Special: Roman Catholicism, Losing Salvation, and Church History
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 ก.ย. 2024
- Join us for the newest episode of Apologia Radio in which Dr. James White and Pastor Jeff Durbin discuss a new video with Trent Horn. Trent is a Roman Catholic Apologist. His recent video attempts to refute the doctrine of Eternal Security.
We hope this blesses you. Tell someone about it!
Be sure to like, share, and comment on this video.
You can get more at apologiastudios... :
You can partner with us by signing up for All Access. When you do you make everything we do possible and you also get exclusive content like Collision, The Aftershow, Ask Me Anything w/ Jeff Durbin and The Academy, etc. You can also sign up for a free account to receive access to Bahnsen U. We are re-mastering all the audio and video from the Greg L. Bahnsen PH.D catalogue of resources. This is a seminary education at the highest level for free.
#ApologiaStudios
Follow us on social media here:
Facebook: / apologiastudios
Instagram: www.instagram....
Check out our online store here:
shop.apologias...
Want more content from Apologia Studios? Get The Academy, Collision, Ask Me Anything, and so much more! Be a part of this ministry with us! Sign up for Apologia All Access! Click the link for more info. apologiastudios.com
So do you teach and believe God has predetermined every soul which goes to heaven or hell? A yes or no is fine. Just looking for clarity.
@@regenerated4lifethese are elders who hold offices in the church. They are very busy.
@@regenerated4life ministries. Other podcasts. going out into the world for the Gospel. Going to abortion clinics. Prepping for legislation. they have families too.
@@regenerated4lifethey don't owe you a response.
The main impetus for the fall of man was the proposition of self qualification. This is why every perversion of the Doctrine of Salvation centers around man's unwillingness to set aside the fallacy that in him is the ability to contribute to his own qualification.
It would be wonderful if you guys got to interview and chat with Dr. Gavin Ortlund. His engagement with these ecumenical dialogues has been very enlightening to the huge problems with the RCC and the EOC.
Praise the Lord!
Jeff your question about how and when the good ground became good, also answers the question of regeneration and faith.
I am forever praising and believing Jesus is the Christ, and this is pleasing to God.
Can u give details on where ur debate with Trent Horn will take place and how to attend. Also, love that u r responding to a video of Trent responding to Gavlin Ortlund. U and Gavlin Ortlund r a truly a blessing. The amount of knowledge and wisdom u guys share so freely is amazing and so very much needed. Please keep doing what u r doing.
Debates are pointless.
I love Dr White. He’s truly a blessing from God
There is no reason for any Christian to follow an evil 16th century French lawyer.
HE NOT A REAL DR LOL
I hereby bestow upon you, the wisdom of my 8 year old nephew on the subject of Purgatory. Ahem: ''Purga-story is goofy-town.'' - Josh, 8yrs.
Josh is brilliant
That is great, couldnt have said it better myself😂
I’m not catholic and dont believe in purgatory, but this kind of thinking is… counterproductive to our faith. Please research more
@@Orthodoxology how do you get to Heaven?
Josh is smarter than most RCs
Don't follow Calvin. Follow God. Don't follow Roman Catholicism. Follow God. Just follow GOD. Do no not let any man or any institution get between you and God.
What if it’s God’s institution? Christ built a church and it is the pillar and foundation of truth. This is biblical. His church is also called the kingdom of heaven, the body of Christ, and the bride of Christ. You really want to reject this institution??
That is the same as saying you want Jesus as your king, but don’t want His kingdom. You want to follow Him, but don’t want to be part of His body.
Please reconsider this idea.
@@IG88AAA reconsider the RC church? No!
Chloe
No I was saying you need to reconsider the need for the church established by Christ. Your opinion that the church you belong to doesn’t matter is antibiblical.
@@IG88AAA we believers are the church. How could I be separate from being the church? I was stating that organized religion and religious people like to make up their own interpretations, and try to make people believe and follow them. Follow God. Sheesh. Why is it you seem to be having issues understanding?
Chloe
Your presupposition that “believers are the church” is unbiblical. Christs church has authority and is the pillar and foundation of truth. Not some abstract amalgamation of individual people.
So to say you reject Christs actual church that is an institution with authority and a hierarchy is unchristian.
Jeff, you should debate Trent Horn instead of the Catholic laity.
James White has made more people catholic than most Catholic Apologists. Keep up the good work! (i'm one of them too)
I start RCIA this Sunday, this comment made me LOL!
Copeium
Awwwww, the old “I was going to leave Islam, but this video renewed my faith” claim. Very original
As a 35+MIA yrs revert, Amen. Thanks be to God, and "Dr." James White for showing me (without i even asking or seeking) in such a short time, how lost "Dr." White is - Lord have Mercy, Christ have mercy.
@@essafats5728 What's the Gospel?
Once a saint of God Almighty, the Father of Jesus Christ, always a saint.
Psalm 37:28 For the Lord loveth judgment, and forsaketh not his saints; they are preserved for ever: but the seed of the wicked shall be cut off.
I am forever praising and believing Jesus is the Christ, and this is pleasing to God.
The "contract man" must've been the infamous Dan Corner ! Great program gentlemen.
only 2 minutes in and want to say how AWESOME the camera quality is here lol
What is the pillar and foundation of Truth?
It's not a what.
❤
Christ Himself could call out James White on his BS and he'd be arguing about theopneustos and exegesis.
Where can we get more information about that debate in February in Houston?
Wait, if they believe that Mary was immaculately conceived (without sin) and as I believe it's understood the reason behind that is "how could the saviour be born by a sinful woman" wouldn't that then cause a infinite regress (up to Adam and eve) issue in regards to sin stopping the LORD Jesus from being born??
And even sin having more power than God?
The immaculate conception isn’t believed because “she had to have no sin to have Jesus” although some Catholics might try to use this as their argument.
It’s actually believed because it’s seen as “fitting” that God would keep her from sin since she’s containing God in her womb like a new arc of the covenant. He didn’t HAVE to preserve her from sin, yet did.
Also she’s seen as the new Eve so if Jesus, the new Adam, is free from sin, then the belief is that well then so is the new Eve because it’s fitting.
I think lots of Catholics think this too because of the Marian apparitions, one of which she announced herself as the “immaculate conception” I think to st. Bernadette? Could be wrong on that part cuz I don’t remember a ton about the apparitions.
To complement what the brother said, I'm a Catholic who makes the argument for the necessity rather than just fittingness of the Immaculate conception.
Not to say God could be stained, but that if Mary was not immaculate there would be a defensive violence made in the process of receiving his human nature from Mary and this would indeed be unfitting.
Moreover, the Virgin Mary by receiving the grace of immaculate conception, she is in debt to God so to say because she was graced, it was not her earning it. Thus giving the liberty to her Son Jesus Christ of not being in a sort of debt of grace like her, unless he simply made a defensive violence by mere divine power which again would be unfitting.
Why not more immaculate conceptions before Mary ?
Because only Mary needed it, it's the smallest number and most fitting as she is the new Eve.
@VirginMostPowerfull that's all opinion though. It's like you're saying God can't defeat sin. It's contrary to the whole point of the Gospels. Only God is good, and Mary needed a Savior, she said so herself: "My spirit rejoices in God my Savior" (Luke 1:47).
@@VirginMostPowerfull I don’t recall Eve having Adam as a child 😂. How is she the new Eve? This contradicts Paul in Romans, all have sinned. How is it possible to interpret that as all but Mary?
They do make a good argument. If god is real and did establish a church, then they would still be around today. It wouldn’t take 1500 years for it to be restored. They have more a claim. They do have the history.
#jameswhitemademecatholic
today i learned there is a magical discord with James White in it.
...Dr White has a Discord?
He's a hip grandpa 😂
Lets gooooooo @@intothekey
Video starts at 12:10.
Grace is not a zero sum game. By recognizing that a man can sin even after he enters into a good and right relationship with God which bears lots of fruit and then to say if he has sinned he should go to the Church - the household of God to confess my sins - does not in any way take anything from Gods Grace. This is a logical fallacy.
The runner academy ad has a date in the past (May 2023). Is that intentional?
An Architect will say before the Foundation of the world was laid? Some will say where were you? Right Here. For among have made me a stranger to many! Unapproachable! To remind a friend kind of love. A Friend
This is silliness. White and Durbin take a few short clips of Trent Horn and then aimlessly rant for 20 minutes. Durbin should set up an actual debate or discussion with a legitimate Catholic apologist like Trent Horn. He doesn't prove anything by ranting over cherry-picked clips and aggressively interrupting random "Catholics" during street interviews.
Jesus’s last prayer was that we may be one. The only unity that Dr White ever offers is unity in hatred of Rome, and perhaps unity in agreeing with everything he says.
Come back to the Rock that Jesus Christ himself established, the Lord wants us to be one (Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic)
As calvinism appeals to Augastine as its main source, a Roman catholic lol
Nope, the reformed appeal to Scripture. The reformed agreed with Augustine where he disagrees with Rome, but not everything he ever taught.
Catholicism didn’t form for another two centuries after Augustine, and Roman Catholicism didn’t form until another four centuries after that.
In the 1960s-70s, there was a common trope about how Russians always tried to take credit for every invention and idea. Roman Catholics are actually like that.
Way off the mark, my friend. I think it's actually better if you read from the actual sources like Calvin, Luther, the early church fathers, Augustine, the different councils, etc... before you claim to know what you're talking about. Rather than just listen to what someone told you or some preconceived notion because you read some article, read from the actual men who lived through the times. It may radically change your mind. Scripture Alone, is the authoritative source for all true believers. Not Calvin or any other.
Augustine isn’t Roman…
@@caseycockerham3925 to say that Augustine was a full on Roman Catholic is absolutely absurd
How could they say that the nicene council could only happen if the pope approved it when constitine is the one who called for it to settle the arian comtroversy.
Who declared etenal security a doctrine? Do either of these men have authority to declare a doctrine?
Oh Jesus declared it in John 6 and John 10
Why label Trent as a Roman Catholic when he is a Byzantine Catholic?? To uplift the “RCC” agenda and more people staying away from it, eh? Protestants forgot that there are Eastern Catholics who are faithful and in full communion with Rome.
Debate Trent Horn
Grow some stones and have a dialogue! We all want to hear it
Literally everything they said to rebut the catholic stance is something anyone can say about Protestantism. Protestantism is utter chaos. No one agrees on anything. If RC is so disorganized and unsure about anything are you seriously saying that protestantism isn't????? I'd rather listen to the scribes and the pharasies like Jesus said to.
Doc like S.T.U.L.I.P.; i like Holiness first, but for the sake of pronunciation "S.H.T.U.L.I.P."!!-)
How does James 5:19-20 coincide with once saved always saved?
The counter to James 5:19-20 is 1 John 2:19.
"They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us."
Those that CONTINUE are shown or proven to be of God, His elect.
It would be weird to say you persevered to the end, because YOU were a better person than the person who fell away.
The difference between those who are saved and persevered and those who fell away is: GRACE.
Else, glory be to man, not God.
Grace is not just sufficient, but effective in saving.
it doesn’t
Let's assume for the sake of argument that you can lose your salvation... Do you think you can lose it accidentally?
@@jessebryant9233
No. You can lose it by willfully sinning just as Hebrews 10:26-31.
@@IAmisMaster
By willfully sinning... or willfully rejecting the salvation one claims to have embraced? Do you lose it every time you stumble into or yield to temptation? You're talking a defiance of God, not an error one repents of, correct?
White got destroyed and embarrassed by Trent Horn and Jimmy Akin anyone who still follows this guy after watching those debates is a lost cause. No excuses you are denying Christ and the fullness of truth.
Once you buy monergism, everything in Calvinism flows from that.
Good thing the Bible epicly refutes monergism completely, literally saying in 1 Corinthians 3:9 that we are God’s “synergoi” (fellow workers) in the church’s salvation, and such monergism refuting gems like “work out your salvation with fear and trembling” (Philippians 2:12) and “Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers” (1 Timothy 4:16). So Calvinism is off the table for the heresy it is.
@@IAmisMaster True, but becoming part of the “we” is monergistic.
I am forever praising and believing Jesus is the Christ, and this is pleasing to God.
The fullness of the Faith and the Truth through the Blessed Sacrament will be waiting for you.
Jesus did not lie in John Chapter 6 and He used the word gnaw this is where all of you decide that you can add an interpretation that was never there and no Christian even took the thought seriously until Luther rebelled.
Amen
I'm not a Calvanist , but always enjoy content like this from Mr.White and J.Durbin . Excellent content and things that make you think about your faith that much more.
As always, great work Gents!
It's good to cross sides. I disagree with William Lane Craig's Molonism but his videos are still awesome
You're not a Calvinist "yet". Lol.
@@theclown3967 well I'm open to what the Bible reveals through the Holy Spirit. Right now I'm not for it, but I certainly am NOT into argument mode with my other brothers and sisters in Christ. Just a difference of opinion at the moment.
But I like a lot of what Dr.White and Jeff Durbin bring to the table and their apologetics work they do.
@theclown3967 ...It's always good to hear good banter from other branches of Protestantism lol.
Thank you so much! I was brought up from birth Roman Catholic, my mother's side was very much immersed in it. My grandmother became a Nun. In my young adult days I converted to Mormonism as my husband was LDS. He stumbled upon videos from your ministry 6 years ago. By the grace of our Lord and Saviour we are saved in him, as a direct result of Apologia Studios! Thank you!!!! I have been waiting a very long time for a video on Roman Catholicism looking forward to sharing with my family
No offense friend. But if you convert from the Holy Catholic church to Mormonism it shows your Catholic doctrine was lacking.
There are responses to all of these claims; these two men are very intelligent and biblically literate and they say things with such conviction it seems irrefutable but it simply is not.
@@RedRoosterRomanhardly holy with those in charge
@@RedRoosterRomanyes it’s easy to pick off nominal Catholics or those who may have a more thorough understanding but have been hurt by the church or may fall into the arguments and claims presented by the media. Same was it’s easy for Protestants to start deconstructing their faith and thereby lose it (I mean I suppose if they once believe but deconstruct and become atheists, then it only makes sense their salvation is lost) if they aren’t too knowledgeable about their faith
@@RedRoosterRoman
First of all...the catholic "church" is just a big unholy cult! Don't fall for the devil's tricks!
@@RedRoosterRomanThere are responses for every claim out there, but that doesn’t make it true now does it?
For every Catholic who leaves the Church a hundred Evangelicals comes back home thanks to the work of Fr. Mike Schmitz and his Bible in a Year podcast.
This isn't true but go off I guess
Lol
The RCC is hemorrhaging members. Mass attendance is low. In my area RCC churches are closing.
@@barbarasmith1085 This is incorrect. Stats don't bear this out. Latin Mass attendance and Orthodox mass attendance are rising at staggering rates. Regardless, the primary reason for anyone not attending Catholic church is bad exegesis, and the unwillingness to repent in the face of obvious sin.
Yes,Roman catholicism, the broad road to hell.
Thank you, men. This blessed me and helped me understand.
I one heard Martin Lloyd Jones say, “The simplicity of the Gospel is an offense to the pride of men.” I think about it often. His teachings have also blessed me. At 60 years old, finally, I hunger for The Word as never before. I seek His face daily and my life has changed. 🙏
Hey Sister...I am reading Martin Lloyd Jones Book called "Romans: An Exposition on Chapter 8:5-17 The Sons of God." I am only 2 chapters in...but its incredible. He was saying Natural man hates Reformed Theology because they hate God. God could not have possibly "Elected" man to Salvation by Foreknowledge (Fore-Loved) it must mean foreseen according to them, because how could God possibly not give everyone a chance. Its not possible to their understanding. Like Leighton Flowers...they must re-explain the clear meaning of the text, just like Trent Horn here. These cults...its soo clear that they simply have not been Born Again. The Holy Spirit brings all truth....and we are not saved without the Holy Spirit. Its MLJ's whole exposition in Chapter 2. God Bless you Dear Sister...💕✝️🌷
@@michellecheriekjv4115while you are correct, I recommend just reading the Bible, and avoid the words of men/commentaries as they pretty much all contain bizarre false teachings. Go with the words of God instead.
Mark 12:30-31
30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
31 And the second is like, namely this*, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
Now tell Dr. White to do this with Orthodoxy against Jay Dyer. That’s what we all would prefer to see.
Jay Dyer is too much of a grifter, he goes to religion to religion
@@BentleyBud-wb9ft are you okay?
@@BentleyBud-wb9ft so would you say Trent Horn is good cause Jay destroyed him
It would be edifying for sure.
Jay Dyer is just a Internet troll. Everyone should just ignore him. He is not worth engaging with.
Well, listening to Dr White mention Diognetus, all I could think of from then on is Wilfred Brimley. I’ll now have to watch this a bunch more times before my brain stops being stupid and thinking about the diabetes commercials
I PRAY FOR PTR JAMES WHITE FOR THAT HECTIC DEBATE DATE NEXT YR. MAY GOD CONTINUE PROVIDE HIM GUIDANCE
James and Jeff start out the show quoting CATHOLIC church fathers such as Agustine, and claim that they are like the early church, yet are CALVINISTS (16th century). Here's what else Agustine said; I would not believe in the scriptures if it were not for the authority of the Catholic church. But White and Durbin ignore those quotes, or simply change the meaning and water it down.
Christ and his church Are ONE FLESH so at the end of the day in a way ofcourse its "Sola ecclesia" which means Christ SAYS SO!. Its The authority of Christ. NOT the authority of Jeff, or James.
I prefer pronouncing his name as “Augustine” instead of “Augustine.”
😄
You’re both wrong. Obviously, it’s pronounced, “Augustine.”
For some reason my mind goes to Aug gust Steen first and then Aug gust tin....but definitely cute...☺️
Hey nice, my animation made it into another response video! I was the one that animated that video on Truth Unites :)
Awesome! Good work!
@@jonathanvickers3881 thanks! Working on the next one now 😃
My biggest frustration with Apologia studios is these “responses.” White and Durbin play ~10 second clip from Horn (usually far less than a fully articulated thought), and then dialogue on it for 5-10 minutes. That’s not a response, that’s using another’s ideas as a springboard to advance your own. While that’s not inherently horrible, it is completely unhelpful for those (like Me) who are trying to learn and understand the Truth.
The whole truth is not found within the catholic church...cult.
I’ve been searching for the Truth too, honestly and humbly looking into what Catholics believe.
What is keeping me grounded is the question, “What if I’m wrong?”
Even Catholic teaching does not say I MUST pray to Mary or the Saint or Angels to be saved. Catholic teaching does not say I must venerate statues and icons.
Catholic teaching says you must believe and confess that Jesus is Lord and you must be baptized and you must have an ongoing lifestyle of repentance of sins to go to heaven after you die.
We all basically agree with this.
So as a Protestant, what if I’m wrong? I still go to Heaven after I die, even according to Catholics.
But if Catholics are wrong about praying to Mary and Saints and Angels and venerating statues and icons, they’re breaking the first commandment that states you shall not worship any other God than Yahweh. If you are not faithful to God, it could cost your eternal soul. You may end up spending an eternity in hell over this
@@TJMcCarty The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that the phrase, "Outside the Church there is no salvation", means, if put in positive terms, that "all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body", and it "is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ”
@@meathammer4230 The Catechism also says: “838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter." Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.”
So since Vatican II they believe you can be saved if you believe in Jesus and have been baptized.
That’s my understanding at least.
The ultimate authority is Jesus, and Jesus says in John chapter 6 over and over that if you believe in Jesus, you will receive eternal life. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is simple. The Catholic Church preaches a different gospel. I do hope God will be merciful towards a lot of Catholics who genuinely believe in Jesus though
@@meathammer4230I would push back some on what you’re saying here. My understanding is what you are saying falls under feeneyism, where Fr. Feeney taught no Protestants can be saved and was excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church. I am a Protestant btw and believe the RCC has issues.
You guys should invite Trent to debate. He debated Gavin ortlund
Early next year he’ll be debating James White
The problem with debating any devout Catholic is they reject the Bible as the only, or even the supreme source of truth. Trent believes, as most faithful Catholics do, that the Bible, as it is interpreted by the magisterium, is the truth. It’s Bible + Tradition - and the Bible can only be understood with the help of a priest or the Magesterium. They believe if we read it outside of what the church teaches about it, it’s just above our heads and we can’t understand it. So trying to debate that Catholicism is unbiblical with someone who requires the authority of the Catholic Church to even read the Bible is not going to go anywhere.
@@BentleyBud-wb9ft how is saying this useful or edifying? You could have commented calmly and said that you think Trent won, but instead you say Trent “crushed” James White. Cool your jets men.
@@Me-hf4iibut what makes the Bible the sole infallible rule of faith? It never says that in the Bible, thus making it a doctrine found outside of the Bible.
@@BentleyBud-wb9ftlol in what world ?
Looking forward to those debates, I enjoyed the first between Trent and Dr. White a lot. Would be cool to see Jeff and Trent have a debate or conversation as well. Appreciate all three men a lot.
I would prefer a conversation. Dr W gets too loud.
“Because the Church says so,” is a part of Roman Catholicism. Even the Bible says there is so much more information than can be contained in the Bible.
Maybe you could just explain what you believe and why you believe it without getting tearing others down.
@@cindiloowhoo1166 John 21:25 [25] “Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.” True, but rome can not identify even one.
James white can’t have a conversation when dealing with Catholicism. He gets loud and arrogant and his defense is basically I’m older and therefore smarter
@@cindiloowhoo1166 John 20:30-31 [30] “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; [31] but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” Tell us once more why John states he wrote His account. 😀
@@cindiloowhoo1166 See, if you actually studied the scriptures instead of proof texting to twist the scriptures you would have known the context. This is why rome has never defined one thing Jesus or the apostles said, did or taught that is not in the scriptures.
Can either of these two men produce two or three witnesses that were present when they claim to have felt the call to preach by a spirit, as the Scriptures declare?
A lot of Protestants are getting cooked in debates - I notice it’s gaining attention. More response videos. Protestants are jumping ship to classical Christianity ✝️ and RC and OC
There are comments byTertullian regarding JN. 6 and transubstantiation that would go over very well from a fundamentalist Baptist pulpit.
As far as "perseverance" goes, He is faithful to His own. It is not our "holding out consistently" to the end that saves.
I was unchurched for over 6 years through bitterness over the untimely death of a loved one. Guess what? I never fell from God's grace and needed to get saved again.
I prefer "preservation" to "perseverance".
Did LOT persevere all his life?
Paul writes to Corinth concerning eating "unworthily" at the Lord's Supper; some even becoming ill and dying. He doesn't say they fell from grace.
And the young Christian man in an unholy relationship with his father's wife...."giving him over to satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved..."
I reject "easy believeism" as well; but it is not our faithfulness to Him that saves.
Grace alone or it is not grace at all....
really enjoyed this video...God bless
Can you show me the quotes from Tertullian. Transubstantiation is a later explanation of the Real Presence. I haven't found a churchbfather yet who rejected the Real Presence.
@@chemnitzfan654 I promise I will get that to you; been pretty distracted.
I must say this though. The basis of your question is misguided. You assume the doctrine (whatever it was called) in apostolic and early church history
was and is Biblical. Therefore you read into those ECF quotes what you already believe. I have never read a church father from the second or third century who
quoted or paraphrased Last Supper references who believed in a "magical" transformation of the Communion bread and wine into the LITERAL (though invisible)
body and blood of Christ.
Every time my church holds a Communion service, the proper passages are quoted; "This is my body..." , etc. but we don't believe the elements transform into
the body and blood of the Lord.
I will get back to you...God bless
@davidvanriper60 Every church father I've read who speaks about the Lord's Supper holds to the Real Presence.
@@chemnitzfan654 “Indeed, up to the present time, he has not disdained the water which the Creator made wherewith he washes his people; nor the oil with which he anoints them; nor that union of honey and milk wherewithal he gives them the nourishment of children; nor the bread by which he REPRESENTS his own proper body, thus requiring in his very sacraments the ‘beggarly elements’ of the Creator.” (Tertullian, Against Marcion, 1:14)
“He says, it is true, that ‘the flesh profiteth nothing;’ but then, as in the former case, the meaning must be regulated by the subject which is spoken of. Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, ‘It is the spirit that quickeneth;’ and then added, ‘The flesh profiteth nothing,’ - meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: ‘The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.’ In a like sense He had previously said: ‘He that heareth my words, and believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life.’ Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appelation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith. Now, just before the passage in hand, He had declared His flesh to be ‘the bread which cometh down from heaven,’ impressing on His hearers constantly under the FIGURE of necessary food the memory of their forefathers, who had preferred the bread and flesh of Egypt to their divine calling.”-(Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh, 37)
Nothing here indicates Tertullian believed in the REAL presence of the body of Christ during Communion service.
Dr White, is it possible you're so caught up in scoring the "debate points" between Calvin and Cardinal Sadoleto that you're oblivious to the most patently obvious matter of their debate: Ie, Why is this lawyer arguing with an ordained successor of the Apostles of Jesus Christ? If you deny the impudence of coming up with a "new" doctrine of Justification and using "better agreement with antiquity" (ie attempting to "reset" the church) to justify breaking off from Mother Church, then ask yourself if you have any animosity towards Campbellism
I was part of an Anglo-Catholic Anglican church on the North Shore of Boston, one of the "Three Streams" forming Anglican Tradition or the "Anglican Way". The Anglican Way finds its identity in the Historican nature of the church over against Doctrine or Theology. As a result of this, Sola Scriptura is not emphasized or given primary authority but added to this, in equal authority is Tradition and Reason (This was articulated by Calvin Robinson of England). In short, I and my family left and presently attend a Bible believing small Baptist church that actually preaches the Gospel exegetically instead of calling on the congregation to get to know the Book of Common prayer as their primary resource and go to book.
This means nothing. "Exegetical" just means based on interpretation. I can interpret something poorly and then teach it and it would still be "exegetical". The modern ELCA is "exegetical" and they contend the Bible agrees with gay marriage, supports sodomy, and some are holding that certain doctrine is actually racist. This is what happens when you have a billion splinter groups practicing their own exegesis: you sacrifice the Deuterocanon, use another denomination's council-derived canon outside of the "apocrypha", and you enable these different splinter groups to all claim "sola scriptura".
@@jaykwonzzz This is absolute garbage. When the scripture is interpreted exegetically you get out the meaning of what is actually there as Paul taught it for instance. Your "support" for gay marriage is isogetical reading into the text what is not intended. In fact anyone can "read" into any text if they want to believe a lie. The racist crap is also an abuse of any text where present day "scholarly" idiots want to read that in as well. None of what you say is true and any true believer is going to handle the word of God faithfully and carefully. There are differences based on the light that the H.S gives us but not major doctrinal problems. Catholics have serious doctrinal issues period. The fact that protestants have a million different denominations is not the problem. You should show me a scripture passage where Paul supports gay marriage....I'd be really interested.
As an ex protestant, Catholic convert, I love all of you as my brothers and sisters in Christ
Psalms 119:104 (KJV) Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way.
Psalms 119:128 (KJV) Therefore I esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be right; and I hate every false way.
You joined a cult where the leader calls himself the vicker of christ and lives in a castle and you chant vain babblings and eat flesh and blood that a man in a dress gives to you after you tell him everything you did that was wrong.
You need to get saved
@@johnf817 I've already been saved my friend! By my Lord and savior Jesus Christ. I proclaim his life death and resurrection, until he comes again. For by faith I was saved! Ephesians 2:8 and by Romans 10:9!
@@johnf817 If Catholics are not saved, how is it, Protestants are?
@@DavidValle-ej8esdo you call your church leaders father ?
@@JacksonmontyartYes just like Paul refers to himself as a Father to the Corinthians. You’re misinterpreting Matthew 23:9 if that’s what you’re getting at
James you might be the best apologist for the Catholic Church, more so than any Catholic apologist. You quote the Fathers and then it sends people to the Fathers which then sends people to Catholicism or Orthodoxy lol.
There's a reason the best apologetics debates are between Catholics and Orthodox.
Trent has a habit of prefacing his statements with "we know it's true that....", when in fact it's not true. I really have a hard time listening to him.
Trent Horn is the man!! God Bless him and the work he does for the Catholic Faith! 🙏
Did you listen to this?
@@irvingfr33 yes indeed I did. I also prefer watching Trent Horn or Jimmy Akin debate Mr White. Have you seen those? 😉
@@jessidiaz1891 not yet! Thanks! I actually do want to see that.
@@jessidiaz1891you know the ninth commandment is thou shalt not lie don't you? Don't lie and say you watched it when you didn't. I'd be willing to bet you just clicked on it so you could comment. And no offense but Trent horn is extremely brainwashed and delusional.
And yes, the 9th commandment is Val shalt not lie. Catholics get confused about that because they removed the second commandment but that's another story
They're all predestined to do whatever they do,according to these "all planned from the foundation of the earth" guys.Why bother with all this?God's already made up His mind.
Can you please make sure that Dr White gets this? As a german christian, that has learned an incredible amount of theology from the good doctor (Dr. White), I have to correct him on one small thing. His pronounciation of "Gottschalk" is utterly insane. Why? Well, one of the first rules of german is this: Never split up an "sch". Dr White pronounces "Gottschalk" like this "gotts - chalk". He thus commits a cardinal sin in the german language by splitting "sch" into "s - ch". So now the name "Gottschalk" sounds nothing at all like a german would pronounce it.
If we use the proper rule about "sch" we can split the word rightly into "Gott - Schalk" pronounced like this "got - shall - k".
By the way there is a joke from God in the word and life of the rather crazy "Gottschalk". The word "Gottschalk" means this: "Gott" = "god", "Schalk" = "Trickster/Joke". Therefore "Gottschalk" could be translated as "A joke from God".
And that again fits the person of Gottschalk pretty well. On one hand great theology, basically the last one standing in true orthodoxy and jet on the other hand a pretty strange, weird, rather crazy dude that walked around naked in protest etc.
What does having free will to receive salvation have anything to do with man's ego or self exultation? If someone throws me a life boat, but I choose not to get on it that and drown in the sea, that isn't Gods fault that is mine. Note: I would have died without the life boat so had I gotten onto the boat God would've saved me and got credit for it.
Amen!
Well you have to remember this video specifically is about the Roman Catholic Church which would have a Sacramento system, but also how can a dead man grab a lifeboat? A man who is drowned and is 100 ft underwater, how can they grab a lifeboat? This is Paul's argumentation in Ephesians chapter 2.
Sadly people do not actually believe Paul which is what James White was saying. Also you're throwing in comments that have nothing to do with your argumentation, nobody is blaming God because they didn't " grab " salvation.
Aa a former Catholic, and then new ager, the Holy Spirit opened my blind eyes in a moment just as he did Paul, to the Truth. I was subsequently born from above very dramatically with overflowing joy peace and love. There is now no doubt in my mind after 40 years i have eternal llife that cannot be lost, a confidence that began the day i was saved. I believe few catholics are saved. They would mostly "come out of Her" i despise that idolotrous institution with a perfect hatred as i was so brain washed by them and they are leading so many multidudes of sincere lovely souls to hell.!!! Excellent discussion!
The fact that you can't see how insanely mid-witted your entire rant is, is insane to me. Do you actually believe you can't sin your way out of Heaven? Protestants are the only group of people willing to condemn absolutely other denominations and make confirmatory salvific claims in the process. You're literally claiming to know inerrantly the will and intellect of God. Blasphemy at its finest.
Amen. Praise the Lord!!
I will ask you the same question I asked Dr. Ortlund after his attempt to argue that St. Augustine believed in Sola Scriptura. St. Augustine believed you were a heretic if you denied the perpetual virginity of Mary. You therefore have two options: you may say that St. Augustine bases this dogma after sacred tradition, and therefore he does not believe in sola scriptura. Or you can say that he based this off of Scripture and therefore the scriptures teach infallibly and dogmatically that Mary is a perpetual Virgin. You can extend this thought experiment to all of the things that St. Augustine believed are necessary essentials of the Christian faith which are not taken as such by Protestants, perpetual virginity being one example.
So what other authority do you accept and why/on what grounds? And what a silly belief for Augustine to hold regarding Mary! But then, we're all wonky somewhere, aren't we? "Sacred tradition"? I don't think you should be calling it that...
@@jessebryant9233 I accept Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition as expounded by Christ’s Church. Which was the view of the vast majority of Christians until the Protestant Reformation and still is for the majority of Christians today.
@@jessebryant9233 And you can call Augustine silly for his views but that just goes to show that your version of Christianity was foreign to him and unknown to the rest of the Church.
@@bman5257
"Christ's Church"? WHY do you call it "Sacred Tradition"? Because the Church says that's what it is? Is "vast majority" your ultimate standard? That's how your argue for your position? Still is the "majority of Christians today"? No it isn't... But then, what does it mean to be a "Christian"?
@@bman5257
Didn't call Augustine "silly"...
So we are not talking facts here just talking trash.... sad.
@getrit3007 I thought I was going to watch a debate.
I didn't see sources being pulled up just mockery. That's all.
Where did you get the idea that this was a debate?
@bobloblaw2958 they weren't saying in response to Trent Horn just using his picture I guess.
Well, if one actually reads the description...
Sorry that your expectations were wrong? What do you wanna hear…
Letter of Clement to the Corinthians chapter 32
“And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.” As Abraham and Rahab.
Beautiful cameras brothers!!!! And nice studio! May it produce great content
“The Curch itself becomes infallible”. That’s precisely the point. Except one thing the Orthodox Church has never made the claim of infallibility obviously there was Iconoclasm. The evidence of the Holy Spirits fingerprints on the Church is the same enduring consensus established in first Century Jerusalem. Early writers and Scripture differ widely but the common shared truth is infallible. St. John Chrysostom didn’t even agree with St. John Chrysostom. His views regarding marriage turned 180 degrees, complete reversal, over his life. Does his reversal make him irrelevant? Or does his complete story, the entirety of his ministry provide value to us and the Church. Cherry picking Scripture or the Church Fathers to argue this or that is a rabbit hole that leads to every heresy ever uttered.
AMAZING CAMERAWORK!
I’m a Latin Mass attending Catholic and give nothing but respect to Apologia and you guys. Always enjoy your content :)
Catholic Christian here as well, even though Apologia studios are Protestant Christians, I like how Apologia reaches Mormons (LDS) and Jehovah's Witnesses (JW's).
@@Alex-yd9pf And Catholics. You guys are lost too.
Do you understand anything when going to Latin mass?
@@JanSobieskiIII I do yes. But we also have hand missals with the translations. I use that mainly for the epistle and gospel readings.
@@Beloved78 lolzzz
After watching this. I went to my Bible and this was revealed; "For I have come to you in my Father’s name, and you have rejected me. Yet if others come in their own name, you gladly welcome them. No wonder you can’t believe! For you gladly honor each other, but you don’t care about the honor that comes from the one who alone is God".~ John 5:43-44 NLT.
God is good. He does speak to His people through His Holy Spirit.
You could very well apply this verse to the reformers...
@@RedRoosterRomanno cause we actually read the Bible, not rely on others to tell us what it says
The Reformers literally said "my will be done" and that is not exaggerating. Martin Luther isn't who you think he is, go listen to the thorough presentation of Lloyd Joungh on Martin Luther. It is truly insane what Luther said in his sermons and writings.
We Catholics come in the name of God and we respect God. But Luther said that the Epistle of James was sh** no exageration, he said that, and if it wasn't for the other Reformers it would no longer be in your Bible do you realize what I am saying??? He also threw out the book of Revelation, he did not respect the word of God.
He married a nun, and in his letters to her he was complaining about how he wasn't getting aroused by prostitutes anymore. It is ridiculous.
Please do your research, don't be complaisant in ignorance my friend, the Holy Spirit is giving you a hint right now. Lloyd de Jongh on Martin Luther, go watch it is crazy.
@@VirginMostPowerfull Wow! Really?! What's wrong with people? I put up a scripture and wrote at the end that "God does speak to us through His Holy Spirit". What does that and the scripture have to do with all names you called and what they are about? What they said and didnt say. What they did and didnt do. Are they Jesus? Did they die for us? Am I worshipping a denomination or humans? The word of God is eternal and life and it will alway have its way to our heart. So why not stop being a Catholic and be a Christian? Why not stop being a divider and be one with the body of Christ. "By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another"~ John 13:35. Shalom.
Both Martin Luther and the catholic cult are corrupt. What's your point? Just because Luther didn't get everything right doesn't mean that catholicism is true 😂🤣🤣 If you don't see this simple truth you are utterly blind to the truth.
This conversation had me lost. They’re jumping from one subject to another without setting the previous point. I’m so lost.
It is a bizarre idea that the omnipotent, omniscient Creator of the universe cannot speak to us through Scripture with perspicuity.
Right, God could do that. But did He? There are as many interpretations as there are readers of scripture. People that read what you think is perspicuous disagree on key doctrine.
Martin Luther himself complained that amongst the Reformers there were as many doctrines as there were people.
Scripture says God did speak plainly and you have to exegete scripture as a whole. God is not a contradictory God, so you filter new revelation (New Testament) or even pastors/teachers on God’s previous revelation. That’s why we can emphatically say Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons are false because they interpret scripture falsely. If someone comes up to you and says “I love Jesus, he taught to eat our neighbor”, we can easily go and without a lot of difficulty show them that Jesus did not say that. You do not need post-apostle church fathers to understand the truth of the New Testament. They are good references at times, but not scripture.
Wow! This production looks great! Good job guys!
Is the modern catholic similar to the modern Mormon in that they reject many of the ancient catholic teachings? In doing so, may they actually be orthodox Christians living under the wrong title of Catholic?
I often wonder how much Catholics know about catholic doctrine, or how much they believe it. Seeing as over 50% of Americans consider themselves Christian but polls also show only about 4% of Americans have a Biblical worldview.
Catholics are more like Pharisees, with an Egyptian Isis sub-cult.
Progressives are like Sadducees and Hellenists.
NAR is like the Jewish Zealots.
Mormons are like polytheists of the Jupiter cult or Hellenists of the Zeus cult, only, with terminology usurped from Christianity and some theology borrowed from Gnosticism.
JWs are like the Arians.
There’s 3 different kinds of romanists
Sedevacantists are romanists who don’t hold anything past 1970s
Trad Caths who are in a complicated Roman position
And Romanist who are pro Vatican 2
You can not assume that a person that calls themself catholic beleives what RC teaches. Or even knows it.
This is totally anecdotal but, in my estimation yes. Many Catholics love God, read their Bible and develop their own "doctrines", as it were that end up being contrary to Catholic theology.
Im only just getting into the video, but the first quote from Augustine is incomplete. In that exact same paragraph (Contra Faustus book 11 para. 5) Augustine asserts that the authority of the canon is above all other writings (which is correct). But then he also says its authority is derived (!) from its connection to the apostles and (get this..) their subsequent recognition and preservation by the Church through the leadership of bishops. Augustine even implies that human writings tend to err only in 'obscure and recondite (abstruse) matters'! Here's the full paragraph for anyone interested!
"As regards our writings, which are not a rule of faith or practice, but only a help to edification, we may suppose that they contain some things falling short of the truth in obscure and recondite matters, and that these mistakes may or may not be corrected in subsequent treatises. For we are of those of whom the apostle says: "And if you be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you." Philippians 3:15 Such writings are read with the right of judgment, and without any obligation to believe. In order to leave room for such profitable discussions of difficult questions, there is a distinct boundary line separating all productions subsequent to apostolic times from the authoritative canonical books of the Old and New Testaments. The authority of these books has come down to us from the apostles through the successions of bishops and the extension of the Church, and, from a position of lofty supremacy, claims the submission of every faithful and pious mind. If we are perplexed by an apparent contradiction in Scripture, it is not allowable to say, The author of this book is mistaken; but either the manuscript is faulty, or the translation is wrong, or you have not understood. In the innumerable books that have been written latterly we may sometimes find the same truth as in Scripture, but there is not the same authority. Scripture has a sacredness peculiar to itself. In other books the reader may form his own opinion, and perhaps, from not understanding the writer, may differ from him, and may pronounce in favor of what pleases him, or against what he dislikes. In such cases, a man is at liberty to withhold his belief, unless there is some clear demonstration or some canonical authority to show that the doctrine or statement either must or may be true. But in consequence of the distinctive peculiarity of the sacred writings, we are bound to receive as true whatever the canon shows to have been said by even one prophet, or apostle, or evangelist. Otherwise, not a single page will be left for the guidance of human fallibility, if contempt for the wholesome authority of the canonical books either puts an end to that authority altogether, or involves it in hopeless confusion."
Thanks!
Thank you both for both leading MANY to the Lord Jesus Christ as well as return back to the Lord in Repentance. The crowns your ministry will throw at the feet of our Lord! I can't wait to see.
Great video. Catholics will agree that we are saved by grace, but in the RCC, grace is the help God gives us through the sacraments to perform good works necessary for salvation. They don't have the finished work of Christ.
Saying that the a Catholic doesnt have the gift of Christ's sacrament but a protestant does is so ironic lmao
So scripture says by grace you have been saved through faith, then Catholicism says grace through sacraments. How don't you guys see that?
Really good stuff! Listened to the whole thing while taking a long soak. 🛀
And it struck me that the Bible is like a Christian's native language and we can instantly spot another native speaker vs someone who has just learned the basics of our language and not the Spirit-ual nuance .
Pastor White, please write a book that shows reformed doctrine in the early church fathers! We need a book of quotes 😂😂😂💪
I find the RCC frustrating because they say they have tradition and history on their side, but at the same time they lean heavily on doctrinal development for their dogmas. However, this development seems to contradict history and tradition.
Can someone help me understand how this is not a proper interpretation of James 2 on justification by works.
James 2:24 says “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”
So, since the justification by faith is imputed righteousness, and the justification spoken of in this verse is the kind that comes by faith, the justification that comes from works is the same that comes by faith. So, we can understand we are imputed righteousness by faith, but not by faith alone.
I know I took one verse out of a passage, but I think the context supports it.
@IG88AAA Hi. Your statement contradicts itself. Imputed righteousness comes by faith via the Holy Spirit.
The real division between RCC (Roman Catholic Church) and Protestant beliefs is where in the sequence of events does works/imputed righteousness come into play? The Bible says they come AFTER we are justified by faith, not during or before. RCC says they happen at the same time.
Here is what James said two verses before the one you quoted, in 2:22: “You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was COMPLETED by works.”
What he is saying is that faith without a completion of works, (what Protestants commonly call a byproduct of works) is dead, as he later says in 2:26. Faith alone without works is not faith that saves - it’s not real.
Christian
Hi, thanks for your reply.
Your first paragraph begs the question. I know imputed righteousness is the justification that comes by faith. (Romans 4:3) The question is are we also imputed righteousness by works? To say we are “justified by works and not by faith alone” is saying the justification by works is the same one as by faith, otherwise it would make no sense to say it is not by faith alone.
Your second paragraph is incorrect on the catholic teaching of justification. We are initially justified by faith through grace in baptism. No works necessary. After which we can increase in justification by works. Things such as sunday worship, reading the bible, and helping others. Increased justification is analogous to growing in righteousness.
I reject the idea that the faith James was talking about wasn’t real. He said faith without works is dead, and faith without works is like a body without a spirit. The faith is there. It is it’s being alone, without works, that is the problem. If the faith wasn’t there, why did James tell the hypothetical man that he does well?
If works are necessary for a saving faith, how are works not necessary for salvation?
You want to READ ROMANS 4. James 2 starts talking to saved brethren about RESPECT OF PERSONS. Not about getting saved. Second he notes of you KEEP WHOLE LAW BUT OFFEND IN ONE POINT YOU ARE GUILTY OF ALL! So you cannot keep the law you break it ALL everyday.
He uses example of Abraham like Romans 4. What is the difference? If Abraham were justified by works He hath WHEREOF to glory BUT NOT BEFORE GOD! That is key difference. Men see your works. Works have NOTHING TO DO WITH SALVATION. By Grace are ye SAVED through faith and not of yourself it is the gift of God. Not of works lest any man should boast. Understand difference now??
@@IG88AAA I think the main issue here is our differing definitions for the words "imputed righteousness”, "works”, "faith" and “justification”.
Firstly what I hope we can both agree on is that justification simply means to be justified in the eyes of God. Just if I'd never sinned. Pardoned for my transgressions.
Therefore your first statement, “I know imputed righteousness is the justification that comes by faith.” is worded so that it doesn’t make sense. In Romans 4:3 Paul is simply making the claim that it was faith which justified Abraham in the sight of God. But faith being reckoned as righteousness is not the same thing as faith imputing righteousness.
Being reckoned righteousness is the exact same thing as justification. We understand this by reading just a few verses down in Romans 4:6-8. Paul quoting David, describes justification.
Imputed righteousness is different, and comes after justification. Paul talks about this in chapters 6 and 8 of Romans. This is literal freedom from sin (6:6), sin losing its dominion over us (6:14), and the explanation for how that is a literal reality and not figurative language, which is that the Holy Spirit indwells us and we are alive because of HIS righteousness inside of us (8:9-11).
After explaining that we are freed from sin in the first half of chapter 6, Paul then explains the subject of our own good works in the second half: now that we have already been set free from sin, as a byproduct, we become slaves of righteousness, we yield our bodies to righteousness, and have “fruits unto holiness” (6:18-22). In other words, we live a life of good works (fruits) as a byproduct of 1. Being justified by faith, and 2. Being imputed righteousness/indwelt by God.
What is important to understand is that when James talks about “works”, this is the equivalent of Paul talking about “fruits unto holiness” (sanctification if you don’t use KJV) or “fruits of the Spirit". When Paul uses the word “works” he is referring to works of the Law, always with negative implications, because the Jews believed holding all the commands of the Law is what saved you.
We know James cannot be talking about the OT Law when he says works, because that would mean he is affirming that Jewish traditions must be combined with faith in Christ, as Paul perilously warns his readers to reject (for example a Christian must also be circumsized to be saved). If this was the case James would not even be a Christian. So we understand that James must be talking about something different, and is sharing Paul’s definition of works as simply being fruits.
Where James says "faith”, Paul talks about our relationship with Christ, and here the two saints are talking about completely different things. Faith for Paul is not an assent to a doctrinal belief, as it is for James. When James says faith without works is dead, the equivalent would be Paul saying that a relationship to Christ without works is dead, in other words it's not a real relationship or connection to God. Someone who is indwelt by Christ will naturally produce good works.
This is what I meant when I said dead faith is not real faith. I’m not saying the belief in something is absent, I mean it is not "real" faith because it lacks the works (fruits) that Paul says must come after justification and the indwelling of the Spirit, in order to prove that someone has a genuine relationship with Christ. This is real saving faith.
“If works are necessary for a saving faith, how are works not necessary for salvation?”
The issue is works are not necessary for saving faith. That’s the whole point! Saving faith is necessary for works, it’s not the other way around. Saving faith is faith that has produced the indwelling Spirit, so that we too can say with Paul, “it is no longer I that live, but Christ that lives in me.” Justification by faith >> indwelling of the Spirit >> good works (fruits). This is the order according to the Apostle. If Christ lives in us, our works will be the greatest works.
I can try to reverse the order and place good works first, which is what I think you’re saying. If I do that the works would no longer be fruits. I therefore cannot be justified by faith alone, because I am also trying to be justified by works. There’s nothing wrong with doing works before truly being saved, but one must understand it’s not the works that contribute to their justification and therefore sanctification, which in total is salvation - it is faith alone.
As for what you said about RCC, question: is it possible to be justified by grace through faith alone without water baptism? When Paul talks about being baptized into Christ in Romans 6, he doesn’t talk about water. He just uses the word baptized, which simply means immersion, and Paul says we must be immersed into Christ so that we can be immersed into His death and rise again (figuratively) into a new life of holiness.
Sorry this reply was way too long! Hope this wasn’t too confusing.
Christian
Thanks again for your reply.
I agree, we need to know what each other means by the terms we use. I tried to sidestep confusion by using imputed righteousness. The last Protestant I talked to said imputed righteousness is justification, and is the same as being justified before God. This was due to his use of only the KJV. I see it did not help.
Imputed righteousness and reckoned righteousness are the same, when I was using it. Reckoned is translated to imputed in the RSV translation compared to the KJV per my Bible app. I would also say that righteousness is also infused. We are not merely called righteous, we are made righteous. All this to say I think we agree what justification is, but I do not think imputed righteousness is distinct from justification.
We agree on what James and Paul both mean by works, and by faith. We still are at a crossroads on my question. James and Paul both quote “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.” So I think it is fair to understand that in this context, faith and justification is meant the same by both of them. So, since reckoned righteousness is the justification that comes from faith, and James says we are justified by works and not by faith alone, why should we not understand the justification by works and faith as the same justification? To be clear, I do not mean that we need works to be initially justified, but justification of works can be understood as increasing in justification from God when we are in Christ and He indwealt in us. Put another way, growing in righteousness.
This leads to understanding how works contribute to our salvation, by which I mean final salvation. I want to be very clear, I and the Church do not mean works are necessary to be saved or justified initially. As perfect evidence that we do not believe we can merit initial justification by good works - we baptize babies. What good works could baby do?
Water baptism is necessary. There are extreme circumstances which it is not, someone dies before having a chance to and they would have given the chance, and baptism by blood, by which we mean martyrdom before receiving baptism. This is because God is not unreasonable and can work outside His ordinary means.
When you take the context of baptism throughout the OT prophecies and NT, it can only be water baptism to be meant in Romans 6.
One example is Acts 10 “While Peter was still saying this, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. “Can any one forbid water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?””
Acts 10:44, 47 RSV-C
If baptism means immersion of spirit, why did Peter still say they needed baptism? I believe this undercuts the idea that baptism in the NT could mean anything but water baptism.
Another is Christs baptism. He came up from the water and the Holy Spirit descended upon Him. What better example for the reception of the Holy Spirit?
Revelation 2:5
Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; OR ELSE I will come unto thee quickly, and will REMOVE THY CANDLESTICK out of his place, except thou repent.
To all sides concerned, try this: Read the entire book of Romans every week until you can give a solid overview of each chapter by memory. I would also HIGHLY RECOMMEND memorizing chapters 6 and 8. It is very common for serious deciples of Christ to have the entire book memorized. Ask God to give you understanding.
Yes! Memorizing large sections, not just snippets! I have had my faith transformed by memorizing Hebrews, and now working through Romans. It's still a bit tentative, but I'm getting it nailed down a little better with each pass.
Yes, make sure not to miss that Paul says we all will be judged by our works on final judgment day and only those who persevere in doing good will inherit eternal life and be justified (Romans 2:4-13). Also that Paul says we are united to Christ in baptism we are no longer slaves to sin in Romans chapter 6, and that the way we meet the righteous requirements of Christ’s law in ourselves by walking in the Spirit and not the flesh (ie doing good by the Holy Spirit and not sinning) (Romans 8:4), but if we Christians cease walking in the Spirit we will die eternal death (Romans 8:13). Those are important parts to believe, as Paul doesn’t waste breath regardless of what Calvinists tell you!
@@IAmisMasterhow do you explain our salvation being from entirely from grace and apart from our own good works?
@@jaihummel5057
The Bible never says our salvation is apart from “good works.” It says our salvation is apart from works of the Law (of Moses, like circumcision) and works prior to initial salvation, just like Origen, Chrysostom, Jerome, etc. all correctly interpreted. I’m sorry you rely on Reformation heretics 1500 years removed from Christ instead of native ancient Greek early church writers to help you interpret Paul.
Salvation is by grace because it has nothing to do with our past before having faith, repentance and being born again at baptism. “Grace” biblically is the favor AND power of God, not mere mercy for past sins as Calvinism/Lutheranisn heretically says. Jesus is said to have grown grace (Greek charis) with God and men (Luke 2:52), and Paul says grace is the power of God to overcome his weakness (2 Corinthians 12:9). The Calvinist false definition which pretends grace means “undeserved favor even though we sin every day” is heretical since implying Jesus needed that kind of grace and not simply the power of God to do what is right. All the good works a Christian does that justify on final judgment day are done by the power of the Holy Spirit, so they are all by grace.
@IAmisMaster You just affirmed Protestantism. Paul states that we can only receive the Spirit and therefore walk in the Spirit by faith (Galatians 3:14).
Matthew 10:22
And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: BUT HE THAT ENDURETH TO THE END SHALL BE SAVED.
LOLz to this botched attempt of a rebuttal to Horn. No protestant has even been able to give an answer to this one basic question and the desperate attempts to explain it away exposes the shallow tradition of Sola Scripture: If Scripture alone is sufficient to guide all true Christians to know the truth, then why ya'll who believe that constantly disagree with each other even on REALLY basic things like Baptism? ...Thank God for the one, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic church.
Can someone explain to me why it is a Believer cannot lose his salvation, when Christ provides us with several reasons why certain Christian sinners won't go to Heaven in Matthew 15:18-20, Revelation 21:8 and 22:15 and the apostle Paul gives us the rest in Ephesians 5:3-7, Colossians 3:5-6, Galatians 5:19-21, and I Corinthians 6:9-11?
Debate jay dyer
Facts
Not worth it
They to scared
@@BentleyBud-wb9ft than why won’t they? They are definitely invited.
Why would you bring a spoon to a gun fight?
Perseverance of the Saints just moves the uncertainty of whether the person will remain saved to an uncertainty of whether you are saved. It's a dumb doctrine. They cannot know if they are saved or not until they persevere to the end.
He who believes might not be saved?
The truth is he who currently believes is currently saved. Become a non-believer become an unsaved person. All of their proof passages are misuse of Scripture.
Love Trent Horn🌻
I joined apologia all access when the cultish package launched just fyi
I have a very dear Roman Catholic family member. He's very dear to me, very devout, and a genuinely good man. I also once heard him say, serious as a heart attack, "God's grace is not sufficient for our salvation, we DO have to work for it." The sad fact is this, if you're a Roman Catholic who believes youre saved by grace, through faith in Christ alone, youre not actually Roman Catholic, because that is plainly NOT what the Church teaches. And if youre a catholic who believes he cam earn salvation, you utterly deny the work of Christ, trampling under foot the Son of God and His work. You do this by saying, "No, His work is insufficient to save me." Which in itseld flies in the face of Hebrews (a WILDLY misunderstood book in the bible) which explains that Christ is able to save to the uttermost, and that He is our all-sufficient Savior. Salvation is of the Lord, not us.
And before I'm accused of "easy-believism" or some other nonsense, i do not remotely deny that Christians need to work, and indeed any TRUE Christian, after havjng heard the gospel and being brought into repentance, the TRUE Christian who has Shalom with Yahweh will understand how deeply sinful he is, how unable he is to save himself, and realizing the love of Christ on the cross, that true Christian will be ZEALOUS for good works as an outpouring of the spirit which bares evidence of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, along with good fruit.
The VAST majority of Catholics are not saved, certainly not if they believe the countless heresies of Rome. And if the Roman Catholic denies those terrible doctrines and recognizes the truth found in scripture, then he is not truly Roman.
The Holy Spirit keeps God's remnant from error regarding the source of SALVATION, the Holy Spirit would NEVER allow one of God's children to say "His grace is not sufficient." If you can say that, or anything to that affect, you are not indwelt by the Spirit. The Spirit would not allow a child of God to deny the very WORD OF GOD.
He either misrepresented Catholicism inadvertently, or you misunderstood.
@IG88AAA no sir, Catholic doctrine effectively teaches that God's grace is insufficient for our salvation. In Roman theology, you must merit salvation through good works. More specifically, you need your own merit, the merit of past saints, and the merit of Christ. The Roman church anathematized the gospel of salvation by grace through faith in Christ. My family member was speaking true Roman doctrine according to Vatican II. There was no misunderstanding.
Thanks for responding.
Can you cite where this is taught?
@@IG88AAA Council of Trent, Session 6, Canons 9, 14, 20, 24, 30, and 32 are all very potent examples.
@@IG88AAAI don’t know where the citations would be, but my grandparents have been Catholic their whole lives and he is 87 and he told me the exact same thing. I honestly was very upset and we had an argument (although I tried very hard to keep from escalating it) and the more questions I asked the more I realized that Roman Catholicism is not Christianity, it’s essentially Paganism with Christian vocabulary. I tried to ask him if he meant that through salvation you bear good fruits that prove your salvation, but he insisted that you couldn’t be saved by grace and faith alone, and that you could only be saved through faith and works. When I quoted the scripture that refutes that he said that without the Catholic Church to guide you you couldn’t properly interpret scriptures. So no, Catholics genuinely believe that Christ’s grace is not sufficient.
James the bishops of the Nicaean Council didn't believe in sola fide and sola scriptura or TULIP.... what's your point?
That’s why James white refuses to debate Trent Horn on the matter? 😂 James just debate them and we’ll see if Trent Horn wins like the last debate between the two of you
You online Catholic bros really are tiresome. Your piety is as deep as the online drama allows.
James White did lose the debate but it's a sad example of how winning a debate doesn't mean your position is correct. James White is defending the true position. He lost the debate because of his Baptist theology. The reformed paedobaptist view of the covenant is the only way to actually give weight and meaning to the warning, falling away passages, etc without falling into the RC/Arminian view. James White really danced around this issue and hurt his witness of the truth by doing this, and yes lost the debate since this was the most foundational point he needed to answer and didn't (couldn't).
@@leahunverferth8247 Could you expound on this a little bit more for me sister/brother? I'd like to learn a bit more information on what you mean about your statement. I'm lacking in knowledge regarding this topic, thank you!
@@iggie But the reformed paedobaptist has an answer that can logically uphold (1) that the regenerate can never lose their salvation and (2) that people can fall away from “salvation.” It’s because we believe the New Covenant extends as far as its sign and seal - baptism - and covenant membership is therefore not limited to the regenerate. In other words, the visible church is the outward administration of the Covenant of Grace and therefore includes some who are unregenerate. So start with the baptismal formula of being baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. This happens both to those who are truly regenerate and those who aren’t. Yet both are in the covenant because both have God’s name placed upon them. However, the unbeliever is only in the covenant in an outward sense - a member of the visible church but not the invisible. Think of how Christ describes the visible church as having dead branches connected to him. These unbelievers are outwardly in the covenant, outwardly connected to Christ, and outwardly “Christians” even though they aren’t really saved.
Now we have a group of people who can and indeed do fall away. Unbelievers in the church who apostatize are covenant breakers. They’ve violated the terms of the covenant in their baptism which is to believe on Christ. Hence they come under the covenant sanction of excommunication. This is what makes paedobaptist theology biblical over and against baptist theology.
This is a response I wrote to a book that should help you - I wrote it to be understood even by those who have not read the book and it dives deeper into this topic: drive.google.com/file/d/1RhhFjH64btKLiw0X-l7XHc1KdwOAtbUI/view?usp=drive_link
@@iggie But the reformed paedobaptist has an answer that can logically uphold (1) that the regenerate can never lose their salvation and (2) that people can fall away from “salvation.” It’s because we believe the New Covenant extends as far as its sign and seal - baptism - and covenant membership is therefore not limited to the regenerate. In other words, the visible church is the outward administration of the Covenant of Grace and therefore includes some who are unregenerate. So start with the baptismal formula of being baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. This happens both to those who are truly regenerate and those who aren’t. Yet both are in the covenant because both have God’s name placed upon them. However, the unbeliever is only in the covenant in an outward sense - a member of the visible church but not the invisible. Think of how Christ describes the visible church as having dead branches connected to him. These unbelievers are outwardly in the covenant, outwardly connected to Christ, and outwardly “Christians” even though they aren’t really saved.
Now we have a group of people who can and indeed do fall away. Unbelievers in the church who apostatize are covenant breakers. They’ve violated the terms of the covenant in their baptism which is to believe on Christ. Hence they come under the covenant sanction of excommunication. This is what makes paedobaptist theology biblical over and against baptist theology.
This is a response I wrote to a book that should help you - I wrote it to be understood even by those who have not read the book and it dives deeper into this topic: drive.google.com/file/d/1RhhFjH64btKLiw0X-l7XHc1KdwOAtbUI/view?usp=drive_link
Saying a true believer does works and doesn’t leave Christ and that’s what faith alone means is literally what orthodox and Catholics mean by needing works.
You’re speaking passed each other
So true. Much of our disagreements come from different terminology.
I believe the Catholic Church uses the proper terminology, because scripture explicitly rejects justification by faith alone.
@@IG88AAAEphesians 2:5-10 says otherwise. No one is justified by works of the law. James 2 speaks not on what justifies but what kind of faith given to us justifies.
@@TheCowabungaBros Can you please quote to me in your cited passage that says we are justified by faith alone?
James 2 explicitly says “a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.” It is explicitly stated and is very clear.
While there is some nuance in the Catholic understanding of this, my argument is that Catholic doctrine lines up with this passage, and the doctrine “justified by faith alone” is explicitly rejected.
You also stated we are not justified by works of the law. This is Catholic doctrine and biblical teaching. No one is justified by works of the law.
I was born and raised Catholic. Altar boy and all the rest. My Dad, son of an Irish Immigrant raised the same and attended Fordham Prep, and the University. We were very involved in the church. My dad used to take me to the rectory on Sundays with beer to share with the priests over football games. My dad also would invite the nuns over the house. Serving them food, a couple scotches and cigarettes. I say this for my Dad would always tell me they are people, nothing more, nothing less than you and me. We are all sinful and make mistakes our whole lives. He also told me I raise you in the church and the catholic school for I want some message of the Lord around you. Public school was never an option for me. Back in the 70's and early 80's the church was different. There were many rules and laws in the church that are non biblical. Sometimes did not make sense. But as an 8 year old I did receive the Lord in my heart and my soul. The joy of Him I recall greatly and still today at age 58. Maybe I was lucky or in a more Biblically grounded church that helped connect the Holy Spirit with me. Doctrine and rules never intruded in the number one priority of my relationship with the Lord. My dad would always remind me of this. Over the years my Dad left the church for he said it became too much rule based and pushed the narrative of Rome which he said was corrupt. He also said the the generation of sound priests have died and replaced with more liberal and world based men. He also told me that most Roman Catholics are lost and not centered on the word of God and their relationship with the Lord. He said folks dont understand the Grace of our Lord. More are stuck in doctrine.
Rules are important to God. See exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, etc. He gave His followers tons of rules, and Judaism was the true religion.
Jesus told the Jews to follow the rules of the Pharisees, since they sat in the seat of Moses and had the legislative power to bind and loose doctrine.
So one would expect Christ's church to have this authority considering Jesus gave the authority to bind and loose to His apostles.
James White has made me Catholic in the last few weeks. Thank you, Dr. White
It's funny, debating with Catholics over the last few years has made me more Protestant than ever. It also opened my eyes to just how brainwashed Catholics truly are.
While I appreciate the finesse and intent Mr. White and Mr. Durban put into understanding scripture; I can't help but feel in the same way that Catholics may be unsure of their salvation because of their "state of grace" at the end of their lives, Calvinism also carries similar bondage; That it seems the only measure of certainty in your "election" by God, is merely the QUALITY of evidential works produced, which would still invoke a sense that works is technically still a salvational prerequisite. It seems like two sides of the same coin to me. I could be wrong, and I will do more research for sure.