River thank you so much for introducing me to Anglicanism along with Fr Steve Macias. God bless the work you do and I’ll continue to pray for your ordination and journey ahead in ministry
Hi Javier! Discovered the channel recently and loving these interviews. Having once felt the pull of Rome and having had a flirtation period with the East, I can say how important it is for church-anxious evangelicals to see that Rome and the East are not the only options. Keep up the good work! Subscribed!
@@javierperd2604 Friends, one is simply wandering in the darkness of doctinal confusion and division. Only a divinely appointed authority can infallibly define doctrine. Sola Scriptura, by it s very nature leads to each group/individual arriving at different and opposing doctrinal conclusions, and continual division. This is not the doctrinal truth promised by Christ. We can buttter it up all we like, but Sola Scriptura simply did not, has not, cannot, work. The practice is clearly of Satan. Christ established and guaranteed a church, NOT private interpretation. "The pillar and foundation of the truth is the church (1 Tim 3:15). 1. St Irenaeus 189AD: It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about (Against Heresies, 3:3:1). For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies, 3:3:2). 2. St Matthew: Heresey, like any sin is infallibly decided by the church: "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the Church; and if he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 18:15-18).
I am new to the channel and this was a super amazing discussion. Both of you gentlemen were great. I was particularly impressed With Fr. River. But also your questions were insightful and thought-provoking. Great job.❤
Thank you for watching! I'm glad you found the video edifying. Just said a prayer for you -- keep seeking the Lord and may He guide you to where He wants you to be 🙏
Your private judgment of scripture led you to decide you cannot have private judgment of scripture anymore. Brilliant. Thanks for having Reverend River on. He’s awesome. New sub 💥
River makes some great points near the end about needing to spend less time listening to RUclips apologists & more time consuming God’s word. I’m probably gonna take him up on that advice. On that same note, do either of y’all have any general advice on resisting the urge to break a RUclips fast (or any form of fasting for that matter)?
Getting parental controls or app blocking that a friend has the password to is an option. And whenever you feel tempted do something physical such as running
@kolab5620 "More time reading Gods Word"? Friend, you are missing the elephant in the room. R"eading Gods Word" does not provide doctrinal certitude. Only a divinely appointed authority can infallibly define doctrine. Sola Scriptura, by it's very nature leads to each group/individual arriving at different and opposing doctrinal conclusions, and continual division. This is not the doctrinal truth promised by Christ. We can buttter it up all we like, but Sola Scriptura simply did not, has not, cannot, work. The practice is clearly of Satan. Christ established and guaranteed a church, NOT private interpretation. "The pillar and foundation of the truth is the church (1 Tim 3:15). 1. St Irenaeus 189AD: It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about (Against Heresies, 3:3:1). For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies, 3:3:2). 2. St Matthew: Heresey, like any sin is infallibly decided by the church: "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the Church; and if he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 18:15-18).
I had the same reaction to the Latin mass and also noticed that the Marian prayers were one of the only things said in the laity's own language. It seems to me for alot of Roman Catholics the Latin mass makes Christ distant and he can only be accessed through the Church. On the other hand Mary can be accessed unmediated and "in our own language" so to speak. Because Salvation through the Church is so difficult we need another avenue and thats where mary comes in.
I don’t think this is why Marian devotion is important to catholics. It’s more that she is the closest person in creation to God, she loved God with a mother’s love. This is impossible to fathom. Now if the catholic notion of intercession is true, she would be the most well disposed to lead us through her intercession to Christ. It’s nothing to do with language. In fact at mass we pray Marian prayers in Latin.
@@clipdumpI’m Catholic and very Marian, but there’s a point to what this guy is saying. St Louis de Montfort used Mary explicitly to battle against Jansenism and some of the things about that theology that made God more distant to us. De Montfort is my patron saint, I’m obviously not knocking him.
Thank you for sharing that! I would love to interview you for the channel if you'd be willing to share your story. Please feel free to DM me either on Twitter or Instagram if you'd be interested in that 🙂
Mitch, I on the other hand, belong to the Church that Jesus Christ established on Peter the rock and sole key holder, way before the new testament was ever written. I am a Roman Catholic Christian! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@mitchmclean5435 thank you so very much May i ask, As a Christian, what was your biggest issue to why you left the Catholic Church? Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
It's really sad that River's friends and family would have disowned him if he became Catholic. Yes he would have had to change his career path but I think being a young maturing man is full of making difficult life choices, I get it. Most of my friends I don't even mention that I got to a church parish.
Cool podcast. I’m an Episcopalian turned atheist turned Catholic (via the Ordinariate). My whole family is low church Anglican and I’m ordinariate so I like to keep a pulse on yall Anglicans 😎 Cheers
Really interesting conversation - one thing I would stay is that in the UK, Anglo-Catholicism is a fairly broad camp. It includes everyone from High-Church Protestants who are affirm the formularies and have a high view of the sacraments to Anglo-Papalists who are essentially liberal Roman Catholics seeking communion with Rome. This is partly driven by the fact that British Anglicanism is fairly polarised between an evangelical wing (which is increasingly charismatic) and a 'Catholic' wing The polarisation in British Anglicanism is a shame because there's little room for those who want to affirm the Catholicity of the Anglican tradition while also acknowledging our Reformation roots.
1:07:00 Latria and Doulia are real distinctions that I think we as Protestants should understand and use. The problem with the Roman and Orthodox use of this distinction is where they draw the line. I think a good test of whether some practice is Latria or Doulia is to swap out the object of the practice from Mary, or an Icon, or what have you, and replace it with God. If you preach a sermon on the holy life of Christ, is that act in itself worship? No. If you pray to God for intercession in salvation, is that worship? Obviously yes. With Rome and the East, I think they tend the draw the line more in regards to the object that they're venerating/worshiping, rather than the practices they use to perform that veneration/worship, which is really the fundamental problem.
This is because the only real form of worship that is due to God and never to others is sacrifice. We don’t sacrifice (i.e. Eucharist) to Mary. All else - songs, prayer, praise, etc - is due to God but can be toward saints as well.
@@Vatican_Banker Is it just that, though? I'm not meaning to pick a fight or anything 😅 I hear some of the..."veneration"..hymns that are sang to Mary. One that I read said that by Mary's voice the entire universe (including God himself) would obey. I don't want to assume anything about your branch of Christianity...but I guess my question is this: how does this *not* cross the line of "veneration" and go into worship?
@@divinityofblackness6330 I don't know the context of that specific song and have never heard it. It's helpful to parse out the difference between what the Church teaches and what a song written at some point by a Catholic says as a lyric. There's a lot of Catholics out there, and we say or do things out of line sometimes, or just plain act weird. I'm definitely not perfect myself. That said, I get your point. My response is: Marian teachings and veneration points to the same truth: That Christ is God-Man, truly God, truly man, one person with two natures. In this sense, at some point God was obeying Mary, as he was her son in real life and lived in the same relational context any son would to his mother in a healthy son-mother relationship. But don't be scandalized -- we believe Mary's will was (and is, since we believe in the afterlife) always aligned with God, because of God's grace in her life. We see her as the perfect Christian (by Christian we mean follower of Christ. Obviously, Christ is perfect as he is God). This is also a good primer on why we believe what we believe about Mary. If Christ was obedient to her as a child should be, wouldn't it be weird if she would be able to sin considering that she was responsible for his actions as his mother at some point in his life? Perhaps God could have given her the grace to avoid such a logically paradoxical situation.
@@Vatican_Banker At least you can admit that you do worship the saints. God did not tell Moses to tell the people only to not sacrifice to idols, but to not bow down to them. Peter did not rebuke the centurion for sacrificing to him, but to bowing down before him, the same with John and the angel. What you believe about worship is diametrically opposed to what scripture teaches. I hope you come to realize that.
River, your stuff with Other Paul on homolegomena/antilegomena, and the apocrypha, along with Sean Luke on Sola Apostolica/Prima Scriptura, helped me loads. Thank you. New Kingdom Media, Other Paul, and Anglican Aesthetics are huge blessings.
52:05, wouldn't the Catholic argument be you believe in the canon, because the Magisterial delegated authority is Spirit-authorized as the means by which we get epistemological stability on dogma? That is, Jesus ruling by the Church in the Spirit appoints a Magisterium as an institutional authority within the RCC, and thus it's Jesus saying receive the personal authority of the Pope prior to recognizing and receiving the authority that's been normatively clarified by him? I'm not agreeing with that argument, because it means that for the centuries without Trent's clarification, the Church was in darkness that seems to have been epistemologically necessary- which is absurd given the assumptions on which the Church was operating in its doctrinal disputes in reading Scripture to derive doctrine, without an ever-present clear appeal to Rome's opinion at all times. I agree there are tensions here on the whole ontology of Scripture, Dei Verbum thing, along with the limits on whehter we're more a Unam Sanctam or Trent limitation via Ex Catedra papal infallability thing.
It's ironic that an Anglican initially found the traditional Christian position of the Catholic church on divorce and remarriage alluring and then saying "that turned out to be a complete farce... they will annul anything." I wonder if Henry VIII would agree, that was, after all, the driving reason for the separation of the Anglican church from the Catholic church. I am an acquaintance with a canon lawyer who handles annulment cases for a Diocese in Wisconsin, and while I'm sure it can be different in different places, he said that only a very small percentage (
And adding to the acts 10, Cornelius is a jewish sympatizee who really dig deep into judaism, the reason he won't convert officially probably because of his status as a roman centurion. He far more likely knew that only God deserved Worship, therefore he's not trying to worship Peter, but to show deep respect to him. And peter still denied it.
Sincere question: If submitting to the Church prior to Scripture (or believing in Scripture because of the authority of the Church) is “idolatry” and “damnable sin”, then what do we think happened to the countless people throughout history who became Christians because of missionaries (and never read a word of Scripture themselves), or of the many people today who are born into the Faith and continue in it because it’s what they’ve been taught and they sincerely believe?
@@colebacca1369 I have no ill will towards arminians either. The faith is a lot bigger than soteriology. Whether I’m right or you’re right or we’re both wrong doesn’t really matter in the big scheme of things. Our Lord will bring us in and we shall reign with Him for eternity
This guy went to *one* Latin Mass, had a bad experience, and judged the LM in general based on that? Are you kidding? I say this as a non-Papist: that’s incredibly arrogant and stupid.
Not really. Who goes to a church to listen to something they can’t understand and participate in blasphemous Roman Catholic Eucharist? There’s zero substance, no preaching of the word. It’s just silly. It’s the same with EO. Chanting scripture and songs for hours and very little preaching and it’s usually filled with esegesis. Then bowing and kissing to icons. It’s just dumb.
"Give alms and all shall be clean within for you ", ( Luke 11:41). Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
I am a Roman Catholic Christian. I belong to the Church that Jesus Christ established on Peter the rock and sole key holder, way before the new testament was ever written! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
These 2 presenters, with respect, are amateurs fumbling around, pretending the Catholic Church means nothing to them yet spending so much time discussing it. They continually misrepresent every aspect of the Catholic Faith they discuss (not excluding infallibility!), perhaps partly through ignorance and most likely through malice. At the end of the day their issue is this- they bemoan The Catholic Church's claim to divine institution and authority, yet they have no solution for it. Despite their dithering, Sola Scriptura does not work. It provides confusion, and then division; this is it's perpetual state. The 2 presenters then try to conflate this fact with "but there is confusion in the Catholic Church too", but any one with a brain cell knows this is a false equivalence because whilst there are dissenters in every organisation, only the Catholic Church has ONE official doctrine, where as Sola Scriptura gives HUNDREDS of versions of Christian doctrine. Furthermore, this use of a "you to are divided" argument is lazy and simply an admission that Protestantism is in fact in a state of doctrinal confusion.
Like I say all the time on this channel: attacking an umbrella category like "Protestantism" (which is NOT an institution) on account of it not having institutional and doctrinal unity is just like an Atheist attacking the umbrella category of "Monotheism" for not having institutional and doctrinal unity and then declaring that the idea of "divine revelation" breeds chaos since monotheists disagree with each other -- it's beyond silly, because umbrella categories don't have qualities that pertain to institutions. Additionally, if you were to persist with this critique, then you run into problems, too, because Roman Catholicism can be said to belong to the Ecclesialist umbrella, which includes Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, and the Assyrian Church of the East -- every one of which appeals to infallible Oral Tradition and yet ends up with different doctrines than the other constituents of the Ecclesialist umbrella. Your argument would cut both ways -- and no amount of scoffing will change that.
@@javierperd2604 1. Precisely, you have stated the facts! Protestantism is not one institution, and this is the point. This is because one of it's "essential doctrine"s ensures this is so. Sola Scriptura, by it's very nature, provides doctrinal confusion and continual division into different groups...Your "Ecclesialist umbrella" argument is a little bizarre I must say. The various orthodox and oriental churches, do not possess unity in it's fullness with Christ's Catholic Church. With no organ of infallibility there is nothing to stop them drifting further into heresy. They share much with the Protestant sects in this regard. Finally, "the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim 3:15) and NOT private interpretation of the written Word. I would invite you to return to the Rock of Peter. I recommend to you the site Catholic Answers. PAX
@DD-bx8rb You seem to have missed my point entirely. "Protestantism" is not ONE institution... because it is not ANY institution at all. It is an umbrella category in the same way that "Monotheism" is an umbrella category that we use to group *several* institutions that share an overarching characteristic -- in the instance of "Monotheism," it is a belief in the existence of a single God. With "Protestantism," one can argue that adherence to the Solas as well as being deeply associated with the historical period of the Reformation are shared characteristics of the members of the umbrella. The Ecclesialist umbrella is the similar -- except that instead of the Solas, all of the members of the Ecclesialist umbrella claim to have infallible Oral Tradition, claim to be the One True Church, and believe they hold an infallible Magisterium. None of these umbrellas have institutional unity... because they're not institutions. Instead, they *contain* various institutions. It would be silly to attack something that's not an institution for lacking institutional unity. Therefore, once again, it is very silly to attack the Protestant umbrella for lacking institutional unity.
@@javierperd2604You are being disingenuous because you well know that Protestants claim to be united in the essentials, and claim the divisions are secondary issues. Which of course is not true; you do not divide over "secondary issues". Sola Scriptura was put forward by the Protestant founders as the practice to provide the doctrinal truth that Christ promised. But the very fact that Protestantism is not one, is proof that Sola Scriptura is a flawed tradition of men. By its very nature it results in doctrinal confusion and division. The many and various orthodox and oriental churches, similarly are in a state of doctrinal division. The Catholic Church stands alone in its claim to teach the truth in Christs name through the apostles and their successors, under Peter the chief Apostle and his successors. So contrary to your emotions, we can say with certaintly. Protestantism does not posses the doctrinal certainty and unity which Sola Scriptura is claimed to provide. You admit the failure of Sola Scriptura in your insistance on there being a multitude of seperate organisations. You have simply reitterated my point PAX
Javier, fellow Prot here. I have a question for you that maybe you could address in a future video. You repeatedly emphasize that it’s unfair for RC apologists to criticize an umbrella term for Protestantism. And yet your channel is defending Protestantism broadly as well as showcasing specific institutions. If we can defend “Protestantism”, isn’t it also fair to criticize it? Could you speak to how you see that working out or clarify what you mean and don’t meant by these distinctions?
Thank you so much for asking this question -- it's a really good one! The point of my critique in regards to the term "Protestantism" is *in the way* Roman Catholic apologists use it -- not with the usage of the term wholesale (hence why I use it myself). Consider this parallel example to help illustrate what I mean: It is perfectly okay to create an umbrella category grouping together religions which have a shared characteristic: in this case, the claim that there exists only one God (i.e. Monotheism). Let's say that a Hindu apologist made a video attacking the idea that only one God could exist. There would be no problem if a Christian made a response video that "defending Monotheism" since the shared characteristic itself was what was attacked. However, imagine how silly it would be if a Hindu apologist said that there cannot possible exist just one God since "Monotheists cannot even agree on who the one true God is." That would be incredibly silly since the only characteristic shared by the umbrella is a belief that only one God exists -- not the identity of that God. So, to attack the umbrella category for something that the umbrella category doesn't share is silly -- and to demand institutional unity of something which IS NOT an institution (i.e. - conventional umbrella categories) would be even more ridiculous. Now, if we apply the same logic but with the umbrella category "Protestantism," my reasoning should be made clear. I hope that helps explain where I'm coming from!
@@javierperd2604ok, here’s my problem. A lack of unity with each other within Protestantism is a shared features unless we claim that we are the only church, which classical Protestants do not. The mere fact of lacking institutional unity doesn’t excuse us from our disunity in faith and practice. So, criticizing Protestantism for the extent of its disunity seems like a fairly allowable criticism. Especially given that we band together to defend generic Protestantism, setting aside much of our disunity and emphasizing our unity to do so. I get the distinctions you’re making, I just don’t know how much we can escape the critique that we have not achieved unity in beliefs and practices.
It’s true we might not feel a need for complete institutional unity, but the legacy of disunity among Protestants does seem to be a problem. I’d be interested in hearing how you work that out. Thanks for the reply. :)
@@smccarthymi So, "Protestantism" as an umbrella term is, by definition, not an institution -- in light of that, demanding institutional unity from an umbrella that is just a convention used to group together different institutions wouldn't make sense. We "band together to defend generic Protestantism" in the same way that Evangelical and Roman Catholic apologists often band together to defend Theism from atheists and Monotheism from Polytheists, "setting aside much of our disunity and emphasizing our unity to do so"... does that mean that our opponents in any of those 2 different debate contexts should write Theism or Monotheism off as a whole due to our lack of institutional unity? That wouldn't make any sense precisely because "Theism" and "Monotheism" are conventional categories constructed post-facto to group existing institutions together based on a shared theological characteristic. Disunity in Christ's body is never good, but pointing out disunity in opposition to one umbrella category when the competing umbrella category (such as Ecclesialism) ALSO has disunity just isn't helpful. Now, if someone wanted to mourn over division in Christendom to begin with and across the board, then that makes perfect sense -- but doing it as relates to a single umbrella category in exclusion to the others is silly. Thank you for watching and interacting with my content. I hope that was helpful! 😁
Purchasing indulgences was always an abuse/sin. Just because people sold them, doesn’t mean the doctrine of the Church had ever changed. Also, based on the tone & laughter, it seems that you (Javier & River) misunderstand the Treasury of Merit. The Treasury of Merit is basically a metaphor for all of the benefits that come from the graces of works Jesus Christ has performed. The principle work being the Cross. These benefits/graces are shared among the Saints & the Faithful. It seems that there is a real failure of understanding simple Catholic tenants here. Aesops fables could not become Scripture because the canon is closed by the Pope via the Council. Jesus Christ established the Catholic Church and so named Peter the Vicar of Christ. A humble and faithful Catholic has a posture of religious submission to the Pope. When the Church teaches, the Faithful obey on faith in Jesus Christ and the promises He made to His Church as revealed in Sacred Scripture. There is nothing logically inconsistent here, rather True consistency that no other Christian schism can even prove. So when a document like “fiducia supplicans” is released and guides the Church to bless sinners to increase the good in their life while calling them to repentance simultaneously, we see the Image of Christ actively eating with the tax collectors and prostitutes. Sin & suffering, whether from ourselves or others, warps our naturally good desires. Just as Jesus blessed you & I when He called our name, so too does He bless all sinners with His grace and love.
@@carpediem5526 It has its basis in Scripture and was developed through the time of the Early Church Fathers and beyond. Paul says that we can “store up treasures in heaven”. These are rewards for loving deeds done by Christians. We know that we are “created in Christ Jesus to do good works” Eph 2:10 Of course, our good works are almost nothing in light of the infinite reward Christ earned for us through His good work on the Cross. Just as we are all members of the One Body of Jesus Christ, the Church, Christ’s Grace is applied to all of us. Paul even says “I am filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ on vault of His Body, which is the Church.” Of course this verse doesn’t show that Christ’s Sacrifice wasn’t sufficient, but rather shows that Christ’s work is still being done in us disciples as we preach the Gospel and love others. St. John Crysostom says: "The wisdom, the will, the justice of Jesus Christ, requireth and ordaineth that his body and members should be companions of his sufferings, as they expect to be companions of his glory; that so suffering with him, and after his example, they may apply to their own wants and to the necessities of others the merits and satisfaction of Jesus Christ, which application is what is wanting, and what we are permitted to supply by the sacraments and sacrifice of the new law."
@@carpediem5526 The concept is introduced in the Scriptures - us sinners owe a debt to God that cannot be repaid by our own good works. We must be saved by God Himself. Because Jesus is God and God is Infinite, when He repaid our debt on the Cross His payment was Infinite. What Jesus earned on the Cross for us was an Infinite payment that He stored up in heaven to be released upon those who receive His grace. Paul says we as Christians can “store up treasures in heaven”. These treasures are rewards for our cooperation with God in the “good works He has prepared for us” as Paul says. These good works are the result of God’s grace, and therefore are from the reward Christ earned for us on the Cross to repay our debts. You can explore this concept as it was developed by the Early Church Fathers and the Doctors of the Church.
Mizzy, I belong to the Church that Jesus Christ established on Peter the rock and sole key holder, way before the new testament was ever written! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
There was no doctrine of the immaculate conception until 1854 and No papal infallibility dogma until 1870. You can’t find many of the Roman Catholic doctrines in the early church.
@carpediem5526 most inaccurate, for the fact was always there, but not defined until these times, just like the fact that the Trinity was not defined until centuries later, as too the Canon, so your points are invalid. Yet, the Archangel Gabriel saluted Mary as being full of grace, even before baptism which removes, she the foretold woman in Genesis at emnity with Satan. And Jesus gave Peter alone the keys of the Kingdom. The office of sole key holder is one of succession Biblically! The same Church authority in Peter the rock and sole key holder, who stood up and put an end to all the debating at the council of Jerusalem Regarding circumcision, since SCRIPTURE ALONE COULD NOT, as Peter authoritatively ruled that circumcision of the Flesh was no longer necessary, even though Holy Scripture said that it was! You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@carpediem5526 You can't find Faith ALONE and Scripture ALONE, man made unbiblical traditions, in Holy Scripture, or the Church that Jesus Christ established on Peter the rock, way before the new testament was ever written and that later determined the Canon! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
River thank you so much for introducing me to Anglicanism along with Fr Steve Macias. God bless the work you do and I’ll continue to pray for your ordination and journey ahead in ministry
Thank you brother, I'm glad to hear that. May God bless you too
River is an awesome Anglican. If I wasn’t a LCMS member I would definitely join a Church like his.
Thank you for your kind words brother!
Same. If I wasn’t LCMS or some other confessional Lutheran I would be Anglican.
I can’t believe I haven’t found your channel before now. I’m so excited to binge your content. Keep up the great work brother.
Hi Javier! Discovered the channel recently and loving these interviews.
Having once felt the pull of Rome and having had a flirtation period with the East, I can say how important it is for church-anxious evangelicals to see that Rome and the East are not the only options.
Keep up the good work! Subscribed!
Thank you so much for the encouragement, brother! I'm always happy to hear when the videos are a blessing to others 🙂
@@javierperd2604 Friends, one is simply wandering in the darkness of doctinal confusion and division. Only a divinely appointed authority can infallibly define doctrine. Sola Scriptura, by it s very nature leads to each group/individual arriving at different and opposing doctrinal conclusions, and continual division. This is not the doctrinal truth promised by Christ. We can buttter it up all we like, but Sola Scriptura simply did not, has not, cannot, work. The practice is clearly of Satan. Christ established and guaranteed a church, NOT private interpretation. "The pillar and foundation of the truth is the church (1 Tim 3:15).
1. St Irenaeus 189AD:
It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about (Against Heresies, 3:3:1).
For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies, 3:3:2).
2. St Matthew:
Heresey, like any sin is infallibly decided by the church: "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the Church; and if he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 18:15-18).
I am new to the channel and this was a super amazing discussion. Both of you gentlemen were great. I was particularly impressed With Fr. River. But also your questions were insightful and thought-provoking. Great job.❤
Getting the heavy hitters on your channel, Javier! Great interview.
Wow rivers background and struggle between the denoms sound like my own journey at the moment. Those struggles are tough. Great video.
Thank you for watching! I'm glad you found the video edifying.
Just said a prayer for you -- keep seeking the Lord and may He guide you to where He wants you to be 🙏
Your private judgment of scripture led you to decide you cannot have private judgment of scripture anymore. Brilliant. Thanks for having Reverend River on. He’s awesome. New sub 💥
River makes some great points near the end about needing to spend less time listening to RUclips apologists & more time consuming God’s word. I’m probably gonna take him up on that advice.
On that same note, do either of y’all have any general advice on resisting the urge to break a RUclips fast (or any form of fasting for that matter)?
Getting parental controls or app blocking that a friend has the password to is an option. And whenever you feel tempted do something physical such as running
@kolab5620 "More time reading Gods Word"? Friend, you are missing the elephant in the room. R"eading Gods Word" does not provide doctrinal certitude. Only a divinely appointed authority can infallibly define doctrine. Sola Scriptura, by it's very nature leads to each group/individual arriving at different and opposing doctrinal conclusions, and continual division. This is not the doctrinal truth promised by Christ. We can buttter it up all we like, but Sola Scriptura simply did not, has not, cannot, work. The practice is clearly of Satan. Christ established and guaranteed a church, NOT private interpretation. "The pillar and foundation of the truth is the church (1 Tim 3:15).
1. St Irenaeus 189AD:
It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about (Against Heresies, 3:3:1).
For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies, 3:3:2).
2. St Matthew:
Heresey, like any sin is infallibly decided by the church: "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the Church; and if he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 18:15-18).
@@DD-bx8rbwhat a bunch of gobbledygook
I had the same reaction to the Latin mass and also noticed that the Marian prayers were one of the only things said in the laity's own language. It seems to me for alot of Roman Catholics the Latin mass makes Christ distant and he can only be accessed through the Church. On the other hand Mary can be accessed unmediated and "in our own language" so to speak. Because Salvation through the Church is so difficult we need another avenue and thats where mary comes in.
I don’t think this is why Marian devotion is important to catholics. It’s more that she is the closest person in creation to God, she loved God with a mother’s love. This is impossible to fathom. Now if the catholic notion of intercession is true, she would be the most well disposed to lead us through her intercession to Christ. It’s nothing to do with language. In fact at mass we pray Marian prayers in Latin.
@@clipdumpI’m Catholic and very Marian, but there’s a point to what this guy is saying. St Louis de Montfort used Mary explicitly to battle against Jansenism and some of the things about that theology that made God more distant to us.
De Montfort is my patron saint, I’m obviously not knocking him.
Thank you. Informative and helpful.
River your papal jokes were very Luther-esque in a modern context - gave me a few good laughs
Thank you, glad to hear it!
the crossover we don't deserve
That's very kind of you!
Thanks for another great Anglican video.
My father and I both converted from Catholicism to Reformed Anglicanism
Thank you for sharing that! I would love to interview you for the channel if you'd be willing to share your story.
Please feel free to DM me either on Twitter or Instagram if you'd be interested in that 🙂
For the love of God, plz be very honest -- wat human creature pulled u away from Catholicism. Plz, no BS, be brave
Mitch, I on the other hand, belong to the Church that Jesus Christ established on Peter the rock and sole key holder, way before the new testament was ever written. I am a Roman Catholic Christian! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@@matthewbroderick6287 Peace to you as well, brother
@mitchmclean5435 thank you so very much May i ask, As a Christian, what was your biggest issue to why you left the Catholic Church? Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
It's interesting to see other people have also struggled with finding their home in terms of denominations,
The explaination of the gospel at the end is moving.
I kinda miss River's old videos with anglicanism and whisky or whatever it was.
It's really sad that River's friends and family would have disowned him if he became Catholic. Yes he would have had to change his career path but I think being a young maturing man is full of making difficult life choices, I get it. Most of my friends I don't even mention that I got to a church parish.
Cool podcast. I’m an Episcopalian turned atheist turned Catholic (via the Ordinariate). My whole family is low church Anglican and I’m ordinariate so I like to keep a pulse on yall Anglicans 😎
Cheers
Thank you for watching! I'm always glad to hear that we have Roman Catholic viewers 🙂
Really interesting conversation - one thing I would stay is that in the UK, Anglo-Catholicism is a fairly broad camp. It includes everyone from High-Church Protestants who are affirm the formularies and have a high view of the sacraments to Anglo-Papalists who are essentially liberal Roman Catholics seeking communion with Rome.
This is partly driven by the fact that British Anglicanism is fairly polarised between an evangelical wing (which is increasingly charismatic) and a 'Catholic' wing
The polarisation in British Anglicanism is a shame because there's little room for those who want to affirm the Catholicity of the Anglican tradition while also acknowledging our Reformation roots.
1:07:00 Latria and Doulia are real distinctions that I think we as Protestants should understand and use. The problem with the Roman and Orthodox use of this distinction is where they draw the line. I think a good test of whether some practice is Latria or Doulia is to swap out the object of the practice from Mary, or an Icon, or what have you, and replace it with God. If you preach a sermon on the holy life of Christ, is that act in itself worship? No. If you pray to God for intercession in salvation, is that worship? Obviously yes.
With Rome and the East, I think they tend the draw the line more in regards to the object that they're venerating/worshiping, rather than the practices they use to perform that veneration/worship, which is really the fundamental problem.
excellent points! I agree 100%!
This is because the only real form of worship that is due to God and never to others is sacrifice. We don’t sacrifice (i.e. Eucharist) to Mary.
All else - songs, prayer, praise, etc - is due to God but can be toward saints as well.
@@Vatican_Banker Is it just that, though? I'm not meaning to pick a fight or anything 😅
I hear some of the..."veneration"..hymns that are sang to Mary. One that I read said that by Mary's voice the entire universe (including God himself) would obey. I don't want to assume anything about your branch of Christianity...but I guess my question is this: how does this *not* cross the line of "veneration" and go into worship?
@@divinityofblackness6330 I don't know the context of that specific song and have never heard it. It's helpful to parse out the difference between what the Church teaches and what a song written at some point by a Catholic says as a lyric. There's a lot of Catholics out there, and we say or do things out of line sometimes, or just plain act weird. I'm definitely not perfect myself.
That said, I get your point. My response is: Marian teachings and veneration points to the same truth: That Christ is God-Man, truly God, truly man, one person with two natures. In this sense, at some point God was obeying Mary, as he was her son in real life and lived in the same relational context any son would to his mother in a healthy son-mother relationship. But don't be scandalized -- we believe Mary's will was (and is, since we believe in the afterlife) always aligned with God, because of God's grace in her life. We see her as the perfect Christian (by Christian we mean follower of Christ. Obviously, Christ is perfect as he is God).
This is also a good primer on why we believe what we believe about Mary. If Christ was obedient to her as a child should be, wouldn't it be weird if she would be able to sin considering that she was responsible for his actions as his mother at some point in his life? Perhaps God could have given her the grace to avoid such a logically paradoxical situation.
@@Vatican_Banker At least you can admit that you do worship the saints. God did not tell Moses to tell the people only to not sacrifice to idols, but to not bow down to them. Peter did not rebuke the centurion for sacrificing to him, but to bowing down before him, the same with John and the angel.
What you believe about worship is diametrically opposed to what scripture teaches. I hope you come to realize that.
38:00 thanks for that insight on category confusion in what we defend in Protestantism.
River, your stuff with Other Paul on homolegomena/antilegomena, and the apocrypha, along with Sean Luke on Sola Apostolica/Prima Scriptura, helped me loads. Thank you. New Kingdom Media, Other Paul, and Anglican Aesthetics are huge blessings.
52:05, wouldn't the Catholic argument be you believe in the canon, because the Magisterial delegated authority is Spirit-authorized as the means by which we get epistemological stability on dogma? That is, Jesus ruling by the Church in the Spirit appoints a Magisterium as an institutional authority within the RCC, and thus it's Jesus saying receive the personal authority of the Pope prior to recognizing and receiving the authority that's been normatively clarified by him?
I'm not agreeing with that argument, because it means that for the centuries without Trent's clarification, the Church was in darkness that seems to have been epistemologically necessary- which is absurd given the assumptions on which the Church was operating in its doctrinal disputes in reading Scripture to derive doctrine, without an ever-present clear appeal to Rome's opinion at all times.
I agree there are tensions here on the whole ontology of Scripture, Dei Verbum thing, along with the limits on whehter we're more a Unam Sanctam or Trent limitation via Ex Catedra papal infallability thing.
1:00:15 great point on RCC being unfalsifiable in their structures.
1:03:05 - great idea Javier. We need to be able to see the real abuses here with bishops presiding; I know we have the same issue with Prot stuff.
1:05:53 on Scripture, Tradition, Logic, and Experience as important for assesing doctrine and praxis
I became Anglican in recent years.
'Our side?'
It's ironic that an Anglican initially found the traditional Christian position of the Catholic church on divorce and remarriage alluring and then saying "that turned out to be a complete farce... they will annul anything." I wonder if Henry VIII would agree, that was, after all, the driving reason for the separation of the Anglican church from the Catholic church.
I am an acquaintance with a canon lawyer who handles annulment cases for a Diocese in Wisconsin, and while I'm sure it can be different in different places, he said that only a very small percentage (
And adding to the acts 10, Cornelius is a jewish sympatizee who really dig deep into judaism, the reason he won't convert officially probably because of his status as a roman centurion. He far more likely knew that only God deserved Worship, therefore he's not trying to worship Peter, but to show deep respect to him. And peter still denied it.
Sincere question: If submitting to the Church prior to Scripture (or believing in Scripture because of the authority of the Church) is “idolatry” and “damnable sin”, then what do we think happened to the countless people throughout history who became Christians because of missionaries (and never read a word of Scripture themselves), or of the many people today who are born into the Faith and continue in it because it’s what they’ve been taught and they sincerely believe?
Folks either choose to convert to EO or Rome, or we’re chosen to BE converted by God the Holy Spirit to Christ alone.
ACKSHUALLY, reformed Anglicanism becoming more Arminian is super BASED
Not based at all, VERY not based.
@@emilianoking9400 nah it’s EXTREMELY based
@@colebacca1369 ok fair enough, I
must concede to my Arminian brethren. They are BASED
@@emilianoking9400 appreciate it brother! I have no ill will towards any Calvinists, I know plenty of BASED reformed/Calvinists out there.
@@colebacca1369 I have no ill will towards arminians either. The faith is a lot bigger than soteriology. Whether I’m right or you’re right or we’re both wrong doesn’t really matter in the big scheme of things. Our Lord will bring us in and we shall reign with Him for eternity
Where is the list of recommended books?
The link to it is in the video description!
This guy went to *one* Latin Mass, had a bad experience, and judged the LM in general based on that? Are you kidding? I say this as a non-Papist: that’s incredibly arrogant and stupid.
Not really. Who goes to a church to listen to something they can’t understand and participate in blasphemous Roman Catholic Eucharist? There’s zero substance, no preaching of the word. It’s just silly. It’s the same with EO. Chanting scripture and songs for hours and very little preaching and it’s usually filled with esegesis. Then bowing and kissing to icons. It’s just dumb.
Τhe best option is only confessional lutheran.
Become more and more Orthodox, my friend.
"Give alms and all shall be clean within for you ", ( Luke 11:41). Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
I am a Roman Catholic Christian. I belong to the Church that Jesus Christ established on Peter the rock and sole key holder, way before the new testament was ever written! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
These 2 presenters, with respect, are amateurs fumbling around, pretending the Catholic Church means nothing to them yet spending so much time discussing it. They continually misrepresent every aspect of the Catholic Faith they discuss (not excluding infallibility!), perhaps partly through ignorance and most likely through malice. At the end of the day their issue is this- they bemoan The Catholic Church's claim to divine institution and authority, yet they have no solution for it. Despite their dithering, Sola Scriptura does not work. It provides confusion, and then division; this is it's perpetual state. The 2 presenters then try to conflate this fact with "but there is confusion in the Catholic Church too", but any one with a brain cell knows this is a false equivalence because whilst there are dissenters in every organisation, only the Catholic Church has ONE official doctrine, where as Sola Scriptura gives HUNDREDS of versions of Christian doctrine. Furthermore, this use of a "you to are divided" argument is lazy and simply an admission that Protestantism is in fact in a state of doctrinal confusion.
@kennethchidozie3317 Thank you brother
Like I say all the time on this channel: attacking an umbrella category like "Protestantism" (which is NOT an institution) on account of it not having institutional and doctrinal unity is just like an Atheist attacking the umbrella category of "Monotheism" for not having institutional and doctrinal unity and then declaring that the idea of "divine revelation" breeds chaos since monotheists disagree with each other -- it's beyond silly, because umbrella categories don't have qualities that pertain to institutions.
Additionally, if you were to persist with this critique, then you run into problems, too, because Roman Catholicism can be said to belong to the Ecclesialist umbrella, which includes Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, and the Assyrian Church of the East -- every one of which appeals to infallible Oral Tradition and yet ends up with different doctrines than the other constituents of the Ecclesialist umbrella. Your argument would cut both ways -- and no amount of scoffing will change that.
@@javierperd2604 1. Precisely, you have stated the facts! Protestantism is not one institution, and this is the point. This is because one of it's "essential doctrine"s ensures this is so. Sola Scriptura, by it's very nature, provides doctrinal confusion and continual division into different groups...Your "Ecclesialist umbrella" argument is a little bizarre I must say. The various orthodox and oriental churches, do not possess unity in it's fullness with Christ's Catholic Church. With no organ of infallibility there is nothing to stop them drifting further into heresy. They share much with the Protestant sects in this regard. Finally, "the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim 3:15) and NOT private interpretation of the written Word. I would invite you to return to the Rock of Peter. I recommend to you the site Catholic Answers. PAX
@DD-bx8rb You seem to have missed my point entirely. "Protestantism" is not ONE institution... because it is not ANY institution at all. It is an umbrella category in the same way that "Monotheism" is an umbrella category that we use to group *several* institutions that share an overarching characteristic -- in the instance of "Monotheism," it is a belief in the existence of a single God. With "Protestantism," one can argue that adherence to the Solas as well as being deeply associated with the historical period of the Reformation are shared characteristics of the members of the umbrella. The Ecclesialist umbrella is the similar -- except that instead of the Solas, all of the members of the Ecclesialist umbrella claim to have infallible Oral Tradition, claim to be the One True Church, and believe they hold an infallible Magisterium.
None of these umbrellas have institutional unity... because they're not institutions. Instead, they *contain* various institutions. It would be silly to attack something that's not an institution for lacking institutional unity. Therefore, once again, it is very silly to attack the Protestant umbrella for lacking institutional unity.
@@javierperd2604You are being disingenuous because you well know that Protestants claim to be united in the essentials, and claim the divisions are secondary issues. Which of course is not true; you do not divide over "secondary issues". Sola Scriptura was put forward by the Protestant founders as the practice to provide the doctrinal truth that Christ promised. But the very fact that Protestantism is not one, is proof that Sola Scriptura is a flawed tradition of men. By its very nature it results in doctrinal confusion and division. The many and various orthodox and oriental churches, similarly are in a state of doctrinal division. The Catholic Church stands alone in its claim to teach the truth in Christs name through the apostles and their successors, under Peter the chief Apostle and his successors. So contrary to your emotions, we can say with certaintly. Protestantism does not posses the doctrinal certainty and unity which Sola Scriptura is claimed to provide. You admit the failure of Sola Scriptura in your insistance on there being a multitude of seperate organisations. You have simply reitterated my point PAX
Javier, fellow Prot here. I have a question for you that maybe you could address in a future video. You repeatedly emphasize that it’s unfair for RC apologists to criticize an umbrella term for Protestantism. And yet your channel is defending Protestantism broadly as well as showcasing specific institutions. If we can defend “Protestantism”, isn’t it also fair to criticize it? Could you speak to how you see that working out or clarify what you mean and don’t meant by these distinctions?
Thank you so much for asking this question -- it's a really good one!
The point of my critique in regards to the term "Protestantism" is *in the way* Roman Catholic apologists use it -- not with the usage of the term wholesale (hence why I use it myself). Consider this parallel example to help illustrate what I mean:
It is perfectly okay to create an umbrella category grouping together religions which have a shared characteristic: in this case, the claim that there exists only one God (i.e. Monotheism). Let's say that a Hindu apologist made a video attacking the idea that only one God could exist. There would be no problem if a Christian made a response video that "defending Monotheism" since the shared characteristic itself was what was attacked. However, imagine how silly it would be if a Hindu apologist said that there cannot possible exist just one God since "Monotheists cannot even agree on who the one true God is." That would be incredibly silly since the only characteristic shared by the umbrella is a belief that only one God exists -- not the identity of that God. So, to attack the umbrella category for something that the umbrella category doesn't share is silly -- and to demand institutional unity of something which IS NOT an institution (i.e. - conventional umbrella categories) would be even more ridiculous.
Now, if we apply the same logic but with the umbrella category "Protestantism," my reasoning should be made clear. I hope that helps explain where I'm coming from!
@@javierperd2604ok, here’s my problem. A lack of unity with each other within Protestantism is a shared features unless we claim that we are the only church, which classical Protestants do not. The mere fact of lacking institutional unity doesn’t excuse us from our disunity in faith and practice. So, criticizing Protestantism for the extent of its disunity seems like a fairly allowable criticism. Especially given that we band together to defend generic Protestantism, setting aside much of our disunity and emphasizing our unity to do so. I get the distinctions you’re making, I just don’t know how much we can escape the critique that we have not achieved unity in beliefs and practices.
It’s true we might not feel a need for complete institutional unity, but the legacy of disunity among Protestants does seem to be a problem. I’d be interested in hearing how you work that out. Thanks for the reply. :)
@@smccarthymi So, "Protestantism" as an umbrella term is, by definition, not an institution -- in light of that, demanding institutional unity from an umbrella that is just a convention used to group together different institutions wouldn't make sense. We "band together to defend generic Protestantism" in the same way that Evangelical and Roman Catholic apologists often band together to defend Theism from atheists and Monotheism from Polytheists, "setting aside much of our disunity and emphasizing our unity to do so"... does that mean that our opponents in any of those 2 different debate contexts should write Theism or Monotheism off as a whole due to our lack of institutional unity? That wouldn't make any sense precisely because "Theism" and "Monotheism" are conventional categories constructed post-facto to group existing institutions together based on a shared theological characteristic.
Disunity in Christ's body is never good, but pointing out disunity in opposition to one umbrella category when the competing umbrella category (such as Ecclesialism) ALSO has disunity just isn't helpful. Now, if someone wanted to mourn over division in Christendom to begin with and across the board, then that makes perfect sense -- but doing it as relates to a single umbrella category in exclusion to the others is silly.
Thank you for watching and interacting with my content. I hope that was helpful! 😁
Purchasing indulgences was always an abuse/sin. Just because people sold them, doesn’t mean the doctrine of the Church had ever changed.
Also, based on the tone & laughter, it seems that you (Javier & River) misunderstand the Treasury of Merit. The Treasury of Merit is basically a metaphor for all of the benefits that come from the graces of works Jesus Christ has performed. The principle work being the Cross. These benefits/graces are shared among the Saints & the Faithful.
It seems that there is a real failure of understanding simple Catholic tenants here. Aesops fables could not become Scripture because the canon is closed by the Pope via the Council.
Jesus Christ established the Catholic Church and so named Peter the Vicar of Christ. A humble and faithful Catholic has a posture of religious submission to the Pope. When the Church teaches, the Faithful obey on faith in Jesus Christ and the promises He made to His Church as revealed in Sacred Scripture. There is nothing logically inconsistent here, rather True consistency that no other Christian schism can even prove.
So when a document like “fiducia supplicans” is released and guides the Church to bless sinners to increase the good in their life while calling them to repentance simultaneously, we see the Image of Christ actively eating with the tax collectors and prostitutes. Sin & suffering, whether from ourselves or others, warps our naturally good desires.
Just as Jesus blessed you & I when He called our name, so too does He bless all sinners with His grace and love.
When did the treasury of merit idea start?
@@carpediem5526 It has its basis in Scripture and was developed through the time of the Early Church Fathers and beyond.
Paul says that we can “store up treasures in heaven”. These are rewards for loving deeds done by Christians.
We know that we are “created in Christ Jesus to do good works” Eph 2:10
Of course, our good works are almost nothing in light of the infinite reward Christ earned for us through His good work on the Cross.
Just as we are all members of the One Body of Jesus Christ, the Church, Christ’s Grace is applied to all of us.
Paul even says “I am filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ on vault of His Body, which is the Church.” Of course this verse doesn’t show that Christ’s Sacrifice wasn’t sufficient, but rather shows that Christ’s work is still being done in us disciples as we preach the Gospel and love others.
St. John Crysostom says:
"The wisdom, the will, the justice of Jesus Christ, requireth and ordaineth that his body and members should be companions of his sufferings, as they expect to be companions of his glory; that so suffering with him, and after his example, they may apply to their own wants and to the necessities of others the merits and satisfaction of Jesus Christ, which application is what is wanting, and what we are permitted to supply by the sacraments and sacrifice of the new law."
@@carpediem5526 The concept is introduced in the Scriptures - us sinners owe a debt to God that cannot be repaid by our own good works. We must be saved by God Himself. Because Jesus is God and God is Infinite, when He repaid our debt on the Cross His payment was Infinite. What Jesus earned on the Cross for us was an Infinite payment that He stored up in heaven to be released upon those who receive His grace.
Paul says we as Christians can “store up treasures in heaven”. These treasures are rewards for our cooperation with God in the “good works He has prepared for us” as Paul says. These good works are the result of God’s grace, and therefore are from the reward Christ earned for us on the Cross to repay our debts.
You can explore this concept as it was developed by the Early Church Fathers and the Doctors of the Church.
Still false and unbiblical.
@@carpediem5526 Jesus. Paul urges us to run the race until the end and win, through Jesus Christ, heaven. He urges us to build up treasures in heaven.
Come as close to Rome as humanly possible, without submitting = false lutheran and Anglican converts. The truth is in the Baptist Church
Mizzy, I belong to the Church that Jesus Christ established on Peter the rock and sole key holder, way before the new testament was ever written! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
There were no baptists before the 1500's
There was no doctrine of the immaculate conception until 1854 and No papal infallibility dogma until 1870. You can’t find many of the Roman Catholic doctrines in the early church.
@carpediem5526 most inaccurate, for the fact was always there, but not defined until these times, just like the fact that the Trinity was not defined until centuries later, as too the Canon, so your points are invalid.
Yet, the Archangel Gabriel saluted Mary as being full of grace, even before baptism which removes, she the foretold woman in Genesis at emnity with Satan.
And Jesus gave Peter alone the keys of the Kingdom. The office of sole key holder is one of succession Biblically! The same Church authority in Peter the rock and sole key holder, who stood up and put an end to all the debating at the council of Jerusalem Regarding circumcision, since SCRIPTURE ALONE COULD NOT, as Peter authoritatively ruled that circumcision of the Flesh was no longer necessary, even though Holy Scripture said that it was! You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@carpediem5526 You can't find Faith ALONE and Scripture ALONE, man made unbiblical traditions, in Holy Scripture, or the Church that Jesus Christ established on Peter the rock, way before the new testament was ever written and that later determined the Canon! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
Eww
Hilarious cope
What’s hilarious is all the angry papists coping.