Off topic: A 16yo Spanish girl who has been blind for two years, received her sight after the reception of the Holy Communion at World Youth Day in Portugal. Praise God.
Which Mass? One of the two with the Pope? Another Mass during the events? Or one of the Churches open most of the day giving regular Masses throughout?
Thank you Trent Horn! As an ex-Protestant who is joining the Catholic Church, I’m filled with joy I have brothers defending the Catholic faith! God bless your ministry and your family.
Praying for you brother, as I did the same, from being baptized in the presbyterian church to becoming a Roman Catholic in 2015! Welcome Home, brother! Praying for you!
God bless you in your quest to become Catholic! Enjoy plumbing the depths of the Catholic Faith. I was born into a Protestant family and longed to become Catholic throughout my adult life. Converted several years ago, and I’ve never looked back. Welcome home! Praying for you and your journey!
Welcome home brother, may you continue to find all the treasures of the Catholic faith. Look into the eucharistic miracles since this is the year of the eucharistic revival
@@ironymatt Great point, I was just writing about her 2day, & how there's all kinds of scripture proving God worked with Pagans, like King Nebuchadnezzar for example, but God always used Pagan kingdoms to punish Israel to, & in the NT Jesus tells Pontius Pilate in John 19:11; u only have this power because it was given to u from above. I'm a former Protestant believer, so all I do now is write articles like these to show my family that Catholic church is true... But that's a great point
@weaponofchoice-tc7qs oh because I enjoy getting a good nights sleep, not being kept awake by Trent's theological challenges to my faith lol. It's nice to just sit back and watch him dismantle other doctrines. *just to note: I'm a protestant on a Catholic Apologetics page, obviously I am here because I am open to hearing the Catholic side of things, and I enjoy the charitable dialogues
It's crazy how you point to my 3 favorite protestant pastors... as I just recently decided to go to RCIA and become catholic. Thank you for all your hard work Trent!
@@jackdaw6359 _"...you sound exactly like the pagan detractors of early Christianity."_ Wait. Are you denying that the literal worship of propitiatory human sacrifice is the core tent of Christianity? You know, that cross and John 3:16... Christians believe that God sent one of his sons to be tortured and killed as a sacrificial offering (a practice adopted from Paganism). They worship this human sacrifice as part of a ritual intended to appease a god. In Christian theology, atonement refers to the forgiving of sin by using Jesus as the human sacrifice. Paul created Christianity in 48 AD and this is how he put it: Romans 8:32 "He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all." 1 Corinthians 5:7 "Christ our passover is sacrificed for us." Romans 3:25 "God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement." Romans 5:8 "God showed his great love for us by sending Christ to die for us." Hebrews 10:10 "We are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ."
Man St Ignatius really dropped some hard facts on those in schism. Didn't know he said that so directly. I definitely need to read the early church fathers
Definitely, Ignatius of Antioch is the Church Father that Protestants fear the most, in my experience. He is an apostolic father and as such is incredibly early, was a direct student of John the Apostle and knew Peter personally, and his writings are so blatantly Catholic that they can’t really be reasoned around. Pax Christi.
I guess what is more important. The revealed Words of God from the source in the Bible or studies of early church leaders. We are to test Scripture with Scripture and thus test teaching of any church leader with scripture. Please cite the area that Ignatius taught that Protestants disagree with and cite the verses you KNOW to be directly cited by Ignatius as support for his theology
@@nathangraham2189I would rather believe in Saint Augustine, Saint Thomas Aquinas, Saint Ignatius of Antioch, Ireneus, Saint Polycarp and the other early Church Fathers. Rather than believe in Martin Luther, John Calvin, Albert Zwingli, King Henry the VIII, John Knox and MANY other Reformers.
@@danielkim672 The Bible tells us that the Church is the foundation of Truth, and Paul commanded all they taught in written word and in oral tradition was to be followed, so tell us which verse justifies your privileged understanding.
@@TheCounselofTrent Why did the APOSTLES refer to the Communion. Meal of believers in Christ as "gatherings for THE BREAKING IOF BREAD" n NOT "gatherings for THE PARTAKING OF THE BODY AND BLOOD OF JESUS"? It was only in later years that rc-approved church fathers came up with the doctrine of TRANSUBSTANTIATION.....that d rc chirch then ENFORCES that DOCTRINE merely coz it "SUPPORTED" by "d church fathers"... BUT why are the teachings of d later church fathers MORE IMPORTANT to d Roman catholic faith... than the TEACHINGS OF THE APOSTLES is to rc??? Why expect Christianity to REJECT BIBLICAL DOCTRINES just coz they hv NOT BN DOCUMENTED BY ROME to be from £d church fathers"???... Were there not CHURCH FATHERs MISSING from d Roman catholic ROLL???
@@matthewoburke7202 keep an eye out! The conspiracies are true. Jesuits are hiding everywhere! Hahaha I've even got things going on, like Gospel reflection videos etc
@@lufhopespeacefully2037 Guess you missed that part in the Bible when Jesus was baptized and all three interacted with the world at once. Or in Acts when it says that God anointed Jesus with the Holy Spirit.
God bless you, brother in Christ! As a Catholic who tirelessly defends our Church amid constant anti-Catholic vitriol from some (not all) Protestants, I’m grateful for your channel. 🙏🏼✝️🕊️
@@Catholic-Christian _"It’s neither cannibalism nor human sacrifice."_ Wait. Are you denying that the literal worship of propitiatory human sacrifice is the core tent of Christianity? You know, that cross and John 3:16... Christians believe that God sent one of his sons to be tortured and killed as a sacrificial offering (a practice adopted from Paganism). They worship this human sacrifice as part of a ritual intended to appease a god. In Christian theology, atonement refers to the forgiving of sin by using Jesus as the human sacrifice. Paul created Christianity in 48 AD and this is how he put it: Romans 8:32 "He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all." 1 Corinthians 5:7 "Christ our passover is sacrificed for us." Romans 3:25 "God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement." Romans 5:8 "God showed his great love for us by sending Christ to die for us." Hebrews 10:10 "We are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ."
@@Catholic-Christian _"It’s neither cannibalism nor human sacrifice."_ Jesus: "Whoever gnaws my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink."
@@twitherspoon8954 Jesus real blood and flesh is eaten under the appearance and taste of bread, not flesh and blood. And human sacrifice is when humans offer an Innocent human being against their will to a false God. That’s not what happened in Jesus case, on the contrary Jesus willingly died for us as a pleasing sacrifice to God.
I appreciate this video so much. I used to be a Fundamentalist Baptist who would fight tooth and nail for this doctrine. I became Catholic and my viewpoint changed. You have said before that in order to talk about various Catholic doctrines with Protestants, often times Sola Scriptura needs to be dealt with first. I have found this same point to be true with the Doctrine of Eternal Security when talking with our Fundamentalist brothers and sisters. Salvation from the Eucharist, Confession, etc. Makes no sense to them if they hold fast to the Once-Saved-Always-Saved mentality. I really appreciate both this video and what you do to further the Kingdom. God bless you.
I appreciate your honesty. The biggest problem within Fundamentalism and Baptist as a whole is a lack of good teaching of doctrine and theology. When you don’t have a true understanding and foundation in what you profess anyone who is willing to give an answer will sound correct. I apologize for that they failed you and I strongly recommend that you do as the Apostle Paul told the Thessalonians in 1 Thessalonians 5:21, TEST all things. Don’t take my word don’t take Trent’s word go test what is being said, and just ask yourself one question, who should I believe God or man? Good luck and God bless.
yea like "sola scriptura" cant be right huh? those crazy Baptists, who warn that once u start accepting traditions or additions to scripture, ANYTHING can happen! and so it has, from the catholic heresies of praying to the dead, indulgences, killing those who taught against their church (real christians huh?) to mormons and all their additional books and their "prophets" revelations and on and on and on. and both teach that gettin wet and calling is baptism, washes away sins...but thats not enough either! i will pray for u friend, the Jesus u have run into in the Catholic church is a weak one. has to be sacrificed daily in the mass, and he didnt quite do enough, so now u gotta "persevere" and since Trent says not everyone has been gifted with perseverance, u still come up short. its enough to cause schizophrenia
I'm sorry you were in a dead church, but thanks to the King James bible I was led away from the seducing Catholic spirit. I admit there is something compelling about Catholicism, but this "Catholic awakening" on the internet is not validation of it being the true church. Anywhere you look in the bible in just about any case the majority is in apostasy. Matthew 7 is clear about the gate being narrow. Over one billion people is not a narrow gate. I just want you to put this in perspective; you are leaving the heritage of bible believers who were burned at the stake for the word of God and joining the heritage of those that burned them at the stake. I'd feel guilty if that was my heritage. I'm praying for you.
Thaks to Trent and other Catholic RUclipsr and the writing of the church fathers, I'm entering RCIA September and will be received into church Easter🙏🙏🙏
This is probably the best discussion I have seen succinctly about the topic. I have seen Trent make similar "historical" arguments of theological development from present roots of a doctrine in early fathers.
Trent, I just considered that what you do as your life vocation and how you unpack and deliver the truths of our Catholic Faith is so appreciated. Your role in life is more important than many other secular disciplines in helping all of us on our faith journey. Thank you, and God bless you and your beautiful family!!
I went from staunch protestant to almost Catholic in the last two months in part because Trent's eternal security debate with James White dismantled my view of salvation. Most protestants have salvation, one of the most important doctrines, so wrong (if you're honest about historical context).
@@huntsman528 My grandpa was a Presbyterian pastor and I currently go to a Presbyterian church, but Calvinism has never made sense to me so I don't think i can really claim to have ever been Calvinist
@@anglicanaesthetics I don't either. One, I'm not Catholic. Two, I said this "in part" has contributed to the collapse of my protestant faith. I no longer believe in either Sola Scriptura nor Sola Fide which puts me on a super small island of Protestants. Every protestant I know of who has been on said island has gone on to Catholicism. Catholics have a comprehensive interpretation of sacred tradition and the church's role in salvation that is utterly lacking in protestantism.
Very interesting. When I was a Calvinist I never had any assurance, whatsoever, but that's because I considered myself unrepentant. Aside from that, though, I think Calvinistic readings of Scripture are entirely sound and consistent, and am surprised it's even possible to dismantle Calvinism in a debate. Just curious, what was so effective about Horn's approach (I might try it against some Calvinists, myself)?
I think that scriptures are in line with the perseverance of the Saints. I think John is the most explicit, besides saying that those that went away were never from us there are passages like Jn 2:23-25 (they are trusting jesus but Jesus is not trusting them) and 6:64-66 (where Jesus is saying they are following just for foor before it). Then there are passages like Jn 15:16 where Jesus is saying he chose his disciples (i don't think Judas proves this wrong when concidered in context i think he was the son of perdition, the one stealing money isn't somebody that is really a christian unless you think it is a mark of true salvation... Just like God chose Moses before, does not know what he is dooing?), Jn 10:27-30 saying nobody can take them out of his hand where he says it is the same as beeing in the hand of the father and passages like Ap 13:8, 17:8 where the names are in the book of life from before the foundation of the world. What do you make of these passages?
As a revert catholic ( Who was Protestant for 30 years) I have to say I have never heard a Catholic Apologist explain Protestant Doctrine so accurately. This is why Trent is a phenomenal apologist. “ If you know the enemy and know yourself you need not fear the result of hundreds of battles. “ The Art of War
I was named after Zane Hodges since my dad was reading Absolutely Free when I was born. I became Catholic this last Easter and I find it even more ironic now 😂
In the last two months I have been debating Free Gracers. It is tough since they tend to be very prideful. They are the total opposite of Lordship Salvationists. Both equally arrogant.
The most irritating thing is that these same Protestant scholars/pastors/speakers will continue to open with the “we have the rediscovered teachings of the first Christians!” line, and then only reluctantly admit after adequate Catholic/Orthodox pushback that “yeah, it’s not actually contained in the early church… but it (somehow conveniently) doesn’t need to be.” I find that the appeal to antiquity for pretty much any and every Protestant theological doctrine to be completely untenable. It should be obviously clear that Protestant doctrine cannot fit within the framework of the corpus of Christian thought pre-1517, if nothing else because neither the main Protestant reformers nor the Catholic defenders of the time thought that the two could in any way coexist alongside or be reconciled with one another.
Iconography wasn’t a controversy until the 8th century. It was only when Islam came to play in its oppression and insistence that they began to question such a practice. Now, I would like to point out that councils are ONLY held to handle controversial topics! This is true of all of them: where the church held an opinion until people started to be led astray. This is where I have my issue: St. Peter said in his letters that “the church is the pillar and bulwark of truth.” At the second council of Nicaea we see that the church agreed unanimously that iconography was good! So my question is this: the church leaders, all set in place by God, before any large schism save for the ethiopian orthodox, all agreed that icons were a good thing. If the church is the pillar and bulwark of truth, all with free access to the spirit, are determining such an important doctrine, how is it that the spirit was so absent that he did not help the church? Why is it that the pillar and bulwark of truth did not uphold truth? Why did the spirit not convict them? How did both God and his church fail so clearly? Occam’s Razor says that the simplest answer that begs the least questions is that they were justified in their judgment, and to reject their dogma and and set beliefs would be to reject the church, and thus declare them anathema. Reject the entire church and you’ll have a great time, I think.
Plenty of Muslims die for their god, maybe you should start listening to them then. Edit: Since my last comment, I have changed my mind and my anti-catholicism, and am in RCIA with hopes to join the Catholic Church next Easter Vigil.
@@EmberBright2077 Ignatius was taught by the Apostle John. Seven of his Epistles are extant. Πολύκαρπος attests to him as well. It’s not merely his martyrdom that is compelling. Ο Θεός να ευλογεί.
Ita a two edge sword tough, many calvinist live in doubt and anxiety cuz they don't know if they are elect or may be even predestinatined to hell. Just like jansenism
I'm not even Calvinist, but even I can see this is a terrible strawman. They see election as God's grace, as in, they don't deserve it and can't earn it. It's the *complete opposite* of arrogance.
Catholics can be arrogant about their salvation, because they outperformed the unsaved. They *merited* salvation, whereas the unsaved did not. A Calvinist cannot be arrogant, because they did nothing to deserve it. It’s utterly and completely God’s Grace.
Former believer in eternal security here! Still a protestant, though. Church history really did it for me. It wasn't hard to change my mind on it, except for fear of losing friends. Church history has just been really helpful to me in establishing the bounds of Christian belief and practice.
Out of curiosity, why are you still protestant? In the last two months, I had sola fide and sola scriptura completely dismantled which has really left my Protestantism hanging by a thread.
@UnbrokenBeliever It's just a bad argument to begin with. There are too many passages that indicate that believers can leave the faith. Historic belief helps support this, but is not necessary based on scripture.
@@UnbrokenBeliever First off, why does it have to be in the Bible to be true? Peter spoke infallibly in Acts even though he didn't write acts. John says many things were taught by Jesus and not written down. Paul says to hold onto the TRADITIONS passed down by the apostles. So where on earth do you get this notion that it has to be written in one of 27 books to be apostolic and true? Second, Hebrews 10 is clear that there "is no longer any sacrifice left for our sins" if "we go on sinning deliberately." And James 5 is clear that someone can wander away from the truth and come _back_ through intercession and confession and be saved from death. These two passages are very, very clear that you can sincerely believe in Jesus and compromise your faith and cause death to your soul through deliberate sin. The reason church history is important is because it shows that the Protestant proof-texts were never understood in the way Protestants interpreted them 1600 years later.
@@sivad1025 where does Paul instruct believers to pass on traditions of the Apostles? Acts is part of the Bible. Books by people taught directly by Christ is so different than teachings of men elected by men. 27 books is because that is all we have. If the Apostles wrote more books, we'd have more. Popes are not inspired however and they not apostles.
Thank you brother Trent Horn. You are amazing. Continue to defend our Catholic faith and traditions that have had existed for over two thousand years and will survive and stand time until the second coming of Jesus Christ. Again thank you Brother Trent Horn,,,, you are amazing,,,a true gift to our Catholic Church.
@weaponofchoice-tc7qs yeah I feel like it is also that Just the possibility that you could indeed be mistaken about any given experience of the Holy Spirit And not even in the “we live in a simulation” way, but just in the fact that basically none of those experiences are externally verifiable in any way I say “basically none” and not “none” because the . Agnostic part 😅
@@1776iscoolseeing how over the last few decades a good many Catholics lost the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist “weapon”’s comment would still be operative. I don’t think he is saying there is something magical about the Eucharist; just that it makes Christian belief coherent. After all, it is the summit of the Catholic experience.
@weaponofchoice-tc7qs well I’m not sure what you mean 100% by seek peace fully but , I will go to my local Catholic parish this Sunday and pay attention
My response is quite different from most others here, although I respect and appreciate the kindness of all who leave their remarks. My life's training in faith was Catholic for my first four decades, featuring two entries into Catholic seminary along with an additional two discernment group gatherings consisting of men considering the Catholic priesthood. Despite some very prayerful moments within these groups, I could never be unfaithful to the Lord Jesus with regard to several powerful ways in which He came to me. One was via Protestant radio preaching, which summoned me into Scripture consistently, and in a way that Sunday and weekday Catholic homiletics simply could not (and still cannot) match. The joy of finally knowing the Lord's revealed word as it was taught by the men on radio ignited a hunger in me that was strangely both satisfied yet also sustained by constant dives into Biblical teaching. Countless times found me interrupting my commutes and pulling over into various parking lots and garages so that I could partake of God's recorded word without distraction. A second was by realizing, despite my attempts to be ordained into the priesthood, just how enslaved to pagan human philosophy the seminaries had become. My first seminary experience found me among ten men who were taught everything from the importance of feminism (even to the point of changing the "overt masculinity"of the Sign of the Cross) to attempts to engage all 10 of us in yoga and "prayers to the east wind." (I refused to participate but was open to conversation, which was not possible because the philosophies of the moment were being treated as gospel truth). The third (but hardly final) thought applicable here is how lacking in spiritual impact so many Catholic proceedings were by comparison-whether they took the form of my visit to Rome in 1995 to witness a saint's canonization, a procession around the church parking lot, or the calling forth of congregants to receive their Brown Scapulars, plus numerous other strange routines that hardly speak forth the Good News of Christ Jesus to either those in attendance or to neighbors-even neighbors who lived or moved within short distance from these activities. I speak plainly in saying that there are many Scriptural teachings that thunder within me to register far greater impact than these memories of Catholic membership. I'll leave this one from John's gospel: "My sheep listen to My voice; I know them, and they follow Me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, Who has given them to Me, is greater than all, and no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.” (John 10:27-30)
To be fair, considering this “Protestant” isn’t really fair. It’s a specific strain of thought that the Perseverance/Preservation of the Saints falls into. Mainly believe it because it sounds nice, others believe it because they created a theology.
For Protestants in the comments: what is your interpretation of The Prodigal Son Gospel? To Catholics, most agree that the son has his family (salvation) at the beginning, squanders his family's gifts on sin and loses his family, and then asks for forgiveness to get his family back. It seems to espouse the idea that you can lose your salvation, but can always get it back through repentance.
The Prodigal Son is the northern kingdom of Israel. What are these 2 Houses of Israel? A brief look at Biblical History After Moses led the 12 Tribes of Israel (the generations that came from the 12 Children of Jacob) out of Egypt, God appeared to “His People - Israel” and gave them Commandments and led them to the Land of Israel. At this time there was no King over Israel, and God Himself reigned King over His People. After Moses’ death, Joshua acted as “Judge” over Israel and many others were appointed after Joshua(Book of Judges) for a span of around 450 years(Acts 13:20). When Samuel was acting as Judge over Israel, the people asked for a King to rule over them, to much displeasure from Samuel & God Himself(1Sam 8:5-8). After Saul’s reign, David was appointed as King and he ruled over all 12 Tribes of Israel/Jacob (2Sam 5:3-5). After David, Solomon was anointed King and when Solomon was old, his many wives made him sin against God (1Kin 11:4-7). As punishment, Solomon’s servant Jeroboam received 10 tribes to rule over, and the rest were ruled by Solomon’s son, Rehoboam (1Kin 11:30,31/ 1Kin 12:16,17). Rehoboam ruled over the Tribe of Judah & Benjamin, collectively called the “House of Judah” (1Kin 12:23). From this point onwards in the Books of 1st & 2nd Kings, Jeroboam and his Sons ruled over what was called “The House of Israel” in the north of the land while Rehoboam and his Sons ruled over what was called “The House of Judah” in the south of the land. After much rebellion against God, and not giving ear to the Prophets, The House of Israel was taken captive to Assyria(2Kin 17:6,18,23). The Majority of them were scattered among the nations(Hos 8:8, Jer 31:10). Even though, The House of Judah, was much better than The House of Israel, they also disobeyed God and was taken captive to Babylon(Dan 1:1,2). But God let them return back to their land after 70 yrs in exile(Jer 29:10, Ezr 2:1, Neh 7:6). The people who are called Jews today, are mostly, the descendants of the House of Judah. And the House of Israel has been dispersed among nations according to all of the prophecies of Scripture. These descendants are worshiping there own gods without knowing who they are, living in countries around the world(Deut 28:64, Neh 1:8,9, Eze 12:15). And God has said that He will bring back these people from the ends of the Earth. These 2 Houses are specifically mentioned throughout the Scriptures 1Kin 12:21, 2Kin 23:27, Isa 5:7, Jer 3:18, 5:11, 11:10,17, 12:14, 13:11, 31:27, 31:31, 33:14, Eze 9:9, Hos 11:12, Mic 1:5, Zec 8:13, Heb 8:8 The scattering of His People was prophesied before it happened Lev 26:33, Deut 4:27, 28:63-68, 32:26, Jer 9:16, Ezek 20:23, 22:15, God has promised to bring back the scattered and rebuild His people Deut 30:1-5, Isaiah 11:10-13, 27:12, 43:5-7, Jer 3:12-15, Amos 9:9, Ezek 11:17, Ezek 37 These 2 houses will become one people Eze 37:16-19, Jer 3:18, 50:4, Hos 1:11 Yeshua was sent for the Lost sheep of the House of Israel Mat 15:24, John 11:52 Yeshua will rule over these 2 Houses forever Luk 1:33 (The House of Jacob is the “House of Judah” & the “House of Israel”, together) Everyone including the Apostles knew about the scattered John 7:35, 1Pet 1:1, James 1:1, Acts 21:21 So what does the Division of Israel have to do with the Parable of the Prodigal Son? I believe that the correct interpretation of this Parable can only be understood by someone after studying what happened to Israel, and what was prophesied about them throughout the Scriptures. consider the following explanation. (My Interpretation is added in underlined font) Luk 15:11 And he said, A certain man(Father God) had two sons(The two Houses of Israel - Hos 1:10,11): Luk 15:12 And the younger of them(The House of Israel/Ephraim - Jer 31:20) said to his father, Father, give me the portion of goods that falleth to me. And he divided unto them his living. (God blessed them abundantly with their inheritance - Eze 35:15) Luk 15:13 And not many days after the younger son gathered all together, and took his journey into a far country, and there wasted his substance with riotous living. (The House of Israel sinned against God, doing all that they pleased, and was finally exiled - 2Kin 17:18) Luk 15:14 And when he had spent all, there arose a mighty famine in that land; and he began to be in want. (In Exile, the house of Israel got scattered among the nations - Deut 4:27) Luk 15:15 And he went and joined himself to a citizen of that country; and he sent him into his fields to feed swine. (Among the nations they have become slaves to other God’s - Deut 4:28) Luk 15:16 And he would fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat: and no man gave unto him. (They fell to the depths of uncleanness - Hos 9:3) Luk 15:17-19 And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father’s have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger! I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee, And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants. (They will finally understand their error and return to the Father - Jer 31:16-19) Luk 15:20 And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him. (The Father showed His ways through Yeshua, to whomever was in error - John 14:24) Luk 15:21 And the son said unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son. (The House of Israel is coming back to him with repentance - Acts 5:31) Luk 15:22 But the father said to his servants, Bring forth the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet: (The Father accepts the repenting House of Israel, and gives them back their rightful position - Hos 14) Luk 15:23 And bring hither the fatted calf, and kill it; and let us eat, and be merry: (Yeshua was sent for the Lost of the House of Israel - Mat 15:24) Luk 15:24 For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry. (Through Yeshua the House of Israel is alive again through a renewed covenant - Heb 8:10) Luk 15:25-28 Now his elder son was in the field: and as he came and drew nigh to the house, he heard music and dancing. And he called one of the servants, and asked what these things meant. And he said unto him, Thy brother is come; and thy father hath killed the fatted calf, because he hath received him safe and sound. And he was angry, and would not go in: therefore came his father out, and intreated him. (The House of Judah has a hard time accepting that the Father could accept the children that had disobeyed Him - Acts 11:3&18 , as the House of Judah did not keep company with other Nations - Acts 10:28) Luk 15:29 And he answering said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends: (The House of Judah, for the most part, have always been obedient to God - Hos 11:12) Luk 15:30 But as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf. (The House of Israel, on the other hand has always been in harlotry with other gods - Jer 3:6) Luk 15:31 And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine. (The House of Israel, unlike Judah, was given a bill of divorce and put away by God, Almighty resulting in their exile and scattering- Jer 3:8) Luk 15:32 It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found. (God will accept the repenting House of Israel, making his brother, The House of Judah, jealous - Rom 11:11)
@EmberBright2077 thanks. I've never really understood the idea of "once saved, always saved." But I know some denominations believe that. So I was just curious.
The actions of the Prodigal Son when he fell away prove that he was not repenting or placing his trust in Christ, and I believe that one has to have faith (which shows trust and obedience) in Christ to go to Heaven. We believe the same thing on this one.
That is my exact story actually. I came back to my church last year and I have never felt better, I don't like to call myself protestant, I am just a Christian, I attend a church of Christ, and have love for anyone who has love for our Lord.
You have NOT done his commandments but broken them all. That's what you don't understand. Jesus Christ paid it all! ruclips.net/video/M4_pgXjq5X4/видео.html
@@Danaluni59 You have FORGOTTEN the works of God. That ye believe on HIM whom he hath sent. Do you EVEN remember HIS NAME brethren? Tell Me the truth, ruclips.net/video/lrAjMMM-R4M/видео.html
Thank you Trent, I’m a Protestant but I always enjoy your videos as they give me a lot to think about. It’s been my understanding that as long as I am faithfully pursuing Christ (despite setbacks) my salvation is secure. However, if I willfully turn away to pursue other things I would be falling away, despite any past faithfulness. It seems like the once saved always saved trivializes the destructiveness of sin.
I saw this as a Protestant and was like “oh crud, what’s Trent gonna have me questioning today 😬.” As a Pentecostal from the Wesleyan tradition (non-Calvinist), I was relieved😂.
and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand
"no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand" Yet we have free will and can leave. God doesn't force us to love him. He doesn't force us to persevere. This is the whole point of the parable of the vine. A branch ATTACHED to Jesus Christ is 100% SAVED! Yet through unrepentant sin, can be cut off, bundled and thrown into the fire.
Great content, but it makes my realize what I need now is now apologetics, but the Word and the Sacraments. I'm so broken, I feel astranged from the church militant, but am comforted by the church suffering and triumphant. On his feast day, Saint Lawrence, pray for us!
I rejected "once saved always saved" as a 14 year old Baptist kid who began voraceously reading the Bible for himself. I was still a sola scriptura protestant in every way at the time. And it was painfully clear to me that scripture specifically teaches against this doctrine.
Once saved always saved isn't found in Scripture, so rejecting the error of the doctrine doesn't imply that sola scriptura is wrong. Sola scriptura simply means that when you have both Scripture and Tradition, Scripture is the norm that norms Tradition. In other words Tradition is everywhere and always subject to Scripture and the proper role of Tradition is to provide explanations of Scripture for the people as Paul clearly states in 2 Timothy 3. Scripture defines itself as "God breathed" whereas Tradition cannot make that same claim. At least not honestly. Sola scriptura basically means you cannot make stuff up and put it on par with Scripture.
@@pete3397 I'm not claiming the falsehood of once saved always saved proves or even implies sola scriptura is false. I made no appeal to tradition. Tradition had nothing to do with my rejection of the doctrine. I bring up sola scriptura because I came to reject once saved always saved based purely on scripture, long before I knew much of anything about the Catholic Church or had any concept of looking to tradition for any reason.
@@pete3397Scripture is one part of Tradition. That's why Scripture AND Traditiin along with the teaching authority of the Church work together and are important to look to for the fullness of the truth.
@@littleone1656 They do work together, but Tradition cannot supplant Scripture, nor can it be equal with Scripture. Scripture always norms Tradition and never the other way around. Tradition is valuable, it just needs to be recognized as not on par with Scripture. That is the actual meaning of sola scriptura: Scripture is the default, Tradition is the support.
Lately I've been dealing with this issue a lot. The conversations and debates seem to come to a screeching halt when you ask for references for the history they're talking about. Protestants seriously don't k ow church history
I live in Tennessee, southern baptists tend not to have any clue when the Baptist church was founded and when it split into their denomination, let alone anything that happened across the ocean 2000 years ago. It’s very frustrating because they talk about the Church “adding stuff” all the time, but they have 0 historical consciousness so they never have any idea when, where, or what was “added”.
Except for the ones that do. More often historic Protestants tend to be well educated in Church history. Off the top of my head,you can look up Gavin Ortlund, The Other Paul, Barely Protestant, Gospel Simplicity, or Jordan Cooper for some representation from that side of the fence.
@EmberBright2077 Yep I've listened to all of them debate catholics. Jordan cooper got crushed by jimmybakin and gavin got defeated by trent horn in a couple debates as well. They get trashed... gavins debate with trent horn on sola scriptura was a wash. Gavins entire argument failed in his opening statements when he said personal interpretation of scripture is a higher authority than scripture. Suan sunna also made a 3 or 4 hour video evicerating his argument against icon veneration. Historical protestants are in a pretty rough boat as well... the mainline churches have almost all fallen into heresy and if you try to restore it to luther and Calvin's day then you have to deal with how many of them believed in the Marian doctrines. Perpetual virginity, assumption, theotokos, etc. No current protestants hold the historical views on Mary that the reformers held. If you look up some of the off the wall comments that luther made over the years I can't imagine anyone still follows his teachings. Between throwing his excrement at the walls, imagining jewish conspiracies to ruin the church, his disdain for Hebrews, corinthians, James, revelation, and the deuterocanon makes me wonder how he ever assumed sola scriptura.
It's basically Satan slipping in the arrogance of presumption through a temptation to fear. 😈 "As long as you confess with your mouth and believe in your heart, you will be like gods, knowing good and evil."
I think the cheap grace sinner’s prayer fire insurance claim is the most dangerous. You have to first THINK you’re “saved” before you can STAY “saved!”
@@john-paulgies4313 I'm very thankful for the Sacrament of Confession. Each and every Confession gives sanctifying grace, purifies the soul and helps to sin no more... Jesus Christ Granted the Apostles His Authority to Forgive Sins John 20:21 - before He grants them the authority to forgive sins, Jesus says to the apostles, "as the Father sent me, so I send you." As Christ was sent by the Father to forgive sins, so Christ sends the apostles and their successors forgive sins. John 20:22 - the Lord "breathes" on the apostles, and then gives them the power to forgive and retain sins. The only other moment in Scripture where God breathes on man is in Gen. 2:7, when the Lord "breathes" divine life into man. When this happens, a significant transformation takes place. John 20:23 - Jesus says, "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven. If you retain the sins of any, they are retained." In order for the apostles to exercise this gift of forgiving sins, the penitents must orally confess their sins to them because the apostles are not mind readers. The text makes this very clear. Matt. 9:8 - this verse shows that God has given the authority to forgive sins to "men." Hence, those Protestants who acknowledge that the apostles had the authority to forgive sins (which this verse demonstrates) must prove that this gift ended with the apostles. Otherwise, the apostles' successors still possess this gift. Where in Scripture is the gift of authority to forgive sins taken away from the apostles or their successors? Matt. 9:6; Mark 2:10 - Christ forgave sins as a man (not God) to convince us that the "Son of man" has authority to forgive sins on earth. Luke 5:24 - Luke also points out that Jesus' authority to forgive sins is as a man, not God. The Gospel writers record this to convince us that God has given this authority to men. This authority has been transferred from Christ to the apostles and their successors. Matt. 18:18 - the apostles are given authority to bind and loose. The authority to bind and loose includes administering and removing the temporal penalties due to sin. The Jews understood this since the birth of the Church. John 20:22-23; Matt. 18:18 - the power to remit/retain sin is also the power to remit/retain punishment due to sin. If Christ's ministers can forgive the eternal penalty of sin, they can certainly remit the temporal penalty of sin (which is called an "indulgence"). 2 Cor. 2:10 - Paul forgives in the presence of Christ (some translations refer to the presences of Christ as "in persona Christi"). Some say that this may also be a reference to sins. 2 Cor. 5:18 - the ministry of reconciliation was given to the ambassadors of the Church. This ministry of reconciliation refers to the sacrament of reconciliation, also called the sacrament of confession or penance. James 5:15-16 - in verse 15 we see that sins are forgiven by the priests in the sacrament of the sick. This is another example of man's authority to forgive sins on earth. Then in verse 16, James says “Therefore, confess our sins to one another,” in reference to the men referred to in verse 15, the priests of the Church. 1 Tim. 2:5 - Christ is the only mediator, but He was free to decide how His mediation would be applied to us. The Lord chose to use priests of God to carry out His work of forgiveness. Lev. 5:4-6; 19:21-22 - even under the Old Covenant, God used priests to forgive and atone for the sins of others. The Necessity and Practice of Orally Confessing Sins James 5:16 - James clearly teaches us that we must “confess our sins to one another,” not just privately to God. James 5:16 must be read in the context of James 5:14-15, which is referring to the healing power (both physical and spiritual) of the priests of the Church. Hence, when James says “therefore” in verse 16, he must be referring to the men he was writing about in verses 14 and 15 - these men are the ordained priests of the Church, to whom we must confess our sins. Acts 19:18 - many came to orally confess sins and divulge their sinful practices. Oral confession was the practice of the early Church just as it is today. Matt. 3:6; Mark 1:5 - again, this shows people confessing their sins before others as an historical practice (here to John the Baptist). 1 Tim. 6:12 - this verse also refers to the historical practice of confessing both faith and sins in the presence of many witnesses. 1 John 1:9 - if we confess are sins, God is faithful to us and forgives us and cleanse us. But wemust confess our sins to one another. Num. 5:7 - this shows the historical practice of publicly confessing sins, and making public restitution. 2 Sam. 12:14 - even though the sin is forgiven, there is punishment due for the forgiven sin. David is forgiven but his child was still taken (the consequence of his sin). Neh. 9:2-3 - the Israelites stood before the assembly and confessed sins publicly and interceded for each other. Sir. 4:26 - God tells us not to be ashamed to confess our sins, and not to try to stop the current of a river. Anyone who has experienced the sacrament of reconciliation understands the import of this verse. Baruch 1:14 - again, this shows that the people made confession in the house of the Lord, before the assembly. 1 John 5:16-17; Luke 12:47-48 - there is a distinction between mortal and venial sins. Mortal sins lead to death and must be absolved in the sacrament of reconciliation. Venial sins do not have to be confessed to a priest, but the pious Catholic practice is to do so in order to advance in our journey to holiness. Matt. 5:19 - Jesus teaches that breaking the least of commandments is venial sin (the person is still saved but is least in the kingdom), versus mortal sin (the person is not saved).
@@mrjeffjobYou dont know what you are saying. Grace is paid for by the priceless powerful blood of the Lamb. Trying to buy salvation is a MOCKERY of the Cross. ruclips.net/video/M4_pgXjq5X4/видео.html
Trent I'm a protestant but I appreciate & respect the history of the catholic church & I very much like how you respect your guests & how you dialog with them, something that is in short supply today & we could take some lessons in how to treat one another.
Trent, I am a revert having come back to the Catholic Faith after many years of “trying different things”. Glory to God that I am now back in full communion with the Catholic Church! Just wanted to pass along a couple resources that were significant in my coming home. First, Karl Keatings book “What Catholics Really Believe” was major in my decision to come home and your book “The Case for Catholicism” dotted the i’s and crossed the t’s for me. Of course much study into the early church and church fathers was pivotal also. Thank you for doing what you do and God Bless you and your family! I’m praying the Rosary every morning now and it’s truly transforming for me in my spiritual growth.
Hi Trent. I was watching Isaiah Saldivar and he's talking about the dangers of the "Once Saved, Always Saved". If you don't know, Isaiah is a Charismatic Christian with his own channel. That's why I opted to listen to your perspective and knew that you're a Catholic apologist. Great video. Yours actually built on what I already heard.
Thank you for all that you do Trent; every time I see one of your videos, even if I disagree, they are still good/high-quality arguments made in good faith.
@@Justas399 do you think that I think that Jesus is a liar and therefore a sinner? Of course He didn't lie. No need to be inflammatory my friend. I have a different interpretation:)
@Justas399 no it just means your interpretation is wrong and needs to be revised. Why not take all of what the Lord had to say instead of proof texting. Also consider that no one until the reformation interpreted that passage the way you do😉
Trent. I find your approach the correct way of addressing the claims others, typically (I haven't seen all of your responses). When the claim is biblical, you approach it from a biblical frame of reference. When it is a historical claim, you approach it from a historical frame of reference. Essentially, rebute or address it in kind. Even your response to Steven was in this same vein. I wish more apologists and atheists would approach things in the same way. If one truly wishes to sway another one must approach this from their stand point. Just as quoting the Bible to someone who doesn't believe it doesn't work, neither does quoting the science of evolution to someone who doesn't believe in it. Rather than attempting to demonstrate that they are wrong and provide an answer, attempt to demonstrate that they are wrong and ask them to reconcile it and find an answer.
Ignacius states, "And do ye also pray for me, who have need of your love, along with the mercy of God, that I may be worthy of the lot for which I am destined, and that I may not be found reprobate." If Ignacius was worried, we should all be worried and work out our salvation with fear and trembling. My humble Protestant view. Ignatius of Antioch, “The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 72.
Yes! Perseverance of the Saints was the absolute lynchpin of my theology about everything as a protestant, so when I realized it was basically unknown before Calvin, I went back to examine my proof texts (John 6 mostly) and found they taught the opposite. A few months later, having already done my research on other topics, I was Catholic, and I’ve never been happier or closer to God!
I’m a Protestant who’s still where you were. Perseverance makes sense to me. The golden chain of redemption in Romans 8:28-30 speaks of the entire act of redeeming people from beginning to end as an act of God. If a truly saved person fails to reach glorification then God failed. The language of salvation used throughout the NT is so final. Adoption, resurrection, becoming a partaker of eternal life. It doesn’t sound like probation.
@@hettinga359 I hear you, Rom 8 was a big proof text for me too. Catholics believe that text of course - there is a people (the elect) that God has chosen from eternity past to be saved and those he foreknew, he predestined, called, justified, and ultimately glorified. That’s all true (I mean Paul said it, so…)!! Here’s the rub: there’s no contradiction between saying that God saves the elect all the way from foreknowledge to glorification AND saying that there is ANOTHER group of people who are once justified and later forfeit that grace of justification. Romans 8 and similar passages speak about the elect but don’t make the claim that ONLY the elect EVER come into a state of justification. That is the piece that Calvin seems to have inserted that wasn’t believed for the first 1500 years (outside of possibly those people in that Augustine quote in the video that he rejected). We all believe in perseverance of the ELECT, the question is whether ONLY the elect ever are SAINTS. As for the language being final, you’re right! Once someone has been believed and been baptized into Christ and thereby justified, he/she is God’s adopted son/daughter. So when we speak of people forfeiting justification, they aren’t losing their *sonship* so much as they’re losing their *inheritance* which is why Hebrews warns us not to be like Esau and give up our inheritance (salvation) in exchange for a single meal (in the context, sexual immorality - i.e. mortal sin) - Hebrews 12:6
I don't see why it couldn't just be a doctrinal development, like the excuse Catholics will use whenever they can't find historical backing for their beliefs.
@@EmberBright2077 I think the difference is that this doctrine wasn’t just something that hadn’t been fleshed out yet, it was something actively rejected by practically everyone until Calvin. So this wouldn’t be development, this would be reversal of what was (at least nearly) universally held prior
Protestant here, and I think the novel character of this doctrine of Eternal Security stems from the Reformed tendency to start with God's sovereign decree in their theology, whereas a lot of other Christians start with man's response to grace. Of course, from God's perspective He already knows whom He has saved. This is why Jesus can say "of all those He has given me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day". And it's true from God's perspective, but I don't think it's a helpful doctrine from man's limited perspective and knowledge. From man's perspective I think it's more helpful to consider it as the author of Hebrews does "And let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us".
As a Protestant, my biggest problem with Eternal Security is that it undermines God's character. The argument goes, "God can save whomever he wants. He wants the elect to be saved. Ergo, the elect cannot lose Salvation." But its fundamental premise is wrong. God doesn't arbitrarily want the elect to be saved. God has saved the elect whom he foreknows will cooperate with grace. The implication of TULIP is that God's salvation is unjust and forced upon people who reject it and denied from people who love God.
@@sivad1025 This. TULIP renders God a moral monster and tyrant who purposefully made millions of people to send them to Hell, with NO chance or capacity on their part at all to repent or avoid this fate. It’s insane.
@@nathangraham2189 I get Limited Atonement and Irresistible Grace individually. They both seem superficially reasonable. But together, they really do compell you into the position you describe since you can't accept that the dammed resisted grace. It's shocking to me that Calvinists who have actually thought through these things aren't bothered by it
@ThoskaBrah Listen, I'm no Aquinas expert--I'm not even Catholic--so I'm not exactly going to have the best researched opinion. I lean towards Molinism as that makes the most sense to me in light of natural reason. But I'm open to change. That said, I find your assertion that Aquinas denies the role of cooperation with grace to be hard to believe. I was under the impression that Aquinas believes in a dual nature of God's sovereignty and man's freedom to respond to grace. I thought that was more or less the Catholic position even though the church hasn't formally defined any one theory. The catechism says, "When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of 'predestination', he includes in it each person's free response to his grace." That doesn't sound unconditional to me. That sounds like God's sovreign election is conditioned upon our cooperation
It’s such an important issue. The fact that some Protestant leaders are telling their followers that no matter the sin they have nothing to worry about is in my mind tantamount to spiritual assisted suicide.
Yes. While John Calvin and some of his followers followed one line of reasoning regarding the doctrine of predestination, many of the reformed churches took a view more in line with the testimony of scripture and the early church fathers, from continental churchmen like Luther and Jacob Arminius to Anglicans and John Wesley. The possibility of apostasy is widely--though not unanimously--accepted among the 'Protestant' denominations today. The important part of the apostolic gospel, however, is found in all reformed churches: "But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ-by grace you have been saved- and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." (Ephesians 2:4-10)
Hello, Trent. I admire your presentation. You're the only Catholic Apologist engaging the argument at least. Keep it up! I'm a Protestant and I'm very convicted of my belief. Bless🙏
Not all Protestants think the same. Martin Luther was originally sold on the idea of "Solara Scriptura", but when he learned of some long held traditions that were not exactly Biblical, he chose to revise his position somewhat. The Council of Trent, in the end, DID find a major flaw with the Reformers claim, but the PR would not change their claim and continued to hold to the Catholic innovation of Sunday sacredness to take the place of the Bible Sabbath. This justified the Council, at least in their minds, to condemn the Protestant Reformers and churches as apostates of Roman Catholicism. However, some were and are today, Bible believing Christians who did change to keep the Bible Sabbath and some always had kept that day. But most of these people were not of the PR. Some Protestant Reformers, especially going back in time before the 16th century, such as John Wyclif, did not find his reform going back to early church fathers because they were founders of early Roman Catholic theology that took liberties with Bible and its interpretation. He wanted to go to the Word to challenge any teaching in RC that departed with plain teaching of scripture, especially how it relates to our relationship with Christ and salvation. Wyclif had so many attacks against him theologically and legally from RC that he never excavated all the reforms needing to be made. Luther and the more modern mainline Reformers, however, knew better or should have known that they were falling short. The doctrine of "eternal security" is much like "once saved, always saved". The problem with this is it just does not follow or harmonize with the Bible doctrine of "judgment" in regard to Christ's "atonement". This goes all the way back to Leviticus where the ancient feast days taught the Jews the nuts and bolts of how the plan of redemption works and how it will be completed one day in judgment on "the day of atonement" or "Yom Kippur". All Christians should take time to learn this prophetic working out of the plan of redemption ending in this "cleansing of the sanctuary" and what it represents in atonement and judgment. This prophetic application from type to anti-type is found in Daniel 8 and 9.
This is certainly an interesting presentation of a matter of historical theology. I did not know that there was no significant teacher in the church who held to the saints' final perseverance before the 16th century. I learned something--thank you. At the same time, I am convinced that the Scritures teach that doctrine, so yes, it must have been overlooked by many, many theologians. Our Eastern brethren still don't see the filioque! That doesn't mean it's not true.
As a lutheran I must say that I'm looking forward to your take on justification by faith alone. I admit, that if there is really not that much support for sola fide in the early church, that would be a strong argument against this doctrine being true (I support sola scriptura, not solo scriptura).
Sola scriptura as is defined in this day and age is pretty much the Catholic position already. Catholicism affirms Scripture has material sufficiency. Historically, Protestantism claimed _formal_ sufficiency. Material sufficiency is that with enough study and by building upon the life's work of the Fathers, we can justify all doctrines. Formal sufficiency (what Sola Scriptura was supposed to be about) was that a plain reading of Scripture is sufficient. Anything not readily apparent is not important. In other words, material is that Scripture is the building blocks for a house (wood, etc.), formal is that Scripture is a built and furnished house. Things like the Perpetual Virginity of Mary were known through deep study and reference to the Fathers. Primarily St. Jerome's work in this case (who saw it as blatantly obvious from Scripture alone, but he was a native speaker of Greek, lived and died in Bethlehem, was fluent in Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin, professional translator, etc.)
You might find Casey Chalk’s book, “The Obscurity of Scripture,” to be an interesting read that challenges your view of sola scriptura. Trent did an episode with him not too long ago that’s solid, covers much of the arguments in the book, and would be worth listening to as well. God bless you my friend.
@@crusaderACR well, I have seen a lot of claims, that the mainstream protestant position (lutheran, reformed and anglican) has always been material sufficiency. At least in lutheran confessional documents (Concordia) there is a lot of appeal to church fathers and early ecumenical council. Supposedly only subsequent protestant movements really claimed formal sufficiency.
@@sillysyriac8925 I wouln't require church fathers to teach exactly the same doctrine of justification as protestants do, word for word. What I would like to see is a strong argument, that when church fathers spoke of "sola fide" (a lot of them did), they meant to exclude from (saving) justification only works of the (jewish) law, but still include works of merit.
Historical. Factual. Charitable. Awesome job once again Trent! What do you think of also looking at the practical and psychological effects of these doctrines.
The fact that there is eternal damnation is blowing 😮just to believe that “you’re once saved always saved” is an unbelievable theology because free will exists!❤🌎✝️
Interesting video! I have been thinking about the parable of the sower recently and had stumbled across Augustine and Aquinas' view on predestination to perseverance during some of my own reading. Also great to see some of my animation in a response video!! Haha
What kind of father, when his own child turns to him in genuine repentance, would fail to provide the grace by which we can persevere in faith till the end? Especially when he promises to do so: Romans 8:32 - He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Matthew 7:9 - You parents-if your children ask for a loaf of bread, do you give them a stone instead? I do agree that we should not presume on the grace of God, but rather work hard to prove our faith is genuine: Philippians 2:12-13 - work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.
Yeah, I wonder why that's thr case. I was having a discussion with a Reformed guy who basically said Clement sounded "so Protestant." I said there was nothing Pope St. Clement was saying which was contrary to the. Catholic faith.
Ephesians 1:13-14 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation-having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory.
You are deceived then. Out of the abundance of heart the mouth speaketh. Do men gather Fruit of thorns and thistles? ruclips.net/video/M4_pgXjq5X4/видео.html
Jimmy Akin sounded like a junior apologist at Catholic Answers in that clip you gave. I'm used to hearing his senior apologist at Catholic Answers voice
Hi Trent. Thank you so much for your service in Christ. I am a revert cradle Catholic. I know you are an apologist for our Catholic faith but one thing that truly worked prominently in my return to the Church is Saint Francis of Assisi. I love and pray before the San Damiano cross in my home.
My major problem with Protestants saying that Scripture only was the only basis for doctrine is that it seems that it depends on what the Scripture says. If the Scripture is problematic such as the Epistle of James, it can be ignored. Luther wanted to kick James out of the Bible. Even the Gospel of the Matthew and the sheep and goats judgement really puts the sword to the faith only doctrine.
The fruit of Sola Scriptura was and is, chaos and confusion. It's only grown exponentially since the day of Father Luther, Father Zwingli and the Catholic lawyer named Calvin. They all disagreed with each other, these 'reformers' yet Sola gave none the right to say the other was wrong.
Protestantism is as dependent on how any given pastor on any given day reinterprets scripture to suit whatever premise or position he is attempting to presume on any given Sunday.
Regarding the belief that "even permanent apostasy won't disqualify you from salvation", just know most Protestants simply respond with "if you are actually saved you would have become a new creature so you wouldn't/couldn't have permanent apostasy". Essentially, people who become "really" saved don't ever leave the faith. Hard to overcome this logic as it is circular and always works in their favor. Essentially, only people who go to Heaven are saved.
@@Mattissaved Um no, they are not. A tautology is a term of logic: it’s a statement that is always necessarily true in every world, such as “when it’s raining, it is raining.” As such; they are statements that cannot convey any meaningful information about the world. As with my example herein, they are perfectly capable of having the same word within the statement. When broken down into symbolic logic they would indeed have the same symbolic value in both parts of the statement, such as “where A is, A is”. Similarly, the statement “those people who are saved, are saved people” would be a tautology. Pax Christi.
I can't seem to do well in having discussions about this topic with protestant friends of mine as well as my protestant family. It's definitely a tough one for a lot of people and is seen as unloving (as far as my set is concerned) to suggest any teaching other than eternal security. I'm hoping to get to a better place in discussing this with those closest to me! This video is helping A LOT. It's like I know all of this but can't seem to get the words right...ugh 😩 I'm definitely no Trent Horn!
Eternal security violates reason. How many people do they know who were practicing Christians and who now do not follow the faith? Then I’m sure they’ll say they were never saved even though the believe sure did at one point. I’d ask them since they believe in Bible alone to point that verse to me out in the Bible where someone professes faith in Christ but does so as a fraud lives it out but wasn’t saved. Like where’s this at in Scripture?
@@DiscipleOfChrist77777 Jude 1:4 For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. And what is it you are referencing exactly?
@@DiscipleOfChrist77777 thats a good one. I usually like to refer to Judgment of All Nations and the Parable of the 10 virgins. I’ll remember this one as well. Thank you.
The Holy Spirit dwells in the Catholic Church since 33AD, he guides, leads her to all Truth!!! She will never be destroyed, Acts 5:38-39 That was 2000 years ago! Tha m k you for your Glory, Eternal God
Time-stamps 7:34, 7:45 - Free Grace interpretation of James 8:45, 9:55, 11:10 - History 11:20 - John 3:16 in the ante-Nicene writings 13:20, 13:51 - James White’s citation 14:10 - Horn’s response 19:02 - Update
Questioning Protestant here. I recently stumbled across Pints with Aquinas where I discovered your channel. I'm loving the conversations on Pints, and I love the information I can glean from The Council of Trent videos. My mother is a Baptist pk, so I was raised with Calvinism, but it has never sat right with me. Some of the arguments are clear fallacies, and it also brings up a lot of questions about free will that never get a satisfactory answer. Thank you for this very well-researched explanation of the doctrinal disputes! Separate question: can you do a video explaining the origins of the Church as an institution? Or do you already have one? I was listening to an old episode of Pints with Mother Natalia (love her so much), and my mom claimed, among other very anti-Catholic sentiments, that the Catholic church was formed as a power grab in the 6th century. I don't believe this is true, but like many Protestants, my grasp of church history is practically non-existent. If there is a video, can someone please share it in the comments? Book suggestions are also very welcome.
Study proto- Protestantism, like the Waldensians, Voudois and Albegenes. Catholics want you to think that Martin Luther completely invented something, but bible believing Christians have always been around being persecuted by the "mother church."
Read Ignatius of Antioch. He is a first generation disciple of the Apostles and describes the role of bishops and the importance of being in communion with them.
Kyler’s recommendation is really good. Ignatius was bishop of Antioch and knew John the apostle and wrote several letters(7?) while being taken to Rome to be martyred in 107ad. A modern source for the early Church being Catholic is Joe Heschmeyer who works for Catholic Answers. He is a RUclipsr and also has written some very fine books. Your desire for truth is admirable and a sign of grace
This is a very helpful video, Trent! I have also honed in on a very similar doctrine of Protestants more universally shared, which is the doctrine of Assurance of Salvation. While some like Lutherans do believe you can lose your salvation, they usually all teach that if you have faith, you should also have absolute assurance that you are saved at that moment. In fact, I have heard many Protestants say they couldn't be Catholic because Catholics deny *absolute certainty* of knowing if anyone is saved (in a state of grace). In my studies as a former Confessional Lutheran, I have struggled to understand how any Protestant can claim to have absolute assurance of salvation either, though. It seems to me that to maintain an absolute assurance of salvation, one has to believe in 1) sola fide and 2) antinomianism (that no sin can cause one with faith to lose their salvation, even, according to Luther, murder or adultery). And yet, most Protestants will adamantly deny their view entails antinomianism. First, it seems the Bible is clear that there are sins that can lead to spiritual death (1 John 5:16-17, Galatians 5:19-21, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Romans 1:28-32, James 2:14-26, etc.) In my research (mostly Lutherans), I have only found 2 usual ways that Classical Protestants reconciled their faith alone view of salvation with the possibility of grave sin. 1. No sin can remove our justification as long as we have faith. Antinomianism is true and the only mortal sin is apostasy. (Luther and Chemnitz) “Even if he wants to, he cannot lose his salvation, however much he sin, unless he will not believe. For no sin can condemn him save unbelief alone." (Luther, On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church) 2. It is physically impossible for those who are saved to mortally sin. Those with a living faith will not mortally sin, those with a dead faith may. (Melanchthon) “Nor, indeed, is this faith an idle knowledge, neither can it coexist with mortal sin, but it is a work of the Holy Ghost, whereby we are freed from death, and terrified minds are encouraged and quickened.” (Apology of the Augsburg Confession IV, 115; cf. Smalcald Articles, Part III, Article III) On 1, the assurance of salvation is maintained as faith covers everything absolutely but we deny vast sections of the Bible's teachings on necessity of not committing grave sins after justification (1 John 5:16-17, Galatians 5:19-21, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Romans 1:28-32, James 2:14-26, etc.). Also, note that I fully realize Luther would adamantly deny he was an antinomian but I would argue his statements on the matter are not logically consistent. On 2, there is no assurance of salvation because one can be mistaken if they have a living or a dead faith (James 2:14-26). You would seemingly have to look at your own works for evidence of having a living faith or not. But, since sin can cloud our judgment (Psalm 36), you could easily be mistaken about having a living faith and blind yourself to the fact you may be committing mortal/grave sins, for example a church-going alcoholic or adulterer. This seems to necessitate the conclusion that the assurance of salvation on the sola fide view requires antinomianism to be true despite the countless Bible verses that speak of grave sins and our not committing them being a condition of maintaining our justification/salvation. If we deny antinomianism, it then seems to necessitate the conclusion that one cannot have absolute assurance of salvation due to the living/dead faith distinction and sin's ability to cloud our own judgment as to whether we are committing grave sins and have a truly living faith. On the other hand, if you admit that some sins can cause one to lose salvation until they repent and return to a living faith/state of grace (e.g. church-going alcoholic or someone living in adultery), it seems to me that you have undercut the traditional sola fide view and are teaching the Catholic view of faith; that faith is the root of justification (sanctifying grace received through faith) but our obedience to our gift of justification is also a condition of final salvation (John 14:15, Matthew 5:48, John 14:23-24, Galatians 6:8 , 1 Cor. 6:9-10, Gal. 5:19-21, Matt 7:21-23, John 15:10,14, Roman 8:12-13, Romans 12:1-2 ) and we will be judged by our deeds (Mt 25:31-46, Mt 7:21-23, Rm 2:6-11, Rev 20:11-15, Rev 2:23, Jm 2:24-26, Rm 2:13, 2 Cor 5:10, Mt. 16:27). I would very much like to hear a robust Protestant defense of the assurance of salvation as it continues to confuse me as to why Protestants claim this is a vital doctrine when I don't see how it can logically or biblically work. God bless!
Your first problem here is the concept of mortal and venal sin, a very non biblical idea. Second problem may be a misunderstanding of the nature of grace. Grace is not petrol that you can use up and run out of, it is the undeserved unmerited favour of God. God's grace and love is not dependent on anything you do or feel. Ultimately assurance of salvation is a matter of taking God at his word. John 3,16 John 5, 24 John 10, 29 Rev 3,20.
@@jeremymead8546Hello. Thank you for the reply. My comments above are based on years of research as a former Confessional Lutheran and now Catholic. I think you too likely have many understandings of Catholic doctrine based on your comments above. First, mortal and venial sins are very biblical concepts and many Protestants hold to them, as well (including most Lutherans - 1 John 5:16-17, Galatians 5:19-21, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Romans 1:28-32, James 2:14-26, etc.). Second, Catholics do not teach grace is a substance, like petrol, that you can use up and run out of. It is definitely the unmerited favor of God, as you said. It is also a habit of the soul, that turns man's disposition toward God and away from sin. This is a gift from God and one that man does not earn or something he can do himself. Without this gift, none would love or follow God and His will. I suggest starting with the Catholic Encyclopedia's articles on Grace and sins to learn more. There are a ton of more resources out there, but that is good place to start if you are serious about learning more about Catholics actually teach on these subjects. I hope this helps. God bless!
@metaphysika thankyou for the polite reply. In reverse order , I am glad for your understanding of grace. I know too many RCs who do in fact believe they use up the grace they have and need to top up regularly. They even tried to use the Hail Mary as a proof that a person can be full of grace and by extension less than full. ( Hail Mary , full of grace....) As to mortal and venal sins I am afraid I disagree that the quoted scriptures teach that. All sin is mortal ie we are all dead in our sin apart from God's saving grace in the person of Jesus Christ. I do not accept that our salvation is at continuous risk of being lost because we commit some sin that is somehow worse than others on some graduated list. The apparently most minor of sins can have at their root , pride, which is an attitude God finds utterly unacceptable. What I do understand from scripture is that grace and forgiveness is not a license to sin and that there is an unrepentant attitude to sin ( not any particular sin itself ) that effectively denies God, refuses to acknowledge wrongdoing and hence refuses forgiveness. The trouble with the concept of mortal vs venal sins is that such a person may commit only apparently venal sin and not much at that, but it is the underlying heart attitude that is damning not any particular sin.
@@jeremymead8546 Thanks the thoughtful and cordial reply, as well! I would highly recommend to dig in a bit more to learn about Catholic thought from more technical sources. There is much in your post that Catholics do agree with. I find Catholic teaching is, unfortunately, very commonly misunderstood and misrepresented by Protestants and fellow Catholics a like. Again, the Catholic encyclopedia is a great free resource on the website New Advent. God bless!
I appreciate your work, Trent! As a protestant to enjoy his good debate, it was a lot of fun to see you and destiny have your conversation. I disagree with you on a lot of your conclusions, but boy do I appreciate the Fidelity and thoughtfulness. You used to get there!
The doctrine of Eternal Security is denounced in the Lutheran Book of Concord. For example, the Formula of Concord Article IV (Good Works) states "We also reject and condemn the teaching that faith and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit are not lost through malicious sin, but that the holy ones and the elect retain the Holy Spirit even though they fall into adultery and other sins and persist in them." (False Antitheses Article 3).
@@EmberBright2077 well I’m more referring to the direct apprentices of the apostles like Ignatius of course people who were less informed such as different heretical sects sprung up later on. Please give me disagreements between church fathers
@@EmberBright2077 it’s on you to prove that Ignatius for example did not somehow inherit the proper faith from Saint John please provide a lock of evidence
As a Protestant, I have never believed in eternal salvation nor did any other of the church goers I knew or were associated with. We were always taught that this was heretical. It concerns me that many modern Protestants hold this view.
Off topic: A 16yo Spanish girl who has been blind for two years, received her sight after the reception of the Holy Communion at World Youth Day in Portugal. Praise God.
Glory to God
Which Mass? One of the two with the Pope? Another Mass during the events? Or one of the Churches open most of the day giving regular Masses throughout?
Thank God!
Does it matter? @@kevind.k7512
Just a “thought” how many are born blind or go blind as children. Must they visit Portugal on an auspicious day?
Just got home from work, got a pizza in the oven, lemon soda and a glass with ice, Trentons got a new video. Its a good day, lads
Enjoy🎉
I hear you. I'm always awaiting his new videos, too.
@@cristinamz2137 Me too, but then he talked about predestined, and lost me: more reading to do plus speak to my confessor.
Thank you Trent Horn! As an ex-Protestant who is joining the Catholic Church, I’m filled with joy I have brothers defending the Catholic faith! God bless your ministry and your family.
Praying for you brother, as I did the same, from being baptized in the presbyterian church to becoming a Roman Catholic in 2015! Welcome Home, brother! Praying for you!
God bless you in your quest to become Catholic! Enjoy plumbing the depths of the Catholic Faith. I was born into a Protestant family and longed to become Catholic throughout my adult life. Converted several years ago, and I’ve never looked back. Welcome home! Praying for you and your journey!
Welcome home brother, may you continue to find all the treasures of the Catholic faith. Look into the eucharistic miracles since this is the year of the eucharistic revival
@@UnbrokenBelieverRahab was a harlot and God made her a heroine, so what's your point?
@@ironymatt
Great point, I was just writing about her 2day, & how there's all kinds of scripture proving God worked with Pagans, like King Nebuchadnezzar for example, but God always used Pagan kingdoms to punish Israel to, & in the NT Jesus tells Pontius Pilate
in John 19:11; u only have this power because it was given to u from above.
I'm a former Protestant believer, so all I do now is write articles like these to show my family that Catholic church is true...
But that's a great point
As a Lutheran I always have a moment of relief when Trent's videos are about the other Protestants doctrines
This made me chuckle 😅
😂😂 I laughed out loud
Still smiling😊
@weaponofchoice-tc7qs oh because I enjoy getting a good nights sleep, not being kept awake by Trent's theological challenges to my faith lol. It's nice to just sit back and watch him dismantle other doctrines.
*just to note: I'm a protestant on a Catholic Apologetics page, obviously I am here because I am open to hearing the Catholic side of things, and I enjoy the charitable dialogues
Really? This gentleman completely denies everything Luther stood for in “On the Bondage of the Will”.
It's crazy how you point to my 3 favorite protestant pastors... as I just recently decided to go to RCIA and become catholic. Thank you for all your hard work Trent!
Praise God! Welcome home brother
_"...and become catholic."_
Because worshiping human sacrifice is insufficient. Cannibalism must be worshiped too.
@@twitherspoon8954 As if Protestants don't believe in this "human sacrifice" too. "Cannibalism" is what most of the early Christians believed, btw.
@@twitherspoon8954you sound exactly like the pagan detractors of early Christianity
@@jackdaw6359
_"...you sound exactly like the pagan detractors of early Christianity."_
Wait. Are you denying that the literal worship of propitiatory human sacrifice is the core tent of Christianity? You know, that cross and John 3:16...
Christians believe that God sent one of his sons to be tortured and killed as a sacrificial offering (a practice adopted from Paganism).
They worship this human sacrifice as part of a ritual intended to appease a god. In Christian theology, atonement refers to the forgiving of sin by using Jesus as the human sacrifice.
Paul created Christianity in 48 AD and this is how he put it:
Romans 8:32
"He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all."
1 Corinthians 5:7
"Christ our passover is sacrificed for us."
Romans 3:25
"God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement."
Romans 5:8
"God showed his great love for us by sending Christ to die for us."
Hebrews 10:10
"We are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ."
Man St Ignatius really dropped some hard facts on those in schism. Didn't know he said that so directly. I definitely need to read the early church fathers
Definitely, Ignatius of Antioch is the Church Father that Protestants fear the most, in my experience. He is an apostolic father and as such is incredibly early, was a direct student of John the Apostle and knew Peter personally, and his writings are so blatantly Catholic that they can’t really be reasoned around. Pax Christi.
I guess what is more important. The revealed Words of God from the source in the Bible or studies of early church leaders. We are to test Scripture with Scripture and thus test teaching of any church leader with scripture. Please cite the area that Ignatius taught that Protestants disagree with and cite the verses you KNOW to be directly cited by Ignatius as support for his theology
@@nathangraham2189I would rather believe in Saint Augustine, Saint Thomas Aquinas, Saint Ignatius of Antioch, Ireneus, Saint Polycarp and the other early Church Fathers. Rather than believe in Martin Luther, John Calvin, Albert Zwingli, King Henry the VIII, John Knox and MANY other Reformers.
Don’t forget Joel Olsteen, Kenneth Copeland and millions of other puffed up “preachers.”
@@danielkim672 The Bible tells us that the Church is the foundation of Truth, and Paul commanded all they taught in written word and in oral tradition was to be followed, so tell us which verse justifies your privileged understanding.
This video was worthy of a like and share. 👍
I read this in Jason Maher's voice. -Kyle
Oh heck yes. I typed it in with his voice in my head. 😅
@@TheCounselofTrent
Why did the APOSTLES refer to the Communion. Meal of believers in Christ as "gatherings for THE BREAKING IOF BREAD" n NOT "gatherings for THE PARTAKING OF THE BODY AND BLOOD OF JESUS"?
It was only in later years that rc-approved church fathers came up with the doctrine of TRANSUBSTANTIATION.....that d rc chirch then ENFORCES that DOCTRINE merely coz it "SUPPORTED" by "d church fathers"... BUT why are the teachings of d later church fathers MORE IMPORTANT to d Roman catholic faith... than the TEACHINGS OF THE APOSTLES is to rc???
Why expect Christianity to REJECT BIBLICAL DOCTRINES just coz they hv NOT BN DOCUMENTED BY ROME to be from £d church fathers"???...
Were there not CHURCH FATHERs MISSING from d Roman catholic ROLL???
I wish I could subscribe to this channel twice.
Your comments are of much greater value in my view Fr, Ad majorem Dei gloriam!
Man I see you everywhere Father 🤣
@@matthewoburke7202 keep an eye out! The conspiracies are true. Jesuits are hiding everywhere! Hahaha I've even got things going on, like Gospel reflection videos etc
Why does the Trinity not appear in the Bible jo?peace;
@@lufhopespeacefully2037 It does, Just not explicitly.
I have my masters in theological studies, and I still learn so much more from you from every video. Thanks, Trent!
I have a masters degree in astrology..same branch..amen
I would like to have my masters in theology.
@@johnpro2847your comment makes no sense, amen.
Why does the Trinity not appear in the Bible?peace;
@@lufhopespeacefully2037 Guess you missed that part in the Bible when Jesus was baptized and all three interacted with the world at once. Or in Acts when it says that God anointed Jesus with the Holy Spirit.
God bless you, brother in Christ! As a Catholic who tirelessly defends our Church amid constant anti-Catholic vitriol from some (not all) Protestants, I’m grateful for your channel. 🙏🏼✝️🕊️
_"...who tirelessly defends our Church amid constant anti-Catholic vitriol..."_
Should cannibalism and human sacrifice be condemned or worshiped?
@@twitherspoon8954It’s neither cannibalism nor human sacrifice.
@@Catholic-Christian
_"It’s neither cannibalism nor human sacrifice."_
Wait. Are you denying that the literal worship of propitiatory human sacrifice is the core tent of Christianity? You know, that cross and John 3:16...
Christians believe that God sent one of his sons to be tortured and killed as a sacrificial offering (a practice adopted from Paganism).
They worship this human sacrifice as part of a ritual intended to appease a god. In Christian theology, atonement refers to the forgiving of sin by using Jesus as the human sacrifice.
Paul created Christianity in 48 AD and this is how he put it:
Romans 8:32
"He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all."
1 Corinthians 5:7
"Christ our passover is sacrificed for us."
Romans 3:25
"God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement."
Romans 5:8
"God showed his great love for us by sending Christ to die for us."
Hebrews 10:10
"We are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ."
@@Catholic-Christian
_"It’s neither cannibalism nor human sacrifice."_
Jesus: "Whoever gnaws my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink."
@@twitherspoon8954 Jesus real blood and flesh is eaten under the appearance and taste of bread, not flesh and blood.
And human sacrifice is when humans offer an Innocent human being against their will to a false God. That’s not what happened in Jesus case, on the contrary Jesus willingly died for us as a pleasing sacrifice to God.
You are a theological beast! I can't wait for your debates with White. I pray the risen Lord enables you to put him in his place as you did last time.
I appreciate this video so much. I used to be a Fundamentalist Baptist who would fight tooth and nail for this doctrine. I became Catholic and my viewpoint changed. You have said before that in order to talk about various Catholic doctrines with Protestants, often times Sola Scriptura needs to be dealt with first. I have found this same point to be true with the Doctrine of Eternal Security when talking with our Fundamentalist brothers and sisters. Salvation from the Eucharist, Confession, etc. Makes no sense to them if they hold fast to the Once-Saved-Always-Saved mentality. I really appreciate both this video and what you do to further the Kingdom. God bless you.
I appreciate your honesty. The biggest problem within Fundamentalism and Baptist as a whole is a lack of good teaching of doctrine and theology. When you don’t have a true understanding and foundation in what you profess anyone who is willing to give an answer will sound correct. I apologize for that they failed you and I strongly recommend that you do as the Apostle Paul told the Thessalonians in 1 Thessalonians 5:21, TEST all things. Don’t take my word don’t take Trent’s word go test what is being said, and just ask yourself one question, who should I believe God or man?
Good luck and God bless.
yea like "sola scriptura" cant be right huh? those crazy Baptists, who warn that once u start accepting traditions or additions to scripture, ANYTHING can happen! and so it has, from the catholic heresies of praying to the dead, indulgences, killing those who taught against their church (real christians huh?) to mormons and all their additional books and their "prophets" revelations and on and on and on. and both teach that gettin wet and calling is baptism, washes away sins...but thats not enough either! i will pray for u friend, the Jesus u have run into in the Catholic church is a weak one. has to be sacrificed daily in the mass, and he didnt quite do enough, so now u gotta "persevere" and since Trent says not everyone has been gifted with perseverance, u still come up short. its enough to cause schizophrenia
Welcome home!
I'm sorry you were in a dead church, but thanks to the King James bible I was led away from the seducing Catholic spirit. I admit there is something compelling about Catholicism, but this "Catholic awakening" on the internet is not validation of it being the true church. Anywhere you look in the bible in just about any case the majority is in apostasy. Matthew 7 is clear about the gate being narrow. Over one billion people is not a narrow gate.
I just want you to put this in perspective; you are leaving the heritage of bible believers who were burned at the stake for the word of God and joining the heritage of those that burned them at the stake. I'd feel guilty if that was my heritage. I'm praying for you.
Friend, why not Orthodox?
Thaks to Trent and other Catholic RUclipsr and the writing of the church fathers, I'm entering RCIA September and will be received into church Easter🙏🙏🙏
This is probably the best discussion I have seen succinctly about the topic. I have seen Trent make similar "historical" arguments of theological development from present roots of a doctrine in early fathers.
Trent, I just considered that what you do as your life vocation and how you unpack and deliver the truths of our Catholic Faith is so appreciated. Your role in life is more important than many other secular disciplines in helping all of us on our faith journey. Thank you, and God bless you and your beautiful family!!
I went from staunch protestant to almost Catholic in the last two months in part because Trent's eternal security debate with James White dismantled my view of salvation. Most protestants have salvation, one of the most important doctrines, so wrong (if you're honest about historical context).
Where you Calvinist?
See my comment above--I don't think this is a good reason to become a Roman Catholic.
@@huntsman528 My grandpa was a Presbyterian pastor and I currently go to a Presbyterian church, but Calvinism has never made sense to me so I don't think i can really claim to have ever been Calvinist
@@anglicanaesthetics I don't either. One, I'm not Catholic. Two, I said this "in part" has contributed to the collapse of my protestant faith. I no longer believe in either Sola Scriptura nor Sola Fide which puts me on a super small island of Protestants. Every protestant I know of who has been on said island has gone on to Catholicism. Catholics have a comprehensive interpretation of sacred tradition and the church's role in salvation that is utterly lacking in protestantism.
Very interesting. When I was a Calvinist I never had any assurance, whatsoever, but that's because I considered myself unrepentant. Aside from that, though, I think Calvinistic readings of Scripture are entirely sound and consistent, and am surprised it's even possible to dismantle Calvinism in a debate. Just curious, what was so effective about Horn's approach (I might try it against some Calvinists, myself)?
Thanks Trent for your honest and balanced teaching. As a Protestant, I have to do some serious thinking on this issue. Every possible blessing to you.
I think that scriptures are in line with the perseverance of the Saints. I think John is the most explicit, besides saying that those that went away were never from us there are passages like Jn 2:23-25 (they are trusting jesus but Jesus is not trusting them) and 6:64-66 (where Jesus is saying they are following just for foor before it). Then there are passages like Jn 15:16 where Jesus is saying he chose his disciples (i don't think Judas proves this wrong when concidered in context i think he was the son of perdition, the one stealing money isn't somebody that is really a christian unless you think it is a mark of true salvation... Just like God chose Moses before, does not know what he is dooing?), Jn 10:27-30 saying nobody can take them out of his hand where he says it is the same as beeing in the hand of the father and passages like Ap 13:8, 17:8 where the names are in the book of life from before the foundation of the world. What do you make of these passages?
Brilliant as usual Trent. God bless
I liked this Video. Calvinism is Philosophically Insane. Since God is not Insane Calvinism is False.
As a revert catholic ( Who was Protestant for 30 years) I have to say I have never heard a Catholic Apologist explain Protestant Doctrine so accurately. This is why Trent is a phenomenal apologist. “ If you know the enemy and know yourself you need not fear the result of hundreds of battles. “ The Art of War
Most protestants don't believe in eternal security it's a Presbyterian belief
Quoting Chinese Art of War does not bode well
I was named after Zane Hodges since my dad was reading Absolutely Free when I was born. I became Catholic this last Easter and I find it even more ironic now 😂
Welcome HOME!
In the last two months I have been debating Free Gracers. It is tough since they tend to be very prideful. They are the total opposite of Lordship Salvationists. Both equally arrogant.
The most irritating thing is that these same Protestant scholars/pastors/speakers will continue to open with the “we have the rediscovered teachings of the first Christians!” line, and then only reluctantly admit after adequate Catholic/Orthodox pushback that “yeah, it’s not actually contained in the early church… but it (somehow conveniently) doesn’t need to be.”
I find that the appeal to antiquity for pretty much any and every Protestant theological doctrine to be completely untenable. It should be obviously clear that Protestant doctrine cannot fit within the framework of the corpus of Christian thought pre-1517, if nothing else because neither the main Protestant reformers nor the Catholic defenders of the time thought that the two could in any way coexist alongside or be reconciled with one another.
Iconography wasn't official until the 8th century
Iconography wasn’t a controversy until the 8th century. It was only when Islam came to play in its oppression and insistence that they began to question such a practice. Now, I would like to point out that councils are ONLY held to handle controversial topics! This is true of all of them: where the church held an opinion until people started to be led astray. This is where I have my issue: St. Peter said in his letters that “the church is the pillar and bulwark of truth.” At the second council of Nicaea we see that the church agreed unanimously that iconography was good!
So my question is this: the church leaders, all set in place by God, before any large schism save for the ethiopian orthodox, all agreed that icons were a good thing. If the church is the pillar and bulwark of truth, all with free access to the spirit, are determining such an important doctrine, how is it that the spirit was so absent that he did not help the church? Why is it that the pillar and bulwark of truth did not uphold truth? Why did the spirit not convict them? How did both God and his church fail so clearly? Occam’s Razor says that the simplest answer that begs the least questions is that they were justified in their judgment, and to reject their dogma and and set beliefs would be to reject the church, and thus declare them anathema. Reject the entire church and you’ll have a great time, I think.
@@juandoming6688funny how you phrase your statement, as you know it was in practice, along with relic veneration from the beginning
Wilkin’s interpretation vs Ignatius of Antioch…hmmm. I’ll go with the guy that died for Christ.
Plenty of Muslims die for their god, maybe you should start listening to them then.
Edit: Since my last comment, I have changed my mind and my anti-catholicism, and am in RCIA with hopes to join the Catholic Church next Easter Vigil.
@@EmberBright2077 Ignatius was taught by the Apostle John. Seven of his Epistles are extant. Πολύκαρπος attests to him as well. It’s not merely his martyrdom that is compelling.
Ο Θεός να ευλογεί.
@@EmberBright2077 Guess you changed your tune now. 😂😂. Just some lighthearted jabs don't worry. Welcome to the fullness of the truth :)).
@@shubhabrataray1313 Thanks 👍
@@EmberBright2077 ngl you had us in the first half
New CoT video drops, I listen at work, this is just the natural order of things.
Thank you for your inspiring vocation, you are doing wonders for the world!
I am a revert after 30 years. Praise God for leading me home to truth!🙏
Welcome home!
Imagine being as arrogant and full of pride as Calvinists. "I'm part of the elect and going straight to heaven."
Ita a two edge sword tough, many calvinist live in doubt and anxiety cuz they don't know if they are elect or may be even predestinatined to hell. Just like jansenism
"The elect are completely assured of their salvation and I might be one of them"
I'm not even Calvinist, but even I can see this is a terrible strawman. They see election as God's grace, as in, they don't deserve it and can't earn it. It's the *complete opposite* of arrogance.
But what about you bruh? Are you one of the elect and sure you're going straight to heaven?
Catholics can be arrogant about their salvation, because they outperformed the unsaved. They *merited* salvation, whereas the unsaved did not.
A Calvinist cannot be arrogant, because they did nothing to deserve it. It’s utterly and completely God’s Grace.
God bless you, Trent! Your dedication to study and your humility are truly inspirational.
Dios te bendiga Trent.
Former believer in eternal security here! Still a protestant, though. Church history really did it for me. It wasn't hard to change my mind on it, except for fear of losing friends. Church history has just been really helpful to me in establishing the bounds of Christian belief and practice.
Out of curiosity, why are you still protestant? In the last two months, I had sola fide and sola scriptura completely dismantled which has really left my Protestantism hanging by a thread.
Protestant here. I agree with you. What background did you come from?
@UnbrokenBeliever It's just a bad argument to begin with. There are too many passages that indicate that believers can leave the faith. Historic belief helps support this, but is not necessary based on scripture.
@@UnbrokenBeliever First off, why does it have to be in the Bible to be true? Peter spoke infallibly in Acts even though he didn't write acts. John says many things were taught by Jesus and not written down. Paul says to hold onto the TRADITIONS passed down by the apostles. So where on earth do you get this notion that it has to be written in one of 27 books to be apostolic and true?
Second, Hebrews 10 is clear that there "is no longer any sacrifice left for our sins" if "we go on sinning deliberately." And James 5 is clear that someone can wander away from the truth and come _back_ through intercession and confession and be saved from death. These two passages are very, very clear that you can sincerely believe in Jesus and compromise your faith and cause death to your soul through deliberate sin.
The reason church history is important is because it shows that the Protestant proof-texts were never understood in the way Protestants interpreted them 1600 years later.
@@sivad1025 where does Paul instruct believers to pass on traditions of the Apostles? Acts is part of the Bible. Books by people taught directly by Christ is so different than teachings of men elected by men.
27 books is because that is all we have. If the Apostles wrote more books, we'd have more. Popes are not inspired however and they not apostles.
Thank you brother Trent Horn. You are amazing. Continue to defend our Catholic faith and traditions that have had existed for over two thousand years and will survive and stand time until the second coming of Jesus Christ.
Again thank you Brother Trent Horn,,,, you are amazing,,,a true gift to our Catholic Church.
*cough cough* Orthodox *cough cough*
@@EmberBright2077 no one is asking you for your ouch......ooch.......you may keep your ouch ooch.....
@@MaranglikPeterTo-Rot-dm4nc ?
As an ex-Protestant who is now an agnostic, I appreciate you taking the time to share this! ❤
That’s a non-argument, or else I could say the same for the droves of people leaving the Catholic Church.
@weaponofchoice-tc7qs yeah I feel like it is also that
Just the possibility that you could indeed be mistaken about any given experience of the Holy Spirit
And not even in the “we live in a simulation” way, but just in the fact that basically none of those experiences are externally verifiable in any way
I say “basically none” and not “none” because the . Agnostic part 😅
@@1776iscoolseeing how over the last few decades a good many Catholics lost the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist “weapon”’s comment would still be operative. I don’t think he is saying there is something magical about the Eucharist; just that it makes Christian belief coherent. After all, it is the summit of the Catholic experience.
@weaponofchoice-tc7qs well I’m not sure what you mean 100% by seek peace fully but , I will go to my local Catholic parish this Sunday and pay attention
@weaponofchoice-tc7qs what if I die right now 😭
My response is quite different from most others here, although I respect and appreciate the kindness of all who leave their remarks.
My life's training in faith was Catholic for my first four decades, featuring two entries into Catholic seminary along with an additional two discernment group gatherings consisting of men considering the Catholic priesthood. Despite some very prayerful moments within these groups, I could never be unfaithful to the Lord Jesus with regard to several powerful ways in which He came to me.
One was via Protestant radio preaching, which summoned me into Scripture consistently, and in a way that Sunday and weekday Catholic homiletics simply could not (and still cannot) match. The joy of finally knowing the Lord's revealed word as it was taught by the men on radio ignited a hunger in me that was strangely both satisfied yet also sustained by constant dives into Biblical teaching. Countless times found me interrupting my commutes and pulling over into various parking lots and garages so that I could partake of God's recorded word without distraction.
A second was by realizing, despite my attempts to be ordained into the priesthood, just how enslaved to pagan human philosophy the seminaries had become. My first seminary experience found me among ten men who were taught everything from the importance of feminism (even to the point of changing the "overt masculinity"of the Sign of the Cross) to attempts to engage all 10 of us in yoga and "prayers to the east wind." (I refused to participate but was open to conversation, which was not possible because the philosophies of the moment were being treated as gospel truth).
The third (but hardly final) thought applicable here is how lacking in spiritual impact so many Catholic proceedings were by comparison-whether they took the form of my visit to Rome in 1995 to witness a saint's canonization, a procession around the church parking lot, or the calling forth of congregants to receive their Brown Scapulars, plus numerous other strange routines that hardly speak forth the Good News of Christ Jesus to either those in attendance or to neighbors-even neighbors who lived or moved within short distance from these activities.
I speak plainly in saying that there are many Scriptural teachings that thunder within me to register far greater impact than these memories of Catholic membership. I'll leave this one from John's gospel:
"My sheep listen to My voice; I know them, and they follow Me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, Who has given them to Me, is greater than all, and no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.”
(John 10:27-30)
To be fair, considering this “Protestant” isn’t really fair. It’s a specific strain of thought that the Perseverance/Preservation of the Saints falls into. Mainly believe it because it sounds nice, others believe it because they created a theology.
For Protestants in the comments: what is your interpretation of The Prodigal Son Gospel? To Catholics, most agree that the son has his family (salvation) at the beginning, squanders his family's gifts on sin and loses his family, and then asks for forgiveness to get his family back. It seems to espouse the idea that you can lose your salvation, but can always get it back through repentance.
The Prodigal Son is the northern kingdom of Israel.
What are these 2 Houses of Israel? A brief look at Biblical History
After Moses led the 12 Tribes of Israel (the generations that came from the 12 Children of Jacob) out of Egypt, God appeared to “His People - Israel” and gave them Commandments and led them to the Land of Israel. At this time there was no King over Israel, and God Himself reigned King over His People. After Moses’ death, Joshua acted as “Judge” over Israel and many others were appointed after Joshua(Book of Judges) for a span of around 450 years(Acts 13:20). When Samuel was acting as Judge over Israel, the people asked for a King to rule over them, to much displeasure from Samuel & God Himself(1Sam 8:5-8). After Saul’s reign, David was appointed as King and he ruled over all 12 Tribes of Israel/Jacob (2Sam 5:3-5). After David, Solomon was anointed King and when Solomon was old, his many wives made him sin against God (1Kin 11:4-7). As punishment, Solomon’s servant Jeroboam received 10 tribes to rule over, and the rest were ruled by Solomon’s son, Rehoboam (1Kin 11:30,31/ 1Kin 12:16,17). Rehoboam ruled over the Tribe of Judah & Benjamin, collectively called the “House of Judah” (1Kin 12:23). From this point onwards in the Books of 1st & 2nd Kings, Jeroboam and his Sons ruled over what was called “The House of Israel” in the north of the land while Rehoboam and his Sons ruled over what was called “The House of Judah” in the south of the land. After much rebellion against God, and not giving ear to the Prophets, The House of Israel was taken captive to Assyria(2Kin 17:6,18,23). The Majority of them were scattered among the nations(Hos 8:8, Jer 31:10). Even though, The House of Judah, was much better than The House of Israel, they also disobeyed God and was taken captive to Babylon(Dan 1:1,2). But God let them return back to their land after 70 yrs in exile(Jer 29:10, Ezr 2:1, Neh 7:6). The people who are called Jews today, are mostly, the descendants of the House of Judah. And the House of Israel has been dispersed among nations according to all of the prophecies of Scripture. These descendants are worshiping there own gods without knowing who they are, living in countries around the world(Deut 28:64, Neh 1:8,9, Eze 12:15). And God has said that He will bring back these people from the ends of the Earth.
These 2 Houses are specifically mentioned throughout the Scriptures
1Kin 12:21, 2Kin 23:27, Isa 5:7, Jer 3:18, 5:11, 11:10,17, 12:14, 13:11, 31:27, 31:31, 33:14, Eze 9:9, Hos 11:12, Mic 1:5, Zec 8:13, Heb 8:8
The scattering of His People was prophesied before it happened
Lev 26:33, Deut 4:27, 28:63-68, 32:26, Jer 9:16, Ezek 20:23, 22:15,
God has promised to bring back the scattered and rebuild His people
Deut 30:1-5, Isaiah 11:10-13, 27:12, 43:5-7, Jer 3:12-15, Amos 9:9, Ezek 11:17, Ezek 37
These 2 houses will become one people
Eze 37:16-19, Jer 3:18, 50:4, Hos 1:11
Yeshua was sent for the Lost sheep of the House of Israel
Mat 15:24, John 11:52
Yeshua will rule over these 2 Houses forever
Luk 1:33 (The House of Jacob is the “House of Judah” & the “House of Israel”, together)
Everyone including the Apostles knew about the scattered
John 7:35, 1Pet 1:1, James 1:1, Acts 21:21
So what does the Division of Israel have to do with the Parable of the Prodigal Son?
I believe that the correct interpretation of this Parable can only be understood by someone after studying what happened to Israel, and what was prophesied about them throughout the Scriptures. consider the following explanation. (My Interpretation is added in underlined font)
Luk 15:11 And he said, A certain man(Father God) had two sons(The two Houses of Israel - Hos 1:10,11):
Luk 15:12 And the younger of them(The House of Israel/Ephraim - Jer 31:20) said to his father, Father, give me the portion of goods that falleth to me. And he divided unto them his living. (God blessed them abundantly with their inheritance - Eze 35:15)
Luk 15:13 And not many days after the younger son gathered all together, and took his journey into a far country, and there wasted his substance with riotous living. (The House of Israel sinned against God, doing all that they pleased, and was finally exiled - 2Kin 17:18)
Luk 15:14 And when he had spent all, there arose a mighty famine in that land; and he began to be in want. (In Exile, the house of Israel got scattered among the nations - Deut 4:27)
Luk 15:15 And he went and joined himself to a citizen of that country; and he sent him into his fields to feed swine. (Among the nations they have become slaves to other God’s - Deut 4:28)
Luk 15:16 And he would fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat: and no man gave unto him. (They fell to the depths of uncleanness - Hos 9:3)
Luk 15:17-19 And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father’s have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger! I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee, And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants. (They will finally understand their error and return to the Father - Jer 31:16-19)
Luk 15:20 And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him. (The Father showed His ways through Yeshua, to whomever was in error - John 14:24)
Luk 15:21 And the son said unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son. (The House of Israel is coming back to him with repentance - Acts 5:31)
Luk 15:22 But the father said to his servants, Bring forth the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet: (The Father accepts the repenting House of Israel, and gives them back their rightful position - Hos 14)
Luk 15:23 And bring hither the fatted calf, and kill it; and let us eat, and be merry: (Yeshua was sent for the Lost of the House of Israel - Mat 15:24)
Luk 15:24 For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry. (Through Yeshua the House of Israel is alive again through a renewed covenant - Heb 8:10)
Luk 15:25-28 Now his elder son was in the field: and as he came and drew nigh to the house, he heard music and dancing. And he called one of the servants, and asked what these things meant. And he said unto him, Thy brother is come; and thy father hath killed the fatted calf, because he hath received him safe and sound. And he was angry, and would not go in: therefore came his father out, and intreated him. (The House of Judah has a hard time accepting that the Father could accept the children that had disobeyed Him - Acts 11:3&18 , as the House of Judah did not keep company with other Nations - Acts 10:28)
Luk 15:29 And he answering said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends: (The House of Judah, for the most part, have always been obedient to God - Hos 11:12)
Luk 15:30 But as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf. (The House of Israel, on the other hand has always been in harlotry with other gods - Jer 3:6)
Luk 15:31 And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine. (The House of Israel, unlike Judah, was given a bill of divorce and put away by God, Almighty resulting in their exile and scattering- Jer 3:8)
Luk 15:32 It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found. (God will accept the repenting House of Israel, making his brother, The House of Judah, jealous - Rom 11:11)
I mean I'm a Protestant and I do believe you can lose your salvation, so I probably just see it the same way you do.
@EmberBright2077 thanks. I've never really understood the idea of "once saved, always saved." But I know some denominations believe that. So I was just curious.
The actions of the Prodigal Son when he fell away prove that he was not repenting or placing his trust in Christ, and I believe that one has to have faith (which shows trust and obedience) in Christ to go to Heaven. We believe the same thing on this one.
That is my exact story actually. I came back to my church last year and I have never felt better, I don't like to call myself protestant, I am just a Christian, I attend a church of Christ, and have love for anyone who has love for our Lord.
Thanks Trent! I was just looking through the fathers for this very thing last night.
"Lord during my lifetime I didn't obey any of your commandments but punish me not , I had faith in them all"
Henry Fielding
You have NOT done his commandments but broken them all. That's what you don't understand. Jesus Christ paid it all!
ruclips.net/video/M4_pgXjq5X4/видео.html
No room in that for “faith without works is dead” is there?
@@Danaluni59 You have FORGOTTEN the works of God. That ye believe on HIM whom he hath sent. Do you EVEN remember HIS NAME brethren?
Tell Me the truth,
ruclips.net/video/lrAjMMM-R4M/видео.html
Thank you Trent, I’m a Protestant but I always enjoy your videos as they give me a lot to think about.
It’s been my understanding that as long as I am faithfully pursuing Christ (despite setbacks) my salvation is secure. However, if I willfully turn away to pursue other things I would be falling away, despite any past faithfulness.
It seems like the once saved always saved trivializes the destructiveness of sin.
A great video, Trent. Thank you. Keep them coming, mate. From Sydney, Australia.
I saw this as a Protestant and was like “oh crud, what’s Trent gonna have me questioning today 😬.” As a Pentecostal from the Wesleyan tradition (non-Calvinist), I was relieved😂.
Well, I admire your inner strength. It takes some courage to unlearn some things :)
That's because Trent sometimes caricatures all protestants as Calvinists. Also saying Protestant in the youtube title is more clickbait than Calvinist
😂
and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand
"no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand"
Yet we have free will and can leave. God doesn't force us to love him. He doesn't force us to persevere. This is the whole point of the parable of the vine. A branch ATTACHED to Jesus Christ is 100% SAVED! Yet through unrepentant sin, can be cut off, bundled and thrown into the fire.
As a Lutheran, I agree that Eternal Security is an incorrect teaching.
Watching in japan, always good to listen to you Mr. Horn, i learned a lot from your video and makes my catholic faith deeper and deeper.
thank you so much for your support! -Vanessa
Great content, but it makes my realize what I need now is now apologetics, but the Word and the Sacraments. I'm so broken, I feel astranged from the church militant, but am comforted by the church suffering and triumphant. On his feast day, Saint Lawrence, pray for us!
I rejected "once saved always saved" as a 14 year old Baptist kid who began voraceously reading the Bible for himself. I was still a sola scriptura protestant in every way at the time. And it was painfully clear to me that scripture specifically teaches against this doctrine.
Once saved always saved isn't found in Scripture, so rejecting the error of the doctrine doesn't imply that sola scriptura is wrong. Sola scriptura simply means that when you have both Scripture and Tradition, Scripture is the norm that norms Tradition. In other words Tradition is everywhere and always subject to Scripture and the proper role of Tradition is to provide explanations of Scripture for the people as Paul clearly states in 2 Timothy 3. Scripture defines itself as "God breathed" whereas Tradition cannot make that same claim. At least not honestly. Sola scriptura basically means you cannot make stuff up and put it on par with Scripture.
@@pete3397 I'm not claiming the falsehood of once saved always saved proves or even implies sola scriptura is false. I made no appeal to tradition. Tradition had nothing to do with my rejection of the doctrine. I bring up sola scriptura because I came to reject once saved always saved based purely on scripture, long before I knew much of anything about the Catholic Church or had any concept of looking to tradition for any reason.
@@timrichardson4018 Got you.
@@pete3397Scripture is one part of Tradition. That's why Scripture AND Traditiin along with the teaching authority of the Church work together and are important to look to for the fullness of the truth.
@@littleone1656 They do work together, but Tradition cannot supplant Scripture, nor can it be equal with Scripture. Scripture always norms Tradition and never the other way around. Tradition is valuable, it just needs to be recognized as not on par with Scripture. That is the actual meaning of sola scriptura: Scripture is the default, Tradition is the support.
Lately I've been dealing with this issue a lot. The conversations and debates seem to come to a screeching halt when you ask for references for the history they're talking about. Protestants seriously don't k ow church history
I live in Tennessee, southern baptists tend not to have any clue when the Baptist church was founded and when it split into their denomination, let alone anything that happened across the ocean 2000 years ago.
It’s very frustrating because they talk about the Church “adding stuff” all the time, but they have 0 historical consciousness so they never have any idea when, where, or what was “added”.
Catholics seriously don't know what protestantism is
@bennyv4444 It's the same in southern MD. We have a lot of pentacostal influence here as well.
Except for the ones that do. More often historic Protestants tend to be well educated in Church history. Off the top of my head,you can look up Gavin Ortlund, The Other Paul, Barely Protestant, Gospel Simplicity, or Jordan Cooper for some representation from that side of the fence.
@EmberBright2077 Yep I've listened to all of them debate catholics. Jordan cooper got crushed by jimmybakin and gavin got defeated by trent horn in a couple debates as well. They get trashed... gavins debate with trent horn on sola scriptura was a wash. Gavins entire argument failed in his opening statements when he said personal interpretation of scripture is a higher authority than scripture. Suan sunna also made a 3 or 4 hour video evicerating his argument against icon veneration. Historical protestants are in a pretty rough boat as well... the mainline churches have almost all fallen into heresy and if you try to restore it to luther and Calvin's day then you have to deal with how many of them believed in the Marian doctrines. Perpetual virginity, assumption, theotokos, etc. No current protestants hold the historical views on Mary that the reformers held. If you look up some of the off the wall comments that luther made over the years I can't imagine anyone still follows his teachings. Between throwing his excrement at the walls, imagining jewish conspiracies to ruin the church, his disdain for Hebrews, corinthians, James, revelation, and the deuterocanon makes me wonder how he ever assumed sola scriptura.
This topic is the most dangerous of the Protestant heresies - thank you for covering it, Trent. Liked
It's basically Satan slipping in the arrogance of presumption through a temptation to fear.
😈 "As long as you confess with your mouth and believe in your heart, you will be like gods, knowing good and evil."
I think the cheap grace sinner’s prayer fire insurance claim is the most dangerous. You have to first THINK you’re “saved” before you can STAY “saved!”
@@john-paulgies4313 I'm very thankful for the Sacrament of Confession. Each and every Confession gives sanctifying grace, purifies the soul and helps to sin no more...
Jesus Christ Granted the Apostles His Authority to Forgive Sins
John 20:21 - before He grants them the authority to forgive sins, Jesus says to the apostles, "as the Father sent me, so I send you." As Christ was sent by the Father to forgive sins, so Christ sends the apostles and their successors forgive sins.
John 20:22 - the Lord "breathes" on the apostles, and then gives them the power to forgive and retain sins. The only other moment in Scripture where God breathes on man is in Gen. 2:7, when
the Lord "breathes" divine life into man. When this happens, a significant transformation takes
place.
John 20:23 - Jesus says, "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven. If you retain the sins of any, they are retained." In order for the apostles to exercise this gift of forgiving sins, the penitents must orally confess their sins to them because the apostles are not mind readers. The
text makes this very clear.
Matt. 9:8 - this verse shows that God has given the authority to forgive sins to "men." Hence, those Protestants who acknowledge that the apostles had the authority to forgive sins (which this
verse demonstrates) must prove that this gift ended with the apostles. Otherwise, the apostles' successors still possess this gift. Where in Scripture is the gift of authority to forgive sins taken away from the apostles or their successors?
Matt. 9:6; Mark 2:10 - Christ forgave sins as a man (not God) to convince us that the "Son of man" has authority to forgive sins on earth.
Luke 5:24 - Luke also points out that Jesus' authority to forgive sins is as a man, not God. The Gospel writers record this to convince us that God has given this authority to men. This authority
has been transferred from Christ to the apostles and their successors.
Matt. 18:18 - the apostles are given authority to bind and loose. The authority to bind and loose includes administering and removing the temporal penalties due to sin. The Jews understood this since the birth of the Church.
John 20:22-23; Matt. 18:18 - the power to remit/retain sin is also the power to remit/retain punishment due to sin. If Christ's ministers can forgive the eternal penalty of sin, they can certainly
remit the temporal penalty of sin (which is called an "indulgence").
2 Cor. 2:10 - Paul forgives in the presence of Christ (some translations refer to the presences of Christ as "in persona Christi"). Some say that this may also be a reference to sins.
2 Cor. 5:18 - the ministry of reconciliation was given to the ambassadors of the Church. This ministry of reconciliation refers to the sacrament of reconciliation, also called the sacrament of confession or penance.
James 5:15-16 - in verse 15 we see that sins are forgiven by the priests in the sacrament of the sick. This is another example of man's authority to forgive sins on earth. Then in verse 16, James
says “Therefore, confess our sins to one another,” in reference to the men referred to in verse 15, the priests of the Church.
1 Tim. 2:5 - Christ is the only mediator, but He was free to decide how His mediation would be applied to us. The Lord chose to use priests of God to carry out His work of forgiveness.
Lev. 5:4-6; 19:21-22 - even under the Old Covenant, God used priests to forgive and atone for the sins of others.
The Necessity and Practice of Orally Confessing Sins
James 5:16 - James clearly teaches us that we must “confess our sins to one another,” not just privately to God. James 5:16 must be read in the context of James 5:14-15, which is referring to the healing power (both physical and spiritual) of the priests of the Church. Hence, when James says “therefore” in verse 16, he must be referring to the men he was writing about in
verses 14 and 15 - these men are the ordained priests of the Church, to whom we must confess our sins.
Acts 19:18 - many came to orally confess sins and divulge their sinful practices. Oral confession was the practice of the early Church just as it is today.
Matt. 3:6; Mark 1:5 - again, this shows people confessing their sins before others as an historical practice (here to John the Baptist).
1 Tim. 6:12 - this verse also refers to the historical practice of confessing both faith and sins in
the presence of many witnesses.
1 John 1:9 - if we confess are sins, God is faithful to us and forgives us and cleanse us. But wemust confess our sins to one another.
Num. 5:7 - this shows the historical practice of publicly confessing sins, and making public restitution.
2 Sam. 12:14 - even though the sin is forgiven, there is punishment due for the forgiven sin.
David is forgiven but his child was still taken (the consequence of his sin).
Neh. 9:2-3 - the Israelites stood before the assembly and confessed sins publicly and interceded for each other.
Sir. 4:26 - God tells us not to be ashamed to confess our sins, and not to try to stop the current of a river. Anyone who has experienced the sacrament of reconciliation understands the import of this verse.
Baruch 1:14 - again, this shows that the people made confession in the house of the Lord, before the assembly.
1 John 5:16-17; Luke 12:47-48 - there is a distinction between mortal and venial sins. Mortal sins lead to death
and must be absolved in the sacrament of reconciliation. Venial sins do
not have to be confessed to a priest,
but the pious Catholic practice is to
do so in order to advance in our journey to holiness.
Matt. 5:19 - Jesus teaches that
breaking the least of commandments
is venial sin (the person is still saved
but is least in the kingdom), versus
mortal sin (the person is not saved).
@@mrjeffjobYou dont know what you are saying. Grace is paid for by the priceless powerful blood of the Lamb. Trying to buy salvation is a MOCKERY of the Cross.
ruclips.net/video/M4_pgXjq5X4/видео.html
@@mrjeffjoba Baptist minister friend of mine calls that “greasy” grace.
Trent I'm a protestant but I appreciate & respect the history of the catholic church & I very much like how you respect your guests & how you dialog with them, something that is in short supply today & we could take some lessons in how to treat one another.
Trent, I am a revert having come back to the Catholic Faith after many years of “trying different things”. Glory to God that I am now back in full communion with the Catholic Church! Just wanted to pass along a couple resources that were significant in my coming home. First, Karl Keatings book “What Catholics Really Believe” was major in my decision to come home and your book “The Case for Catholicism” dotted the i’s and crossed the t’s for me. Of course much study into the early church and church fathers was pivotal also. Thank you for doing what you do and God Bless you and your family! I’m praying the Rosary every morning now and it’s truly transforming for me in my spiritual growth.
Why does the Trinity not appear in the Bible?peace;
Hi Trent. I was watching Isaiah Saldivar and he's talking about the dangers of the "Once Saved, Always Saved". If you don't know, Isaiah is a Charismatic Christian with his own channel. That's why I opted to listen to your perspective and knew that you're a Catholic apologist. Great video. Yours actually built on what I already heard.
Thank you for all that you do Trent; every time I see one of your videos, even if I disagree, they are still good/high-quality arguments made in good faith.
As a 'protestant', I don't hold to the 5 points of calvinism. I believe that God never plucks you out of His hands but you can forfeit your salvation.
So you believe Jesus lied in John 10:27-30?
@@Justas399 do you think that I think that Jesus is a liar and therefore a sinner? Of course He didn't lie. No need to be inflammatory my friend. I have a different interpretation:)
@@jethrokingsley8903 I'm just pointing out that if a person can lose their salvation then John 10:27-30 is false. Christ lied.
@Justas399 no it just means your interpretation is wrong and needs to be revised. Why not take all of what the Lord had to say instead of proof texting. Also consider that no one until the reformation interpreted that passage the way you do😉
@@rickydettmer2003 where is the infallible official interpretation by your church on these passages that proves I’m wrong? I would like to see it.
Trent. I find your approach the correct way of addressing the claims others, typically (I haven't seen all of your responses). When the claim is biblical, you approach it from a biblical frame of reference. When it is a historical claim, you approach it from a historical frame of reference. Essentially, rebute or address it in kind. Even your response to Steven was in this same vein.
I wish more apologists and atheists would approach things in the same way. If one truly wishes to sway another one must approach this from their stand point. Just as quoting the Bible to someone who doesn't believe it doesn't work, neither does quoting the science of evolution to someone who doesn't believe in it. Rather than attempting to demonstrate that they are wrong and provide an answer, attempt to demonstrate that they are wrong and ask them to reconcile it and find an answer.
Ignacius states, "And do ye also pray for me, who have need of your love, along with the mercy of God, that I may be worthy of the lot for which I am destined, and that I may not be found reprobate." If Ignacius was worried, we should all be worried and work out our salvation with fear and trembling. My humble Protestant view.
Ignatius of Antioch, “The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 72.
Crazy that I just went and watched your debate with James White on losing salvation yesterday and now this! Always love the content and God bless 🤝
Yes! Perseverance of the Saints was the absolute lynchpin of my theology about everything as a protestant, so when I realized it was basically unknown before Calvin, I went back to examine my proof texts (John 6 mostly) and found they taught the opposite. A few months later, having already done my research on other topics, I was Catholic, and I’ve never been happier or closer to God!
I’m a Protestant who’s still where you were. Perseverance makes sense to me. The golden chain of redemption in Romans 8:28-30 speaks of the entire act of redeeming people from beginning to end as an act of God. If a truly saved person fails to reach glorification then God failed. The language of salvation used throughout the NT is so final. Adoption, resurrection, becoming a partaker of eternal life. It doesn’t sound like probation.
@@hettinga359 I hear you, Rom 8 was a big proof text for me too. Catholics believe that text of course - there is a people (the elect) that God has chosen from eternity past to be saved and those he foreknew, he predestined, called, justified, and ultimately glorified. That’s all true (I mean Paul said it, so…)!!
Here’s the rub: there’s no contradiction between saying that God saves the elect all the way from foreknowledge to glorification AND saying that there is ANOTHER group of people who are once justified and later forfeit that grace of justification. Romans 8 and similar passages speak about the elect but don’t make the claim that ONLY the elect EVER come into a state of justification. That is the piece that Calvin seems to have inserted that wasn’t believed for the first 1500 years (outside of possibly those people in that Augustine quote in the video that he rejected). We all believe in perseverance of the ELECT, the question is whether ONLY the elect ever are SAINTS.
As for the language being final, you’re right! Once someone has been believed and been baptized into Christ and thereby justified, he/she is God’s adopted son/daughter. So when we speak of people forfeiting justification, they aren’t losing their *sonship* so much as they’re losing their *inheritance* which is why Hebrews warns us not to be like Esau and give up our inheritance (salvation) in exchange for a single meal (in the context, sexual immorality - i.e. mortal sin) - Hebrews 12:6
@@blakewolford8903 thanks, have to chew on that
I don't see why it couldn't just be a doctrinal development, like the excuse Catholics will use whenever they can't find historical backing for their beliefs.
@@EmberBright2077 I think the difference is that this doctrine wasn’t just something that hadn’t been fleshed out yet, it was something actively rejected by practically everyone until Calvin. So this wouldn’t be development, this would be reversal of what was (at least nearly) universally held prior
Protestant here, and I think the novel character of this doctrine of Eternal Security stems from the Reformed tendency to start with God's sovereign decree in their theology, whereas a lot of other Christians start with man's response to grace. Of course, from God's perspective He already knows whom He has saved. This is why Jesus can say "of all those He has given me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day". And it's true from God's perspective, but I don't think it's a helpful doctrine from man's limited perspective and knowledge. From man's perspective I think it's more helpful to consider it as the author of Hebrews does "And let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us".
As a Protestant, my biggest problem with Eternal Security is that it undermines God's character. The argument goes, "God can save whomever he wants. He wants the elect to be saved. Ergo, the elect cannot lose Salvation." But its fundamental premise is wrong. God doesn't arbitrarily want the elect to be saved. God has saved the elect whom he foreknows will cooperate with grace. The implication of TULIP is that God's salvation is unjust and forced upon people who reject it and denied from people who love God.
@@sivad1025 This. TULIP renders God a moral monster and tyrant who purposefully made millions of people to send them to Hell, with NO chance or capacity on their part at all to repent or avoid this fate. It’s insane.
@@nathangraham2189 I get Limited Atonement and Irresistible Grace individually. They both seem superficially reasonable. But together, they really do compell you into the position you describe since you can't accept that the dammed resisted grace. It's shocking to me that Calvinists who have actually thought through these things aren't bothered by it
@ThoskaBrah Listen, I'm no Aquinas expert--I'm not even Catholic--so I'm not exactly going to have the best researched opinion. I lean towards Molinism as that makes the most sense to me in light of natural reason. But I'm open to change.
That said, I find your assertion that Aquinas denies the role of cooperation with grace to be hard to believe. I was under the impression that Aquinas believes in a dual nature of God's sovereignty and man's freedom to respond to grace. I thought that was more or less the Catholic position even though the church hasn't formally defined any one theory. The catechism says, "When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of 'predestination', he includes in it each person's free response to his grace." That doesn't sound unconditional to me. That sounds like God's sovreign election is conditioned upon our cooperation
Outstanding video.
It’s such an important issue. The fact that some Protestant leaders are telling their followers that no matter the sin they have nothing to worry about is in my mind tantamount to spiritual assisted suicide.
Add forensic justification by imputation (rather than infusion) to the list
Before I watch this, I'm going to guess transubstantiation
Edit: I was wrong.
loooool
Thank you for your work, Trent!
Yes. While John Calvin and some of his followers followed one line of reasoning regarding the doctrine of predestination, many of the reformed churches took a view more in line with the testimony of scripture and the early church fathers, from continental churchmen like Luther and Jacob Arminius to Anglicans and John Wesley. The possibility of apostasy is widely--though not unanimously--accepted among the 'Protestant' denominations today.
The important part of the apostolic gospel, however, is found in all reformed churches: "But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ-by grace you have been saved- and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." (Ephesians 2:4-10)
Thanks for the Lutheran disclaimer, was worried it wouldn’t come up haha
7:17 wow James White has had a huge glow-up! not in his theology or apologetics, but he looks better! it’s the most inspiring thing about him!
Hello, Trent. I admire your presentation. You're the only Catholic Apologist engaging the argument at least. Keep it up! I'm a Protestant and I'm very convicted of my belief. Bless🙏
''You're the only Catholic Apologist engaging the argument at least'' Trent's amazing but no, he's not the only one
@@mjramirez6008 Can you point me to any rational apologists?
This is a great video. More like these please.
Not all Protestants think the same. Martin Luther was originally sold on the idea of "Solara Scriptura", but when he learned of some long held traditions that were not exactly Biblical, he chose to revise his position somewhat. The Council of Trent, in the end, DID find a major flaw with the Reformers claim, but the PR would not change their claim and continued to hold to the Catholic innovation of Sunday sacredness to take the place of the Bible Sabbath. This justified the Council, at least in their minds, to condemn the Protestant Reformers and churches as apostates of Roman Catholicism.
However, some were and are today, Bible believing Christians who did change to keep the Bible Sabbath and some always had kept that day. But most of these people were not of the PR.
Some Protestant Reformers, especially going back in time before the 16th century, such as John Wyclif, did not find his reform going back to early church fathers because they were founders of early Roman Catholic theology that took liberties with Bible and its interpretation. He wanted to go to the Word to challenge any teaching in RC that departed with plain teaching of scripture, especially how it relates to our relationship with Christ and salvation. Wyclif had so many attacks against him theologically and legally from RC that he never excavated all the reforms needing to be made. Luther and the more modern mainline Reformers, however, knew better or should have known that they were falling short.
The doctrine of "eternal security" is much like "once saved, always saved". The problem with this is it just does not follow or harmonize with the Bible doctrine of "judgment" in regard to Christ's "atonement". This goes all the way back to Leviticus where the ancient feast days taught the Jews the nuts and bolts of how the plan of redemption works and how it will be completed one day in judgment on "the day of atonement" or "Yom Kippur". All Christians should take time to learn this prophetic working out of the plan of redemption ending in this "cleansing of the sanctuary" and what it represents in atonement and judgment. This prophetic application from type to anti-type is found in Daniel 8 and 9.
This is certainly an interesting presentation of a matter of historical theology. I did not know that there was no significant teacher in the church who held to the saints' final perseverance before the 16th century. I learned something--thank you. At the same time, I am convinced that the Scritures teach that doctrine, so yes, it must have been overlooked by many, many theologians. Our Eastern brethren still don't see the filioque! That doesn't mean it's not true.
Any reason it can't just be doctrinal development?
As a lutheran I must say that I'm looking forward to your take on justification by faith alone. I admit, that if there is really not that much support for sola fide in the early church, that would be a strong argument against this doctrine being true (I support sola scriptura, not solo scriptura).
Sola scriptura as is defined in this day and age is pretty much the Catholic position already.
Catholicism affirms Scripture has material sufficiency. Historically, Protestantism claimed _formal_ sufficiency.
Material sufficiency is that with enough study and by building upon the life's work of the Fathers, we can justify all doctrines.
Formal sufficiency (what Sola Scriptura was supposed to be about) was that a plain reading of Scripture is sufficient. Anything not readily apparent is not important.
In other words, material is that Scripture is the building blocks for a house (wood, etc.), formal is that Scripture is a built and furnished house.
Things like the Perpetual Virginity of Mary were known through deep study and reference to the Fathers. Primarily St. Jerome's work in this case (who saw it as blatantly obvious from Scripture alone, but he was a native speaker of Greek, lived and died in Bethlehem, was fluent in Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin, professional translator, etc.)
You might find Casey Chalk’s book, “The Obscurity of Scripture,” to be an interesting read that challenges your view of sola scriptura. Trent did an episode with him not too long ago that’s solid, covers much of the arguments in the book, and would be worth listening to as well. God bless you my friend.
Well, Allister Mcgrath’s massive book on Sola fide conclude with him saying no one taught the Protestant view before Luther. And he’s a Protestant
@@crusaderACR well, I have seen a lot of claims, that the mainstream protestant position (lutheran, reformed and anglican) has always been material sufficiency. At least in lutheran confessional documents (Concordia) there is a lot of appeal to church fathers and early ecumenical council. Supposedly only subsequent protestant movements really claimed formal sufficiency.
@@sillysyriac8925 I wouln't require church fathers to teach exactly the same doctrine of justification as protestants do, word for word. What I would like to see is a strong argument, that when church fathers spoke of "sola fide" (a lot of them did), they meant to exclude from (saving) justification only works of the (jewish) law, but still include works of merit.
Historical. Factual. Charitable.
Awesome job once again Trent!
What do you think of also looking at the practical and psychological effects of these doctrines.
The fact that there is eternal damnation is blowing 😮just to believe that “you’re once saved always saved” is an unbelievable theology because free will exists!❤🌎✝️
This is just such GREAT content!
We thank you!!!
Interesting video! I have been thinking about the parable of the sower recently and had stumbled across Augustine and Aquinas' view on predestination to perseverance during some of my own reading. Also great to see some of my animation in a response video!! Haha
Do you understand the parable of the sower? Tell me do you have a corruptible seed?
ruclips.net/video/K0ofylYquzM/видео.html
What kind of father, when his own child turns to him in genuine repentance, would fail to provide the grace by which we can persevere in faith till the end? Especially when he promises to do so:
Romans 8:32 - He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?
Matthew 7:9 - You parents-if your children ask for a loaf of bread, do you give them a stone instead?
I do agree that we should not presume on the grace of God, but rather work hard to prove our faith is genuine:
Philippians 2:12-13 - work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.
Why does the Trinity not appear in the Bible?peace;...;;;
Looking forward to the video on Sola Fide! Especially the witness of Clement of Rome, as he is so often claimed by Protestants.
Yeah, I wonder why that's thr case. I was having a discussion with a Reformed guy who basically said Clement sounded "so Protestant." I said there was nothing Pope St. Clement was saying which was contrary to the. Catholic faith.
Ephesians 1:13-14
In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation-having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory.
An excellent compilation! Thank you Trent Horn!
Thanks much for this video.
As a Protestant, I deny eternal security, and think this is a major weakness of many denominations.😊
You are deceived then. Out of the abundance of heart the mouth speaketh. Do men gather Fruit of thorns and thistles?
ruclips.net/video/M4_pgXjq5X4/видео.html
Same
Jimmy Akin sounded like a junior apologist at Catholic Answers in that clip you gave. I'm used to hearing his senior apologist at Catholic Answers voice
As always, Trent hits a home run!
Hi Trent. Thank you so much for your service in Christ. I am a revert cradle Catholic. I know you are an apologist for our Catholic faith but one thing that truly worked prominently in my return to the Church is Saint Francis of Assisi. I love and pray before the San Damiano cross in my home.
Same here!
Trent deserves more subscribers.
My major problem with Protestants saying that Scripture only was the only basis for doctrine is that it seems that it depends on what the Scripture says. If the Scripture is problematic such as the Epistle of James, it can be ignored. Luther wanted to kick James out of the Bible. Even the Gospel of the Matthew and the sheep and goats judgement really puts the sword to the faith only doctrine.
The fruit of Sola Scriptura was and is, chaos and confusion. It's only grown exponentially since the day of Father Luther, Father Zwingli and the Catholic lawyer named Calvin. They all disagreed with each other, these 'reformers' yet Sola gave none the right to say the other was wrong.
Protestantism is as dependent on how any given pastor on any given day reinterprets scripture to suit whatever premise or position he is attempting to presume on any given Sunday.
@@Danaluni59 For some. For others it depends on whether the pastor agrees with the Church of Self.
Regarding the belief that "even permanent apostasy won't disqualify you from salvation", just know most Protestants simply respond with "if you are actually saved you would have become a new creature so you wouldn't/couldn't have permanent apostasy". Essentially, people who become "really" saved don't ever leave the faith. Hard to overcome this logic as it is circular and always works in their favor. Essentially, only people who go to Heaven are saved.
Tautologies make for an empty theology, that’s my response. “Saved people are saved” is a tautology, and as such is completely meaningless.
@@nathangraham2189
Tautologies are 2 different words that mean the same thing ….words like choose & select are tautologies….not saved and saved…
@@Mattissaved Um no, they are not. A tautology is a term of logic: it’s a statement that is always necessarily true in every world, such as “when it’s raining, it is raining.” As such; they are statements that cannot convey any meaningful information about the world. As with my example herein, they are perfectly capable of having the same word within the statement. When broken down into symbolic logic they would indeed have the same symbolic value in both parts of the statement, such as “where A is, A is”. Similarly, the statement “those people who are saved, are saved people” would be a tautology. Pax Christi.
Protestant logic can’t be faulty, because if it’s faulty, it wasn’t actual Protestant logic. See?
I can't seem to do well in having discussions about this topic with protestant friends of mine as well as my protestant family. It's definitely a tough one for a lot of people and is seen as unloving (as far as my set is concerned) to suggest any teaching other than eternal security. I'm hoping to get to a better place in discussing this with those closest to me!
This video is helping A LOT. It's like I know all of this but can't seem to get the words right...ugh 😩 I'm definitely no Trent Horn!
Eternal security violates reason. How many people do they know who were practicing Christians and who now do not follow the faith? Then I’m sure they’ll say they were never saved even though the believe sure did at one point. I’d ask them since they believe in Bible alone to point that verse to me out in the Bible where someone professes faith in Christ but does so as a fraud lives it out but wasn’t saved. Like where’s this at in Scripture?
Have you ever read the parable of the sower with them? How do they respond?
@@DiscipleOfChrist77777 Jude 1:4 For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.
And what is it you are referencing exactly?
@@DiscipleOfChrist77777 thats a good one. I usually like to refer to Judgment of All Nations and the Parable of the 10 virgins.
I’ll remember this one as well. Thank you.
Keep striving
The Holy Spirit dwells in the Catholic Church since 33AD, he guides, leads her to all Truth!!! She will never be destroyed, Acts 5:38-39
That was 2000 years ago!
Tha m k you for your Glory, Eternal God
Time-stamps
7:34, 7:45 - Free Grace interpretation of James
8:45, 9:55, 11:10 - History
11:20 - John 3:16 in the ante-Nicene writings
13:20, 13:51 - James White’s citation
14:10 - Horn’s response
19:02 - Update
Questioning Protestant here. I recently stumbled across Pints with Aquinas where I discovered your channel. I'm loving the conversations on Pints, and I love the information I can glean from The Council of Trent videos. My mother is a Baptist pk, so I was raised with Calvinism, but it has never sat right with me. Some of the arguments are clear fallacies, and it also brings up a lot of questions about free will that never get a satisfactory answer. Thank you for this very well-researched explanation of the doctrinal disputes!
Separate question: can you do a video explaining the origins of the Church as an institution? Or do you already have one? I was listening to an old episode of Pints with Mother Natalia (love her so much), and my mom claimed, among other very anti-Catholic sentiments, that the Catholic church was formed as a power grab in the 6th century. I don't believe this is true, but like many Protestants, my grasp of church history is practically non-existent. If there is a video, can someone please share it in the comments? Book suggestions are also very welcome.
Study proto- Protestantism, like the Waldensians, Voudois and Albegenes. Catholics want you to think that Martin Luther completely invented something, but bible believing Christians have always been around being persecuted by the "mother church."
Read Ignatius of Antioch. He is a first generation disciple of the Apostles and describes the role of bishops and the importance of being in communion with them.
@@kyler9323 Thank you!
@@cassiemae7834 I'm trying to help you out too
Kyler’s recommendation is really good. Ignatius was bishop of Antioch and knew John the apostle and wrote several letters(7?) while being taken to Rome to be martyred in 107ad.
A modern source for the early Church being Catholic is Joe Heschmeyer who works for Catholic Answers. He is a RUclipsr and also has written some very fine books.
Your desire for truth is admirable and a sign of grace
🇻🇦🇻🇦🇻🇦🇻🇦 My friend converted from Calvinism to Christianity after studying the Early Church Fathers.
Praise God!
By God's decree. Lol.
This is a very helpful video, Trent! I have also honed in on a very similar doctrine of Protestants more universally shared, which is the doctrine of Assurance of Salvation. While some like Lutherans do believe you can lose your salvation, they usually all teach that if you have faith, you should also have absolute assurance that you are saved at that moment. In fact, I have heard many Protestants say they couldn't be Catholic because Catholics deny *absolute certainty* of knowing if anyone is saved (in a state of grace). In my studies as a former Confessional Lutheran, I have struggled to understand how any Protestant can claim to have absolute assurance of salvation either, though.
It seems to me that to maintain an absolute assurance of salvation, one has to believe in 1) sola fide and 2) antinomianism (that no sin can cause one with faith to lose their salvation, even, according to Luther, murder or adultery). And yet, most Protestants will adamantly deny their view entails antinomianism.
First, it seems the Bible is clear that there are sins that can lead to spiritual death (1 John 5:16-17, Galatians 5:19-21, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Romans 1:28-32, James 2:14-26, etc.)
In my research (mostly Lutherans), I have only found 2 usual ways that Classical Protestants reconciled their faith alone view of salvation with the possibility of grave sin.
1. No sin can remove our justification as long as we have faith. Antinomianism is true and the only mortal sin is apostasy. (Luther and Chemnitz)
“Even if he wants to, he cannot lose his salvation, however much he sin, unless he will not believe. For no sin can condemn him save unbelief alone." (Luther, On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church)
2. It is physically impossible for those who are saved to mortally sin. Those with a living faith will not mortally sin, those with a dead faith may. (Melanchthon)
“Nor, indeed, is this faith an idle knowledge, neither can it coexist with mortal sin, but it is a work of the Holy Ghost, whereby we are freed from death, and terrified minds are encouraged and quickened.” (Apology of the Augsburg Confession IV, 115; cf. Smalcald Articles, Part III, Article III)
On 1, the assurance of salvation is maintained as faith covers everything absolutely but we deny vast sections of the Bible's teachings on necessity of not committing grave sins after justification (1 John 5:16-17, Galatians 5:19-21, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Romans 1:28-32, James 2:14-26, etc.). Also, note that I fully realize Luther would adamantly deny he was an antinomian but I would argue his statements on the matter are not logically consistent.
On 2, there is no assurance of salvation because one can be mistaken if they have a living or a dead faith (James 2:14-26). You would seemingly have to look at your own works for evidence of having a living faith or not. But, since sin can cloud our judgment (Psalm 36), you could easily be mistaken about having a living faith and blind yourself to the fact you may be committing mortal/grave sins, for example a church-going alcoholic or adulterer.
This seems to necessitate the conclusion that the assurance of salvation on the sola fide view requires antinomianism to be true despite the countless Bible verses that speak of grave sins and our not committing them being a condition of maintaining our justification/salvation. If we deny antinomianism, it then seems to necessitate the conclusion that one cannot have absolute assurance of salvation due to the living/dead faith distinction and sin's ability to cloud our own judgment as to whether we are committing grave sins and have a truly living faith.
On the other hand, if you admit that some sins can cause one to lose salvation until they repent and return to a living faith/state of grace (e.g. church-going alcoholic or someone living in adultery), it seems to me that you have undercut the traditional sola fide view and are teaching the Catholic view of faith; that faith is the root of justification (sanctifying grace received through faith) but our obedience to our gift of justification is also a condition of final salvation (John 14:15, Matthew 5:48, John 14:23-24, Galatians 6:8 , 1 Cor. 6:9-10, Gal. 5:19-21, Matt 7:21-23, John 15:10,14, Roman 8:12-13, Romans 12:1-2 ) and we will be judged by our deeds (Mt 25:31-46, Mt 7:21-23, Rm 2:6-11, Rev 20:11-15, Rev 2:23, Jm 2:24-26, Rm 2:13, 2 Cor 5:10, Mt. 16:27).
I would very much like to hear a robust Protestant defense of the assurance of salvation as it continues to confuse me as to why Protestants claim this is a vital doctrine when I don't see how it can logically or biblically work.
God bless!
Your first problem here is the concept of mortal and venal sin, a very non biblical idea.
Second problem may be a misunderstanding of the nature of grace. Grace is not petrol that you can use up and run out of, it is the undeserved unmerited favour of God. God's grace and love is not dependent on anything you do or feel.
Ultimately assurance of salvation is a matter of taking God at his word. John 3,16 John 5, 24 John 10, 29 Rev 3,20.
@@jeremymead8546Hello. Thank you for the reply. My comments above are based on years of research as a former Confessional Lutheran and now Catholic.
I think you too likely have many understandings of Catholic doctrine based on your comments above.
First, mortal and venial sins are very biblical concepts and many Protestants hold to them, as well (including most Lutherans - 1 John 5:16-17, Galatians 5:19-21, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Romans 1:28-32, James 2:14-26, etc.).
Second, Catholics do not teach grace is a substance, like petrol, that you can use up and run out of. It is definitely the unmerited favor of God, as you said. It is also a habit of the soul, that turns man's disposition toward God and away from sin. This is a gift from God and one that man does not earn or something he can do himself. Without this gift, none would love or follow God and His will.
I suggest starting with the Catholic Encyclopedia's articles on Grace and sins to learn more. There are a ton of more resources out there, but that is good place to start if you are serious about learning more about Catholics actually teach on these subjects.
I hope this helps.
God bless!
@metaphysika thankyou for the polite reply.
In reverse order , I am glad for your understanding of grace. I know too many RCs who do in fact believe they use up the grace they have and need to top up regularly. They even tried to use the Hail Mary as a proof that a person can be full of grace and by extension less than full. ( Hail Mary , full of grace....)
As to mortal and venal sins I am afraid I disagree that the quoted scriptures teach that.
All sin is mortal ie we are all dead in our sin apart from God's saving grace in the person of Jesus Christ. I do not accept that our salvation is at continuous risk of being lost because we commit some sin that is somehow worse than others on some graduated list. The apparently most minor of sins can have at their root , pride, which is an attitude God finds utterly unacceptable.
What I do understand from scripture is that grace and forgiveness is not a license to sin and that there is an unrepentant attitude to sin ( not any particular sin itself ) that effectively denies God, refuses to acknowledge wrongdoing and hence refuses forgiveness. The trouble with the concept of mortal vs venal sins is that such a person may commit only apparently venal sin and not much at that, but it is the underlying heart attitude that is damning not any particular sin.
@@jeremymead8546 Thanks the thoughtful and cordial reply, as well! I would highly recommend to dig in a bit more to learn about Catholic thought from more technical sources. There is much in your post that Catholics do agree with. I find Catholic teaching is, unfortunately, very commonly misunderstood and misrepresented by Protestants and fellow Catholics a like. Again, the Catholic encyclopedia is a great free resource on the website New Advent.
God bless!
I appreciate your work, Trent! As a protestant to enjoy his good debate, it was a lot of fun to see you and destiny have your conversation. I disagree with you on a lot of your conclusions, but boy do I appreciate the Fidelity and thoughtfulness. You used to get there!
Rip voixe text. XD
Bless you brother!
Brilliant as always 👏
I have never felt the love of chrsit coming from James white. He’s more concerned with being right than the truth
@nathonoppy - that's called intellectual assent without Spiritual ascent! Sad for him!
As a Lutheran, this definitely does not apply to us.
The doctrine of Eternal Security is denounced in the Lutheran Book of Concord. For example, the Formula of Concord Article IV (Good Works) states "We also reject and condemn the teaching that faith and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit are not lost through malicious sin, but that the holy ones and the elect retain the Holy Spirit even though they fall into adultery and other sins and persist in them." (False Antitheses Article 3).
It's crazy to see how arrogant some of these protestants are when referring to the early church fathers in thinking they know better.
You know what, I do know better. Change my mind.
@@EmberBright2077 ok prove to me that the apostles somehow taught their predecessors wrong
@@Hithereitsme32 Well for one thing, if the Apostles passed down the canon, why were there disputes over it?
@@EmberBright2077 well I’m more referring to the direct apprentices of the apostles like Ignatius of course people who were less informed such as different heretical sects sprung up later on. Please give me disagreements between church fathers
@@EmberBright2077 it’s on you to prove that Ignatius for example did not somehow inherit the proper faith from Saint John please provide a lock of evidence
As an Anabaptist, eternal security is a no go!
As a Protestant, I have never believed in eternal salvation nor did any other of the church goers I knew or were associated with. We were always taught that this was heretical. It concerns me that many modern Protestants hold this view.
Calvinism is basically Islam with a North European flavouring.
How do you figure?