The BIBLICAL Basis for the Pope, Justification, and Catholic Beliefs (w/ Brandon and Chris)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 17 มิ.ย. 2024
- In this episode of The Cordial Catholic, I'm joined by Brandon Eaves and Chris Kellam, two former Evangelical seminarians, to talk about how, as Evangelicals studying Scripture, they discovered the Biblical basis for the papacy and the Catholic view of justification.
Brandon and Chris, two good friends with a great dynamic, explain how many of their misconceptions about Catholicism were dismantled as they looked into Scripture, the witness of the Early Church, and in the actual practice of the Catholic faith. How the papacy makes sense from Scripture and in our experience of Early Christianity. And how the understanding of justification by the Protestant Reformers isn't rooted in history - and how Protestants and Catholics are often saying the same things using different words when they talk about justification, salvation, and sanctification.
Chris and Brandon have both been on the show to share their conversion stories.
Brandon:
• Trying to Prove Cathol...
Chris:
• Investigating Baptism ...
For reading material, Chris and Brandon suggested:
Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification by Alister McGrath
Called to Communion: Understanding the Church Today by Pope Benedict XVI
General Principles of Sacramental Theology by Dr. Roger Nutt
Salvation: What Every Catholic Should Know by Dr. Michael Barber
Paul: A New Covenant Jew by Dr. Brant Pitre, et. al.
Science of Sacred Theology by Emmanuel Doronzo
You can listen Brandon's new podcast Doxa everywhere podcasts are found.
For more from Brandon follow him on Twitter here:
/ brandon_eaves7
For more, visit The Cordial Catholic. Send your feedback to cordialcatholic@gmail.com.
Sign up for our newsletter for my reflections on episodes, behind-the-scenes content, and exclusive contests at newsletter.thecordialcatholic.com
To watch this and other episodes please visit (and subscribe to!) our TH-cam channel.
Please consider financially supporting this show!
For more information visit the Patreon page. All patrons receive access to exclusive content and if you can give $5/mo or more you'll also be entered into monthly draws for fantastic books hand-picked by me at / cordialcatholic
If you'd like to give a one-time donation to The Cordial Catholic, you can visit the PayPal page at paypal.me/cordialcatholic
Thank you to those already supporting the show!
![[안방1열 직캠4K] 베이비몬스터 치키타 'FOREVER' (BABYMONSTER CHIQUITA FanCam) @SBS Inkigayo 2404707](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Tn3bGHiBWkg/mqdefault.jpg)
Just recently came across St Francis de Sales using the verse "A house divided cannot stand" to support the unity of the Church and the necessity for one head/leader to preserve that unity ( _The Catholic Controversy_ ). First time I had heard that verse used that way (and was part of a Sunday gospel recently). And now I hear it for the 2nd time here used the same way. Providential.
Such a good point in favour of the Papacy. Point to the confusion in denominations and ask "Do you really think God intended that?"
Truth unites, but it also divides. One pastor once said "You have to preach your church empty before you preach it full."
@@jeromepopiel388 Well, Catholic Church started in a meeting room in Jerusalem where Jesus held the last supper. Then after Pentecost it started to fill out.
@@BensWorkshop Amazingly, you will hear some Protestants say "yes," and not just in the sense of God's permissive will but as an actual good allegedly for the Church. Very unbiblical (Jn 17 and Paul's commands for unity). But once a Protestant does realize that the disagreement and division were not what God intended, you have to ask the next step: "If God does not desire that, then what did He do to create and preserve unity for every generation? Mere individual appeals to the Holy Spirit? Is that sufficient for unity? Would God leave us with such insufficiency? Is that biblical? How does the Holy Spirit preserve unity according to Scripture? What does Scripture show us for overcoming disagreement and division in the Church? Peter? A council? Authoritative successors (Timothy and Titus)?"
@@jeromepopiel388 We can actually agree on that! lol. Someone should tell Gavin Ortlund. Jesus seems pretty clear on this: "I came not to bring peace but a sword" and came to set family member against family member and must "hate" family to be His disciple.
Cordial Catholic is my favourite Catholic TH-cam Channel.(Other Catholic TH-cam Channels including: Council Of Trent, Jimmy Akin, Catholic Truth, Pints with Aquinas, I Miss Christendom, etc).
Greetings from the South Pacific - Papua New Guinea 🇵🇬
Thank you so much!
@@TheCordialCatholic You're very welcome brother in Christ.
@@TheCordialCatholic When you say "Biblical basis" you have already relegated Catholicism to EISEGESIS instead of EXEGESIS
@@TimSpangler-rd6vs FALSE DISCIPLE.
@@TimSpangler-rd6vs That you, διάβολος? You are dividing.
I like that Brandon brings Mt 25 into the discussion of faith, works, justification, and salvation. Even pop apologists at CA today seem afraid to go there when it used to be standard apologetics.
Totally agree…. I feel its a strong argument. He casts them out and lists good deeds they failed to do as the reason. Part of me thinks CA staff is trying to make initial salvation and final salvation two independent doctrines with different sets of passages. Initial salvation is similar to protestant justification so i see why they do it. The once saved always saved vs lifelong sanctification is an argument that’s easier to frame if you exclude initial salvation. It ends up confusing protestants because for them, there is no 2 fold system like we have for salvation. Ends up making them say hold on you said its not by works that you are saved and now youre saying it is. Separating the two arguments cuts that confusion down and focuses the argument.
@@timboslice980 Yeah, I get why Akin and Horn do it. I can even see some value in it. But the live calls Jimmy got about the topic afterward prove that it also causes some confusion and dissonance for the attentive and informed. For the sake of ecumenism, it may be prudent to avoid saying "works save us" (even though Scripture/James says it), but it seems pretty clear from Scripture that there are works we are obliged to do to _retain_ the salvation that God gives us through faith and baptism. Mortal sins of omission like we find in Mt 25 (or neglecting the obligations the Church gives us) will lose us our salvation just like mortal sins of commission.
@@tonyl3762 Yep. I agree with you as well…. All i’ll say in their defense, informed catholics such as yourself will understand this distinction but the confusion created for new catholics and protestants will be greater. So it’s like how do you balance it? I say make things clearer for the newbs and let the theology nerds dispute over augustine, aquinas, and akin’s concept of justification by formed faith. Then the second argument of sanctification throughout our lives as opposed to once saved always saved.
I very much enjoyed this conversation! Thank you so much for these wonderful videos God bless you all 🙏🙏
Glad you enjoyed it!
Following the sequence where Chris and Brandon talk about the differences between protestant and catholic understanding of ‘justification’, Brandon mentions that we unite our works with those of Christ when we actively participate in the mass. Keith offers a push-back question at 1:04:36 in which he offers a protestant objection that the sacrificial work of Christ was completed on the cross 2000 years ago and so there is nothing more to add by way of any works we might perform.
I think one way of bridging this apparent dichotomy is to emphasise how the mass miraculously transcends space and time. During the mass, the events of the Passion of Christ are made immediately present to us ‘here and now’. When the Priest says the words of institution and raises the bread and wine, we are made present at the Last Supper and the events of Good Friday and Easter Sunday follow in the liturgy. But, just as these events are made present to us in our place and time, the events, sacrifices and works of our lives that we bring with us to mass are also made present to Christ at the once for all Passion events.
So, to say that the sacrifice that Christ offered once for all has been done and there is nothing more to add is totally correct but the statement is incomplete. It leaves out the critical element that this once for all sacrifice includes everything we bring to mass because all those things are made present to Christ during His Passion. Even the things I’m going to bring to Christ in the mass next Sunday were present to Him 2000 years ago and united in His self-offering to the Father on the cross.
It’s another example of where a protestant ‘either/or’ is answered by a Catholic ‘both/and’
Colossians 1:24 is the source of that idea that Christ’s sacrifice only lacks in our participation. God, by giving us free will, does not add our participation into the sacrifice. He can invite us, but it’s one of those things he chooses not to do. So the ONLY thing lacking is our own participation.
And it is in doing and suffering for Christ’s mission that we do the work that completes it.
Excellent episode which really shows the necessity of Catholic theology.
Thanks for watching!
Great and clear job of explaining the Catholic faith
Thanks for watching!
Very good!
Thank you!
For those who wonder: PETER as Shepherd and first Pope: Scriptural evidence and the structure of the primitive Church make it absolutely undeniable that Christ chose Peter and that Peter was first among the twelve. Depending on the translation, Peter is mentioned 195 times. The closest is John (the beloved disciple) at just 29 times. The rest even less. Consider:
Jesus entered Peter’s house. (Matthew 8:14)
Jesus changed Simon's name to Peter. (John 1:42)
Jesus gave Peter the keys to the gates of Heaven. (Matthew 16:19)
Jesus declared Peter to the the rock. (Matthew 16:18)
Jesus made Peter shepherd. (John 21:15-17)
Jesus told Peter to strengthen his brothers (Luke 22:32)
Jesus paid the Temple tax only for Himself and Peter. (Matthew 17:24-27)
Jesus preached from Peter's boat. (Luke 5:3)
Jesus told Peter to "Follow me" (John 21:19)
Jesus called only Peter to walk on the water. (Matthew 14:29)
Jesus predicted Peter's three-fold denial. (Matthew 26:34)
Jesus predicted Peter's repentance and three-fold affirmation. (Luke 22:32)
Jesus prophesied only Peter's manner of death. (John 21:18-19)
Jesus taught Peter forgiveness 70 times 7 times. (Matthew 18:21-22)
Jesus spoke only to Peter at Gethsemane. (Mark 14:37)
Peter is always listed first of the Apostles. (Matthew 10:2, Luke 6:14, Acts 1:13)
Peter was first to confess Jesus as Messiah. (Matthew 16:18)
Peter alone spoke at the Transfiguration. (Matthew 17:4, Mark 9:5, Luke 9:33)
Peter pointed out the withered fig tree. (Mark 11:21)
Peter entered the tomb first - John deferring to him. (Luke 24:12, John 20:3-4))
Peter decided the manner of replacing Judas. (Acts 1:15-26)
Peter spoke for the eleven at the Pentecost. (Acts 2:14-36)
Peter was released from prison by the Angel. (Acts 12:6-11)
Peter spoke for the eleven before the Council. (Acts 4:8-12)
Peter held sin bound to Ananias and Sapphira. (Acts 5:1-10)
Peter's shadow healed. (Acts 5:15)
Peter declared the sin of Simony. (Acts 8:18-23)
Peter revealed the salvation of Gentiles to the Church at Jerusalem. (Acts 11:1-18)
The Angel told Cornelius to call for Peter. (Acts 10:3-8)
The Holy Spirit fell upon the Gentiles as Peter preached to them. (Acts 10:44-45)
At the empty tomb, the Angel said, "Go tell His disciples, and Peter." (Mark 16:7)
Mary Magdalene ran to tell Peter and the beloved disciple. (John 20:2)
The vision of all foods being clean was given only to Peter. (Acts 10:9-16)
Peter's words silence the first council in Jerusalem. (Acts 15:7-12)
Paul went to Peter to affirm that his Gospel was not in vain. (Galatians 1:18)
Peter was given the revelation of the end of the world. (2 Peter 3:10-11)
Peter taught that Paul’s words were easily twisted. (2 Peter 3:16)
Peter taught that baptism now saves you (1 Peter 3:21)
And many other references. One may deny that Peter was primary, but it takes an amazing ignorance or denial of scripture and history to do so.
Blind indoctrinated may deny that Jesus was primary, but it takes an amazing ignorance or denial of scripture
For flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.....and upon this rock I will build my church John 6 : 45
John 10:1 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that enter not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.
J0hn 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: / not pope,pastor or any other man and their false doctrines
Rev 3:19 As many as I love, I rebuke/teach and chasten/correct: be zealous therefore, and repent.
Rev 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man HEAR my voice, and OPEN the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
In short you hear Jesus and allow Him to correct you of your false beliefs ,which is the door if one wants to be priest,otherwise Scripture expose all...And all are thieves and robbers
Mat 7 :8 “For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.
opened what?
Mat 7 :13 “Enter by the narrow gate/door
Mat 7 :28 And so it was, when Jesus had ended these sayings, that the people were astonished at His teaching,
Mat 7 :29
for HE taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes./popes,pastors,preachers,or teachers
@@perazdera2827huh? Not a single one of those verses refutes the original argument. No Christian denies the headship of Christ. The OP is defending the primacy of Peter AMONG the apostles, not pitting him against Jesus. His authority comes directly FROM Jesus! Denying Peter's authority is denying what Christ has ordained!
@@perazdera2827 OK, so ignore the bible. Ignore the words of Christ making Peter shepherd of Christ's fleck. Ignorance is not painful - except to others. You are greatly mislead.
@@perazdera2827 Jesus is GOD, if you have not noticed. Learn about Christ's Church and you will be wise and stop trolling Christians.
@St.AdalbertOfPrague
The Church is the bride of Christ
And yet sons inherit ALL things,not the bride...And sons will be priest of the most High God,not some phony organisation...Only those that hear what the Spirit say,not man ...AND NO,Jesus did not appointed Peter as church leader...Only gave example on what rock HE Jesus Christ will build....Which is the same from the beginning..HEAR GOD,not man
Gen 3: 17 Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife
Exo 19: 5 ‘Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant..
What shall they be?
Exo 19: 6 ‘And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation
And they went the way Adam,and now those ´´wannabe``believers
Exo 20:1 9 Then they said to Moses, “You speak with us, and we will hear; but let not God speak with us
Sons of God will be the ´´church´´ priests of God...Because they will live forever..
Heb 7: 23 Also there were many priests, because they were prevented by death from continuing.
Heb 7: 24 But He, because He continues forever, has an unchangeable priesthood.
So ..Heb 12 25
First in! thx Keith!
Thanks for watching!
Man, Keith, this episode really brought out the heretics to the comments section, good stuff
Jesus never once quoted from the apocrypha
This isn’t exactly true. The overwhelming majority of direct and indirect quotations from the OT are from the Greek Septuagint version which contained the deuterocanonical books.
What is "apocrypha"?? And what Protestant council convened and declared certain ancient writings to be unacceptab;le? Which Protestant council? Name, place, date, Protestant leaders involved, etc. I am SURE it must be recorded.
He quoted from the Septuagint collection - you know, the one you reject? The Bereans used the Septuagint collection - you know, the one you reject?
I feel very sorry that your beliefs are so rigid Jerome. You literally hop from lily pad to lily pad trying to justify your arguments, even when no one is arguing to the contrary. You refuse to give one iota of credit to the Catholic Church. That alone should give even you a reason for pause. I’ll pray for you and that God will ease your hardness of heart and for your ultimate conversion
The truth is that Jesus fulfilled the law for us because we can't.
Toward us the law was a ministration of death not life.
Where is your PhD in theology from?
"What is truth"?
Brethren, may these words be pleasing to our Lord Jesus Christ. I beseech you all, for the glory of God, to call to remembrance that the Kingdom of Christ is Heavenly. The Lord’s anointing of Eliakim in Isaiah 22 is not a fore-prophecy of an infallible Pope, but of our High Priest and Savior: Jesus Christ. The real revelation regarding God’s divine commentary on the Papacy is 1 Samuel 8:5-7, when the Israelites defiantly desired an incarnate king over their heads:
“And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations. But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD. And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.”
All of this to say, my fellow laborers in the Lord, that the original Church establishment that preceded Papal infallibility was Apostolic Orthodoxy-the ancient Church. Amen.
“For we walk by faith, not by sight.”
- 2 Corinthians 5:7
but Jesus isn't a prime minister (or steward) but the King of the Davidic Kingdom. unlike Eliakim in Isaiah 22. So how is Eliakim in Isaiah 22 a typology of Jesus instead of Peter, I am open to it being the case but it doesn't make sense to me at the moment.
It seems that papal infallibility is all throughout the original church establishment, for example in the council of Ephesus:
"Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: “There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to to-day and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod, which the most humane and Christian Emperors have commanded to assemble, bearing in mind and continually watching over the Catholic faith. For they both have kept and are now keeping intact the apostolic doctrine handed down to them from their most pious and humane grandfathers and fathers of holy memory down to the present time."
Notice especially the last sentence for specifically papal infallibility.
One might think, surely the council fathers rejected this as papalist heresy, but we can look at St Cyril of Alexandria:
"Cyril, the bishop of Alexandria said: “The professions which have been made by [the Papal Legates] Arcadius and Projectus, the most holy and pious bishops, as also by Philip, the most religious presbyter of the Roman Church, stand manifest to the holy Synod. For they have made their profession in the place of the Apostolic See, and of the whole of the holy synod of the God-beloved and most holy bishops of the West. Wherefore let those things which were defined by the most holy [Pope] Celestine, the God-beloved bishop, be carried into effect, and the vote cast against Nestorius the heretic, by the holy Synod, which met in the metropolis of Ephesus be agreed to universally; for this purpose let there be added to the already prepared acts the proceedings of yesterday and today, and let them be shewn to their holiness, so that by their subscription according to custom, their canonical agreement with all of us may be manifest.”"
No condemnation can be seen.
source: unamsanctamcatholicam.com/2022/08/18/papal-primacy-in-the-first-councils/
Saint Peter absolutely had an instrumental role as an Apostle of the Church, however, nowhere is “Papal Infallibility” explicitly stated. The Bishop of Rome was and will always be a fallible man, just like every other Christian who has ever lived. The Papacy was an invention of men to cunningly consolidate political power away from Constantinople, and center its authority in Rome. Having a “Pope” defeats the purpose of faith in our only High Priest reigning in Heaven above: Jesus Christ. Let’s review the passage in Isaiah 22:20-25, which describes the coming majestic Davidic rule of Jesus Christ on earth:
20 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah:
21 And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.
22 And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.
23 And I will fasten him as a nail in a sure place; and he shall be for a glorious throne to his father's house.
24 And they shall hang upon him all the glory of his father's house, the offspring and the issue, all vessels of small quantity, from the vessels of cups, even to all the vessels of flagons.
25 In that day, saith the LORD of hosts, shall the nail that is fastened in the sure place be removed, and be cut down, and fall; and the burden that was upon it shall be cut off: for the LORD hath spoken it.
Nowhere is there a single mention of Eliakim being a “Prime Minister” or “Steward” which are misconceived inferences by the Catholic camp. Eliakim is a preview of the future worldly reign of God’s Son from Jerusalem, which we parallel to Isaiah 9:6-7. Therefore beloved, the Papacy is the Adversary’s infiltration and implantation within the Church to deliberate matters according to his will. Examine the current Pope, who is spearheading religious ecumenism, and you expect me as an Orthodox to believe that he’s infallible? Beloved, read the relatively contemporary work of Saint Justin Popovic, titled: “Papism As The Oldest Protestantism.”
The papacy is older than constantinople, pretty cunning of the men to establish the counter 300 years prior to the city being founded, Clement and Irenaeus of Lyons prove that.
@@JesusChristKing There is a part before what you have quote that does refer to a steward, or someone who is over the house:
"Thus saith the Lord God of hosts, Go, get thee unto this treasurer, even unto Shebna, which is over the house, and say," Isaiah 22:16, in some translations "over the house" is translated as steward. If you read on, Shebna is being replaced by Eliakim. and that is why the whole thing is happening with the keys being given. I don't know if you would dispute that but if you do, there is better evidence, that also doesn't rely on the word steward:
While the keys may also be given to the King, since you say it is actually referencing Jesus Christ, it is important to note that the relation is being given BECAUSE Jesus says something very similar in Matthew 16 to St Peter:
"And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound, even in heaven. And whatever you shall release on earth shall be released, even in heaven.”" Matthew 16:19
Both the binding and loosing as well as the keys being given are both themes in Isaiah 22:22 and Matthew 16:19.
So even if it is also a reference to Jesus, Jesus makes it a reference to Peter by his reference of both commiting the keys and the ratification in heaven of Peter's binding and loosing.
I would not call this role of the King, since we believe Jesus is the King and while we all share in Jesus' Kingship, there is no other King than Jesus Christ. This role has authority, but is not the King's since Peter is not the King of the Kingdom of heaven.
I see you make reference to ecumenism of the current Pope. Now when I have read orthodox saint quotes on ecumenism they are extremely negative. So I understand your frustration and rejection. but it doesn't seem as bad on the catholic side of things, so I think we have a different definition:
I would like to understand what ecumenism means to you and the orthodox church?
To me it means drawing all churches (ones that have a bishop) and ecclesial communities (ones like most protestants that don't have a bishop) into the one church that Christ established, many particular churches all in communion with each other, like it was in some of the first century.
Is this what ecumenism means to you and the orthodox church? Again I think we might be talking about something different, if it is, why is the idea so abhorrent?
What is papal infallibility? Explain.
Concerning Justification, I have to ask if they have even read this passage from Philippians?
Philippians 3:6,9
[6]Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
[9]And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:
"not having my own righteousness"....do you get that?
Paul's confidence is not in his own righteousness. (which he said was worthless dung) It is in Christ i.e., not his own. Why? Simple. Only Jesus is righteous.There is no other righteousness.
Seems like you're not listening very carefully.... Catholic teaching is that all righteousness comes from Jesus. After receiving His righteousness through faith and baptism, we have to hold onto it, remain in it, and make His righteousness our own. You are strawmanning the Catholic position.
Wrong AGAIN???
Yes there are great rewards for service but salvation is a free gift,and if it is by faith, then no works come into it, for then it would not be faith. It would be walking by sight. If you believe, it means you rest from your works as God did from His.
Hebrews 4:1,9-11
[1]Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.
[9]There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.
[10]For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.
[11]Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.
Working instead of resting is unbelief. It is not walking by faith.
lol, you literally just quoted a verse that contradicts your interpretation: "Let us labour therefore."
This is why we see Paul also saying "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Phil 2:12-13), as was mentioned in the video.
So Scripture says nothing about "be lazy, don't work, take a rest, God has done it all." That's a twisting of Scripture, as Peter and James do say. Scripture says to labor and work.
@@tonyl3762 according to Tony's Bible interpretation method, the comandment to rest on the 7th day means to go labour as much as you can.
@@jeromepopiel388 Wasn't talking about the 7th day at all. Was talking about whether any work is necessary to retain one's justification before God.
You only mock Paul, not me. He is the one you quoted as saying " *Let us labour therefore to enter* into that rest." You don't think Paul understood the irony and tension of what he was writing? The rest is both a reality now, to some extent, and "a promise" (your quote in verse 1). The final and full rest come after we have persevered to the end, as Jesus Himself says (Mt 24:13).
@@tonyl3762 If you do not rest (or cease from your labor,) as God did from His, then it means you are not trusting in Christ. You can't have it both ways. Either you're in or you're out. Hot or cold.
Revelation 3:15-16
[15]I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
[16]So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
@@jeromepopiel388 I've tried to show you that you are not taking into account the whole passage of Hebrews as well as the whole of Scripture (e.g. Phil 2:12-13). Scripture is full of passages saying we will be judged by our works (not by our rest, lol). Can lead a horse to water....
lol, you really want to quote the words of Christ in Revelation regarding works? You merely contradict yourself:
"I know your works, your toil and your patient endurance.... you have not grown weary. But I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first. Remember then from what you have fallen, repent and *do the works you did at first.* If not, I will come.... I know your works, your love and faith and service and patient endurance, and that your latter works exceed the first.... *I will give to each of you as your works deserve* .... He who conquers and who *keeps my works until the end,* I will give him power over the nations.... "I know your works; you have the name of being alive, and you are dead. Awake, and strengthen what remains and is on the point of death, for *I have not found your works perfect in the sight of my God* .... I know your works.... I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth."
Christ does not desire lukewarmness in our works, which you seem to be encouraging.
Largely based on eisegesis.
Largely based on the earliest interpretations of those taught, discipled, approved, and ordained by the biblical authors, the Apostles, esp Peter and John.
How can their interpretations be eisigesis and yours not be? How can the Holy Spirit be more with you than with the Apostles and those they chose?
ODD/OCD TROLL. Pure ewgo. Zero Christ. ψεύτικος μαθητής
Just to point this out, Paul doesn't say we become righteous, but rather we are "appointed" righteous.
Romans 5:19
[19]For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
Strong's Number - G2525
Greek: καθίστημι
Transliteration: kathistēmi
Pronunciation: kath-is'-tay-mee
Definition: From G2596 and G2476; to place down (permanently) that is (figuratively) to designate constitute convoy: - appoint be conduct make ordain set.
KJV Usage: make (8x), make ruler (6x), ordain (3x), be (2x), appoint (1x), conduct (1x), set (1x).
Occurs: 26
In verses: 21
Once again, the CC is at variance with scripture.
At least you undermine your own points by being complete in your citations:
" *make (8x),* make ruler (6x), ordain (3x), be (2x), *appoint (1x)* "
Pointy heads point things out.
I could never get to the place where I could believe that water washes away sins. That isn't in the Bible. Oh and btw, Trent called baptism a "work".
Romans 3:25
Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
Romans 5:9
Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
Ephesians 1:7
In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
Colossians 1:14
In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
1 Peter 1:19
But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
Revelation 1:5
And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
Revelation 7:14
And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
Think your safe believing in water?
Think again.
- John Chrysostom AD 407
There are two mortifyings and two deaths. One of them is accomplished by Christ in baptism, and the other it is our duty to effect by earnestness afterwards. For it was Christ’s gift that our former sins were buried, but remaining dead to sin after baptism must be the work of our own earnestness, however much we find that God gives us enormous help here as well. For baptism does not just have the power to obliterate our former transgressions; it also protects us against subsequent ones.
- Cyprian of Carthage AD 258
Which had been some time incredulous, when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noah, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water. - 1 Peter 3:20
"In the ark "says he, "of Noah, few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water, as also baptism shall in like manner save you.".
Peter also, showing this, set forth that the Church is one, and that only they who are in the Church can be baptized; and said, "In the ark of Noah, few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water; the like figure where-unto even baptism shall save you."
@@NuLeif foolishness, the water didn't save anything. It was the agent of death, not life. The ark represents Christ. The message is... GET ON THE ARK, BELIEVE ON JESUS CHRIST.
Not true.
@@HAL9000-su1mz fortunately you don't get to decide what's true. That's God's job, not yours. When men become the arbiter of truth, it leads to hell.
Only a son gets the fathers inheritance, you can't work for his inheritance, you have to be a son, a son who knows and obeys his father. Which is why you are not included in his inheritance, your not a son/child of his, to bad you do not understand my Fathers Will and ways!
You'd better get baptized, or you are just a fanboy. No fanboys in heaven.
@@HAL9000-su1mz
Bro, only god can baptize you in the holy spirit and cause you to be born of him!
Its so obvious you do not know him!
John 1:12-13 KJV But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13. Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
I wonder if these guys just folded and bought the doctrine that the Sacrifice of the Mass is a sacrifice for sins without checking it?Just from a casual reading of Hebrews, I could never come close to accepting such nonsense.
No one agreed with your interpretations throughout the first fifteen centuries of Christianity.
Church Fathers, who read the Bible seriously not casually and in the original languages and were much closer culturally, believed the Mass to be a sacrifice for the remission of sins.
The Mass is a re-presentation of the one pure and sufficient sacrifice of the cross, as fortelled by Malachi 1:11
In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you. - Luke 22:20
It was suitable for him to be in us divinely by the Holy Spirit. It was also suitable for him to be mingled with our bodies by his holy flesh and precious blood, which we possess as a lifegiving Eucharist, in the form of bread and wine. God feared that seeing actual flesh and blood placed on the holy tables of our churches would terrify us. Humbling himself to our infirmities, God infuses into the things set before us the power of life. He transforms them into the effectiveness of his flesh, that we may have them for a lifegiving participation, that the body of life thus might be found in us as a lifeproducing seed. Do not doubt that this is true. Christ plainly says, “This is my body. This is my blood.” In faith, receive the Savior’s word. Since he is the truth, he cannot lie. You will honor him. The wise John says, “He that receives his witness has set his seal that God is true. For he whom God sent speaks the words of God.” The words of God, of course, are true. In no way whatsoever can they be false. Although we cannot understand how God does that, yet he himself knows the way of his works.
- Cyril of Alexandria
Commentary on Luke, Homily (AD 444)
Maybe if you actually took the time to study Catholic apologetics, instead of scoffing, you would understand all the good reasons Catholics have for their beliefs and practices.
"Now *even* the first covenant had regulations for worship and an earthly sanctuary." Heb 9:1
The implication is that the 2nd/New Covenant also has "regulations for worship and an earthly sanctuary."
"For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there *no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,* but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries. A man who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy at the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace?" Heb 10:26-29
Nothing in Hebrews contradicts Catholic teaching. The Sacrifice of the Mass IS the sacrifice of Christ.
"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?...Consider the people of Israel; *are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar?* What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons. *You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.* " 1 Cor 10:16-21
Paul says that the "bread" and "wine" are a participation in the sacrifice of Christ, in His body and blood, just as the food sacrifices of the Jews (bread, wine, lamb, etc.) and pagans (often meat/flesh) are sacrifices and participations.
If you read very selectively and ignore the context then you could believe that Peter is changing his mind and giving us the news that baptism "now" saves us.
1 Peter 3:21
[21]The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
I also see... not the washing of the flesh (baptism)
And ..." but the answer of a good conscience". (repentance)
But also Peter previously asserted...
1 Peter 1:23
[23]Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
Do you think Peter got a new revelation that cancels this out?
That is what you must believe if you follow the CC.
Have you ever thought to seek out official Catholic sources for Catholic teaching (e.g. the Catechism) rather than presume/imagine what we believe and make up straw men? That's an absurd interpretation of "now" and not a Catholic one. Noah's flood and ark saved then; baptism saves now.
Peter is merely explaining the spiritual significance of baptism, explaining that it is "not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience." The point of baptism is not to remove physical dirt but to remove sin. There is no contradiction within Peter or with Catholic teaching.
@@tonyl3762 More than thought about it. I make it a priority. Not only the Catechism (which is not officially authoritative) but also Trent (which is official doctrine that cannot be superceded), Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Catholic Encyclopedia, etc.
But I don't know why you insist on harping on one esoteric verse to prove your case. That is not the way scripture is meant to work. The Bible says we have a great cloud of witnesses, not just one verse of dubious interpretation.
Peter had just explained the new birth, but you chose to ignore it
1 Peter 1:18-19,23
[18]Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
[19]But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
[23]Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
And to be more specific...
Romans 10:9-10,13
[9]That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
[10]For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
[13]For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Can anyone misunderstand? This is very specific.
Paul had already broken down every meaning and aspect of baptism in Ch. 6.
Romans 6:3-7
[3]Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
[4]Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
[5]For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
[6]Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
[7]For he that is dead is freed from sin.
Baptism is about death (going under the water) and then if we are buried with Him we shall be raised in like manor. This also is quite plain to understand. Could you not believe it?
@@jeromepopiel388 lol, how do you expect any Catholic to take you seriously, to believe you actually thoroughly and carefully study those sources when you make outrageous claims? Catholics do not interpret "now" in that verse that way, and we certainly don't hang our entire doctrine of baptism on that one verse, as you should supposedly know well enough. I shouldn't have to list and explain all the other verses to you. I believe you even brought up Jn 3:5 in another comment.
Moreover, the earliest Christian documents contemporaneous with the New Testament and soon after the NT (Didache, Hermas, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, etc.) all interpret these baptism verses in the Catholic sense, not your way. Your interpretation is an innovation foreign to those taught, discipled, approved, and ordained by the Apostles and their successors. No doctrine is more solidly Catholic in these earliest biblical interpretations than baptism.
You can quote whatever verses you want, but they don't contradict Catholic teaching on baptism. (You've done a terrible job of even trying to communicate and make that case.) You are seeing contradictions that just aren't there in the text and in the earliest historical Christian interpretations. It's not an either-or issue; baptism includes water, forgiveness, faith, the Holy Spirit, Christ's blood/sacrifice, etc. These things converge rather than oppose each other.
VAIN TROLLING REPETITION!
in the Bible, "water" is symbolic of the Holy Spirit. When Moses struck the Rock, the water that came forth was the Holy Spirit. In Ps.1, the water is the Holy Spirit. In Jn.4, living water is the HS. In Jn,7 we are even told that the water is the Holy Spirit.
So being consistent,the water in Jn.3 is the HS., not baptism.
lol, so you think Jn 3:5 should read "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of [the Holy Spirit] and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God"?? That's "consistent"? Redundant much? What an example of how Protestants make Scripture say whatever they want it to say! Jn 3:5 is probably the most quoted verse in the earliest Church fathers/documents, which all believe it refers to baptism. Those taught, discipled, approved, and ordained by the biblical authors, the Apostles, esp Peter and John, all taught Jn 3:5 referred to baptism. Who are you (your teachers) to contradict them??
Water on the brain is worse.
Still being unfaithful to the one living God!
Psa_12:1 Help, LORD; for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men.
Still being and adulterer by loving and praying to others!
Luk_11:2 And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.
Still being and Idolator!
Hos 1:2 The beginning of the word of the LORD by Hosea. And the LORD said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms: for the land hath committed great whoredom, departing from the LORD.
Still eating food offered to Idols!
Act_15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
1Co_8:4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.
2Co_6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Rev_2:14 But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.
porn-yoo'-o
From G4204; to act the harlot, that is, (literally) indulge unlawful lust (of either sex), or (figuratively) practise idolatry: - commit (fornication).
Still being a scorpion!
Absolutely!
@@TheCordialCatholic
Then why do you continue to live and preach that which God abhors.
Why are you still so unfaithful to God when he did everything necessary to save your ass!
Why are you still being a scorpion?
How is it you do not understand what to Bing and loose means?
@@TheCordialCatholic
So your absolutely a pagan! At least you admit it but eternal life escaped you!
Ecclesiastes 1:9 KJV The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun...
Genesis 6:5-6 KJV ¶And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6. And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
@@richardjackson7887 Hate speech reported.
All you Calvinists sound the same: angry, judgmental.
Biblical basis for the pope? Well, to begin with , you're off on the wrong foot.
Now I will give you credit because you Catholics are good at making the bible talk Catholic. Make it say what you want. So can I. I can make it say or give me instruction on how to fix my car.😅
No you can’t.
@@TheCordialCatholic why not. Your church claims things that aren't remotely there. So anybody can compose, if you will.
Catholics hold it says/means what it was said to mean by those taught, discipled, approved, and ordained by the biblical authors, the Apostles, esp Peter and John (Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp).
I can do all things, with a verse taken out of context. Reading the Bible on your own and trying to interpret on your own are two completely different things. Not having a final authority for your beliefs leaves us with thousands of beliefs from the same Bible. They're not all right, only one is right.
@@mikepotter1291 not my own interpretation. It your church that falsely claims sole authority to interpret scripture. Nobody has that authority. Even Peter says that in his epistles. We don't need somebody to tell us, me what the bible means. I have yet to find anything in scripture that tells me I need an interpreter for scripture. Because your church controls you and you believe the lies, you just go right ahead. The reason your church claims that authority is obvious. It goes right along with the claim that not everything has to be in the bible. So you make the bible day what you want, twist here, twist there and that's how your doctrines all are said to be biblical. Then your ignorance let's you believe that you are damned to hell for not believing it. Easy trick, sole authority, not everything has to be in the bible and slam anathemas on everybody and the Catholic religion is born.
So you absolutely admitting your unfaithful to God is not Going to pay for your sins just build up more deserved wages!
2 Thessalonians 1:8-9 KJV In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: 9. Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power...
Yes.
@@TheCordialCatholic Then be honest and tell your disciples your actually a pagan just like your religion, the mother of harlet just as God said you are!
Are you off your meds?
OCD TROLL.
@@HAL9000-su1mz
So your calling God and the apostles trolls also for spreading the Gospel and the word of God!
Luke 13:25-28 KJV When once the master of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us; and he shall answer and say unto you, I know you not whence ye are: 26. Then shall ye begin to say, We have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets. 27. But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity. 28. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out.