5; 19:4; 21:16,42; 22:31), "is it not written in your law?" (John 10:34; Luke 10:26) which show that the people were obligated to read and interpret the Scriptures. Furthermore, He quoted the Scriptures as the final source of authority (Matt. 22:29-32; Mark 7:9-13) and He always showed the consequences of failing to do so, e.g., "You err, not knowing the Scriptures..." (Matt. 22:29), "...Thus making void the word of God through your tradition" (Mark 7:13). These things show that Jesus wanted and required a private interpretation of Scriptures. The common people readily heard and understood Christ's teaching without an infallible interpreter. Mark 12:37 says, "And the mass of the common people like to hear him." Jesus said, "I praise thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou didst hide these things from the wise and prudent, and didst reveal them to little ones." (Matt. 11:25). In Matt. 13:51, Jesus said to His disciples, "Have ye understood all these things? They said to him, 'Yes'." If the common people could interpret Jesus's Word, and much of the New Testament is simply the Word which Jesus spoke to the people, so can we. Isaiah, prophesying of the New Testament Way, said, "A path and a way shall be there...and this shall be unto you a straight way, so that fools shall not err therein." (Isa. 35:8). God has endowed us with reason and the power to choose between good and evil, right and wrong, truth and error. These are all set before us and the responsibility rests upon us to function as intelligent free agents. God will judge every man in accord with his response to His Holy Word. Jesus said, "The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge; the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day." (John 12:48). All these things show that a private interpretation is possible and necessary. After the church was established, the apostles and prophets likewise required that people make a private interpretation of Scripture (Acts 9:22; 18:28) and the people did that very thing (Acts 17:11; 2 Tim. 3:15). When churches began to be established as result of the preaching of God's Word and when the New Testament Scriptures began to be written, never in one instance did the apostles and prophets declare that private interpretation must now cease because the church was now the official interpreter of the Scriptures. They did not direct the people to an infallible interpreter of the Word, but to the Word itself.
When Protestants argue like Muslims = James White is inconsistent with his pop apologist argumentation and the sources he cites. Saved you 30 mins of viewing culminating in a mute point, if you have a criticism of James White direct it towards him and his method. Don't lump actual academic Protestant theologians and scholars with James White...
White really makes me cringe when he does that thing many protestants do where they repeat the verse in a more emphatic tone, often adding the Greek, taking for granted it's just obvious it's a proof text their tradition: no reasoning given
@Christos Kyrios They have always felt this way and yet Jesus was a Jew. Lucifer believes in the Trinity. The point cannot be a one-to-one correspondance.
A question: is mainstream catholic scholarship conservative? To me it seems quite liberal… whenever I come across a view of catholic scholars on the Bible, a Bible passage, or account - they almost always seem to take a liberal (secular) view.
catholic theology within catholic universities is becoming non-existent because most of these institutions are no longer true to the label - bishops are asleep, and very happy to be so - they don't realize they are mercenaries, not pastors, according to Jesus' oen words
But how far do you take using the entire view of someone in order to site them? Can protestants site Jerome for rejecting the authority of the apocrypha?
I could see James white saying well Shabir Ally uses the Jerome commentary when he's arguing against James white position, and his beliefs when it comes to his own reformed theology christianity. But James probably will say i can use it against Catholicism bc Jerome was a Catholic. 🤦🏻♂️ but still can see that's it a double standard 💯
Everyone puts there argument or beliefs in a man's thery or ideas when we should set our eyes and faith in Jesus and let the holly spirit convict us but we must make sure we read the bible pray fast and sanctification and than you will know the truth about your questions don't put your trust on man who can make mistakes
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:03 📚 Trent Horn discusses similarities in argumentation between Protestants, atheists, and Muslims. 01:12 📖 Trent is working on a book consolidating observations about argument strategies and differences in religious perspectives. 03:05 🤝 Protestants use liberal Catholic scholars to support their arguments, but criticize similar scholars when they undermine their views. 06:35 🧪 Protestants challenge Muslim apologist Shabir Ali's double standards in citing conservative scholarship for the Quran but liberal for the Bible. 10:03 💬 James White critiques Catholic arguments by citing scholars with liberal views, without highlighting their liberalism. 11:01 🔍 White's criticism of liberal Catholic scholarship is similar to Muslims' criticism of conservative scholarship in debates. 12:12 📖 Father Richard McBrien's liberal views on various Catholic teachings are cited by White against Catholic doctrines. 17:29 📚 White uses conservative Protestant scholars to defend his view on sola scriptura but dismisses Catholic scholars as liberal. 19:05 📚 Michael Kruger's conservative view on the canon is cited by White favorably, while he criticizes Catholics for citing minority views. 21:51 ⚖️ Trent urges intellectual honesty, avoiding double standards, and proper representation of scholars from differing perspectives. 22:06 📚 Recognize double standards in using liberal scholarship. 22:32 🔍 James White shows double standard: critiques Muslims, uses liberal Catholic scholarship. 23:13 📜 White acknowledges Muslims' use of liberal scholarship, questions own approach. 24:23 🧐 White argues liberal Catholic scholarship challenges Rome's theology, debates context. 25:48 🤝 Call for equality: Both sides should cite representative, mainstream scholarship. 27:10 🎤 Suggestion to debate James White on authority: Solo Scriptura vs. Apostolic Succession. 28:22 💡 Reminder to access Trent's pro-life course via trenthornepodcast.com.
It’s time to boycott this wolf, what’s the pope going to say next? Jesus never lived, the Catholics defend and defend a losing battle. What a sad title of a video. Shalom
841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."
@@Qwerty-jy9mj I don't know. We need some kind of committee that's able to explain this nonsense. In the mean time, I'm going to kiss a book that says that God literally blew his spirit into the c u next Tuesday of Mary, using that word in Arabic which I just hinted to. I didn't use that word, because it is utterly disrespectful towards Mary, the mother of God. How stupid is it, to kiss such a filthy book?
Do you think the plan of salvation including them means that they are saved? God’s plan of salvation includes everyone, it doesn’t mean God plans on saving those who reject his church
@@georgwagner937 You don't need to say it to be equally disrespectful. That committee that you wanted already happened, it's called the Second Vatican Council
@@Qwerty-jy9mj well, you are right. It was disrespectful, but I was joking. I would never kiss such a book. Because it is filthy and an abomination. But the pope did kiss such a book. And it breaks my heart.
Even if Rev Richard McBrien left Roman Catholicism, doesn’t the church consider him Roman Catholic because he was baptized in the Roman Catholic Church. Basically if your baptized in a Roman Catholic Church, your a Catholic for life.
the significance of his catholicism only finds importance when he returns for matters like should he be re-baptized and re-confirmed, which of course we don't do because he received catholic sacraments and is a catholic.
Don't know enough about him, but assuming baptized and confirmed Catholic but guilty of some combination of heresy, schism, or apostasy, he would need only confess that in the Sacrament of Reconciliation to be considered a Catholic in good standing.
Trent is not going to make a video like that. YOu should do it if you feel so strong about it. So the Catholic Church has two bibles now like the Mormons?
@@juanisaac5172 no sweetheart: but you claim your the only true Christian church just like the Mormons and they have an infallible prophet just like you do with the Pope. See , I am writing Trent's video for him! Good luck with your views because Mormons use them too.
Lol people who don't even truly believe in the divinity of Jesus (Mormons) seriously? 😭🤣 Can't wait to hear the mess that made you want to compare those. I love all these butthurt heretics in the comment section. Honey, if it doesn't apply to you don't worry. If it does which would explain the trigger then wear the shoe Cinderella if it fits. Also if it does stop doing it in debates
@@angelalemos9811 Well why not? Your side has been spouting for years that the Catholic Church created Islam. So the theory goes that the Pope, who was under the patronage of the BYZANTIUM Empire, just happened to send a nun to Saudi Arabia and on the first try just happened to succeed. Imagine that. What are the odds? And you should be very proud of the Mormons since they hate the Catholics Church as much as you do. And to boot they also believe the Church the Whore of Babylon. You can laugh all you want Miss Lemos but your connection with them is quite strong. The Jehova's Witnesses as well. But those two groups have managed to dig a lower low than even you protestants. See what a mess Luther brought? Can never find something else to do than come after us. Now it is my time to laugh 😭🤣. Have fun waiting for the rapture because you are not going anywhere. And at that time you will want to cry and not laugh.
Mary and Joseph had other children after Christ was born. Meyer and the atheists got that part right. The question is why the church felt necessary to make the case after the fact that there is such a thing as perpetual virginity....ABSENT the argument that celibacy was a higher way of life than becoming a Mother/Father and multiplying/replenishing the Earth per the commandment. Doctrinally it's a losing argument, but it's very useful in propagating the idea that people should forego the commandment in order to dedicate themselves to childless service in the church.
That's a bald and incorrect personal interpretation of an English biblical translation from the 17th century using poor biblical knowledge of who stood by the cross, what Jesus said to John and zero knowledge of Jewish cultural family bonds of the time.
Do you know cousin means brother or sister back in Jesus‘ time. And there is 4 different Mary’s mention in the New Testament. And Brother and sister also means you’re a Christian faith.
@Super Mario ...was Used incorrectly to justify. Paul warned that in the days of apostasy marriage would be forbidden (ironically this mandate came from the church) and uses unambiguous language about marriage being a requirement in Corinthians & Hebrews. Peter did as well. they echo Christ and God the Father's council in both the New and Old Testaments. There is one sole verse used to justify priestly celibacy - and it counters every other reference available from the Apostles & the Master. I realize that isn't enough to convince someone they may be misinterpreting the scripture - for that I would look at the result of the application. If holiness and power were emanating from those that adhere to the principle it would carry some water. t really hasn't worked out that way. By their fruits we shall know them... & in John it says that by doing the will of God we shall know the source of the dictum...whether it be from God or if someone speaks for themself. It's becoming more obvious over time it's the latter.
@@scottgun Mr Shapiro. I use the word "feel" to imply the use of intuition, I do not actually mean "feelings" or emotion. Considering that all people groups are, made up of people, it stands to reason that all people groups will have similarities from group to group. For example, Catholic apologists act an awfully lot like atheist when they use human logic, a.k.a. philosophy to describe God. God being an entity that lives outside the closed system of our finite universe. It is reasonable therefore to assume that no amount of theology or public revolution will allow one to understand His will.
The Jerome Bible Commentary got the imprimatur of the relevant diocese. That means someone was trusted and commissioned by the bishop to make sure it teaches mainstream Catholic teaching. Have you been trusted and commissioned by a bishop to do this, Trent? If not, who are you to say that it is not mainstream Catholic teaching?
A nihil obstat isn't much of a guarantee of orthodoxy. When I was a kid, I had a Bible edition in Spanish whose notes had to be revises because they promoted _liberation theology._ This is a notorious and blatant heresy, what was the fact that it had a nihil obstat from multiple dioceses for decades supposed to mean? Was the Church marxist until these notes were revised and now it isn't?
That is not what imprimatur means. imprimatur does not require a bishop to commission the works or be trusted by him. Nor does it mean it teaches mainstream Catholicism. ..."Technically, this is the bishop’s official declaration that the book is free from doctrinal error and has been approved for publication by a censor. "
@@sneakysnake2330And if you listen to the section in the vid where he talks about the Jerome commentary, it's not even controversial. It just says 1 Cor. supports purgatory, but doesn't by itself explicitly prove it. Boy, anti-Catholics really scraping the bottom of the barrel for brickbats to hurl at the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church!
@@dave_ecclectic, you misread what I said. I meant that usually it isn't the bishop that reads every book that gets an imprimatur, but someone commissioned by the bishop.
Mary did NOT remain a virgin AFTER Jesus was born - direct from the New Catholic Bible: Matt 1:24-25 24 When Joseph rose from sleep, ... He took Mary into his home as his wife, 25 but *he engaged in no marital relations with her until she gave birth to a son,* whom he named Jesus. King James Bible Matthew 1:25 And *knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son:* and he called his name JESUS. New American Standard Bible Matt 1:24-25. 24 And Joseph awoke from his sleep .. *and took Mary as his wife,* 25 but *kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son;* ...
Scripture’s statement that Joseph “knew [Mary] not until she brought forth her firstborn” would not necessarily mean they did “know” each other after she brought forth Jesus. Until is often used in Scripture as part of an idiomatic expression similar to our own usage in English. I may say to you, “Until we meet again, God bless you.” Does that necessarily mean after we meet again, God curse you? By no means. A phrase like this is used to emphasize what is being described before the until is fulfilled. It is not intended to say anything about the future beyond that point. Here are some biblical examples: 2 Samuel 6:23: And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to (until) the day of her death. (Does this mean she had children after she died?) 1 Timothy 4:13: Until I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching. (Does this mean Timothy should stop teaching after Paul comes?) 1 Corinthians 15:25: For he (Christ) must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. (Does this mean Christ’s reign will end? By no means! Luke 1:33 says, “he will reign over the house of Jacob forever and of his kingdom there shall be no end.”) In recent years, some have argued that because Matthew 1:25 uses the Greek words heos hou for “until” whereas the texts I mentioned above from the New Testament use heos alone, there is a difference in meaning. The argument goes that Heos hou indicates the action of the first clause does not continue. Thus, Mary and Joseph “not having come together” would have ended after Jesus was born. The problems with this theory begin with the fact that no available scholarship concurs with it. In fact, the evidence proves the contrary. Heos hou and heos are used interchangeably and have the same meaning. Acts 25:21 should suffice to clear up the matter: “But when Paul had appealed to be kept in custody for the decision of the emperor, I commanded him to be held until (Gk. heos hou) I could send him to Caesar.” Does this text mean that Paul would not be held in custody after he was “sent” to Caesar? Not according to the biblical record. He would be held in custody while in transit (see Acts 27:1) and after he arrived in Rome for a time (see Acts 29:16). The action of the main clause did not cease with heos hou.
This passage is about what DIDN'T HAPPEN up to the conception and birth of Jesus, because it is about the VIRGINAL nature of Jesus' conception - not about what happened AFTER Mary gave birth to Jesus. Even if you aren't Catholic, that would still be CLEARLY what Matthew's point. "Until" means up to a point. It tells you nothing about what happens after the point. Sometimes you can infer from the context ("she had no child until her death" = clearly this doesn't mean she had children after her death), other times you can't (such as here) - but even when you can, it isn't because of the word "until," but because of the context and the specific thing that was "until" that point.
That's because he and all Calvinist are the meanest, stone throwing. Judgmental, Pharasies on earth. They condemn everyone. Including. DR Martin L King. Billy Graham. Mother Teresa. It's truly amazing why they have any followers. Their followers are just as mean and judging. They refuse to admit its a sin to judge and condemn.
@@tony1685 Of course we love scripture as Catholics. It’s non-Catholics who absolutely despise the study of scripture. That’s why none of them can name the last church father they’ve read was.
it horrifies me how frequently i hear priests repeat the claims of ultra liberal scholarship, and then say it was taught matter of fact at seminar, that no one serious thinks differently
It is not 'ultra-liberal' scholarship, it is just scholarship that goes where the facts lead. you are afraid of those who seek out facts and truth - you should stop dwelling in ignorance
@Neil D No, they point to a single place - a lack of evidence about the historical Jesus and the conclusion that the Gospels and NT were written either long after his death or were written about a person who may have never existed.
@@trumpsupporter1016 That's not true at all. I attended Harvard, studied Philosophy and worked for the Unitarian Church there (I'm not a Unitarian myself). Broadly speaking, the "American Academy" are Cold Warring state-sponsored propagandists. There are some needles in that haystack, but they are hard to find. Assigning "good intentions" on people you will never meet is unwise, deceiving yourself and others.
@@Paper-Z Valid question but a man made standard. And you respond to say why does Jesus need to say he's God in the bible? What's the proof Mohammad talked with God? But they just want you to stay on defense and simplify "why go to Jesus if we can go straight to God" just like the Protestants do with Christianity "why go to Mary and the saints if we can go straight to Jesus"
@@CPATuttle But thinking about the first commandment and how grave breaking it is, shouldn't there be very significant reasons to risk breaking it Especially when consider things like Jesus praying to God, stating that the father is the only true God, saying my God and your God etc Breaking the first commandment, first for a reason, should scare the hell out of us
@@CPATuttle not looking for evidence that Jesus is the Messiah Looking for substantial significant non ambiguous evidence that he is God 'Almighty'. When you consider all the prophets of old believed in a single non-complicated God, and Jesus himself seemed to also, and then weigh the significance of the first commandment, you have to be very careful and skeptical
Most muslims think protestantism is the only form Christianity. One out of many examples I have is when I went on a Muslim video trying to evangelize passerby christians. One couple were catholic and talked about the communion. People in the comments section were like "they believe the bread and wine literally is Jesus? What will they think of next? I swear they keep making up new doctrines every generation."
to be fair, it's because protestants are much more into evangelism and apologetics than Catholics these days. The Catholic Church has been in a state of lull for a while.
Interesting. I often encounter the opposite problem. Most Muslims I see think that Catholicism is the only form of Christianity. They talk about specifically Catholic related things to criticise Christianity, like the Pope and whatnot.
@@someonetheperson2332 why would that be a problem then? Isnt good that you don't have to educate a grown adult about mere Christianity before getting into authentic Christianity?
@@someonetheperson2332 well ya it's older than protestantism by 1500 years and follow's Jesus' instructions therefore I say authentic. Anyway, the pope thing you mentioned. It could just be more ignorance in the part of the Muslim. Obviously they know about the pope because literally everyone does know that such a figure exists, but they are probably more familiar with protestant theology. Like if you went down a list of exclusive protestant beliefs and asked which people believe that stuff they would say Christians and if your follow up is which Christians, they would say "the ones who follow the pope".
Hey Trent! Have you ever thought of rebutting the videos put out by Ligonier ministries like the RC Sproul lectures? I’m having a hard time understanding and building a case against Total Depravity. Just a thought. Thanks for all your hard work!!
Your having a hard time refuting it, have you ever considered maybe it's actually true...The fact that your response is to reach out to a Roman Catholic apologist to disprove it shows your bias as of course a Roman Catholic apologist will ipso facto deny the truthfulness of the doctrine. I would suggest praying to the Holy Spirit (not saying you haven't maybe you have to some degree) and asking the Lord directly if it is true.
@@Adam-ue2ig I am doing my part in understanding the doctrine of total depravity and why the Church does not accept that view. I am not saying I cant refute it, I am just not as familiar with what it is and it will take me some time to do both understand it and consider the biblical basis for it. But I suggested this topic to Trent not so that I have a quick answer but because it would be helpful for Catholics who have not and are not prepared to understand and answer Calvinist/Reformed objections to the faith. Especially because it is becoming the dominant Protestant theology in my experience talking to people online.
@@elliott2389 from an outside perspective as someone not cradle Catholic I studied Catholicism for 13 years and arrived at the conclusion their claims to be "the one true church" are not warranted. Those that are just born Catholic probably never study Protestantism so they just assume whatever they have been told essentially is the truth. Some come out of that church after careful study while others seem unwilling to even investigate the other side as they have been told stay away don't even read their stuff etc as they are heretics and they may weaken your faith or whatever...but I find that to be intellectually dishonest and portrays a lack of confidence in one's own belief system if they think refuse to look at the other side because they basically fear their beliefs may not hold up well to scrutiny .
@@elliott2389 Obviously if you don't understand it and are not familiar with it then it follows you can't personally refute it (not sure why you would claim otherwise). Maybe you meant hypothetically you would be able to refute it in the future but again that just confirms my point of something like confirmation bias by presupposing it must not be true because the church says so your essentially going into it just looking to find a refutation instead of investigating it objectively as possible to find if it's true or not.
@@Adam-ue2ig yes, my first assumption is that it is false because (1) defenders of TULIP say it is in direct opposition to traditional Catholic doctrine and (2) the Church does not uphold that theology. It’s like saying don’t assume the world isn’t flat until you’ve weighed all the evidence and made up your mind yourself. No I rely on the Church to uphold the correct understanding of the faith just like I trust the consensus of the scientific community to accept well established scientific claims. That doesn’t mean I won’t investigate individual claims myself if need be but I am not treating truth as only true until I can prove it.
this theme has been talking about for decades by different people, namely Hilaire Belloc. Historically, Islamic apologism never rose to the same level of rigor as polemics between Christians and Jews or pagans. They barely even quote the sources. That's why they refer to liberal or Jewish writers, because they're so much more sophisticated. Islamic writers suffer from the main issue in oral cultures, which is going by distorted anecdotes. That's why the Quran thinks that Jews claim Ezra as the son of God or that Abraham was a Jew
Catholic presupposationalism is the only answer. We just need to ask the heretics and schismatics “by what authority?” But what authority do you have sacred scripture, your so-called church and any of your doctrine? Saint Irenaeus handled this beautifully. Everything else will lead to endless back-and-forth. You must absolutely destroy their false system, then the honest people will come to God. Those who never sought God anyway will stay lost.
While that's ultimately what you would do to a learned scholar, tackling argument one by one has the function of teaching potential converts why we're right and they are wrong, and how evident it is! If we could always choose the right authorithy to follow, Satan wouldn't have had all the nations of the world to tempt Jesus with.
Most muslims think protestantism is the only form Christianity. One out of many examples I have is when I went on a Muslim video trying to evangelize passerby christians. One couple were catholic and talked about the communion. People in the comments section were like "they believe the bread and wine literally is Jesus? What will they think of next? I swear they keep making up new doctrines every generation."
Iraneus pointed people to the Church that was nearly within living memory of the Apostles, and would have every reason to be accurate. This does not reflect on the institution of the Church permanently. He also only does this after many times of telling people to go to scripture and apply reason.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj I would say denying covenant theology, 1689 federalism is similar to progressive dispensationalism, so that’s why baptist aren’t reformed, particular Baptist is a more accurate term.
@@wordandwater9027 My head is spinning tbh, what's the difference between Calvinist and reformed? I thought it was just the name that they gave to themselves
@@Qwerty-jy9mj as a former Baptist who also claimed to be a calvanist (now catholic!) when Baptist claim to be reformed or calvanist, usually it means they hold to TULIP. (Total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible election, and perseverance of the saints) they are not claiming Calvin's view on other issues of church government and view of the sacraments. John Piper would be an example (or at least was back in the early 2000s) and this view was the predominant view taught at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (where I went to school for my M.Div and graduated in 2014) Limited atonement is debatable in that circle at times, but the other points are usually held. Edit: add to the confusion, Reformed Baptist, is a separate denomination than The Southern Baptist Convention (Southern Baptist) and If I remember, John Piper was/is General Baptist (Maybe American Baptist) the way that "Baptist" understanding of the Church, each individual local Baptist church is an independent body, the "denomination" doesn't have any real authority over it. That's why southern Baptist is called "convention" instead of denomination.
NT Wright argues for the ordination of women on the basis of women being the first ones to the empty tomb. That seems to me to be the most liberal position you can conceive of.
They argue like Muslims, because for their arguments to hold, all of them (to a differing extent, sure, but still) have to admit that the “true Church” perished shortly after Jesus’ death and resurrection.
@@tony1685 Yeah tony that is precisely what happened. And when the true church finally re-emerged it decided to split itself into several thousands of different versions for lolz. Right after evil Roman Catholicism went on a killing spree of First Patriotic Baible-Baleevin’ Baptist Church of Rhodos. So glad it went into hiding only to reemerge stronger than ever in 19th century ‘Murica and gain our tithes (remember, at least 10% of pre-tax income. We ain’t saved by tha works but boy are you truly saved if you ain’t financin’ the pastor’s new car?)
Hi Trent Horn, I am looking forward to reading your new book when it finally come out at end of June 2022. I consider you to be fair to Protestants even some Protestants are unfair to Catholic apologists. I enjoy reading your books and listening to your videos.
Trent, I am reading through the Ecumenical Councils. I’ve gotten to the Lateran Councils but I can’t find a physical collection anywhere. The only digital source I have is the Vatican website. Do you know where I can get a collection, just the text in english. Not a summary nor a commentary. I like reading direct translations without too much interpretation or and with little to no paraphrase. Can you recommend a title of a collection or retailer. I’ve tried amazon, ebay, and google. When I type in Lateran Councils all I get are Green Lantern comics. Any help would be appreciated.
Every time I get involved in argument with Protestants about purgatory, I always ask them, do they believe Trinity. Trinity is not explicitly written in Bible, same as purgatory. But yet the teachings about it its all over the Bible. If they answer 'yes', I don't have to give further explanation because it shows that they are double standards.
Yes it is. It's Godhead, the Three that bear record in Heaven, and Jesus Christ's statement that He and His Father are one. There are also Old Testament verses that point to Jesus Christ as God the Son, as well as the infamous first part of John's Gospel. Even the name Elohim has a plurality to it. Kind of hints of why God in Genesis says "Let us make man in our own image." Purgatory however is not listed in the Bible. There is Abraham's bosom or Paradise, but that can't be mistaken for Purgatory.
There's way more implications for the Trinity than Purgatory. I noticed something with Catholics that Mormons do (and yes I am outright stating the two have similar ways of doing things not putting you on the same level but you act a lot like them in many ways), they will interpret things that Protestants see as metaphoric as literal. Every mention of Purgatory I've seen can/is taken metaphorically by Protestants, you Catholics take it literally. I use the Mormon comparison not as a club but because Mormons do the same thing. That's why Baptism for the dead exists, it wasn't just randomly made up by Joseph Smith his citation was 1 Corinthians 15:29. Do Catholics baptize their dead? Obviously not but the literal/metaphoric view is the same. Another Mormon thing is serving *water* instead of wine for communion. It's not just due to them being temperance focused. But because John 19:34 mentions water coming out of Jesus. EDIT: Elaborated a lot of things and again. I am not saying you Catholics are on the same level of heresy as Mormons, I am however saying much like how Protestants argue like Muslims you argue like Mormons.
@@galatian5 how do you interpret Matt 5:26? Why Jesus wants you to pay until the last penny in order you to get out? To get out from where? If it's paid in full when Jesus died on the cross, why Jesus still wants you to pay?
@@induklife9939 That's the point, it can't be repaid by us. A poor servant is not going to ever repay a richman's debt. A human is not going to be able to remove himself from hell. We can forgive others as Christ has forgiven us or we can try to pay off eternity, which we can't. It's like you owe me 5 dollars but I owe Christ a billion dollars. I will never pay Christ back, so let me just forgive your 5 dollar debt to me.
I have heard almost all of the Islamic-Protestant-Christianity arguments many years ago when I took a course on "An Introduction to Islam." Most of the Islamic ideas/teachings are at least 500 years old. I always smirked at the protestant communion being the same as " a symbol of the Prophet Jesus."
@@tony1685 Well sinners "created" the Bible, the only things not made by a sinner are Jesus and Mary's and Jesus' miracles, since only those two people in the post-Adam world are sinless. And the Eucharist is in the Bible, at the last supper the sacrament is performed the same way it's performed on every Mass!
@@tony1685 Mary's parents were sinners, God chose to concede Mary the grace of the immaculate conception, and as far as we know Mary alone had this grace. >Only a sinner needs a saviour No, not really, that's a disputable logical leap. All man only enter the Kindgom of Heaven through Jesus, she still needs an undeserved grace to access the beatific vision and the separation from earthly evil and suffering. Mariology is mostly biblical, but it's refined in tradition. The word in greek for the "giving thanks" is eucharistos. That word is as biblical as "baptism", it's just that we don't use the weird incomplete english phrase "giving thanks" when we refer to the sacrament of the Holy Communion. All aspects of the Catholic Eucharist are strictly objectively biblical!
@@tony1685 If you use this kind of language to caricature and lampoon your opponent's position, you might create some cute zingers, but you'll have egg on your face when an atheist does the same thing to you. All of Christianity can be caricatured by a motivated skeptic. The Bible is full of things that can easily be made to sound absurd. Hell, there's a talking snake in the first few pages, and you only need to read for a few days before you get to a talking donkey. How is that any different from a "godcookie"? Do you believe that a million or more slaves walked from Egypt to Israel, on foot, following a giant cloud that transforms into fire every night and leaves a trail of magic cookie dough on the ground to sustain them? And that opens up holes in the ground to swallow up the ones who offend him? And that makes water spray out of boulders that his chosen prophet beats with a stick? Do you believe in a virgin birth? A god-man dying for our sins only to rise from the dead and float up to heaven? You believe in a giant cosmic dictator in the sky, watching everything we do? You believe that people with leprosy and blindness were cured by scraps of clothing worn by the Apostles? Feel any impulse to say "now wait a minute"? Would you prefer I allow some nuance and treat your ancient tradition with more charity, rather than mocking it from the outset? Sounds fair to me, so why don't you talk about the Eucharist charitably? Could it be because you start from the presupposition that it's bogus, and then mock it in order to support that presupposition? Clearly there's a double standard somewhere in your thinking, but only you can know where. Anyway, if eating a godcookie is too much silliness for you, maybe you should reevaluate the rest of your beliefs, since they sound just as silly to an atheist. I'd know, as a recent convert who was raised without religion. I looked down on and mocked Christian beliefs my whole life until I was 27. I was never taught Christian doctrine or history, I was only taught about insulting caricatures of it. My education in Christianity was just a mockery of Christianity. Anyone would sneer at those grotesque strawmen of Christian faith. But now, after taking the time to study the history, I'm perfectly comfortable saying yes, eating a godcookie is sensible. And why not? What's wrong with eating a godcookie? Can you give a principled reason, apart from your own argument from incredulity (the same arguments I just showed that atheists use against ALL of Christianity), why we shouldn't eat godcookies? Maybe it sounds silly for someone to believe that a "godcookie" is a real thing. But what if you're wrong? What if the host really is the flesh of Jesus Christ, and our Lord himself really told us to eat it? Who are you to mock the means that God has chosen for us to participate in his son's sacrifice? You sound no different from the skeptics in John 6 who are so incredulous about the idea of Jesus "giving us his flesh to eat" that they abandon their Lord. If you really believe Jesus is the God of the universe, you should do what he tells you, not scoff and ask if it's really "sensible" to eat his flesh in the accidents of a wafer. Otherwise, you should apply the same degree of skepticism to everything _you_ believe, not draw an arbitrary line dividing the beliefs you happen to have been raised with from the beliefs of the ancient Christian Church (which clearly include the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, among many other Catholic/Orthodox/Lutheran distinctives). And if you think the Eucharist is "performing blasphemy," how do you explain John 6 and the Last Supper narrative? How do you explain the Didache? How do you explain the writings of Irenaeus? Ignatius? Tertullian? "Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God... They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes." - Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1, AD 110 How do you explain the overwhelming evidence attesting to the ubiquity of the Eucharist among the earliest Christians? Did everyone just turn to blasphemy within a generation of the Apostles? What kind of God would promise that "the gates of Hades shall not prevail against" a Church that's going to fall to _universal_ heresy within a generation? If you believe that the Church got it so spectacularly wrong, so fast, and for so long, shouldn't you have serious doubts about the divinity of the man who founded it? The good news is there is absolutely no evidence that the Church got it wrong. There's a very clear line between what Jesus taught about the Eucharist and what the Church did in the first century. The sacrament Ignatius is talking about, the Eucharist, is very clearly taught in the New Testament. Hardly any scholars deny that. The dispute is of a philosophical nature, and it concerns whether Jesus is _truly_ present in the Eucharist, i.e., via transsubstantiation, or is merely _sacramentally_ present in the Eucharist, i.e., as a kind of theologically significant symbol.
@@tony1685 By the way, doesn't it strike you as worrisome that you're so quick to insult and mock people? Your comments are so thick with sarcasm I can practically hear the tone of your voice just from reading text on a screen lol. If you really had the Holy Spirit, wouldn't it affect your behavior? Wouldn't you be charitable and kind to people, instead of childishly attacking them? For example, why mock the very word "Eucharist"? Do you even know what it means? The earliest Christian authors we know of use that term to refer to the sacrament. It is a far more ancient and well-attested part of Christianity than you are. Shouldn't you at least have some basic respect for it, instead of treating it like some kind of joke? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you're right. Everyone except your protestant denomination is wrong about the Eucharist. The overwhelming majority of Christians throughout history have been mistaken. Some fatal error in transmission resulted in billions of people misunderstanding Jesus' commands to eat his flesh and drink his blood. And let's say Jesus came back to Earth to correct us. Do you think he would solve this problem by insulting those billions of Christians, engaging in sarcastic namecalling and referring to the erroneous sacrament as the "yooooookrist"? Does that sound like something our Lord would do? So why are _you_ doing it? Your interlocutor wrote, "And the Eucharist is in the Bible..." and you responded, "sorry friend, not in the Christian Bible." What is that supposed to mean? Were you under the impression that Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Lutherans, and many other Christians who practice the Eucharist have a different New Testament than your denomination? The passages concerning the Eucharist (what some protestant denominations have been calling the "Lord's Supper" for the last couple hundred years, in an effort to distance themselves from the historical Church - it's an English phrase that appears nowhere in the Apostolic or patristic fathers) are in the Gospels. I don't know what Bible you're reading, but I'm pretty sure if you're calling it a Christian Bible, it has the four Gospels in it. If you want to seriously dispute the traditional understanding of the Eucharist, you're going to have to explain what Jesus meant, if he didn't mean for us to literally eat his flesh and drink his blood as part of a sacrament, involving bread and wine, done in remembrance of the Lord. You can't just say "not in the Bible" and go running for the door, and expect anyone to follow you in your error. Explain how you're not in error. Explain how the Bible itself, that anthology of books you presumably claim as your "sole rule of faith," doesn't clearly contradict your position. Explain how your beliefs about the Eucharist aren't actually novel innovations completely unheard of anywhere in the Church for the first 15 centuries of its existence, as even many protestant historians acknowledge. Maybe you're right. I'm open to the possibility. But if you're not gonna give us a reason to believe you, besides vague admonitions like "do some research," then you're really just wasting your time and ours.
@@ToxicallyMasculinelol you're a pretty gifted expositor of your faith. I screenshotted a long reply of yours on baptism a few weeks ago. Just in case. I have a number of Protestant friends I'm hoping to be able to share these things with and who I hope will come to see the beauty and truth of Catholicism. What state do you reside in and kind of church you attend?
Muslims believe in the virgin birth of Jesus, but not His crucifixion/death, however affirming the ascension. Despite affirming Jesus as the Word of God, they reject His Divinity.
They say he's a failed prophet who couldn't convince anyone and he caused more confusion, that's why according to them God took him before he was killed and he will have a second coming. On the contrary, they think Muhammad came to rectify those wrongs and is the perfect and ultimate prophet. This of course is a grave heresy for any Christian and that's why Muslim apologists don't straight say it when doing dawah to Christians, but it should be known and it should be outright rejected.
@@Dan_Capone In Islam you cannot disrespect Jesus since He is explicitly stated to be Messiah and a Messenger etc etc. The Quran makes the bold claim that Jesus predicted the coming of "Ahmad" (ie Mohammed) among other things for which we have no real evidence unless you're already convinced of the Quran. In Islam it is not that Jesus failed but rather that Jesus wasn't bringing a universal/forever covenant (and that Mohammed does do this as the final messenger). Clearly, however, Islam is filled with grave heresy no Christian should accept if he dare keep the name Chrsitian. Denying the Atonement, denying the crucifixion, denying the Divinity of Jesus, denying the Trinity, these are core teachings of Christianity denied by Islam which is possibly why Islam is considered a separate religion and not just an aberrant form of Christianity like Mormonism (who may deny some of these core teachings but not all of them).
@@tony1685 So very wrong. Catholicism accepts and follows His Commandments. Are followers made the brothers of Jesus? Did Jesus not make His followers His "family"? Is this considered being made "next to" Jesus? Is this "demoting" Jesus? No. On the contrary, God is so great that He is not in competition with His creatures. A masterful painter is not worried about competing with his beautiful paintings, rather they show his handiwork! God is so great, no creation could ever be worthy of worship due to Him Alone. There is no competition. So if He does all these things for those of us who sinned and were far from Him, not really His family, how much more for her who raised Him, bore Him, suckled Him, loved Him more than we can probably imagine (with a mother's love), the one called "full of grace" by the angel before being made the mother of the Christ. The way for the world to know Christ. Imagine how much the holiest person you know has helped bring people to Christ. Now imagine that all of these things came about through the cooperation of Mary, who willingly bore the Christ and had the great privilege of doing such a thing. Such devotion is to make us grow closer to Christ, who deigned to become man for our sakes. He humbled Himself so we may be made adopted children of God. No longer called mere servants, but children! Do you not consider these things and quiver at our unworthiness? Yet look what God has ordained in the depths of eternity! Does this not fill us with humility? May God have mercy on our souls. Yet now, even now, we still can turn to Him in the fullness of truth to which I invite you. I don't know what is pushing you to post such seemingly irrelevant attacks on Catholicism on posts about a rather different subject, on a video by a Catholic apologist. I don't know what it is, but I suspect you have some sort of strong feelings against the Church. My dear suggestion is to try to really understand the Chruch in fairness, and not from what Her enemies say, but from what Her defenders say, those who believe and not those who hate. You wouldn't want to learn about Christianity from a Muslim, would you? Think on these things and pray.
@@Dan_Capone im sorry , no muslim will every say that jesus pbuh as a failed prophet , his name is mentioned in quran 35 times , Quran glorifies all the prophets , unlike bible , reffering to david commiting adultery , lot had sex with his own daughters, The only thing we differe is that jesus pbuh was not killed by the jews, and you christians believe that he was killed.
I want to ask a devil's advocate question here: Many protestants view Catholics as relative theological liberals for "adding things to the bible". From that world view, isn't it expected that Mr. White would cite liberal sources?
It's a form of straw-manning. Anyone can find fringe elements in most groups. If you run into that, make them show how the "liberal's" assertions are in line with authoritative Catholic sources (Scripture, Early Church Father's, Councils, Catechism, etc.)
“Adding things to the Bible” is such a vague term that I have no clue what it means. I’ve never had someone who made that claim produce a catholic Bible and show me where things have been added to it. But I can definitely say that Protestants ignore vast swathes of scripture, and don’t actually read it and wrestle its meaning for themselves. Quoting Ephesians 2:8-9 is a great example of this given Ephesians 2:10
Misquoted verses and contexts, asking leading questions, avoid to talk about their own theology, keep attacking without replying to questions asked, go round and round answers...just some tiring tactics used against catholic.
If you listen to their out-of-date opposition views, you realise its pride n empty faith. As if Catholic Church never had the explanations to their repeated unintellectual tradition.
Except the Bible explicitly says Mary was a virgin before the birth of Jesus. It provides no such explicit statement after. Nor is there a compelling reason to believe this should be the case. I don’t know why Protestants would waste their time quoting Catholic scholars when the Bible itself is clear.
The first video I saw of yours was an attempt to portray ignorant Protestants as unable to accept the moral superiority of the Catholic Church. Next video; you attack Islamic apologist from a safe distance. Now you find amusement in comparing Protestants to Muslims. I think it would be inappropriate to attack in the name of any religion or denomination. Instead I am going to recommend a book; How to Win Friends and Influence People.(Disclaimer: I only watched the first one.)
There are alot of parallels between muslims and protestants. We both start from the same paradigm. Ibn taymiyya said during the islamic Reformation (hundreds of years before the protestant reformation) that in order to be a good muslim one must read the quran and follow the man. Like protestants we just follow a better book and a better man.
I'm a bit confused as to why Catholics think Mary was a virgin post-Jesus' birth. Wasn't she married to Joseph? How could that marriage be legitimate if she was a virgin?
Numbers 30 deals with these exact situations, so there are provisions in the Mosaic law that deal with vows of virginity and how a husband should respond to them. It’s also fitting that Mary would not have returned to an ordinary life after fulfilling the most sacred role of any mere human in history. The sacred should never be used for profane (ordinary) tasks, and we see this with how the Ark of the Covenant was treated. A lot more could be said, so if you’d like to read more, Brant Pitre’s Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Mary is a fantastic work on the topic. -Kyle
. , , you religious guys keep on arguing among yourselves . . . don't know whether it is about nothing or everything, but neither do you. But keep on pitting yourself against one another.
@@tafazzi-on-discord Whenever I hear Christians discuss among themselves, I get the feeling that they are the preeminent sources of error, The hubris that you guys present is even more unbelievable than the history of atrocities of the Christian Churches
@@tafazzi-on-discord Your arrogance is on overdrive. It God exists and is a loving God, then I'll be fine. I have both true Reason and true Faith - you have abandoned Reason and think you've found truth when all you have is a bunch of assertions.
@@trumpsupporter1016 I have not abandoned reason, since there is a loving God, you should know that He wants you to live in His Church. That's where the evidence points you to.
As far as using scholarship with a double standard, does that not reflect back onto Trent, given how he uses Bart Erhman as a source for the historicity of Jesus?
I used to think that James White was brilliant. I admired him and in particular his debates against Muslims (less so the more recent ones where he lets them off the hook). However as I have gradually learned more about religion and scripture then the more he has fallen in my eyes.
@@nightshade99 I did have but I can't seem to find it now. It was a "dialogue" with an Imam. Sorry but I am too unwell at the moment to spend all that much time looking for something. If you were familiar with James White's recent stuff you might be aware of it.
@@christopherquinn5899 I am familiar with it, that is why I am curious as to the sudden downgraded in your eyes. In my experience, he is perfectly correct when debating RCC dogma but falters when he tries to condone Calvinism.
Hi Trent, do you have a list of conservative Catholic scholarship you recommend (besides Pitre and Hahn who you mentioned)? I've always felt like the majority of scholarship and most prominent scholars coming out Catholic seminaries and institutions was liberal, which is an asymmetry with scholarship coming out from evangelical institutions. Maybe I'm in a bubble and you know a lot of prominent conservative Catholic institutions doing good work.
I'm not a fan of Dr. White. However, for someone to take a work, apparently in many cases, uncovers divergent views in your faith doesn't degrade the value of the study itself. I concur with careful consideration of source selections but sometimes the best study is usually objectionable to the offended.
Islam skipped Jesus by 600yrs Yet they put him in their book ? No Muslim ever met Jesus. No Muslim ever talked to Jesus No Muslim ever encountered Jesus. Never. Yet they somehow put Him in their book. So embarrassing.
“The Father is the only true God” (which is what Jesus said) is a completely different sentence to “Only the Father is the true God” (this is not what Jesus said). You are simply making Jesus say something which he didn’t.
Regarding the Doctrine of Purgatory, the only remote biblical reference I can find is in the Book of Maccabees when it was suggested that we pray for the dead.
And even then making a realm like purgatory is like making a baptism for the dead out of one scripture or using water instead of wine for communion because "water *and* blood came out. And yes I did heavily imply Catholics argue and use scripture like Mormons. It's ok, Calvinists made up an entire theology on Romans 9 ;) EDIT: Pardon the snark, I am not implying Catholics and Mormons are on the same level of heresy. I am however jokingly saying much like how Trent thinks Protestants argue like Muslims, you Catholics argue like Mormons in regard to Purgatory. I apologize if I sounded rude. I do respect Trent, even when he sees us all as mini-John MacArthurs so I will respect his comments section. Again I am sorry for being cheeky.
Some of the sola scriptura folks envy the Muslim worship for the Koran and want folks to worship the Bible in the same way. For the Muslim, the Koran is written in heaven and comes down word for word (in Arabic). The Muslim worships the Koran as much as we worship Christ as the Word of God. I think this is what many sola scriptura folks would like to do with the Bible.
@@Paper-Z Muslims do not worship God the Father. They worship the old Arabian moon god named Allah. Allah is a middle eastern god that was around that area. In Babylon Allah was known as Sin. Their symbol is the half moon crescent found in the book of Judges. The God of the Prophets was Jehova, the God of Abraham and Allah a false god.
James White is my favorite Muslim apologist 😆
Dead 💀🤣😂 he seems to like than more than Non Calvinist.
@YAJUN YUAN uh that’s not a parallel, way to miss the point of this video
@YAJUN YUAN
that’s an incredibly simplistic if not outright ignorant take; and I’d believe a Muslim who used Koran and Hadith to argue their case much more consistently over a Muslim who denied the Hadith and argued for “Sola Koran”.
A catholic who uses scripture and tradition to argue is saying “these are the words of scripture AND this is how these words have historically been interpreted for centuries”
A Christian who denies tradition just like a Muslim who denies the hadith is basically fabricating things as they go along.
And more often than not their interpretation in one area explicitly contradicts the very words of scripture in another.
My favorite ones are the ones who say the Catholic Church started Islam. So the pope sent a nun to seduce a certain Arabian to create Islam - so the story goes. What are the odds it worked the first time.
@YAJUN YUAN The Church Fathers believed in the real presence. This alone contradicts your entire point, because it shows that the Church Fathers believed in Apostolic tradition
Younger James White gives me Walter White vibes 😂.
Who else is thinking?:
Protestant: If it's not in the Bible, then it doesn't exist.
Muslim: If it's not the Qur'an, then it's corrupted.
Atheist: If it's not in the physical, then it doesn't exist.
🚶♂️🚶♂️🚶♂️🚶♂️🚶♂️
If it isn’t in the Bible, you can’t make it binding on believers.
@@aGoyforJesus says who? Protestants lack any authority
@@aGoyforJesus But Jesus never gave his apostles any bible. Rather, he left a Church in which he domiciled the richness of his teachings. So, anyone who wanted to be Christian in the first century had no bible or letters to study, but must have to resort to the utterances of the apostles, which existed only as a deposit of Tradition. Don't forget we are talking about an oral culture here.
Bible is simply a collection of the Church's living Tradition. So, what is known as bible today existed as separate letters of exhortation written for individual churches across Europe and the middle East. The New Testament is only a record of the first few decades of Christianity. Is it, therefore, reasonable to expect it contain every single thing the Church has ever believed and taught? How did we arrive at the current books in the Bible? Who chose these books out of other tens and hundreds of books making the rounds from the first centuries of the Church? What criterion was used in making the choice of books in the Bible?
These and more are the relevant questions one must ask, instead of simply talking as though Jesus threw down the Bible from heaven after his ascension.
@@aGoyforJesus So you think Peter's first converts weren't bound for stuff like believing Jesus was of jewish origin???
@@aGoyforJesus you're talking like a protestant. Jesus literally made his apostles binding.
Yes! Authority is THE issue. I can’t wait to hear these debates!!!
Look none other than scripture
@@nightshade99 said Jesus….never. 😇
@@thedomesticmonk772 Incorrect; start learning the bible over men's opinions.
Matthew 4:4
But Jesus said, “It is written, ‘Man is not to live on bread only. Man is to live by every word that God speaks.’”
@@nightshade99 refuted as the only authority by Scripture itself. The Ethiopian eunuch is the Biblical proof that without an authority on Scripture it can be misinterpreted and twisted. Even he, an unbaptized person, had the wisdom to ask how he could really understand without instruction. Apostolic Tradition is the answer to clarifying Sacred Scripture.
@@ohseven4150 YOU: refuted as the only authority by Scripture itself.
ME: Your statement didn't make any sense.
YOU: The Ethiopian eunuch is the Biblical proof that......he could really understand without instruction.
ME: Incorrect. Catholic officials sometimes refer to the case of the Ethiopian nobleman in which Philip asked if he understood what he was reading, and the reply, "Why, how can I, unless someone shows me?" and argue that every one must depend on an official interpreter. However, the Eunuch only had the prophecy of Isaiah in his hands which words could not be understood without a knowledge of what had happened at Calvary. (See Acts 8:29-35). Of course, in this formative period when the gospel message had not been fully revealed and the story of the cross had not been told, one would have to be guided to the fulfillment of this dark prophecy to know who it was that "was led like a sheep to slaughter; and just as a lamb dumb before its shearer, so did he not open his mouth." However, now that we have the inspired record of the exact literal fulfillment of the prophecy, we do not need an interpreter to tell us what it means.
YOU: Apostolic Tradition is the answer to clarifying Sacred Scripture.
ME: Incorrect. Catholic officials follow up this claim by stating that one can get the true meaning only from the Catholic Church but have no passages which mention an official interpreter and, thus, they try to support their claim through human logic and reasoning. Any time men do such, it amounts to nothing more than human philosophy rather than Scriptural proof. The Bible says,
"Let God be true, but every man a liar..." (Rom. 3:4).
It also warns, "See to it that no one deceives you by philosophy and vain deceit, according to human traditions, according to the elements of the world and not according to Christ." (Col. 2:8).
The inspired writers taught that we most certainly can understand the Scriptures. "For we write nothing to you that you do not read and understand." (2 Cor. 1:13).
"...How that, according to revelation the mystery has been made known to me, as I have written above in few words, as you reading may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ." (Eph. 3:3-4)
"Therefore do not become foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is." (Eph. 5:17).
There is no difference between the "private interpretation" argument and the one on understanding. The inspired writers taught that men can privately interpret or understand the Scriptures.
The reasoning of the RCC is utterly ridiculous. They argue that when one makes a private interpretation of the Scriptures, he claims for himself a personal infallibility. When an individual reads and interprets the Bible, it no more makes him infallible than reading the facts about Abraham Lincoln makes him Abraham Lincoln. The individual with his own feelings and emotions does not constitute an infallible authority; the Word itself is the infallible authority. Infallibility gets from the printed page to the mind of the reader simply by the reader comprehending what he reads.
Catholics raise tremendous opposition to private interpretation of the Bible; however, a study of the Holy Scriptures plainly reveals that God requires and expects man to make private interpretations of His Word. The powers and blessings of the Word of God comes only to those who privately interpret the Word.
For example: "refreshing the soul" (Psalm 19:8),
"giving understanding to the simple" (Psalm 119:130),
"which is able to build you up" (Acts 20:32,)
"a discerner of the thoughts and intentions of the heart" (Heb. 4:12),
"I write to you in order that you may not sin" (1 John 2:1),
"that the man of God may be perfect, equipped for every good work" (2 Tim. 3:16-17).
These things are not received and are not accomplished unless one makes a private interpretation of the Word, thus, showing that a private interpretation is required.
Man must exercise his senses upon the Word of God that he might be able to discern between good and evil (Heb. 5:14).
Jesus expected the people of His day to privately interpret the Scriptures. He used such terms as "search the Scriptures" (John 5:39), "have you not read?" (Matt. 12:3; 12:5; 19:4; 21:16,42; 22:31), "is it not written in your law?" (John 10:34; Luke 10:26) which show that the people were obligated to read and interpret the Scriptures. Furthermore, He quoted the Scriptures as the final source of authority (Matt. 22:29-32; Mark 7:9-13) and He always showed the consequences of failing to do so, e.g., "You err, not knowing the Scriptures..." (Matt. 22:29), "...Thus making void the word of God through your tradition" (Mark 7:13). These things show that Jesus wanted and required a private interpretation of Scriptures.
The common people readily heard and understood Christ's teaching without an infallible interpreter. Mark 12:37 says, "And the mass of the common people like to hear him." Jesus said, "I praise thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou didst hide these things from the wise and prudent, and didst reveal them to little ones." (Matt. 11:25). In Matt. 13:51, Jesus said to His disciples, "Have ye understood all these things? They said to him, 'Yes'."
If the common people could interpret Jesus's Word, and much of the New Testament is simply the Word which Jesus spoke to the people, so can we. Isaiah, prophesying of the New Testament Way, said, "A path and a way shall be there...and this shall be unto you a straight way, so that fools shall not err therein." (Isa. 35:8).
God has endowed us with reason and the power to choose between good and evil, right and wrong, truth and error. These are all set before us and the responsibility rests upon us to function as intelligent free agents. God will judge every man in accord with his response to His Holy Word.
Jesus said, "The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge; the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day." (John 12:48). All these things show that a private interpretation is possible and necessary.
After the church was established, the apostles and prophets likewise required that people make a private interpretation of Scripture (Acts 9:22; 18:28) and the people did that very thing (Acts 17:11; 2 Tim. 3:15). When churches began to be established as result of the preaching of God's Word and when the New Testament Scriptures began to be written, never in one instance did the apostles and prophets declare that private interpretation must now cease because the church was now the official interpreter of the Scriptures. They did not direct the people to an infallible interpreter of the Word, but to the Word itself.
When Protestants argue like Muslims = James White is inconsistent with his pop apologist argumentation and the sources he cites.
Saved you 30 mins of viewing culminating in a mute point, if you have a criticism of James White direct it towards him and his method. Don't lump actual academic Protestant theologians and scholars with James White...
thank you, I'd hardly argue James White is a 'protestant' for that matter
White really makes me cringe when he does that thing many protestants do where they repeat the verse in a more emphatic tone, often adding the Greek, taking for granted it's just obvious it's a proof text their tradition: no reasoning given
@Eddard Tyrsson That is impossible
@Eddard Tyrsson eisogesis is reading INTO Scripture. That cant happen with Scripture itself. Its self contradicting
@Eddard Tyrsson Where do PROTESTANT TRANSLATIONS WILL TELL YOU THAT THE APOSTLES FORGIVE SIN THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN FORGIVEN
@Eddard Tyrsson HE HAS FORGIVEN US ALL OF OUR SINS
Protestantism: Islamic Christianity?
Catholicism: Jewish Christianity?
@@tony1685 Koran maKes it Klear?
@Christos Kyrios They have always felt this way and yet Jesus was a Jew. Lucifer believes in the Trinity. The point cannot be a one-to-one correspondance.
A question: is mainstream catholic scholarship conservative? To me it seems quite liberal… whenever I come across a view of catholic scholars on the Bible, a Bible passage, or account - they almost always seem to take a liberal (secular) view.
catholic theology within catholic universities is becoming non-existent because most of these institutions are no longer true to the label - bishops are asleep, and very happy to be so - they don't realize they are mercenaries, not pastors, according to Jesus' oen words
But how far do you take using the entire view of someone in order to site them? Can protestants site Jerome for rejecting the authority of the apocrypha?
Could you do more videos on Islam?
James white is such a bad faith actor. I don’t understand how he still has prominence in the Christian world.
Thanks!
I could see James white saying well Shabir Ally uses the Jerome commentary when he's arguing against James white position, and his beliefs when it comes to his own reformed theology christianity. But James probably will say i can use it against Catholicism bc Jerome was a Catholic. 🤦🏻♂️ but still can see that's it a double standard 💯
Up next: when Sedevacantists argue like Eastern Orthodox
How can you be so relaxed knowing that most of humanity will spend eternity in hell?
Interesting. Can you explain your viewpoint?
Everyone puts there argument or beliefs in a man's thery or ideas when we should set our eyes and faith in Jesus and let the holly spirit convict us but we must make sure we read the bible pray fast and sanctification and than you will know the truth about your questions don't put your trust on man who can make mistakes
Please stop jumbling Calvinists with non catholics
White comes off as smug and prideful.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:03 📚 Trent Horn discusses similarities in argumentation between Protestants, atheists, and Muslims.
01:12 📖 Trent is working on a book consolidating observations about argument strategies and differences in religious perspectives.
03:05 🤝 Protestants use liberal Catholic scholars to support their arguments, but criticize similar scholars when they undermine their views.
06:35 🧪 Protestants challenge Muslim apologist Shabir Ali's double standards in citing conservative scholarship for the Quran but liberal for the Bible.
10:03 💬 James White critiques Catholic arguments by citing scholars with liberal views, without highlighting their liberalism.
11:01 🔍 White's criticism of liberal Catholic scholarship is similar to Muslims' criticism of conservative scholarship in debates.
12:12 📖 Father Richard McBrien's liberal views on various Catholic teachings are cited by White against Catholic doctrines.
17:29 📚 White uses conservative Protestant scholars to defend his view on sola scriptura but dismisses Catholic scholars as liberal.
19:05 📚 Michael Kruger's conservative view on the canon is cited by White favorably, while he criticizes Catholics for citing minority views.
21:51 ⚖️ Trent urges intellectual honesty, avoiding double standards, and proper representation of scholars from differing perspectives.
22:06 📚 Recognize double standards in using liberal scholarship.
22:32 🔍 James White shows double standard: critiques Muslims, uses liberal Catholic scholarship.
23:13 📜 White acknowledges Muslims' use of liberal scholarship, questions own approach.
24:23 🧐 White argues liberal Catholic scholarship challenges Rome's theology, debates context.
25:48 🤝 Call for equality: Both sides should cite representative, mainstream scholarship.
27:10 🎤 Suggestion to debate James White on authority: Solo Scriptura vs. Apostolic Succession.
28:22 💡 Reminder to access Trent's pro-life course via trenthornepodcast.com.
I'm a Catholic
It’s time to boycott this wolf, what’s the pope going to say next? Jesus never lived, the Catholics defend and defend a losing battle. What a sad title of a video. Shalom
841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."
What do you suppose this means?
@@Qwerty-jy9mj I don't know. We need some kind of committee that's able to explain this nonsense.
In the mean time, I'm going to kiss a book that says that God literally blew his spirit into the c u next Tuesday of Mary, using that word in Arabic which I just hinted to. I didn't use that word, because it is utterly disrespectful towards Mary, the mother of God.
How stupid is it, to kiss such a filthy book?
Do you think the plan of salvation including them means that they are saved? God’s plan of salvation includes everyone, it doesn’t mean God plans on saving those who reject his church
@@georgwagner937
You don't need to say it to be equally disrespectful.
That committee that you wanted already happened, it's called the Second Vatican Council
@@Qwerty-jy9mj well, you are right. It was disrespectful, but I was joking. I would never kiss such a book. Because it is filthy and an abomination. But the pope did kiss such a book. And it breaks my heart.
Catholics do as well though .
You need a title!
"Atheists and Muslims: A Seamless Garment Theory"
5:05 Muslims believe in the virgin birth
Even if Rev Richard McBrien left Roman Catholicism, doesn’t the church consider him Roman Catholic because he was baptized in the Roman Catholic Church. Basically if your baptized in a Roman Catholic Church, your a Catholic for life.
the significance of his catholicism only finds importance when he returns for matters like should he be re-baptized and re-confirmed, which of course we don't do because he received catholic sacraments and is a catholic.
Colloquially, when we say "remain Catholic" we mean "remain in orthodoxy".
This is not a difficult thing to grasp.
@@Jrayhood What happens if he leaves the Roman Catholic Church and marries outside the church? Is he living in mortal sin?
Don't know enough about him, but assuming baptized and confirmed Catholic but guilty of some combination of heresy, schism, or apostasy, he would need only confess that in the Sacrament of Reconciliation to be considered a Catholic in good standing.
@@tony1685 I agree with you 100 percent
If We argue like Muslims: maybe you could make a video why Roman Catholics argue like Mormons!
Trent is not going to make a video like that. YOu should do it if you feel so strong about it. So the Catholic Church has two bibles now like the Mormons?
@@juanisaac5172 no sweetheart: but you claim your the only true Christian church just like the Mormons and they have an infallible prophet just like you do with the Pope.
See , I am writing Trent's video for him!
Good luck with your views because Mormons use them too.
Lol people who don't even truly believe in the divinity of Jesus (Mormons) seriously? 😭🤣 Can't wait to hear the mess that made you want to compare those. I love all these butthurt heretics in the comment section. Honey, if it doesn't apply to you don't worry. If it does which would explain the trigger then wear the shoe Cinderella if it fits. Also if it does stop doing it in debates
@@angelalemos9811 Well why not? Your side has been spouting for years that the Catholic Church created Islam. So the theory goes that the Pope, who was under the patronage of the BYZANTIUM Empire, just happened to send a nun to Saudi Arabia and on the first try just happened to succeed. Imagine that. What are the odds? And you should be very proud of the Mormons since they hate the Catholics Church as much as you do. And to boot they also believe the Church the Whore of Babylon. You can laugh all you want Miss Lemos but your connection with them is quite strong. The Jehova's Witnesses as well. But those two groups have managed to dig a lower low than even you protestants. See what a mess Luther brought? Can never find something else to do than come after us. Now it is my time to laugh 😭🤣. Have fun waiting for the rapture because you are not going anywhere. And at that time you will want to cry and not laugh.
Mary and Joseph had other children after Christ was born. Meyer and the atheists got that part right.
The question is why the church felt necessary to make the case after the fact that there is such a thing as perpetual virginity....ABSENT the argument that celibacy was a higher way of life than becoming a Mother/Father and multiplying/replenishing the Earth per the commandment.
Doctrinally it's a losing argument, but it's very useful in propagating the idea that people should forego the commandment in order to dedicate themselves to childless service in the church.
That's a bald and incorrect personal interpretation of an English biblical translation from the 17th century using poor biblical knowledge of who stood by the cross, what Jesus said to John and zero knowledge of Jewish cultural family bonds of the time.
Do you know cousin means brother or sister back in Jesus‘ time. And there is 4 different Mary’s mention in the New Testament. And Brother and sister also means you’re a Christian faith.
@Super Mario you can also say the New Testament mentions four different Mary’s.
ignorant opinion
@Super Mario ...was Used incorrectly to justify. Paul warned that in the days of apostasy marriage would be forbidden (ironically this mandate came from the church) and uses unambiguous language about marriage being a requirement in Corinthians & Hebrews. Peter did as well. they echo Christ and God the Father's council in both the New and Old Testaments.
There is one sole verse used to justify priestly celibacy - and it counters every other reference available from the Apostles & the Master. I realize that isn't enough to convince someone they may be misinterpreting the scripture - for that I would look at the result of the application. If holiness and power were emanating from those that adhere to the principle it would carry some water. t really hasn't worked out that way. By their fruits we shall know them... & in John it says that by doing the will of God we shall know the source of the dictum...whether it be from God or if someone speaks for themself. It's becoming more obvious over time it's the latter.
I feel like this tactic of painting protestants in similar light as atheists and Muslims is kind of nasty and dishonest.
Example needed. Facts, not feelings please.
@@scottgun Mr Shapiro. I use the word "feel" to imply the use of intuition, I do not actually mean "feelings" or emotion. Considering that all people groups are, made up of people, it stands to reason that all people groups will have similarities from group to group. For example, Catholic apologists act an awfully lot like atheist when they use human logic, a.k.a. philosophy to describe God. God being an entity that lives outside the closed system of our finite universe. It is reasonable therefore to assume that no amount of theology or public revolution will allow one to understand His will.
@@adam7402 That's better. Doesn't show Trent is dishonest of course, but better.
@@scottgun hyperbolic statements are better at initiating conversion than well thought out statements. Thank you for taking the bait.
Not at all
The Jerome Bible Commentary got the imprimatur of the relevant diocese. That means someone was trusted and commissioned by the bishop to make sure it teaches mainstream Catholic teaching. Have you been trusted and commissioned by a bishop to do this, Trent? If not, who are you to say that it is not mainstream Catholic teaching?
A nihil obstat isn't much of a guarantee of orthodoxy. When I was a kid, I had a Bible edition in Spanish whose notes had to be revises because they promoted _liberation theology._ This is a notorious and blatant heresy, what was the fact that it had a nihil obstat from multiple dioceses for decades supposed to mean? Was the Church marxist until these notes were revised and now it isn't?
Ah yes, because if a bishop commissions something it just CANT be wrong!
That is not what imprimatur means. imprimatur does not require a bishop to commission the works or be trusted by him. Nor does it mean it teaches mainstream Catholicism.
..."Technically, this is the bishop’s official declaration that the book is free from doctrinal error and has been approved for publication by a censor. "
@@sneakysnake2330And if you listen to the section in the vid where he talks about the Jerome commentary, it's not even controversial. It just says 1 Cor. supports purgatory, but doesn't by itself explicitly prove it. Boy, anti-Catholics really scraping the bottom of the barrel for brickbats to hurl at the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church!
@@dave_ecclectic, you misread what I said. I meant that usually it isn't the bishop that reads every book that gets an imprimatur, but someone commissioned by the bishop.
Mary did NOT remain a virgin AFTER Jesus was born - direct from the New Catholic Bible:
Matt 1:24-25
24 When Joseph rose from sleep, ... He took Mary into his home as his wife,
25 but *he engaged in no marital relations with her until she gave birth to a son,*
whom he named Jesus.
King James Bible
Matthew 1:25
And *knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son:* and he called his name JESUS.
New American Standard Bible
Matt 1:24-25.
24 And Joseph awoke from his sleep .. *and took Mary as his wife,*
25 but *kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son;* ...
Scripture’s statement that Joseph “knew [Mary] not until she brought forth her firstborn” would not necessarily mean they did “know” each other after she brought forth Jesus. Until is often used in Scripture as part of an idiomatic expression similar to our own usage in English. I may say to you, “Until we meet again, God bless you.” Does that necessarily mean after we meet again, God curse you? By no means. A phrase like this is used to emphasize what is being described before the until is fulfilled. It is not intended to say anything about the future beyond that point. Here are some biblical examples:
2 Samuel 6:23: And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to (until) the day of her death. (Does this mean she had children after she died?)
1 Timothy 4:13: Until I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching. (Does this mean Timothy should stop teaching after Paul comes?)
1 Corinthians 15:25: For he (Christ) must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. (Does this mean Christ’s reign will end? By no means! Luke 1:33 says, “he will reign over the house of Jacob forever and of his kingdom there shall be no end.”)
In recent years, some have argued that because Matthew 1:25 uses the Greek words heos hou for “until” whereas the texts I mentioned above from the New Testament use heos alone, there is a difference in meaning. The argument goes that Heos hou indicates the action of the first clause does not continue. Thus, Mary and Joseph “not having come together” would have ended after Jesus was born.
The problems with this theory begin with the fact that no available scholarship concurs with it. In fact, the evidence proves the contrary. Heos hou and heos are used interchangeably and have the same meaning. Acts 25:21 should suffice to clear up the matter: “But when Paul had appealed to be kept in custody for the decision of the emperor, I commanded him to be held until (Gk. heos hou) I could send him to Caesar.”
Does this text mean that Paul would not be held in custody after he was “sent” to Caesar? Not according to the biblical record. He would be held in custody while in transit (see Acts 27:1) and after he arrived in Rome for a time (see Acts 29:16). The action of the main clause did not cease with heos hou.
@@mr.anderson2241 How we today would translate "knew her" is say "have sex", and I am being polite in saying it that way.
This passage is about what DIDN'T HAPPEN up to the conception and birth of Jesus, because it is about the VIRGINAL nature of Jesus' conception - not about what happened AFTER Mary gave birth to Jesus. Even if you aren't Catholic, that would still be CLEARLY what Matthew's point. "Until" means up to a point. It tells you nothing about what happens after the point. Sometimes you can infer from the context ("she had no child until her death" = clearly this doesn't mean she had children after her death), other times you can't (such as here) - but even when you can, it isn't because of the word "until," but because of the context and the specific thing that was "until" that point.
@@SSNBN777 I’m aware, my comment covers that
Look, another ignorant person unwilling to look up the arguments for the Blessed Mother's Perpetual Virginity!
To quote “Dr.” White himself: “Inconsistency is the mark of a failed argument”.
He would know that from firsthand experience
I don't know why, but the video seems vertically compressed
It’s sad how James White tends to be more nicer to Muslims than non Calvinists.
That's because he and all Calvinist are the meanest, stone throwing. Judgmental, Pharasies on earth. They condemn everyone. Including. DR Martin L King. Billy Graham. Mother Teresa. It's truly amazing why they have any followers. Their followers are just as mean and judging. They refuse to admit its a sin to judge and condemn.
to be fair, White is generally a respectful person to everyone he speaks to.
You are thinking of Nicodemus.
When he speaks to Mormons…watch out!
Yes. He talks about wanting to bring Muslims, but you cannot evangelize any wolfs by offering them a sheep to bite.
Great video trent. Exposing whites inconsistencies.
@@tony1685 SDA isn't Christianity
@YAJUN YUAN
Says who? Why do millerite cults even pretend they're legitimate?
Why didn't the world end in 1844?
@YAJUN YUAN *isn’t, fixed it for you
@@tony1685
Of course we love scripture as Catholics.
It’s non-Catholics who absolutely despise the study of scripture.
That’s why none of them can name the last church father they’ve read was.
@@tony1685 Yes, yes, and yes
it horrifies me how frequently i hear priests repeat the claims of ultra liberal scholarship, and then say it was taught matter of fact at seminar, that no one serious thinks differently
It is not 'ultra-liberal' scholarship, it is just scholarship that goes where the facts lead.
you are afraid of those who seek out facts and truth - you should stop dwelling in ignorance
lmao ok whatever you say
@Neil D No, they point to a single place - a lack of evidence about the historical Jesus and the conclusion that the Gospels and NT were written either long after his death or were written about a person who may have never existed.
@@antpassalacqua Such a sophisticated response.
@@trumpsupporter1016 That's not true at all. I attended Harvard, studied Philosophy and worked for the Unitarian Church there (I'm not a Unitarian myself). Broadly speaking, the "American Academy" are Cold Warring state-sponsored propagandists. There are some needles in that haystack, but they are hard to find. Assigning "good intentions" on people you will never meet is unwise, deceiving yourself and others.
Muslims always say "Where in the bible does Jesus say he's God"
Which is actually a valid question if you think about it
@@Paper-Z Valid question but a man made standard. And you respond to say why does Jesus need to say he's God in the bible? What's the proof Mohammad talked with God? But they just want you to stay on defense and simplify "why go to Jesus if we can go straight to God" just like the Protestants do with Christianity "why go to Mary and the saints if we can go straight to Jesus"
@@CPATuttle But thinking about the first commandment and how grave breaking it is, shouldn't there be very significant reasons to risk breaking it
Especially when consider things like Jesus praying to God, stating that the father is the only true God, saying my God and your God etc
Breaking the first commandment, first for a reason, should scare the hell out of us
@@Paper-Z Are you looking for evidence Jesus is the messiah? What’s your religion?
@@CPATuttle not looking for evidence that Jesus is the Messiah
Looking for substantial significant non ambiguous evidence that he is God 'Almighty'.
When you consider all the prophets of old believed in a single non-complicated God, and Jesus himself seemed to also, and then weigh the significance of the first commandment, you have to be very careful and skeptical
really appreciate WIDE TRENT in this video
James White contradicting himself? No way!
James White is infallible
What??? Jimmy White is NEVER wrong… just ask him.
@@Danaluni59 Quote him if you spoke truly
Most muslims think protestantism is the only form Christianity. One out of many examples I have is when I went on a Muslim video trying to evangelize passerby christians. One couple were catholic and talked about the communion. People in the comments section were like "they believe the bread and wine literally is Jesus? What will they think of next? I swear they keep making up new doctrines every generation."
to be fair, it's because protestants are much more into evangelism and apologetics than Catholics these days. The Catholic Church has been in a state of lull for a while.
Interesting. I often encounter the opposite problem. Most Muslims I see think that Catholicism is the only form of Christianity. They talk about specifically Catholic related things to criticise Christianity, like the Pope and whatnot.
@@someonetheperson2332 why would that be a problem then? Isnt good that you don't have to educate a grown adult about mere Christianity before getting into authentic Christianity?
@@crobeastness Well, I’m a Protestant, so I wouldn’t necessarily call Catholicism “authentic Christianity
@@someonetheperson2332 well ya it's older than protestantism by 1500 years and follow's Jesus' instructions therefore I say authentic. Anyway, the pope thing you mentioned. It could just be more ignorance in the part of the Muslim. Obviously they know about the pope because literally everyone does know that such a figure exists, but they are probably more familiar with protestant theology. Like if you went down a list of exclusive protestant beliefs and asked which people believe that stuff they would say Christians and if your follow up is which Christians, they would say "the ones who follow the pope".
Trent, your video look a bit squished vertically. Can't tell if it's the lens or the rendering, but just FYI.
Hey Trent! Have you ever thought of rebutting the videos put out by Ligonier ministries like the RC Sproul lectures? I’m having a hard time understanding and building a case against Total Depravity. Just a thought. Thanks for all your hard work!!
Your having a hard time refuting it, have you ever considered maybe it's actually true...The fact that your response is to reach out to a Roman Catholic apologist to disprove it shows your bias as of course a Roman Catholic apologist will ipso facto deny the truthfulness of the doctrine. I would suggest praying to the Holy Spirit (not saying you haven't maybe you have to some degree) and asking the Lord directly if it is true.
@@Adam-ue2ig I am doing my part in understanding the doctrine of total depravity and why the Church does not accept that view. I am not saying I cant refute it, I am just not as familiar with what it is and it will take me some time to do both understand it and consider the biblical basis for it. But I suggested this topic to Trent not so that I have a quick answer but because it would be helpful for Catholics who have not and are not prepared to understand and answer Calvinist/Reformed objections to the faith. Especially because it is becoming the dominant Protestant theology in my experience talking to people online.
@@elliott2389 from an outside perspective as someone not cradle Catholic I studied Catholicism for 13 years and arrived at the conclusion their claims to be "the one true church" are not warranted. Those that are just born Catholic probably never study Protestantism so they just assume whatever they have been told essentially is the truth. Some come out of that church after careful study while others seem unwilling to even investigate the other side as they have been told stay away don't even read their stuff etc as they are heretics and they may weaken your faith or whatever...but I find that to be intellectually dishonest and portrays a lack of confidence in one's own belief system if they think refuse to look at the other side because they basically fear their beliefs may not hold up well to scrutiny .
@@elliott2389 Obviously if you don't understand it and are not familiar with it then it follows you can't personally refute it (not sure why you would claim otherwise). Maybe you meant hypothetically you would be able to refute it in the future but again that just confirms my point of something like confirmation bias by presupposing it must not be true because the church says so your essentially going into it just looking to find a refutation instead of investigating it objectively as possible to find if it's true or not.
@@Adam-ue2ig yes, my first assumption is that it is false because (1) defenders of TULIP say it is in direct opposition to traditional Catholic doctrine and (2) the Church does not uphold that theology. It’s like saying don’t assume the world isn’t flat until you’ve weighed all the evidence and made up your mind yourself. No I rely on the Church to uphold the correct understanding of the faith just like I trust the consensus of the scientific community to accept well established scientific claims. That doesn’t mean I won’t investigate individual claims myself if need be but I am not treating truth as only true until I can prove it.
Thank you for saying this out loud! 15:12-15:30 May God bless you and all that you do for the glory of Him.
Interesting perspective. So happy we're Catholic ^_^
this theme has been talking about for decades by different people, namely Hilaire Belloc. Historically, Islamic apologism never rose to the same level of rigor as polemics between Christians and Jews or pagans. They barely even quote the sources. That's why they refer to liberal or Jewish writers, because they're so much more sophisticated.
Islamic writers suffer from the main issue in oral cultures, which is going by distorted anecdotes. That's why the Quran thinks that Jews claim Ezra as the son of God or that Abraham was a Jew
Catholic presupposationalism is the only answer.
We just need to ask the heretics and schismatics “by what authority?” But what authority do you have sacred scripture, your so-called church and any of your doctrine? Saint Irenaeus handled this beautifully.
Everything else will lead to endless back-and-forth. You must absolutely destroy their false system, then the honest people will come to God. Those who never sought God anyway will stay lost.
While that's ultimately what you would do to a learned scholar, tackling argument one by one has the function of teaching potential converts why we're right and they are wrong, and how evident it is! If we could always choose the right authorithy to follow, Satan wouldn't have had all the nations of the world to tempt Jesus with.
Most muslims think protestantism is the only form Christianity. One out of many examples I have is when I went on a Muslim video trying to evangelize passerby christians. One couple were catholic and talked about the communion. People in the comments section were like "they believe the bread and wine literally is Jesus? What will they think of next? I swear they keep making up new doctrines every generation."
@YAJUN YUAN oh yes he does!
Iraneus pointed people to the Church that was nearly within living memory of the Apostles, and would have every reason to be accurate. This does not reflect on the institution of the Church permanently. He also only does this after many times of telling people to go to scripture and apply reason.
James White isn’t reformed in my opinion he’s more like a fundamentalist Baptist sprinkled with some intellectualism.
I'm not clear on how is it that baptists can be both baptists and Calvinists.
Beyond denying baptismal regeneration, are there any other requirements?
@@Qwerty-jy9mj I would say denying covenant theology, 1689 federalism is similar to progressive dispensationalism, so that’s why baptist aren’t reformed, particular Baptist is a more accurate term.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj Being a Calvinist and Reformed are not the same thing.
@@wordandwater9027
My head is spinning tbh, what's the difference between Calvinist and reformed? I thought it was just the name that they gave to themselves
@@Qwerty-jy9mj as a former Baptist who also claimed to be a calvanist (now catholic!) when Baptist claim to be reformed or calvanist, usually it means they hold to TULIP. (Total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible election, and perseverance of the saints) they are not claiming Calvin's view on other issues of church government and view of the sacraments.
John Piper would be an example (or at least was back in the early 2000s) and this view was the predominant view taught at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (where I went to school for my M.Div and graduated in 2014)
Limited atonement is debatable in that circle at times, but the other points are usually held.
Edit: add to the confusion, Reformed Baptist, is a separate denomination than The Southern Baptist Convention (Southern Baptist) and If I remember, John Piper was/is General Baptist (Maybe American Baptist) the way that "Baptist" understanding of the Church, each individual local Baptist church is an independent body, the "denomination" doesn't have any real authority over it. That's why southern Baptist is called "convention" instead of denomination.
Looks like the Seven Day Adventist trolls under many aliases (Tony, Yuan Juan etc) trolling away at the comments section.
As a cradle Catholic why are *ALL* the CLAIMS of the Bible TRUE? While the CLAIMS of the Quran are FALSE?
NT Wright argues for the ordination of women on the basis of women being the first ones to the empty tomb. That seems to me to be the most liberal position you can conceive of.
Ya, he’s kinda a border case. He does accept miracles and the supernatural though
But then, that would mean, Jesus Himself and the Apostles got it wrong in the First Century!
@@thomasjorge4734 Yeah I think the basic idea of liberal / progressive Christianity is that Jesus got it wrong.
@Christos Kyrios The entire point of Christianity is to Worship God, as He has Commanded us to do.
@@thomasjorge4734 The entire point is sin and redemption
First Atheist now muslims???? Somehow this one really hurts🥲
Next week: Protestants argue like Laveyan Satanists. 😂
@@gideonwiley8961 😂😂 Perhaps a turning point for me by then haha.
@@gideonwiley8961
not far off, given private interpretation of scripture
@@Qwerty-jy9mj dang the burn 🤣
Why? You're a protestant?
First again lol
Bah. Beat me again!
@@alistairkentucky-david9344 I’m always waiting at 9 so I can play it while I’m working LOL
They argue like Muslims, because for their arguments to hold, all of them (to a differing extent, sure, but still) have to admit that the “true Church” perished shortly after Jesus’ death and resurrection.
Or that the church is just “the saved” and for over a millennium people were being saved by accident.
This just isn't at all true of protestant theology, especially that of the reformers themselves
@@Iffmeister it is true of both the deformers and Protestant theology. It’s just that some need to acknowledge a smaller “deviation” than others.
@@tony1685 Yeah tony that is precisely what happened. And when the true church finally re-emerged it decided to split itself into several thousands of different versions for lolz. Right after evil Roman Catholicism went on a killing spree of First Patriotic Baible-Baleevin’ Baptist Church of Rhodos. So glad it went into hiding only to reemerge stronger than ever in 19th century ‘Murica and gain our tithes (remember, at least 10% of pre-tax income. We ain’t saved by tha works but boy are you truly saved if you ain’t financin’ the pastor’s new car?)
Or there were "true believers" a.k.a. protestants in those times, but they never rose their voices till Luther
Hi Trent Horn, I am looking forward to reading your new book when it finally come out at end of June 2022. I consider you to be fair to Protestants even some Protestants are unfair to Catholic apologists. I enjoy reading your books and listening to your videos.
Oh you got his deceitful behind gooooood. 😭🤣🌟✨
Trent, I am reading through the Ecumenical Councils. I’ve gotten to the Lateran Councils but I can’t find a physical collection anywhere. The only digital source I have is the Vatican website. Do you know where I can get a collection, just the text in english. Not a summary nor a commentary. I like reading direct translations without too much interpretation or and with little to no paraphrase. Can you recommend a title of a collection or retailer. I’ve tried amazon, ebay, and google. When I type in Lateran Councils all I get are Green Lantern comics. Any help would be appreciated.
pretty sure Catholics do the same things Muslims do for Muhmmad as they do for Mary 🐸☕️
How so?
Shabir Ali is a good man.
Every time I get involved in argument with Protestants about purgatory, I always ask them, do they believe Trinity. Trinity is not explicitly written in Bible, same as purgatory. But yet the teachings about it its all over the Bible. If they answer 'yes', I don't have to give further explanation because it shows that they are double standards.
Yes it is. It's Godhead, the Three that bear record in Heaven, and Jesus Christ's statement that He and His Father are one. There are also Old Testament verses that point to Jesus Christ as God the Son, as well as the infamous first part of John's Gospel. Even the name Elohim has a plurality to it. Kind of hints of why God in Genesis says "Let us make man in our own image."
Purgatory however is not listed in the Bible. There is Abraham's bosom or Paradise, but that can't be mistaken for Purgatory.
There's way more implications for the Trinity than Purgatory. I noticed something with Catholics that Mormons do (and yes I am outright stating the two have similar ways of doing things not putting you on the same level but you act a lot like them in many ways), they will interpret things that Protestants see as metaphoric as literal. Every mention of Purgatory I've seen can/is taken metaphorically by Protestants, you Catholics take it literally.
I use the Mormon comparison not as a club but because Mormons do the same thing. That's why Baptism for the dead exists, it wasn't just randomly made up by Joseph Smith his citation was 1 Corinthians 15:29. Do Catholics baptize their dead? Obviously not but the literal/metaphoric view is the same. Another Mormon thing is serving *water* instead of wine for communion. It's not just due to them being temperance focused. But because John 19:34 mentions water coming out of Jesus. EDIT: Elaborated a lot of things and again. I am not saying you Catholics are on the same level of heresy as Mormons, I am however saying much like how Protestants argue like Muslims you argue like Mormons.
@@galatian5 how do you interpret Matt 5:26? Why Jesus wants you to pay until the last penny in order you to get out? To get out from where? If it's paid in full when Jesus died on the cross, why Jesus still wants you to pay?
@@induklife9939 That's the point, it can't be repaid by us. A poor servant is not going to ever repay a richman's debt. A human is not going to be able to remove himself from hell. We can forgive others as Christ has forgiven us or we can try to pay off eternity, which we can't. It's like you owe me 5 dollars but I owe Christ a billion dollars. I will never pay Christ back, so let me just forgive your 5 dollar debt to me.
To add to the points others have given, if I accept your argument, how could you convince me not to just become an atheist?
I have heard almost all of the Islamic-Protestant-Christianity arguments many years ago when I took a course on "An Introduction to Islam." Most of the Islamic ideas/teachings are at least 500 years old. I always smirked at the protestant communion being the same as " a symbol of the Prophet Jesus."
@@tony1685 Well sinners "created" the Bible, the only things not made by a sinner are Jesus and Mary's and Jesus' miracles, since only those two people in the post-Adam world are sinless.
And the Eucharist is in the Bible, at the last supper the sacrament is performed the same way it's performed on every Mass!
@@tony1685 Mary's parents were sinners, God chose to concede Mary the grace of the immaculate conception, and as far as we know Mary alone had this grace.
>Only a sinner needs a saviour
No, not really, that's a disputable logical leap. All man only enter the Kindgom of Heaven through Jesus, she still needs an undeserved grace to access the beatific vision and the separation from earthly evil and suffering.
Mariology is mostly biblical, but it's refined in tradition.
The word in greek for the "giving thanks" is eucharistos. That word is as biblical as "baptism", it's just that we don't use the weird incomplete english phrase "giving thanks" when we refer to the sacrament of the Holy Communion.
All aspects of the Catholic Eucharist are strictly objectively biblical!
@@tony1685 If you use this kind of language to caricature and lampoon your opponent's position, you might create some cute zingers, but you'll have egg on your face when an atheist does the same thing to you. All of Christianity can be caricatured by a motivated skeptic. The Bible is full of things that can easily be made to sound absurd. Hell, there's a talking snake in the first few pages, and you only need to read for a few days before you get to a talking donkey. How is that any different from a "godcookie"?
Do you believe that a million or more slaves walked from Egypt to Israel, on foot, following a giant cloud that transforms into fire every night and leaves a trail of magic cookie dough on the ground to sustain them? And that opens up holes in the ground to swallow up the ones who offend him? And that makes water spray out of boulders that his chosen prophet beats with a stick? Do you believe in a virgin birth? A god-man dying for our sins only to rise from the dead and float up to heaven? You believe in a giant cosmic dictator in the sky, watching everything we do? You believe that people with leprosy and blindness were cured by scraps of clothing worn by the Apostles?
Feel any impulse to say "now wait a minute"? Would you prefer I allow some nuance and treat your ancient tradition with more charity, rather than mocking it from the outset? Sounds fair to me, so why don't you talk about the Eucharist charitably? Could it be because you start from the presupposition that it's bogus, and then mock it in order to support that presupposition? Clearly there's a double standard somewhere in your thinking, but only you can know where. Anyway, if eating a godcookie is too much silliness for you, maybe you should reevaluate the rest of your beliefs, since they sound just as silly to an atheist.
I'd know, as a recent convert who was raised without religion. I looked down on and mocked Christian beliefs my whole life until I was 27. I was never taught Christian doctrine or history, I was only taught about insulting caricatures of it. My education in Christianity was just a mockery of Christianity. Anyone would sneer at those grotesque strawmen of Christian faith. But now, after taking the time to study the history, I'm perfectly comfortable saying yes, eating a godcookie is sensible. And why not? What's wrong with eating a godcookie? Can you give a principled reason, apart from your own argument from incredulity (the same arguments I just showed that atheists use against ALL of Christianity), why we shouldn't eat godcookies?
Maybe it sounds silly for someone to believe that a "godcookie" is a real thing. But what if you're wrong? What if the host really is the flesh of Jesus Christ, and our Lord himself really told us to eat it? Who are you to mock the means that God has chosen for us to participate in his son's sacrifice? You sound no different from the skeptics in John 6 who are so incredulous about the idea of Jesus "giving us his flesh to eat" that they abandon their Lord. If you really believe Jesus is the God of the universe, you should do what he tells you, not scoff and ask if it's really "sensible" to eat his flesh in the accidents of a wafer. Otherwise, you should apply the same degree of skepticism to everything _you_ believe, not draw an arbitrary line dividing the beliefs you happen to have been raised with from the beliefs of the ancient Christian Church (which clearly include the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, among many other Catholic/Orthodox/Lutheran distinctives).
And if you think the Eucharist is "performing blasphemy," how do you explain John 6 and the Last Supper narrative? How do you explain the Didache? How do you explain the writings of Irenaeus? Ignatius? Tertullian?
"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God... They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes." - Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1, AD 110
How do you explain the overwhelming evidence attesting to the ubiquity of the Eucharist among the earliest Christians? Did everyone just turn to blasphemy within a generation of the Apostles? What kind of God would promise that "the gates of Hades shall not prevail against" a Church that's going to fall to _universal_ heresy within a generation? If you believe that the Church got it so spectacularly wrong, so fast, and for so long, shouldn't you have serious doubts about the divinity of the man who founded it?
The good news is there is absolutely no evidence that the Church got it wrong. There's a very clear line between what Jesus taught about the Eucharist and what the Church did in the first century. The sacrament Ignatius is talking about, the Eucharist, is very clearly taught in the New Testament. Hardly any scholars deny that. The dispute is of a philosophical nature, and it concerns whether Jesus is _truly_ present in the Eucharist, i.e., via transsubstantiation, or is merely _sacramentally_ present in the Eucharist, i.e., as a kind of theologically significant symbol.
@@tony1685 By the way, doesn't it strike you as worrisome that you're so quick to insult and mock people? Your comments are so thick with sarcasm I can practically hear the tone of your voice just from reading text on a screen lol. If you really had the Holy Spirit, wouldn't it affect your behavior? Wouldn't you be charitable and kind to people, instead of childishly attacking them? For example, why mock the very word "Eucharist"? Do you even know what it means? The earliest Christian authors we know of use that term to refer to the sacrament. It is a far more ancient and well-attested part of Christianity than you are. Shouldn't you at least have some basic respect for it, instead of treating it like some kind of joke?
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you're right. Everyone except your protestant denomination is wrong about the Eucharist. The overwhelming majority of Christians throughout history have been mistaken. Some fatal error in transmission resulted in billions of people misunderstanding Jesus' commands to eat his flesh and drink his blood. And let's say Jesus came back to Earth to correct us. Do you think he would solve this problem by insulting those billions of Christians, engaging in sarcastic namecalling and referring to the erroneous sacrament as the "yooooookrist"? Does that sound like something our Lord would do? So why are _you_ doing it?
Your interlocutor wrote, "And the Eucharist is in the Bible..." and you responded, "sorry friend, not in the Christian Bible." What is that supposed to mean? Were you under the impression that Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Lutherans, and many other Christians who practice the Eucharist have a different New Testament than your denomination? The passages concerning the Eucharist (what some protestant denominations have been calling the "Lord's Supper" for the last couple hundred years, in an effort to distance themselves from the historical Church - it's an English phrase that appears nowhere in the Apostolic or patristic fathers) are in the Gospels. I don't know what Bible you're reading, but I'm pretty sure if you're calling it a Christian Bible, it has the four Gospels in it.
If you want to seriously dispute the traditional understanding of the Eucharist, you're going to have to explain what Jesus meant, if he didn't mean for us to literally eat his flesh and drink his blood as part of a sacrament, involving bread and wine, done in remembrance of the Lord. You can't just say "not in the Bible" and go running for the door, and expect anyone to follow you in your error. Explain how you're not in error. Explain how the Bible itself, that anthology of books you presumably claim as your "sole rule of faith," doesn't clearly contradict your position. Explain how your beliefs about the Eucharist aren't actually novel innovations completely unheard of anywhere in the Church for the first 15 centuries of its existence, as even many protestant historians acknowledge. Maybe you're right. I'm open to the possibility. But if you're not gonna give us a reason to believe you, besides vague admonitions like "do some research," then you're really just wasting your time and ours.
@@ToxicallyMasculinelol you're a pretty gifted expositor of your faith. I screenshotted a long reply of yours on baptism a few weeks ago. Just in case. I have a number of Protestant friends I'm hoping to be able to share these things with and who I hope will come to see the beauty and truth of Catholicism. What state do you reside in and kind of church you attend?
Do you have an example that Jame White uses?
This is like citing Reformed Jews when debating an Orthodox Jew. Who cares???
Do "when protestants argue like neopagans".
The problem is that Catholics are never immune to this criticism being applied to them. They just pretend they're above it all.
Muslims believe in the virgin birth of Jesus, but not His crucifixion/death, however affirming the ascension. Despite affirming Jesus as the Word of God, they reject His Divinity.
They say he's a failed prophet who couldn't convince anyone and he caused more confusion, that's why according to them God took him before he was killed and he will have a second coming. On the contrary, they think Muhammad came to rectify those wrongs and is the perfect and ultimate prophet. This of course is a grave heresy for any Christian and that's why Muslim apologists don't straight say it when doing dawah to Christians, but it should be known and it should be outright rejected.
@@Dan_Capone In Islam you cannot disrespect Jesus since He is explicitly stated to be Messiah and a Messenger etc etc. The Quran makes the bold claim that Jesus predicted the coming of "Ahmad" (ie Mohammed) among other things for which we have no real evidence unless you're already convinced of the Quran.
In Islam it is not that Jesus failed but rather that Jesus wasn't bringing a universal/forever covenant (and that Mohammed does do this as the final messenger). Clearly, however, Islam is filled with grave heresy no Christian should accept if he dare keep the name Chrsitian. Denying the Atonement, denying the crucifixion, denying the Divinity of Jesus, denying the Trinity, these are core teachings of Christianity denied by Islam which is possibly why Islam is considered a separate religion and not just an aberrant form of Christianity like Mormonism (who may deny some of these core teachings but not all of them).
@@1001011011010
Muslims insult Jesus all the time
@@tony1685
So very wrong. Catholicism accepts and follows His Commandments.
Are followers made the brothers of Jesus? Did Jesus not make His followers His "family"? Is this considered being made "next to" Jesus? Is this "demoting" Jesus? No. On the contrary, God is so great that He is not in competition with His creatures. A masterful painter is not worried about competing with his beautiful paintings, rather they show his handiwork! God is so great, no creation could ever be worthy of worship due to Him Alone. There is no competition. So if He does all these things for those of us who sinned and were far from Him, not really His family, how much more for her who raised Him, bore Him, suckled Him, loved Him more than we can probably imagine (with a mother's love), the one called "full of grace" by the angel before being made the mother of the Christ. The way for the world to know Christ. Imagine how much the holiest person you know has helped bring people to Christ. Now imagine that all of these things came about through the cooperation of Mary, who willingly bore the Christ and had the great privilege of doing such a thing. Such devotion is to make us grow closer to Christ, who deigned to become man for our sakes. He humbled Himself so we may be made adopted children of God. No longer called mere servants, but children! Do you not consider these things and quiver at our unworthiness? Yet look what God has ordained in the depths of eternity! Does this not fill us with humility? May God have mercy on our souls. Yet now, even now, we still can turn to Him in the fullness of truth to which I invite you. I don't know what is pushing you to post such seemingly irrelevant attacks on Catholicism on posts about a rather different subject, on a video by a Catholic apologist. I don't know what it is, but I suspect you have some sort of strong feelings against the Church. My dear suggestion is to try to really understand the Chruch in fairness, and not from what Her enemies say, but from what Her defenders say, those who believe and not those who hate. You wouldn't want to learn about Christianity from a Muslim, would you? Think on these things and pray.
@@Dan_Capone im sorry , no muslim will every say that jesus pbuh as a failed prophet , his name is mentioned in quran 35 times , Quran glorifies all the prophets , unlike bible , reffering to david commiting adultery , lot had sex with his own daughters, The only thing we differe is that jesus pbuh was not killed by the jews, and you christians believe that he was killed.
I want to ask a devil's advocate question here: Many protestants view Catholics as relative theological liberals for "adding things to the bible". From that world view, isn't it expected that Mr. White would cite liberal sources?
The problem is that he knows Catholics have more conservative scholarship, so he's not steelmanning the case against him
I don’t think that’s what theologically liberal means
It's a form of straw-manning. Anyone can find fringe elements in most groups. If you run into that, make them show how the "liberal's" assertions are in line with authoritative Catholic sources (Scripture, Early Church Father's, Councils, Catechism, etc.)
@@sneakysnake2330 I'd agree that I didn't give a great definition, but I think the question is still interesting.
“Adding things to the Bible” is such a vague term that I have no clue what it means. I’ve never had someone who made that claim produce a catholic Bible and show me where things have been added to it.
But I can definitely say that Protestants ignore vast swathes of scripture, and don’t actually read it and wrestle its meaning for themselves.
Quoting Ephesians 2:8-9 is a great example of this given Ephesians 2:10
Misquoted verses and contexts, asking leading questions, avoid to talk about their own theology, keep attacking without replying to questions asked, go round and round answers...just some tiring tactics used against catholic.
If you listen to their out-of-date opposition views, you realise its pride n empty faith. As if Catholic Church never had the explanations to their repeated unintellectual tradition.
Loving the anti-protestantism in these comments. Bloody hypocrites.
What is a good orthodox Catholic commentary? Thanks.
Except the Bible explicitly says Mary was a virgin before the birth of Jesus. It provides no such explicit statement after. Nor is there a compelling reason to believe this should be the case. I don’t know why Protestants would waste their time quoting Catholic scholars when the Bible itself is clear.
The first video I saw of yours was an attempt to portray ignorant Protestants as unable to accept the moral superiority of the Catholic Church. Next video; you attack Islamic apologist from a safe distance. Now you find amusement in comparing Protestants to Muslims. I think it would be inappropriate to attack in the name of any religion or denomination. Instead I am going to recommend a book; How to Win Friends and Influence People.(Disclaimer: I only watched the first one.)
There are alot of parallels between muslims and protestants. We both start from the same paradigm. Ibn taymiyya said during the islamic Reformation (hundreds of years before the protestant reformation) that in order to be a good muslim one must read the quran and follow the man. Like protestants we just follow a better book and a better man.
If you have watched the debates of James White for 10 years, you will see the changes in him as he wanted to have the support of the Muslims.
Merci M. Horn!
Is Jesus independent or dependent on the father!??
Jesus PBUH told me.
Only true God is Father not Jesus PBUH.
What did your god lose to be called a saafrice?
To whom was the sacrifice paid to?
The arguments should matter, not their source.
If only we could have those country clubs lol.
I'm a bit confused as to why Catholics think Mary was a virgin post-Jesus' birth. Wasn't she married to Joseph? How could that marriage be legitimate if she was a virgin?
Numbers 30 deals with these exact situations, so there are provisions in the Mosaic law that deal with vows of virginity and how a husband should respond to them. It’s also fitting that Mary would not have returned to an ordinary life after fulfilling the most sacred role of any mere human in history. The sacred should never be used for profane (ordinary) tasks, and we see this with how the Ark of the Covenant was treated. A lot more could be said, so if you’d like to read more, Brant Pitre’s Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Mary is a fantastic work on the topic. -Kyle
. , , you religious guys keep on arguing among yourselves . . . don't know whether it is about nothing or everything, but neither do you.
But keep on pitting yourself against one another.
Nothing is more important than your destiny after death, it's obvious that every source of error that leads to damnation needs to be challenged
@@tafazzi-on-discord Whenever I hear Christians discuss among themselves, I get the feeling that they are the preeminent sources of error,
The hubris that you guys present is even more unbelievable than the history of atrocities of the Christian Churches
@@trumpsupporter1016 Your feeling is wrong. Seek truth, even if it's hard to find.
Convert brother, paradise is better than you can imagine.
@@tafazzi-on-discord
Your arrogance is on overdrive.
It God exists and is a loving God,
then I'll be fine. I have both true Reason
and true Faith - you have abandoned Reason and think you've found truth when all you have is a bunch of assertions.
@@trumpsupporter1016 I have not abandoned reason, since there is a loving God, you should know that He wants you to live in His Church. That's where the evidence points you to.
As far as using scholarship with a double standard, does that not reflect back onto Trent, given how he uses Bart Erhman as a source for the historicity of Jesus?
I used to think that James White was brilliant. I admired him and in particular his debates against Muslims (less so the more recent ones where he lets them off the hook). However as I have gradually learned more about religion and scripture then the more he has fallen in my eyes.
Do you have an example?
@@nightshade99 I did have but I can't seem to find it now. It was a "dialogue" with an Imam. Sorry but I am too unwell at the moment to spend all that much time looking for something. If you were familiar with James White's recent stuff you might be aware of it.
@@christopherquinn5899 I am familiar with it, that is why I am curious as to the sudden downgraded in your eyes. In my experience, he is perfectly correct when debating RCC dogma but falters when he tries to condone Calvinism.
Hi Trent, do you have a list of conservative Catholic scholarship you recommend (besides Pitre and Hahn who you mentioned)? I've always felt like the majority of scholarship and most prominent scholars coming out Catholic seminaries and institutions was liberal, which is an asymmetry with scholarship coming out from evangelical institutions. Maybe I'm in a bubble and you know a lot of prominent conservative Catholic institutions doing good work.
I'm not a fan of Dr. White. However, for someone to take a work, apparently in many cases, uncovers divergent views in your faith doesn't degrade the value of the study itself. I concur with careful consideration of source selections but sometimes the best study is usually objectionable to the offended.
18:40. James White doesn't have an authority claim. If there is no organization, then there is no claim to authority.
Do you know what mid-name james white??
James "muhammad" White
The master of double standart
They are the same both built on the Nestorian heresy
Islam skipped Jesus by 600yrs
Yet they put him in their book ?
No Muslim ever met Jesus.
No Muslim ever talked to Jesus
No Muslim ever encountered Jesus.
Never.
Yet they somehow put Him in their book.
So embarrassing.
Hmm
Guess you don't know what 'being a Muslim' means
Do some basic research
I am so mad at James white. Like what in the world man 🤦
How can anyone else be God if Jesus PBUH clearly teaches that only true God is Father. ❓
@@nadreb13
Only true God is Father.
“The Father is the only true God” (which is what Jesus said) is a completely different sentence to “Only the Father is the true God” (this is not what Jesus said). You are simply making Jesus say something which he didn’t.
@@felixosborne6234
My father your father My Lord your lord
@@bashirahmadnoori6750 It’s “my God and your God” actually
Watching Trent stretched screen
Islam not Muslims
Making these pegans sound pretty sweet :)
why is the picture squashed?
Has Dr White ever given a talk on his church?
Okay I know what book I’m going to read this coming month. I’m currently reading “Hard Sayings” by well Trent Horn
Regarding the Doctrine of Purgatory, the only remote biblical reference I can find is in the Book of Maccabees when it was suggested that we pray for the dead.
And even then making a realm like purgatory is like making a baptism for the dead out of one scripture or using water instead of wine for communion because "water *and* blood came out. And yes I did heavily imply Catholics argue and use scripture like Mormons. It's ok, Calvinists made up an entire theology on Romans 9 ;) EDIT: Pardon the snark, I am not implying Catholics and Mormons are on the same level of heresy. I am however jokingly saying much like how Trent thinks Protestants argue like Muslims, you Catholics argue like Mormons in regard to Purgatory. I apologize if I sounded rude. I do respect Trent, even when he sees us all as mini-John MacArthurs so I will respect his comments section. Again I am sorry for being cheeky.
gotta access those pro-life course
I have been saying it for ages. Protestants and muslims are VERY similar.
Some of the sola scriptura folks envy the Muslim worship for the Koran and want folks to worship the Bible in the same way. For the Muslim, the Koran is written in heaven and comes down word for word (in Arabic). The Muslim worships the Koran as much as we worship Christ as the Word of God. I think this is what many sola scriptura folks would like to do with the Bible.
Do you think the bible can be an idol? So one can focus so much on worshipping the word of God they forget to worship God himself. Interesting take,
Wow! You really think Muslims worship the Quran?
Says how much you know about Islam
@@Paper-Z Does not really matter what they worship as it is not Jesus Christ. And that is their biggest mistake.
@@juanisaac5172 What about just worshipping God 'the father' like all prophets did
@@Paper-Z Muslims do not worship God the Father. They worship the old Arabian moon god named Allah. Allah is a middle eastern god that was around that area. In Babylon Allah was known as Sin. Their symbol is the half moon crescent found in the book of Judges. The God of the Prophets was Jehova, the God of Abraham and Allah a false god.