The Redpill of Roman Catholicism
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 พ.ย. 2021
- We went into a fairly lengthy discussion about the Papacy in light of Francis and his obvious variation from those who have come before him.
All Dividing Line Highlights' video productions and credit belong to Alpha and Omega Ministries®. If this video interested you, please visit aomin.org/ or www.sermonaudio.com/go/336785 for more of A&O ministry's content
#woke #redpill #left #right #history #tweet #twitter #future #popeFrancis #Catholic
![แฟนแนวใด๋ - ยูริ โตเกียวมิวสิค [OFFICIAL MUSIC VIDEO ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4_XVMuhhbsU/mqdefault.jpg)
Why do Roman Catholics consider the Roman Church to be the mother church when the Book of Acts shows that the Jerusalem Church was the first church. Do they draw a distinction between _mother_ church and _first_ church?
Because Peter was its first bishop, and Peter is the chief apostle.
@@christsavesreadromans1096 that's their assertion, but the proof is a bit more murky.
@@snatchnefkin No there is much proof, all it takes is reading the early Christian writers.
The book of Daniel talks about 4 evil empires
The last is the worst. God will over come all.
Rome is the last worst evil empire. So the Church is where the last evil worldly empire was defeated by God thru the church.
The first 38 popes died in office.
@christsavesreadromans1096 there is no chief apostle, and any person that reads the Bible knows this. Remember when the apostles were arguing who was the greatest? If Peter was the greatest, it would if been said then. So please, quit with Peter being greater than any of the other apostles, it's blatantly false.
"Come out of her, my people,
lest you take part in her sins,
lest you share in her plagues;
for her sins are heaped high as heaven,
and God has remembered her iniquities."
"in her heart she says,
‘I sit as a queen,
I am no widow,
and mourning I shall never see.’
For this reason her plagues will come in a single day,
death and mourning and famine,
and she will be burned up with fire;
for mighty is the Lord God who has judged her."
[Rev. 18:4-5, 7-8, ESV].
The papists tell people to, "come home to Rome!".
God says, "come out of her, my people".
*Soli Deo Gloria*
God was speaking to the rebellious Prots.
@@bridgefinGod is speaking to papists who worship a church instead of worshiping Christ
@@countryboyred
Catholics worship God through the church that God gave them. Why do you feel compelled to lie??
@@countryboyredwhich seems to be most Popes
@@bridgefin I’m not lying. Rome fell long, long ago.
"To be deep in the Bible, is to be absent of the Vatican" - J.D. Randall
To be deep in The Bible makes you cease to be Protestant. That's just the honest fact.
Now Dr. White here will openly lie about the antiquity of the papacy, And yet we'll kindly forget to mention the fact that the founding doctrines of his religion is completely vacant from any Christian or Jewish thought for the 1st 1500 years after Christ.
You see there is a difference between scholars and apologists. And while you can be both, It's abundantly clear Dr. White is the latter and not the former.
@@thepalegalilean How does being deep in the Bible make you cease to be Protestant? Sola fide is amply clear in the Bible.
@@iQuiiKKz
It absolutely is not. The only way you get Sola Fide in the New Testament is by completely removing the Jewish context Paul speaks of in his epistles.
@@thepalegalileanJewish context only bolsters Sola Fide. The Jews believed they could justify themselves via the Law, not understanding that the Law could justify no one, that all had fallen short of the glory of God. Christ came and died as a sacrifice so that the righteous requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us. Paul even likens faith being credited as righteousness to Abraham being credited righteousness for believing a promise God made to him before the Law even existed.
@@iQuiiKKz
And that's the fundamental issue that you don't understand. If the law can't justify anyone then literally every Jew from Abraham to the apostles are dammed. The law could justify people. Otherwise the law is just an act of uselessness.
what Paul's actually saying is that the law can no longer justify you. Not that it could never justify. These propositions are too very different things.
Where you get sola fide from is the idea that intellectual assent apart from righteous works and deeds.
However in Paul's Jewish context, He is saying something very different. He is saying you are saved by faith apart from the old Jewish law.
Notice he is not saying there is no law. Notice he's not saying you don't have to submit yourself to it.
So there are still works that are necessary for salvation, Just as there is a law that is necessary to be followed for salvation.
The difference is that neither these works nor the law is of the old covenant.
And it is specifically this context you need to remove in order for your false doctrine to be true. Paul did not teach any doctrine of the protestant reformation. The protestant reformation taught the doctrines of the protestant reformation.
“To be guided by the Holy Spirit in the word of God is to cease to be Papist.”
"To be deep in history is to cease to be protestant".
@@crobeastness to deny history is to be catholic.
“He who hears YOU hears me
He who rejects you rejects me.”
Lk 10:16
“To be deep in church history in the context of the Scriptures is to see that Rome has departed from the Gospel”.
- Moi
That's interesting because the scripture's contexts and interpretations are debated by scholarship across the board.. so who is right at the end of the day?
@@sloanjackson8 The one who preaches the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Rome opposes the free gift of God in the Gospel for the forgiveness of sins and eternal life, to be received by faith - as it is written in Romans 3,
“This righteousness for all have sinned and all are justified God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood
@@doctor1alex I'm sorry but I believe you are straw-manning the Catholic position.. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church we are saved by faith in Jesus Christ, who is the only way to salvation.. I'm afraid in the 1500's Martin Luther among many have defaced the churches teachings on salvation and misrepresented the Jewish culture and law and the early Christian church as being "works based" when in fact it's about familial membership, faith and love..
@@sloanjackson8 “The Council of Trent teaches that the Ten Commandments are obligatory for Christians and that the justified man is still bound to keep them; the Second Vatican Council confirms: ‘The bishops, successors of the apostles, receive from the Lord . . . the mission of teaching all peoples, and of preaching the Gospel to every creature, so that all men may attain salvation through faith, Baptism and the observance of the Commandments.’” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 2068)
That is indeed salvation by works…
@@iQuiiKKz so if you're a Christian and you're called to be like Christ... I don't see a problem with that? It's all about nuance.. if you love the Lord your God with all of your heart, with all of your soul, and all of your mind, then why is this such an issue? And one big enough to leave the Church completely where you receive none of the sacraments and have to tred through a swamp of interpretations.. it's so relieving to understand the authority doesn't end with scripture as it clearly says in the bible.. it was given to the apostles to create a church, it says nothing about creating a Canon that would be our sole authority..
“To love Christ and fear God above man is to cease from Popery”.
i love Christ, I fear God, i accept the papacy. what now?
@@crobeastness On what grounds do you accept the papacy?
@@doctor1alex the Biblical evidence for for it, early Church fathers, Apostolic Tradition, and Apostolic Succession.
@@crobeastness So c’mon, what biblical evidence for it? What of the church fathers?
Didn’t many of the churches in Revelation (chapters 2 & 3) go seriously wrong? Did the Lord Jesus say to the believers in these churches, “everything’s ok, you belong to the one true church, just submit without question to the pope”??
If you do give evidence, you’ll need to do better than just quoting something like “you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church”. This doesn’t validate Rome’s current doctrine on the the papacy. Indeed, read this is its full context. See what comes beforehand from Peter.
Please take off Rome’s rose tinted glasses, and take God for His word afresh. We will be held accountable.
We need the teaching and enlightening of the Holy Spirit. For this we need humility. God is faithful. May we turn to Him in true sincerity and believe Him for His goodness to give grace those who are undeserving yet humble.
@@doctor1alex please read the gospel according to st. matthew chapters 16-18. it doesnt just talk about the papacy but also a visible Church. then there is also the fact that peter is given Christ’s flock to shepherd (john 21:17). An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter (mark 16:7), and the risen Christ appeared first to Peter (luke 24:34). He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (acts 1:13-26), and he received the first converts (acts 2:41). He inflicted the first punishment (acts 5:1-11) and excommunicated the first heretic (acts 8:18-23). He led the first council in Jerusalem (acts 15) and announced the first dogmatic decision (acts 15:7-11). It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (acts 10:46-48).
the writings of pope clement I (letter to the corinthians), ignatius of antioch (letter to the romans), dionysius of corinth (letter to pope soter in eusebius|), irenaeus (against heresies), cyprian of carthage (the unity of the catholic church), and others.
"just submit without question to the pope” - interesting you think that catholics would that when we dont. we question the pope all the time. being in union with the pope doesnt mean submit to him. it means he submits to the Church. im not quite sure you understand how the magisterium operates. and why does matthew 16:18 invalidate Rome’s current doctrine on the the papacy?
i came to Christianity as an atheist. didnt have rose tinted glasses when going Catholic.
i dont see humility with most protestant youtubers or ones on the street that i encounter. they all act like a grand authority of scripture. they all act like the caricaturized version of the pope you have for their own doctrines and james white is the biggest proponent of this.
What I don't understand is, let's say hypothetically, that Peter WAS given primacy over the church, what does that primacy have to do with the church in Rome? I know church tradition indicates that Peter did go to the Roman church after it was founded, like Paul, but Peter also went to the church in Samaria in the book of Acts.
Peter ended up in Rome established an underground diocese there. This is what we believe substantiated by historical evidence.
@@crobeastness What historical evidence?
@@wesleysimelane3423 it was the only city he reportedly died in. Archeologists and n 2013 found some evidence of his tomb under st. Peters basilica. There's a lot of scholarly work on the topic.
@@crobeastness If you are talking about the so-called bones of Peter that has long been proven to be a fake. Supposedly there are man's bones mixed with that of animals and a female.
There is no solid proof Peter ever set foot in Rome.
@@wesleysimelane3423 indeed there's no proof. But RCC basically need to hold on to Peter dearly because their whole foundation lies with 1 verse in Matthew. "....you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church......". And RCC can't even differentiate "Petros" from "Petra". RCC can't even recognize that Jesus is the one and only Rock.
You can't reconcile modern teachings of Roman Catholicism with scripture or even with the early fathers. Nobody in the first century believed on purgatory, or papal infallibility or the perpetual virginity of Mary. No Jewish believer in Jesus would have been okay with icons and images. Early fathers believed that their own words had to be tested against scripture and they believed in justification by faith alone.
LOL
@@hervedavidh4117 Great rebuttal David. You got me.
@@philblagden let's say someone drew the face of Jesus , would the image of Jesus perform miracles or not?
the early Church did believe those things. i think you are unclear of those terms. most protestants I come across for example believe that papal infallibility means whatever he says, whenever he says it must always be true no matter what otherwise he is a false prophet or something like that. am I right in thinking you believe something similar to that about that doctrine?
@@crobeastness
Bro don’t sear ur conscience the historical data proves it
Excellent! #WellPut
Thank you for your work Mr. White !
he's a charlatan. you actually believe in calvinism? the word of a man?
@Stephen Woolley thanks.
Wow!!!! Great point!
“The CHURCH is the ground and pillar of TRUTH.”
1 Tim 3:15
It is because we have Jesus. He is THE Truth.
@@bairfreedom
How do u have him
@@PInk77W1we believe in Jesus Christ. How do we not have Him?
@@countryboyred
What church do u attend ?
Comment for algorithm.
Galatians 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
So what?
@@bridgefin Paul speaking ex-cathedra on faith and morals rebuked Peter.
@@jamessheffield4173
That was about personal practices and not a matter of faith and morals. Nice try.
@@bridgefin Galatians 2:5 To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. Notice: that the truth of the gospel might continue with you
@@jamessheffield4173
BTW Paul has no cathedra to speak from. So what specifically do you think Peter was teaching different from the truth?
James, we need to team up! You come up with charges of apostate (1958 on) Rome, ill discuss sedevacantism.
Someone please explain his interpretation of Matthew 18.
Exactly. honestly how the papacy in scripture flies over protestants heads is confusing for me but the most confusing protestant doctrine I can't wrap my head around that not a lot of Catholic apologists seem to bring up (even more than the compilation of the canon) is their theology of an "invisible" Church. very baffling that every generation for 500 years has been tough this and it just gets soaked up. The first time I heard a protestant refer to "the church" I was stunned because I thought he was talking about the Catholic Church but what he was saying about "the church" and his protest against Catholicism didn't add up. I didn't ask a follow up at the time because I didn't even know what to ask (new to the faith from atheism at the time) so while I was stumbling over what to ask, someone joined in the conversation anyway and interrupted my train of thought. Went home and researched this concept once i remembered again and ya it's wacky.
@@crobeastness I've been an active Protestant for over fifty years and I've never heard of the "invisible church" before this minute. This simply is not something preached from Protestant pulpits.
@@CornerTalker so then what do you mean when you say "the Church"? when a catholic, eastern orthodox, or coptic person says "the Church" they refer to their respective churches and whichever church is in union with them. what do protestants mean then?
@@CornerTalker you guys don't have apostolic succession or apostolic tradition. How can your Church not be invisible? Also, the way your initial comment was phrased I thought you were Catholic.
@@crobeastness the Church, as defined by Jesus himself, is "when two or three are gathered in my name." So any time people gather to pray or praise God, they are part of the Church. It does not refer to any political body, human organization or bureaucracy.
So timely - discussing this "cult-like" approach to the faith with a Roman Catholic friend. Useful information that will be helpful in my witnessing to them.
Lookup what Catholic means, it literally means "Universal"
@@fauxmetaljacket3268 - And that term can't be applied universally to the "church" that just happens to be located in Rome.
@DJ Do you? Western (Latin) or Eastern? Armenian or Byzantine or Coptic? How about Protestant rites?
@DJ It's not "Protestants" who are to blame - that's simply how the Church in Rome refers to itself - I'm just using their own terminology to describe how they refer to themselves. And to the RCC, it's not just a figurative or metaphorical use of the word "Catholic" - they really mean it! They firmly believe they are the only true community and outside their ways or rites, there is no salvation.
@@fauxmetaljacket3268 the church has been in constant reformation since paul. Just read the nature of his letters.
waiting Trent Horn reply...
you think he wont?
You mean a 3hr video which no one actually watches where he just rambles and cherry picks early church authors, and constructs false dichtomies.
So, is the Catholic Church bunk,
Or is the ascension of sinners to its rule bunk?
We started going astray in the 60s, reforming to the world’s standards and this has brought us Francis and the others, there have been bad popes before we will survive and throw off the heresy eventually.
Mr. White, Could you please address when the Roman Catholic priesthood arose?
Look up his debate with Mitch Pacwa on the subject. He dealt with the issue there.
@@iknowuare4716 thank you
Mostly with Mr. White, but seems some weak arguments here: When did Peter receive the keys? After the promise and before Peter's death. Something not important enough to include in Scripture? How about the martyrdom of Peter, Paul, and other Apostles?
The fact use misunderstood the argument.. Peter and Paul’s death didn’t occur yet.. scripture was complete.. Peter did prophecy about his death but either way there death has no weight compared to the establishment of when an office began of the so called visible church.. you will see it wasn’t even established in the first few centuries.. another words Peter didn’t even understand his so called office as pope.. your logic is off -- Paul and peters death silence in scripture = the same as when the keys were given silence in scripture.. don’t sear ur conscience with logic like this
I thought it is a pretty lame argument from White as well. Christ said He would do it...we know Christ do what He said He would do...otherwise we would have to find Scriptures for each and everything Christ said would happen otherwise it is not true? I think that is a bit silly...maybe an argument an unbeliever atheist would make but not a Christian.
@@faithfulservant83
It’s not a bit silly when you have two thousand years of history all claiming be taught by Jesus, yet you still have to go back and we all agree that the closest thing to what Jesus said is actually what’s found in scripture anything outside of scripture can’t be proven to be apostolic . How do you prove tradition was from Jesus ? Scripture
@@pimpsarefilthy But then with that logic we cannot conclude that the thief on the cross ever went to Paradise because Jesus only said it would happen but there is no Scripture telling us the thief was in Paradise so now we should all ponder when exactly did the thief enter paradise. That is the problem you have with Sola Scriptura, people think the Bible should contain everything and they seem to neglect the fact that the early Church did not have all the Scriptures we have today. They had to go off tradition as we see Paul also telling them to hold to the traditions taught whether by word or their epistle so there are some things not written which the Church was told to do.
@@faithfulservant83
Your logic is off that’s the problem now u bring sola into using a ridiculous example.. sola scriptura is not what you explained it to be… and the scriptures says he will be paradise anything else you engaged is causing doubt and Jesuit tatick.. it’s circular reasoning to say that about tradition cuz I say the same thing about anything you say.. one thing is for sure every denomination wants to prove there doctrine from scripture even Catholics and tht shows the difference . You are playing later tricks with the text and your conscience will be seared that way.. the Jews leaders of Jesus time did the same with the text as Catholic apologist don’t fall victim to how do I know about how do I know? Lol so silly that you would make fun of the pure way and engage in this circular way of thinking lol it’s a trap
7:21 answer. Do you love Me... Feed My Sheep - 3times. He recd papacy
James, talk to sedevacantists, in general only Catholics left.
And our Bible, Duoay Rheims
In min 8:49 Dr White says that the keys were given to the Apostles in Matthew 18. I wonder which bible is he using because that is not in the text. The keys are only given to Peter.
Regarding the when, he is right that is in the future, but it has to be before Peter dies because the text says just after the keys are given, “whatever you bind on earth shall be bound”. If he is going to bind on Earth he will have to be on Earth to be consistent. So, it is hard to see this to be a good argument against the papacy.
Oh
but even if they were given to all the apostles, he's arguing for the side of eastern orthodoxy and coptics, not protestantism lol.
@@crobeastness true
I think he is referring to Matthew 18:18 where Christ repeats the phrase he said to Peter in Matt 16
"Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.". White's argument is that here in Matt 18 this is said to all the disciples not only Peter. I suppose he would argue that to be given the keys equals to be able to bind and loosen as that seems to be what is stated in Matt 16?
I'm not sure this necessarily takes away from Peter specifically being addressed in Matt 16 tho. I suppose it could just mean the other disciples are able to bind and loosen as well just as they are all told whosover's sins they remit, they are remitted unto them.
James White always plays fast and loose with the Scriptures inserting his own theology and interpretation. The power of the keys were given to all of the apostles, but the keys were given to Peter alone. All of the power of the keys comes from the keys given to Peter.
When did it start that the bishop of Rome was the équivalent of Peter for all the rest of the Church ?
That would be the Jewish theology that underlies Matthew 16.
@@thepalegalilean
?
@@AK-qc8ix
There is Jewish theology underlying the events of Matthew 16 which points out to Peter's primacy and authority.
@@thepalegalilean I didnt say Peter. I said the Bishop of Rome. Is Lyonas and Clement of Rome the new Peter leader of all the other authorities ?
@@isaacleillhikar4566 when St Peter died in Rome he left his successor (as head of the apostles and universal Church) there.
That's not what Google says, it says the Catholic Church was first then came Christianity 😂
Google hustles Rome pretty hard.
Christianity actually came first pretty much parallel with the church and the coined term Catholicism came in the late 700s. No protestant can deny our heritage to the one church before the reformation. We all come from the one church started by Christ. The tragedy is that the one church didn’t reform itself as it always had since the days of Paul and decided to rigidly stay within its pagan tradition practices outside of the truth of scripture in the reformation. In fact, the minute the church elevated tradition to the level of the Bible, there was great controversy in the council of Trent. This was not a unified decision but a “under the table” act that was later solidified in the 1800s as with Marian and saint traditions.
Yeah. Google knows church history. Why read the book of the Acts of the Apostles?😅
You can't quote ancient Bishops and such to disprove the Catholic position when you don't even take those bishops authority seriously to begin with.. and they don't have the authority to make the final decision anyways.. you mentioned so much about interpretation and biased eyes.. would you not, too, admit that the way you interpret the history and the scripture is also biased and seen through your own lens?? So where does it end? Who has the authority to say what is the truth and what isn't about all of these confusing matters? Or does it matter at all? Do you truly believe that Jesus instituted such a confusing church that can't agree on scripture or basic dogmas?
No, Jesus did not institute a church that’s confused about scripture or dogma. Which is why the Catholic Church is wrong, since they departed from the One, Holy, Apostolic Orthodox Church in 1054.
See what I did there? An appeal to some sort of “sacred tradition” ultimately just leaves us spinning in circles. Which is why we Protestants insist upon judging the very Church Christ instituted through the Scriptures, rather than interpreting scripture through the lens of tradition.
Thanks for your response! I would say that the Catholic Church's teachings are all from and are fed by the scriptures and don't go against them when they are read and interpreted correctly.. that's where the binding and loosing authority was given to Peter and the apostles and that's why the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth.. the bible is a fruit of the church (and the church says that the bible has authority and has the authority to say what belongs in the Canon and what doesn't).. Martin Luther doesn't have that authority..
Do you even understand disproving a statement by mentioning their statement? Thats how you disprove a statement by emphasizing on their wrong stances and false teachings. What Dr. White is saying is that the authority lies in God's word, its correct contextual authoritatiive commands, not the Pope's or even his, but ITS(the Bible's). For your last question that is a strawman lol, Dr.White didnt claim such a foolish thought, he is saying these things to actually disprove that which you believe he is saying, that Christ made a confusing churhc, nope, Christ has one church, and that church holds on to His words, stands on it, uninfluenced by doctrines and dogmas by men who twist Christ's words for their own benefit and power.
Denominations aint no "cofnusing church" , the differences are far fetch from the difference of the heresy that the Roman Catholic church practices, teaches, and proclaims.
@@dhonerlquintanilla2554 thanks for the response.. yeah idk to me what my Catholic faith has done in my faith life has drastically deepened my faith in ways unspeakable.. the church, being the pillar and foundation of truth, is a physical thing with physical teachings, just as much as you and I are spirit-body composites. Would you not agree that the word of God is always trying to tell us something very substantive? And that it's important that we interpret the word correctly? So who is to say who is correct when we have thousands of different beliefs? Using God's word alone, I would dare you to disprove any Catholic teaching. I play this game all the time with my beloved protestant friends. Under your rules of Sola scriptura, you can't.. this is a doctrine of man for it is no where in the scripture. Don't you think it's important that all Christians have the same bible? You're part of a major historical minority if you're missing books.. of christians living today and those who have passed before us. The majority of Christ's church is Catholic or at least Orthodox... come home ❤️
@@fallofshadows2209 Have you read matthew 18? Jesus mentions Thee Church several times.
I'm seeing more and more questionable behaviors from White in relation to Flowers.
White is lowering himself in unbecoming ways as he attacks Flowers in unkind ways.
The debate was about the problem of evil and White seemed more interested in Flowers.
Sad
Um Dr. White didn't mention Flowers in this video. You may not know this but Leighton Flowers has been slandering White for years. Its Leighton's obsession to destroy what he thinks is Calvinism. Leighton has made hundreds of videos where he out right lies, bears false witness. Dr. White has corrected his false accusations and responded to a handful of Leightons videos. But Leighton is totally obsessed with Dr. White.
@@misse8787 They both go back and forth because they disagree but White makes it personal and acts childish and mocks.
Not a good representation of a faith leader
I REALLY dig White as a teacher, but I tend to agree. He’s has an arrogant, mean streak that’s a bit juvenile. It does bug me sometime.
Ithappened in the Gospel according to John ("Feed my sheep/lamb")
@Stephen Woolley Well it does as it was developed into it right drom the model of the Davidic Dynasty that Jesus had to restore.
I think you are a powerful voice for your Protestant views. I really enjoy hearing your point of view. BUT let me finish ( Kanye ) .... please speak more with Hank Hangraaff. He has been unfairly treated. Orthodoxy is something that I think Protestants and Catholics could BOTH benefit from.
Last pope Oct 1958, Pope Pius XII.
Research sedevacantism
Biden, Francis, Pelosi ain't Catholic. All Cardinals are false non Catholic non Cardinals
You have to profess Catholic faith to be Catholic
2115 sedes believe these things.
James, Francis ain't Catholic/ pope.
If these Vatican 1 interpretations had the universal agreement of the church fathers, you'd think the Eastern Orthodox Church would recognize them as well.
On the contrary, they have a vested interest of rejecting them. Besides your argument is inconsistent. Baptismal regeneration is Biblical. This isn't even up for debate. Virtually every ancient Christian and Church Father believed it with very few exceptions. So baptismal regeneration is accepted by the whole of the Early Church. So I suppose you're going to believe this doctrine now.
@@thepalegalilean Michael Pomazansky writes "Baptism is not only a symbol of cleansing and washing away the defilement of the soul, but in itself is the beginning and source of the Divine gifts which cleanse and annihilate all the sinful defilements and communicate a new life. All sins are forgiven, both original sin and personal sins"
Eastern Orthodoxy seems to affirm it. Orthodoxy also affirms that doctrine can change over time. Chiliasm was popular among the early church fathers, then was later condemned as heresy (see Pomazansky). So there is no motivation for the Orthodox church to rewrite history.
There is much reason for the Vatican 1 Fundamentalist to rewrite history. One need only compare New Advent's view of Chiliasm, Ratramnus, Tertullian, or pretty much any church history topic to that of Britannica to realize it's the Catholic encyclopedia that is rewriting history.
@@drewm3807
Well if we are rewriting history like you claim, Demonstrate that. Good luck.
Also you miss my point entirely. My point is that there is a universally held belief of the New Testament Church, and you reject it.
So you wonder why the Orthodox reject the teachings of Vatican 1, when you reject a sacred teaching of Christianity.
And here's your answer. Orthodox Christianity has a vested interest and denying the teachings of Vatican 1. In the same way, You have a vested interest in rejecting baptismal regeneration (or at least you probably reject it).
the orthodox schism in 1054 was more political then it was theological.
@@thepalegalilean
Your logic is off with claims that don’t even make sense… what is the vested interest of the Greek orthodoxy,, you can’t accuse them of that and not give the evidence but I have evidence on you that you do anything even twist your lógic to justify the displays of Satan and also anything to defend a godless system.
Francis? Look at Paul VI... The monster.
ECLIPSE1958
Please look at, esp 6. A non Catholic can't become pope
dailycatholic.org/cumexapo.htm
James, the Catholic Church is almost gone because no pope since1958.
When Catholics get a Pope, the world will be converted
Pharisees became Christians Romanists became Reformers when Born Again.
The Bible destroys Roman Catholicism. They know it, I lived it. Never once was I or anyone else encouraged to read the Bible in the church I went to. Now saved I know why!! Praise God! Romans 5:1,6:23,
It destroys transubstantiation and their justification/sanctification combo but it doesn’t destroy all of them. Keep in mind that church is our heritage even if we claim Protestantism. Just because it went awry and 1215 and on doesn’t mean that we don’t come from them.
So you weren't taught to read the Bible and that means the Catholic church is wrong? Such flawed reasoning will not lead you to the truth. The Holy Spirit leads the church into truth.
@@stevenhazel4445 the holyspirit Inn Dewell the individual and leads the individual. Not the church.
@@bobbyrice2858 that’s not what the Bible says. 1 Tim 3:15 says the church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth, not individual people. That’s good news because if the Holy Spirit were guiding individual people into the truth, we would have no way of knowing what the truth was since so many people are led to contradictory conclusions. Take just this passage as an example. We each have a different interpretation and if we are relying individually on the Holy Spirit then you have no way of knowing whether your interpretation is correct. This is why sola scriptural is impossible and absurd.
@@stevenhazel4445 1 Timothy 3:15 ESV
if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and foundation of THE truth.
The household of God is not todays church definition but rather believers in Christ.
THE truth is scripture, not the church.
Romans 8:9 ESV
You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.
Romans 8:11 ESV
If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.
1 Corinthians 3:16 ESV
Do you not know that you are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you?
1 Corinthians 6:19 ESV
Or do you not know that YOUR BODY is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own,
1 Corinthians 2:9-10 ESV
But, as it is written, "What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him"- [10] these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God.
“Spirit within you” is in the first person singular. Its not a group but a singular plural. Its a group of individuals with indwelling of God. This is why born of the spirit is so important in John 3. Reborn, porn from above, born again.
Read Romans 7-9
Romans 6:23 ESV
For the wages of sin is death (pre- born again), but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.(SAVED)
Sola scriptura is echoed by the early fathers.
- Irenaeus (AD 180): We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. (Against Heresies, 3:1.1)
- Athanasius (AD 296-373): The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth. (Against the Heathen, 1:3)
- Augustine (AD 354-430): It is to the canonical Scriptures alone that I am bound to yield such implicit subjection as to follow their teaching, without admitting the slightest suspicion that in them any mistake or any statement intended to mislead could find a place. (Letters, 82.3)
- Augustine (AD 354-430): He [God] also inspired the Scripture, which is regarded as canonical and of supreme authority and to which we give credence concerning all the truths we ought to know and yet, of ourselves, are unable to learn. (City of God, 11.3)
- Cyril of Jerusalem (AD 310-386): For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures. (Catechetical Lectures, IV:17 in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers)
- Gregory of Nyssa (AD 330-395): We are not entitled to such license, namely, of affirming whatever we please. For we make Sacred Scripture the rule and the norm of every doctrine. Upon that we are obliged to fix our eyes, and we approve only whatever can be brought into harmony with the intent of these writings. (On the Soul and the Resurrection, quoted in Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971], p. 50.)
- Augustine of Hippo (AD 354-430): Let them show their church if they can, not by the speeches and mumblings of the Africans, not by the councils of their bishops, not by the writings of any of their champions, not by fraudulent signs and wonders, because we have been prepared and made cautious also against these things by the Word of the Lord. (On the Unity of the Church, 16)
- John Chrysostom (AD 347-407): Wherefore I exhort and entreat you all, disregard what this man and that man thinks about these things, and inquire from the Scriptures all these things; and having learned what are the true riches, let us pursue after them that we may obtain also the eternal good things. (Homily 13 on 2 Corinthians)
- Basil the Great (AD 329-379): Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the Word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth. (Letter 189 to Eustathius the physician)
In listening to you, in all charity, the Catholic Church makes a whole lot more sense on Mary's virginity because this doctrine teaches us so much more about the divinity of Christ.
Does it? In what way?
@@michaelallen3304 Simply. By holding on to the historical continuity, revelation and authority vested in Christ's command:" He who hears you, hears Me."
@@triconcertdo you mean her perpetual virginity? And did Jesus open the womb or just beam out?
The son of man is very important compared to being only awake about man being born by woman, it is easy to not ponder the son of man is spiritual wakening that is by the skull hints used as the place where Jesus was crucified and not seen by the Greatest born of women Matt 11:11Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he, Luke 17: (hinted) 20And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: 21Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
the Holy Spirit Led me back to the Catholic Church. Praise God and him using James White to show me who and where the true church is!
If you are back to Romans Catholic then I am quite sure Holy Spirit is not in you. God won't be present at a place where its filled with idols and idolatory worshipping.
@@veekee75
We have one Holy Spirit which guides us. You have 15000 holy spirits.
Your slander is not a substitute for an argument you clearly don't have.
@@thepalegalilean where did you get that 15000 holy spirits? With all due respect, idols are found in all Romans Catholic churches. You should have more "holy spirits" than all other religions. The one true Holy Spirit of God would never dwell among idols and idolaters. Repent and turn away from your idolatries.
@@veekee75
what I mean is that your 'Holy Spirit' only causes you to divide yourselves among literally thousands of denominations. Your spirit is one of division and confusion which God did not author.
And frankly, your accusation of 'YouRE AlL !DolAters' is incredibly uneducated and stupid. You have no idea what an idol is. The proof is in the Bible itself. To take your downright stupid logic to its conclusions would have you condemn literally every prophet as an idolater. If you're gonna do that, be consistent.
@@thepalegalilean I don't really care how many denominations are there, as long as they have the same core beliefs and values and Bible as the only authority. And praying to Mary isn't one of it.
You can Google "Romans Catholics worshipping idols" and see what are the images showing up. I need not elaborate further. If you think those are not idol worshipping then you are in denial.
cope
2 popes walk into a bar ......
James White sister has converted to
Roman Catholic
Irrelevant.
The supremacy of the bishop of Rome is older attested than the canon of the Bible. The earliest text that talks about the 4 gospel books together as the 4 gospels (not even yet the other books of a "New Testament") was Against Heresies (Irenaeus) and this same text says the bishop of Rome has the final say if division arises. However what you can never see is the "It must be in the Bible" thinking. Because this was copied by Luther from Islam over 1400 years after Jesus.
SOLA SCRIPTURE
The ONLY writings INSPIRED by God iIsaiah 8:20
To the teaching and to the testimony! If they will not speak according to this word, it is because they have no light.-
Not according to Catholics. They changed it to: To the teaching and to the testimony! If they will not speak according to the word of the Pope's word, it is because they have no light.-
------ As Christians, we believe that all answers to our questions and all wisdom for life should first and foremost be found in the Word (Hebrews 4:12 12 Indeed, the word of God is living and effective, sharper than any two-edged sword, penetrating even between soul and spirit, joints and marrow, and able to discern reflections and thoughts of the heart), or seen implicitly through its lens. Ultimately, Sola Scriptura is the start and foundation of everything we know about God and His glory.
Not according to Catholics. Indeed, the word of the Pope (priests) is living and effective.......................
-----Deuteronomy 17:14-20 states that we “shall not turn away from God’s Word, not to the right or the left”.
Not according to Catholics. They turn to whatever direction they can to satisfy their itching ears.
-----Psalm 1:2 and Joshua 1:7-8 says that “the righteous person dwells on the Word of the Lord day and night”.
Not according to catholics. They DWELL on every word spoken by a mere man, the Pope (priests).
-----Deuteronomy 8:3 states that “we do not live on bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God”.The Reformers did not create this idea on the basis of logic, virtue, experience, or tradition, but from the foundation of Scripture itself.
Not according to Catholics.“we do not live on bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of the Pope (priests)”.
----- Proverbs 30:5-6 states: 5 Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. 6 Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar
Not according to Catholics. 5 Every word of the Pope proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. 6 Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a heritic.
Sola Scriptura ultimately means God’s Word alone-that we are not to add or take away any of God’s words but to submit ourselves to its supreme authority.
Catholics say thery are ABOVE GOD (scripture). Yet, who imspired the Bible??? NOT the Catholic Church!!!
@@mitchellosmer1293The Catholic Church gave us the Bible canon, and the Catholic Church existed before the New Testament was formed.
@@christsavesreadromans1096Catholic as in universal. Not the Roman Catholic Church of today. No one believed in any of its dogmas during that time period. Not even at Nicea in 325AD. Papal infallibility is the most useless doctrine Rome has put out. “The pope succeeds Peter only in his denial of Christ.”
This man has no authority...he makes a beautiful case for the other side.. perhaps ill convert right now!
So you’re not a Catholic?
@@cordsman there is only OHCA, that Christ founded. And James White and the entire Reformed Church from North America to Geneva is finally loosing their propaganda narrative, because Calvinism is a masonic ocult heresy. And u dont need to be a Catholic to realize that. U can also dispense with the standard anti christ counter points, as we have actually assessed John Calvin by his actions and what he actually wrote, and nothing could be more anti christ or satanic. And James White is a neo Pharisee, although he does do a great job on pointing out how the KJV Bible is a flawed calvinist book.
wait so what are you converting to then?
@@cordsman that is called wit and a dash of sarcastic humor at the sheer stupidity of JW.
No he doesn't as you still have to show that the Apostles passed on that authority, as Orhodox claims from Scripture and History. And I don't think you will want to do that given that someone like Bishop Ignatius (diciple of Polcarp who was Disciple of John, and teacher of Ireaneus AND potentially a bishop installed by Peter) will say "I do not issue commands like Peter and Paul, they were apostles while I am condemned. They were free while I am a slave" and also says "I do not make commands as if I were a great man'' even though he has an incredibly "high view" of the Bishop; saying else where "Recieve the Bishop as you would receive Jesus Christ''. And again, "Where the Bishop is, there Jesus Christ is". All of these came from letters while he was going to Rome to be martyred, in 110 AD; 14 years after John died in ~96 AD. That kind of historical evidence is as much as gold dust as the early creed in 1 Cor 15, which dates to at most 2 years after the cross.
James white is the greatest Roman Catholic evangelist
Explain.
Bruh 😂
@@telabib
It means his arguments are so dumb and so easily refutable that he creates more catholics than the Vatican can on its best day.
@@thepalegalilean
Dr. JW spends 22min walking through a statement and laying out his argument. You write a couple of sentences declaring that his position can easily be refuted. I think you have a lot more work to do, otherwise you appear to only be trolling.
@@AK-qc8ix
There's so much wrong in the 1st 5 minutes. He criticizes people that correctly point out the ancient office of the papacy. We can find the papacy in the 1st century.
We find practices of infallibility and supremacy throughout the ancient fathers.
This is interesting. Not sure what prompted the TH-cam robot to present it. You have access to me through the internet generally and TH-cam specifically. The world is so much bigger now than 2000 years ago. The citizens of the globe have access to both science and religion. Religion being plural as there are so many. Monotheistic, polytheistic, animistic. We are not in Kansas anymore.
It was difficult to understand your comment so I'm just going to leave the gospel here. The word gospel means good news, good news that death is now optional.
How do you get to hell?
Very simple: claim that you're innocent.
How do you get to heaven?
Very simple: Admit that you're not Innocent, you're guilty and ask for mercy.
How to know if you're guilty or not?
Simply: Compare your life to the Ten Commandments God gave you in the Bible.
Everyone agrees that if people followed the ten commandments there would be no need for governments or police.
Do not lie.
Do not steal.
Do not commit adultery.
Do not insult God by using his name as a cuss word.
There are six more but let's just leave it at that.
How many lies have you told in your life?
Have you ever taken anything that didn't belong to you?
Jesus said, if you look at a women lustfully you've already committed adultery in your heart with that woman.
How many times a day do you do that?
Do you use God's name as a cuss word?
Would you do that with your own mother's name?
If you answer these questions honestly you know that you're guilty.
God can justly punish you and send you to hell.
Ask him for mercy.
His name is Jesus.
It's as simple as this, The Ten Commandments are called the moral law. You and I broke God's laws. Jesus paid the fine.
The fine is death.
Ezekiel 18:20 -
"The soul who sins shall die.
That's why Jesus had to die on the cross for our sins. This is why God is able to give us Mercy.
Option A.
You die for your own sins.
Option B.
Ask for mercy and accept that Jesus died for you.
I am watching from Kansas. :P
Coming to know the Catholic Church was the best decision of my life.
“Coming to know the catholic church”
Well scripture never speaks of the necessity of knowing the church, but rather than necessity of Christ knowing you.
Matthew 7:23 ESV
And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'
I don’t paint this to say that you’re an unbeliever or anything like that, but look at the word “never. “ the wonderful thing about this word is that it breaks, classic Catholic tradition thinking that you can lose salvation. How can someone never know someone in terms of a person who loses and reclaims and loses and reclaims?
Couple this with the contents of John, six surrounding the words of Jesus, saying that all that the father gives him he will never lose.
So my point all this is that while you claim a relationship with your church, you lack a sufficiency with Christ if that’s all you have. The Eucharist isn’t going to save you because the Eucharist is a missed reading of John six if you read John six contextually. What you need is to be born again because you cannot see the kingdom of God, unless one is born again. If the Eucharist was literal and a salvific act, it would be a repeated conversation with Christ and those he preached. It never was. It was a contextually specific scenario in relation to hyperbole with regards to knowing Christ, and only those called by the father can know Christ.
@@bobbyrice2858Anyone who has read the Bible and is honest knows one can lose their salvation, the Bible makes that certain. Anyone who says otherwise believes such way because they believe OSAS from their manmade tradition.
Galatians was written to baptized members of the Church of Galatia, Christians, so saved people of course.
Galatians 3:26-27; “for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.”
Despite this though Paul explicitly warned them that those who live sinfully will not inherit the kingdom of God.
“Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.”
So Paul warned baptized Christians that if they continue sinning they won’t inherit the kingdom of God; now why would someone warn of such a thing if they believed one couldn’t lose their salvation?
It’s because Paul never held such a view. Paul warned Christians all throughout his letters.
He warned the Church of Rome of condemnation if they judge (Romans 2:1). Paul also explicitly taught that if one abandoned their faith that they would incur condemnation.
1 Timothy 5:11-12
“But refuse to enroll younger widows, for when their passions draw them away from Christ, they desire to marry and so incur condemnation for having abandoned their former faith”
@@bobbyrice2858The Eucharist was believed by the early church fathers and christians, and is written about in their letters. Jesus taught that His flesh is true food, and His blood true drink.
@@christsavesreadromans1096 todays Rome is twisted and distorted. BUT Baptist are no better. Teachings of the rapture has been the single most damning doctrine in the church in the last 200 years.
The only reliable text is interpretation of scripture outside of traditions.
Strawman. There have been antipopes before and if Francis were one, it would not affect the truth or falsehood of Catholicism. Israel had bad kings and good kings, but bad kings did not invalidate God's royal institution. We have to think about this from a Biblical worldview, not modern.
but hes not an antipope, and by antipope standards the sedevacantists are correct
Seems like more ammunition to be an Eastern Catholic.
i think you mean eastern Orthodox or even Coptic. Eastern Catholics are all in union with Rome.
Yeah, this video is basically an ad for Eastern Orthodoxy. They have it right.
@@JeremyWashington1489 Which one?
The Real Question we must ask ourselves... Does the EKKLESIA TOU THEO (Church of God) established and built by Christ Jesus upon the ROCK nearly 2000 years ago end with Apostle Peter whom Christ Jesus entrusted the KEYS to the Gates of Heaven (authority to Open/Bind/Accept and Close/Lose/Reject) when he was martyrdom in around 67 A.D.?... or an APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION was implemented and carried on till today?
Let us ask honestly our hearts and minds, Christ Jesus said, that the Gates of Hell will not prevail on the CHURCH of God that Christ had built upon the Rock almost 2000 years ago... Did the Church of God end when Emperor Constantine RENAMED the Church of God and some Apostolic succession went rogue and corrupt?...
If YES, therefore, Christ Jesus had LIED and failed, logically speaking... If the Apostolic succession ended, where is the Church of God now in our present time?...
Do we have the AUTHORITY to create our own CHURCH of God and RENAME it in any way we wanted to be, as the Methodist Church, Born Again Church, Baptist Church, Mormon Church, 7th Day Advent Church, Episcopal Chruch, Christ the King Church, Living Water Church, Lutheran Church, Protestant Churches, etc.?
If NO, therefore, Christ Jesus' Church of God did not fall, or been destroyed, it just went through some terrible human TURMOIL inside His Church for centuries while still with some corruptions inside the CHURCH until today... thus, that is one reason why, Christ Jesus needs to return to Earth to CLEAN UP the Church of God in his Millennial (1000 years) Reign with an Iron Rod (strict rule)... Christ Jesus will not establish another Church of God again, but to straighten up the human errors/ mistakes committed by the Apostolic Successors of the Church...
Christ Jesus will put it back its original NAME (Church of God) that bears the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost written in the Bible nearly 2000 years ago...
In conclusion, ALL Christians must remain in the CHRUCH of GOD in Christ, renamed as The Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, regardless of its many FLAWS till the return of Christ Jesus on Earth.
Analogy... if you left the KEYS to your own HOUSE for a long time to somebody you trusted and the CITY Ordinances had decided to change the Address NAME of your community that affects your House address name and location... is your HOUSE no longer yours just because the name address was changed?... NOPE... Can the person to whom you entrusted the Keys to your House transfer the ownership of your House to himself or others?... NOPE... Do the people living in your HOUSE need to leave/vacate just because the Address Name was changed?... NOPE... the same analogy...
When Christ Jesus returns, He will still find the "CHURCH of God" here on Earth whether somebody has changed its NAME or not... Facts and Truth of the Matters... Glory and Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen.
The anathemas are important because it tells the Faithful that these truths are a matter of faith.
To reject these teachings means the damnation of your soul because they come from Jesus himself speaking through the Church
Prove it.
@@douglasmcnay644 prove what?
@@StAnthonyPaduaRadTrad
He wants you to prove that we think your soul is damn for rejecting these. And while I would agree that it is possible for your soul to be damned, There needs to be a significant few qualifiers met before such a thing can occur.
furthermore the church itself doesn't have the authority to damn any one. An anathema only states that you are in danger of damnation. But as previously aspoused, even that requires significant distinctions distinctions be made.
@@thepalegalilean All the Anathemas are saying is that these truths are a matter of Faith. If you reject these truth that the Church tells you one must believe, then you are anathema. This means in a state of mortal sin outside the Church.
don’t feel a need to prove an obvious teaching of the Catholic Church.
if one holds to a condemned teaching of the Church that would make them a heretic. A heretic has placed himself outside the Church. The Church teaches that there is no salvation outside the Catholic church.
Certainly one can repent and be united to the Church, but if they die holding to heresy they can not be saved.
@@StAnthonyPaduaRadTrad
You are repeating talking points from your understanding. There are other distinctions that need to be made that you simply aren't making.
Read the catachism.
There is a distinction between being formally damned, and being in a risk of damnation.
Yawn 🥱
Time to become Orthodox.
Why
I'm good! I've Got Jesus! And I love him so much! He has saved me from my sin and washed me clean!!
@@bairfreedom yup
2 Corinthians 5:21 ESV
For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
@@bairfreedom Glad to hear you’re Orthodox then!
@@bobbyrice2858 because Christianity is quite nice.
Reading the Bible as secular history is classic theology by and for man not yet born by God as sons of man by spiritual waking.
John 6 proves Calvinism
John 6 proves Catholicism. John 6:53-59.
@@christsavesreadromans1096 v63: "The words that I speak to you are spirit"
not literal ;)
@@Arabian_Epileptic That doesn’t prove your point at all, he explicitly taught that His flesh is real food, and His blood real drink. Just because his words are Spirit, doesn’t mean he was being symbolic about what he mentioned previously.
The Jews and apostles with him perceived him to be speaking literally, that’s why they all abandoned him.
The early church also perceived him to be speaking literally, that’s why they held mass in the early church in the same way Catholics still do to this day.
Ignatius of Antioch, who knew John the Apostle, believed in real presence as anyone will pickup on upon reading his letters.
@@christsavesreadromans1096 "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing"
@@Arabian_Epileptic Jesus isn’t saying that his own flesh profits nothing, that’s a twisted interpretation.
Yes, you have to drink his blood or you have no life in you.
Both the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox view is that Jesus is present in the Eucharist, this is uncontroversial.
Only after the reformation did people try to distort the teaching of real presence into some kind of metaphor, even Luther had called Huldrych Zwingli a devil for denying real presence in the Eucharist, so even a large number of the reformers believed real presence.
Here is what Ignatius, bishop of Antioch (where believers were first called christians) said (keep in mind that Ignatius knew John the apostle, the one who wrote John 6).
“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).”
“Sin boldly!” - Martin Luther
“It does not matter what a man does, only what he believes” - Martin Luther
This is not the gospel! Protestants hang all of their theology on a verse in Romans that was meant for brand new Christian converts.
Have you read Luther's Treatise on Good Works?
"Where Christ and faith are lacking, there is no remission or covering of sins, but only condemnation. After we have taught faith in Christ, we teach good works. “Since you have found Christ by faith,” we say, “begin now to work and do well. Love God and your neighbor. Call upon God, give thanks unto Him, praise Him, confess Him. These are good works. Let them flow from a cheerful heart, because you have remission of sin in Christ.”
@@dave1370 Yes, that is good that he mentions works at some point. Faith alone is not in the Bible we come to God at first with faith alone and he washes our sins away by baptism (Acts 22:16), but we have to have works at some point to be saved also. Jesus talks about not being forgiven if we don’t forgive our brother, if we don’t do to the least of these, we are all to work out our own salvation works should not be a bad word we don’t live our lives in the first pages of Romans all of our lives. That is not to say that we are ever justified only by our own works strictly, but in a relative way.
instead of attacking protestantism, why don't you respond to the very damning facts Mr. White brought up in the video?
Protestantism = Stuff made up starting in the 1500's.
this guy has his rainbow on his shirt. wonder what that means. means hes a good catholic. well, the priests like it.
He’s not Catholic, dingus.
God created the rainbow…
Cherry picking