Listening to our beloved Reformed brothers can be so frustrating at times. He has to wildly overexaggerate and insult the Catholic understanding of the plain meaning of James 2, saying it's just so obvious that it doesn't mean what it seems so unambiguously to say. Reformed do this by playing up "it's just obvious if you know the context", but it's actually made worse by the fact that "justify" can't possibly mean "justify before men, not God" in James, because the example he uses is of Abraham on top of a mountain with only one other human who could know what he was doing. Durbin even has the gall to explicitly state that James is saying that Abraham was justified before Isaac, not God. I understand that our Protestant brothers have to take that sort of interpretation (I was there once too), but it just gets old when they also sling insults that you must be stupid and bad if you don't buy their incredibly stretched, theologically-motivated interpretation.
Read James 1:1 Who is he writing to? Those that knew faith + works? Whereas James taught a faith that required works in order to be ‘perfect’, we are given a perfect position by our faith in Christ alone! Amen and Amen. (2 Cor 5:21, Phil 3:12) Paul has a different audience. He writes to the church, the body of Christ that was not known or revealed until Paul. Find it referenced outside of Paul’s epistles - you can’t.
@@_ready__ James was writing to Christians. Chiefly a Jewish audience, but Christians nonetheless. Paul refers to initial justification (when one first comes to Christ), as spoken of in the video, but if you read carefully, Paul nowhere denies that good works justify, only that works of the law (works done in order to fulfill the Mosaic covenant and be a good Jew) do not justify. This was because Paul was combatting the Judaizers, who were saying that one had to be a good Jew in order to become a Christian. He wasn't preaching the Protestant doctrine of Sola Fide, and we can know this by how explicitly it is contradicted by James, though it is less-explicitly denied elsewhere, including in many statements from our Lord.
@@_ready__ Are you trying to argue that the epistle of James doesn't apply to Christians because James specifies that it is written for Jews (Jewish Christians)? If that's your argument, you ought to read James 2:1. He's clearly writing to Christians.
@@lyterman thanks for the reply. Hardly no one understands the book of James, including all the guys on the video here. Would you like me to explain in more detail? Grace and peace
I can’t count the number of my non-catholic friends who grew up on anti-catholic rhetoric in their churches. Even as an adult in my 40’s, I had colleagues who were virulently anti-catholic and called me a statue worshipper. I grew up in Catholicism and never once heard my priest tearing down or criticizing other christians. Never! I detest those who tear down the Catholic Church. Sickening.
I'm ignoring the troll. The nonsense being spoken by these so called Protestants is not the position of any Episcopalian, Presbyterian, &c I have ever known. It is the evangelicals who gave my HR dept such a headache by telling the wife of an Episcopal priest that she wasn't a Christian. She was an Episcopalian. She was understandably furious.
@@_ready__ Ah, you again. The important thing is KNOWING the proper Bible verses! If you can't quote the proper verses how will you ever know that you are saved? Is this how you spend your time, pestering Catholics?
@@Wgaither1😂 what stupidity. How about I go around saying you proddies don’t understand your proddie beliefs and you actually belief what I say you belief. You lot love to commit the sin of bearing false witness
I grew up Reformed. That is not true in my experience (some appreciate Catholics as other Christians and disagree with John MacArthur). I don’t think it’s fair to make gross generalizations about other communities and Christians because of non- representative internet polemics.
I was a Calvinist like 4 months ago (and for my entire life). There are anti-Catholic Calvinists. There lots of views on Catholics in such churches. My ex-pastor (PCA) believes Catholics are Christians. Disagreement with Catholicism is embedded, but not hatred there off.
@@salamander8293 Many pastors I know now a days (I have been to their churches once and some good friends), especially this year, have been trashing the Catholic Church. They are from different states, but it is like they all got together and decided to go against the Church. I have many good friends who are Calvinists who do not hate the church, but are VERY skeptical about it. One pastor I know, totally quoted James White and Jack Chick. This has been going on since May of this year and has continued. This is where I am coming from. The 3 states that I have pastor friends in are Louisiana (pastor friend), Texas (went to college with this pastor), and Wyoming (quotes McArthur constantly). Just glad I am Catholic!
@@leonrussell262pathetic. It is clear that the Bible came out of the Church, the canon of the Bible came out of the Church, and if you can't trust Catholicism or Orthodoxy at all, then why do you think the Bible hasn't been corrupted until Luther? Think about it. If we Catholics are pagans, why did Luther trust our Bible? Why do you trust the Bible you protestants took from us ? Why was the King James Version written by a group of half protestants and half Catholics? Your position right now makes no sense, you have no arguments and only delusions, I hope God will save you from your heresy.
Great work brother. I'm excited for you in a few years I can see myself listening to you from Catholic Answers. God truly is protecting His True Church.
@@computationaltheist7267 do you have the correct reference? That verse is talking about the desires and the works of the flesh…idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, etc
@@salgar1234 I do have the correct reference. The early Christian Church did not function as demonic denominations as you practice it. Also, St. Paul's condemns sectarianism. The Greek word is schismata which means schism.
As one who spent over 30 years of adult life in four different Reformed denomination (we moved a lot), I can say that their knowledge of church history, prior to the reformation, is sorely lacking.
Similar story with me. I'm currently in a Calvinist church. I feel very drawn to the Catholic Church. The more I study the more I see that the early church was Catholic. I'm not satisfied with the chaos that is Protestantism. The secularism, individualism("my truth"), and the restorationist/cultic groups are all downstream of the reformation. It's way too obvious to me now.
Probably because most of the Christians in those denominations who deign to read much about early Christians wind up leaving the Reformed tradition. It's probably mostly just that kind of sampling bias. Though I have seen some, like James White, who have clearly put in a lot of work to study early Christian sources, yet still stubbornly persist in attacking the Catholic Church. And I suppose if there are people like that who cherry pick and distort the early sources to make a case for Reformed theology, then it provides an excuse for individual Christians to not read up on early Church history, since others have already done the legwork for you and (surprise) reached the same conclusion that Catholicism is pagan idolatry they already held before they knew anything about the Church
Problem is, that history means nothing. The Bible itself warns about wolves in sheeps' clothing. A history of wolves reveals nothing about the Shepherd.
@@Insomnolant1335i thought that scripture itself is in one way presented as history with historical facts😅 To arrive to truth you can't do away with history
@@user-ik9kf1nu1t There's a difference between a record of historical events and the continuous series of events that have happened since those original historical events, even if both are defined as "history." Jesus is the Truth, and we know what He said because of what was written down by eyewitnesses and those who interviewed eyewitnesses. But that doesn't make everyone who's ever said anything about Jesus since then correct. Surely you can understand that, right?
Hey man! I love your stuff and am seriously honored that you took the time to watch and share the video! I don't have Twitter, but I'll be on the lookout for your response tomorrow night. God bless!
I am grateful for your ministry and you have an excellent way of conveying the message in a way I can understand. I’m a new catholic of 2yrs having been to many different Protestant denominations and I’m glad I’m now a Roman Catholic. The amount of persecution me and my son have had from Protestants have been challenging since becoming Catholics. I was brought up and taught anti catholic teaching I’m glad I’ve reached the truth despite the barriers.
John.15 Verses 18 to 20 [18] "If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. [19] If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. [20] Remember the word that I said to you, `A servant is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will persecute you; if they kept my word, they will keep yours also. Keep strong sister. We are Christ visible body. The gates of hades will never prevail against us. In him we have life,
Always love it when they say ‘Protestants know because Scripture is inspired’ but how do they know Scripture is inspired? How do they know the correct inspired books are in the Bible and the ones omitted aren’t the actual inspired books? They never address that because they can’t as they have no way of saying the Canon is the inspired word of God without having to appeal to the Catholic Church
I think the best argument for Catholic Tradition is, it (The Church) came before scripture, and in scripture, God gave his authority to the Church: what you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven, what you loose shall be loosed in Heaven. Great video, Brayden! I just listened to the Cordial Catholic with Dr Burgsma, and they speak on the authority of His Church on the latest video... God bless you and your family!
This is a good argument. Christ gave authority to his Apostles and to the Church. This is why he sent the Holy Spirit to guide the Church. The Bible is not the sole authority as 1) the Bible says the exact opposite, and 2) it makes no sense because scripture is not self interpretating, so it can't be the sole authority. This is why we have so many denominations because each group of people interprets for themselves what Scripture means and this also goes against what we see in Acts and at Pentecost when the Holy Spirit enters the Church and yet so many Protestants claim their different interpretation was given by the Holy Spirit. Christ left us the Church, not just an instruction book, and he said that hell would never prevail against the Church.
‘The church came before scripture’? What in tarnation is the ‘church’; without scripture? How do you know the church came first if you did not have scripture to tell you? Scripture does interpret scripture. Why would you put faith into a man made document (the fallible teaching of Rome) above the infallible Written Word of God?
Just to know - the church you reference in the book of Matthew is the Jewish Messianic Church and not the church the body of Christ .... it was not revealed until Paul .... search the scriptures and you will not find reference outside of Pauls epistles! Bible facts for you.... Grace and peace
@@salgar1234 Yup, you should really study Church History. The scholars think that I Thessalonians was written first, but Jesus sent the Apostles out and they began the (Catholic) Church, before the first scriptures were written (duh). You may want to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, too. Father Mike Schmitz reads it daily, and I think it's episode 15? , but yup, he states it as we all know it! He says, "it is theological, chronological, historical fact; the Church came before scripture". Please don;t get so upset to learn history! Peace...
@@ThroughKinAndClan Amen, amen, Brother! I think they just get upset when they find out the Truth: the Catholic Church was indeed started by Jesus Christ! Peace...
@@Kefa... you can think that you did all you want, the apocryphal was always disputed throughout history. Not by Luther but by your own popes, cardinals and “saints”
@@Kefa... you should already know but you don’t. Thank you for proving my point and defending things and speaking on things out of ignorance. But if you really don’t know I can show you the Pope I am referencing
My absolute favorite part was Jeff's part on the imputation. It was hilarious. So, God who is just, took out the wrath due to humanity on the most innocent ever and this was as Jeff said "So God would remain just". Hahahaha . Words have meaning and meanings have consequences....but who am I 😅
@@TheReformedRoad hi! I do agree that our Lord took on flesh, but where we differ is the logic of Jeff's statement. In that, if we agree that God is always just, then I'd imagine we'd also agree that God taking the wrath for guilty people on the most innocent would violate His justice. Or one would have to hold that God is not always just. So it's more of a philosophical argument than anything. I can imagine there are a lot of things protestants who look at Catholics side eyed and skeptical about. Have a great day! God bless
@@TheReformedRoad you insulted him in your criticism of his age and his recent conversion, and I didn’t see you make any arguments other than say he’s wrong. Obviously he’s not at studied as Jeff Durbin or James white or Trent horn, but that just makes his video that much more impressive. Don’t be angry dude.
@@TheReformedRoad I was just complimenting him. And ya I think he did gave a pretty good rebuttal. I have a lot of respect for Jeff but I believe that this was not one of Jeff Durbans best videos. Jeff was reading his own interpretation into James and Paul. He also made some mistakes about the Catholic Church that this video rightly pointed out.
Every refutation of protestantism can be summed up by reading the whole chapter or book that they're quoting to try and prove the assumptions of their twisted man-made system.
Greetings! First, a big *Thank You* for making this response video! You saved me the trouble of making my own, and you nailed all the crucial points -- spot on. Also, for your reference, and for anyone else who happens to read this comment, the response below is what I left on Durbin's video. It includes a link to deep dive video I recently released about "justification" and why various Reformation based views are a vast departure from core Christian theology. Feel free to refer to this video as necessary. In the meantime -- and again -- you did a super job in your response! We should connect sometime! My response to Mr Durbin: "A few thoughts here -- being that much of Jeff Durbin's phrasing about Catholic Christian belief ranges from somewhat wrong to flat-out wrong. For example, Catholics do NOT have "two epistemological standards." We have one: God's revelation. From there, God ensures His revelation by giving us a deposit of faith*. That deposit of faith has two main wings: Scripture and Tradition. Take the Bible, for example. For almost 400 years, there was no canonized corpus of New Testament Scripture -- nor the entire Bible as we have it today. Therefore, how did most early Christian converts come to *know the Word of God? And how did they come to understand it? (See Acts 8:27-35 as one, very common example). Through the Tradition / through the Church that carefully determined which books were, by the power of the Holy Spirit, inspired by God's revelation, we have the Bible. Also through Tradition / through the Church, we have a fully developed theology on the Trinity, Original Sin, and so much more that falls right in line with Scripture. The point being is that Scripture and Tradition do not run in parallel. Rather, they are fully intertwined and point together to a single TRUTH. Anyhow, I happen to have a video that takes an investigative type approach to the "justification" debate and its history: I explore two of the main, yet strikingly different, positions that Martin Luther and John Calvin pushed during the early roots of the Reformation, as well as what is the actual Catholic teaching on this subject. Above all, I tie in a word that is crucial to Christian theology, yet is often buried underneath endless debates about God's revelation and how salvation is justified. That word is COVENANT. When we all understand and embrace what Covenant means -- and that Christians are still in covenant with God -- then the Catholic position becomes clear as a cloudless, sunny day: ruclips.net/video/doM2w7Xx0KQ/видео.html Also, a fun fact (so to speak) about the problem with using click-bait titles such as "Roman Catholicism's False Gospel": Roman Catholicism is a Rite within the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church. The Catholic Church has 23 Rites (churches that comprise the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church): one Roman Catholic Rite and *22 Eastern Catholic Rites*. Yes, the Pope sits in Saint Peter's chair in Rome; he is the Holy See; he is in the overall successive line of Popes since Peter. And yes, the Roman Catholic Rite is significantly the largest of all 23 rites. However, the Catholic Church -- as Ignatius first called it in ~107 AD -- is the universal Christian Church of now many Rites that are in communion with the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church. In other words, where is the video on "Byzantine Catholicism's False Gospel"? Now, if Durbin and crew are simplifying terms to make an overall theological case, that is one thing. But the problem with Durbin's approach to criticizing "Rome* -- and this includes James White's approach as well -- is they are strictly using Protestant lenses to explain Catholic theology and ecclesiology. And at the risk of sounding snarky, even James White's sister, Patty Bonds, who became Catholic, once called out White for attacking Catholic beliefs / positions that simply do not exist or are severely flawed. The same goes with Mr. Durbin. Lastly, always keep in mind that if Durbin's positions on Christian theology are in fact correct, and if Sola Scriptura is the ultimate authority for reconciling theological differences, then why are there scores of Protestant denominations that disagree on, well, Christian theology? It's what I call the "Martin Luther Complex": the idea that any random Christian can brand themselves as an authority on Christian theology and then perpetuate it as truth. Well, scores of denominations later, Protestants are still continually divided on core truths. Food for thought." *End response*
The strongest rebuttal of the Reformed Protestant heresy comes from an in depth study of the long, extended process leading up to the canonization of the sacred texts we now call “the Bible.” Reformed scholars like to ignore this process, use it selectively to their advantage, and suppress facts which do not help their position. After all, they merely “assume” that the Catholic Church got the canon “mostly” right. Like Luther, they conveniently exclude the Deutero-Canonical books of the Old Testament. This is done for theological reasons, of course. Nothing is accidental, folks! Proceed with caution when listening to any Reformed Protestant. 😊😊😊😊
I noticed the Bible uses marriage often as a metaphor of HIs relationship with humanity. Marriage is a private declaration of love, public declaration of love, and a lifestyle of fidelity to grow and protect that love. All three things must be done for your marriage to be valid. Salvation is a private declaration of faith (prayer), public declaration of faith (baptism), and a lifestyle of fidelity and to grow and protect that faith. All three things must be done for your salvation to be valid.
Idk how Protestants can't see in Acts 15, that the 1st church council did not use sola scriptura, it was the HolySpirit just has Acts 15 states. And I was a former protestant, but when this was pointed out to me, I had to admit that they did not use sola scriptura. So im in a online debate right now, & I was using Acts 15, to show there was new teachings, & they didn't use sola scriptura. But idk maybe im doing something wrong here, or they have hardened their heart, & don't want to admit that Acts 15 is a new teaching, given to the church, just like John 16:12-13; states that there are new teachings, outside of scripture alone .. Any have some advice?
@@onlylove556 Different people have different beliefs, so I can only speak for myself. I just doubt in the preservation of the oral teachings of the Apostles. Enough Church Fathers contradict each other that are all supposedly operating from the same source, that I don't think I can trust that. Add to that no one seems to be able to come out and say what the Apostles actually said, which is how oral traditions tend to work. Instead we have some vague abstract ideas of doctrines that often no one talks about until hundreds of years later, or it needs to be "clarified" in a council - I don't see why that would be as necessary if you could just produce what the Apostles said. This is different from many Protestants, who just doubt in the authority of orally transmitted teachings, I just don't believe we actually accurately have those teachings.
@@EmberBright2077 Okay thank u, & I was honestly asking sincerely. So u are saying that u don't believe in the oral traditions passed down, that u only believe in the scriptures only? Also would u say that scripture only is your final authority?
@thecatechumen i thank you for doing this rebuttal on @Jeff's video its much needed personally i think we can't be quite we need brother's strong in our faith to be able to correct and teach others thank you and i pray that Jeff truly listens to this video And if he doesn't, I know it'll help others. Who are truly seeking the truth. Thank you, your brother Robert from Puerto Rico.🇵🇷
Watching reformed folks try to validate their positions is like watching the alphabet people try to validate theirs. And then the comments section under their videos is exactly the same. You have to be fully committed to that world view for it to make any sense
Jeff Durbin is awesome, and we should pray for him to receive the grace to come to full communion with Christ's One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
I also notice that Jeff Durbin speaks very little about “repentance” and “contrition” when he discusses justification by faith. Since faith is a “work of Love” (Galatians 5: 6, Acts 2: 38, Luke 23: 41-43), it is improper to speak of biblical faith without repentance. Catholics also refer to this as contrition or sorrow for sins committed. 😊😊😊😊
Notice also that Jesus isn't condemning the notion of sacred tradition when he says, "‘The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; therefore, do whatever they teach you and follow it; but do not do as they do, for they do not practice what they teach." (Matt23:2-3)
Protestants propose the doctrine of Justification by faith alone so as to make Jesus owe them salvation for their faith in Christ's redemptive work. In this process, they try to drag Catholics to argue with Christ to grant them salvation by right for having faith. Well prots, we don't want to reason with Jesus by making our case that he ought to give us salvation because we had faith. No. We will rather appeal to Jesus to show us mercy because we are not worthy to justify ourselves before him. We know our faith is not above board. We know our works are not above board. We know our weaknesses and shortcomings and so, we will rather appeal to Christ for his mercy.
Hi Brayden, love your videos 🫶🏼 I’m a new Catholic 🥰 could you please do a video on the involvement on the Vatican with protecting Nazis after the war? I’ve heard a lot about this recently but always from anti Catholic sources. Please help me to understand the situation ❤ Thank you and God bless you, your work and your family 🙏🏼
Well the nazis shipped out thousands of priests and nuns from the netherlands and killed them in the concentration camps. St. Edith stein, St. Maximillian Kolbe, blessed Alice Katowska, blessed michal kozal, blessed karl leisner.
On behalf of protestant christians, I apologise for the overwhelming number of terribly dogmatic, arrogant, uninformed protestant apologists who misunderstand, strawman or demonise Catholicism. Its embarrasing lol Pray for us
Durbin and his Calvinist camp, are wrong about a heap of things, not just Catholicism. No surprise that they get basic church history and teachings completely wrong.
Hey brother, just one tiny critique. Only cause it’s a pet peeve of mine. The Catholic Church isn’t a denomination. It’s the one holy Catholic and apostolic church. Denominations are essentially sects. And sectarianism only exists among heretics. We being Catholic are the opposite of a sect of denomination. I love your stuff! I too am a former baptist and I really enjoy your material.
Hey! I appreciate your comment and I completely agree. Sometimes, I let it slip out coming from a formerly Baptist background. It is true that denominationalism is a Protestant phenomena under which Catholicism ought not be categorized as the One True Church. I am happy to hear that you too are a convert to the Catholic faith. It is my hope that more of our separated brethren might be drawn fully into communion with Christ through charitably sharing and defending the faith. Being careful about how we phrase things is a part of that. God bless!
Don’t understand why most Catholics don’t believe this anymore, it’s crystal clear. It’s necessary for salvation to believe this. Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
Why would you worship a fallible, sinful man? That is rebellion, sin and idolatry. Satan is doing SUCH a good job of deception. ANYTHING put above The Lord God and called holy as God is Holy and made as God, is sin and rebellion against God.
Jeff Durbin also needs to make distinctions between "works of law" "works" and "good works" Several times in Paul's letters the Apostole has judaizers in mind but never pelagians. It is only by grace that good works are possible.
Great video. Thank you for making this. I was pretty frustrated when Jeff was reading one or two sentences and ignoring the rest of the works he was citing.
Jeff can determine the meaning of scripture, Jeff can correct and criticize the Church, Jeff denies to the Church powers Jeff believes he has. Jeff thinks he is the pope, and magisterium. Jeff advances nonsense.
It's ironic he bases his arguments on what is found in Scripture, but it was by the Catholic Church's AUTHORITY that discerned with help from the Holy Spirit which letters were Divinely INSPIRED. 😏 The mental gymnastics and twisting themselves in human pretzels would hysterical if was ever demonstrated in the physical world. 😂 Mother Mary pray for us 🙏🙏🙏
I am at the point where I believe that the great falling away spoken of in the Bible was, or at least had its beginning, in the protestant reformation.
I cannot believe he said that because the Church Fathers are not infallible they contradict themselves. This is the most obvious case of confirmation I've ever seen. When the Church fathers affirm my teaching then they are speaking infallibly (repeating what God has revealed would be infallible to that end) otherwise they are limited by men. Whereas a Catholic understanding would analyze what the fathers say in charity and compare what they say to Scripture, Tradition, and councils to confirm that this is an advance in doctrine. Durbin isn't doing that. He begins with his interpretation.
If you believe in the preaching of the apostles as stated then you are probably trying to follow the gospel of the kingdom as does the RCC. Remember - Peter never knew the meaning of the cross nor did he preach the cross for salvation prior to Paul. Bible fact
I never thought about this before, -because i was so busy in my pride, thinking that whatever made the most sense to me MUST be the truth- but it seems that the further back you go in traditions that have split from the Faith, the closer they are to the Original and True Catholic Faith. That shows me that once you deny the authority of the Church, you will only stray farther and farther from the Truth, with all kinds of wild and unbiblical traditions and doctrines.
Good video my kind Gent. Keep them coming. You should call him out and hve a Lil debate or even a dialog with this Durbin Lad. Maybe he will learn a Lil something fr the TRUE CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH. ☝🏻🙌🏻🙏🏻📖🍷🍞⛪️✝️🕊🫶🏻🕯📿
I feel like the big misunderstanding between Protastants and Catholics is what is the "law" that is cited so often. Protestants seem to insist the law is the moral law generally, even though in context it is clearly the mosaic temporal law. Maybe this is unfair but this is the impression I get.
This was a very solid response with a ton of great points. If I could ask for one point of clarification from you: It seems like you're saying (by implication 1:17:35) "protestants believe that we can be justified and not changed". But it seems in every place like protestants are saying that "we are justified by faith alone but that faith will never be alone" By that they mean, saving faith always produces good works if it is real saving faith. So I am supposing that they don't say that justification is not transformative but that justification is the springboard of sanctification. dont say this as something that settles the denominational argument, I am just asking for clarification. initial justification -> increasing justification justification -> necessary sanctification Additionally, I have heard it said that the difference is what you're calling the increase of justification Protestants call sanctification pointing to Hebrews 12:14. I think these videos are great and that if it wasn't for some other doctrinal differences, on the doctrine of Salvation, RC, EO, and Protestants could really zero the gap. However I do believe that the other doctrines are not insignificant I am just musing I guess.
I think we need to be clear about the definition of terms. Protestantism is made up of many denominations. Catholicism is not a denomination. Our faith is very different from those of Protestants who ultimately and formally reject Christ's Church and therefore reject God. There is enough evidence for those who are open to the Truth.
If they don't agree with the Magisterium's teachings, they ought to consider reviewing the bible and perhaps re-write it. If they accept that the bible is inspired by God, then they must reconsider listening to the Magisterium since it's they who compiled it. From my perspective, they just don't want to be under an authority. If so, then don't go to university, don't listen to the government, don't listen to anyone save for yourselves and the "voice of god".
It's odd that Protestants dont recognize the similarities between the Reformation and the fall in the Garden of Eden. In both situations God creates a place of safety for Man. A place where Man can commune with God. God simply states, you must respect my authority or risk being excommunicated. In the Garden of Eden, Satan comes in and says, "Do you really believe in that authority? Come on, don't submit to that, because it's not even true. You know what's true. Just trust your own understanding of things." Then in the Reformation, Satan comes along again and says, "Do you really believe in that authority? Come on don't submit to that, because it's not even true. You know what's true. Just trust your own understanding of things." That's one of the blind spots in Protestantism. They don't see that at the center of their belief is self-interpretation. It's not submission to the word of God, it's submission to their interpretation of the word of God. That's why we see so many Protestant denominations. Fragmentation of ecclesial communities is the logical conclusion of a doctrine like Sola Scriptura, because each community can claim to have the real truth, and they need to only appeal to their self-interpretation as the final authority. It's similar to the fragmentation we see in the secular world when it comes to creating laws using the U.S. Constitution. Depending on how you interpret the document, you can come away with wildy different understandings. And this is where the authority of the Catholic Church serves as a proof why it is truly Christ's Church and the only ecclesial community with the fullness of truth. If there are questions, the church uses its God-given authority to provide an answer. It's like God knew that without this authoritative body, Man would just mess things up if left to his own devices.
Let's be honest! Reform Theology began in the 16th century with the following foundation statement by John Calvin: "All are NOT created on EQUAL terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestined to life or to death" (The INSTITUTES of the Christian Religion, bk. 3, ch. 21, para. 5). So, is the God of John 3 16 really compatible with the above obscene 16th century nonsense which makes God out to be a psychopathic immoral monster? ___________
Compare Romans 2: 5-8 and James 2: 24. Paul and James AGREE that justification is by FAITH and WORKS…. but never by “faith alone.” 👍. John 15: 1-10. When Paul is addressing justifying faith and works (of the Mosaic law) in Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, and elsewhere he is referring to the Jewish prejudice that one is saved by being circumcised and by their ethnic identification as an Israelite. Martin Luther misread the texts of Romans and Galatians because he failed to grasp the context of both epistles. 👍. The Catholic Church has ALWAYS taught we are saved by GRACE ALONE through (the work of) FAITH and not as a result of the good WORKS OF THE MOSAIC LAW. No one can “work” their way to Heaven by their own merits. 😊. Galatians 5: 6.
So after you receive justification as a free gift of Grace through faith, you grow in, not earn more, justification. Since he perfects you, redeeming you, yourself in reality, and that growth is also a grace of God as he matures you in faith, hope, and charity. Being made that which we have been forinsically declared. Is that a strictly accurate summery?
One thing you guys seem to miss in the protestant/ catholic discussion is, what if Jeff is correct and God only meant for his revelation to be solo scriptura. If Jesus was correcting the Jewish leaders on where they went astray, are you close minded to the possibility that reformers are not inspired to point out where you have gone off the path. By your logic, you would have to also follow mormons and muslims because they equate their holy books with the scripture because they claim their revelation is also from God? I will follow Jesus that Paul speaks of when he says "if anyone leads you to follow a different Christ, one we have not already taught, he is leading you after a false Christ who cannot save.
AND JESUS SAITH "For the Son of man shall come in the Glory of His Father with His angels: and then will He render to every man according to his works" AND HIS DISCIPLES REPLIED "What say Ye? Works? Sola Fide, ye papist heretic! REFORMATION!"
Die Verbum 9-10, sounds right and correct but Roman Catholicism rejected both Tradition and scripture when it committed the sin of schism and promoted heresy against the enduring voices of the many described by Father Panayiotis Papageorgiou and that I like to simply, but less beautiful, call the enduring consensus. Durbin is equally wrong as his fundamental premise of how do you know what you know to be correct isn’t scripture necessarily, it’s the Holy Spirits continuing inspiration on the Body of Christ that created Scripture. So, in this regard Durbin and Roman Catholicism are founded in similar error in conflict with Tradition established by the Holy Spirit and defined by Scripture in Acts when James and the Apostles confronted the teaching that you had to become Jewish prior to becoming Christian. This meeting is commonly referred to as the Jerusalem or First Council who’s decision was determined “pleasing” to the Holy Spirit. Peter may be the “Rock” and may in fact hold the “keys” to heaven, but that’s meaningless because he never assumed, demanded or exercised “Papal Authority”. Neither did any of his successors, if he had any in Rome as Clement’s appointment is unclear or at least less clear than the succession of Ignatius’ in Antioch, until the rise of the Holy Roman Empire and Charlemagne. Likewise, Durbin ignores the historical fact that the New Testament as a complete Codex wasn’t available to Bishops and Patriarchs for four hundred years and to common literate Christians for nearly 1,800 years making his flavor of worship and sola theologies impossible to be experienced as he applies them in the 21st century to earlier Christians. Durbin’s logic requires the conclusion that Christians before Luther and Calvin and after the apostles or possibly the Apostolic fathers weren’t true Christians and that simply is silly especially when you consider that it’s exactly that same timeframe from Apostolic Fathers to Constantine that the Church wrote, compiled and selected the canon of Scripture. Attempting to stitch together a system of faith and theology with snippets of scripture or the dictates of a magisterium directed by a single individual are equally guilty of similar ignorance born of selective reading of Scripture and the Church Fathers and an almost complete denial of historical fact. Nothing I’ve put forward is meant to challenge anyone’s access to God’s grace as that is between the individual and our Savior. You don’t have to go to any Church to have a relationship with Christ, but if you wish to strengthen that relationship to its greatest potential through worship and more importantly receiving the Sacraments, all seven of them, the best place with the greatest chance to please Christ most, all things being equal, is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, the Orthodox Church that has remained committed to The Scripture and the Tradition of the Apostles, Apostolic Fathers and the Church Fathers. Lord Jesus Christ my God have mercy on me a sinner. Brothers in Christ I beg for your blessing.
Is there an obsession with Catholic “ RUclipsrs” with acknowledging every ignorant thing Protestant ministers say? It’s getting to be overkill. Love and pray for them.
Jeff durbin is a pressup apologist (as I am but I’m eastern Catholic) so the question I want to ask hi. Is “how do you know what scripture is”he assumes the Bible but we shouldn’t let him borrow from a Christian and Catholic worldview. He would have to stand on the Churches infallible authority to get his Bible and then turn around and say we are wrong about the canon LOL
In 13:45 caller asks about traditions that “depart from what I can find in scripture” in other words, are not in scripture. 13:58 Jeff Durbin changes it to “seem to contradict the word of God” and then in his arguments he takes an example from Genesis that is directly contradicting the word of God, he never brings any example where Catholic teaching contradicts the word of God.
44:45 I would say in initial justification we would need repentance as well as faith? Could I say that and still have a orthodox/right understanding? We would need repentance in addition to faith when it comes to our re-justification after committing mortal sin. The difference is the sacrament is now Reconciliation instead of Baptism. Thoughts or insights anybody?
Why is it that reformed biblical Christians always want an open dialogue with Catholics and Catholics don't want too. In todays society conservatives always want to have an open dialogue while the other side always seems to want to be an a echo Chamber much like here. I encouraging Catholics to have more open dialogue with someone like jeff durbin
The bottom line is that there is no infallible Bible with out an infallible authority. We have the Catholic Church but I'm not quite sure how he knows his bible is the word of God, using only the Bible to testify to itself. Protestantism is like Darwin's theory, it hops in in the middle of creation, with out having a true beginning.
Durbin still hasn't figure out what the "Works of the Law" mentioned by St-Paul refer to... *The Works of the Mosaic Law, through which those under the past covenant were "justified".* It should be obvious though, when Paul said Circumcision was one of those "Works". And of course, we aren't "saved" through the Mosaic Law, because Christ's death on the Cross made these Laws obsolete. *Soooo simple to understand just by reading scripture...* but I guess reading scripture with protestant "pre-installed" lenses makes them blind to the Truth, as obvious as it could be.
Please pray for the RC’s ! They need to be set free from the false teachings of their religious system. May God open their eyes to the true gospel of Jesus Christ.
There is a simple solution to raising understanding and echumenical dialogue... Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It will teach you the at the very least the basics of Catholicism. I did this as a non-denominational protestant (Baptist) and am now am a confessional Lutheran with a greater understanding and respect for Catholicism, to the point where I would rather be Catholic or Orthodox than any low church protestant.
I'd say "interreligous discussion" because Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, and so forth practice religions where a different person founded each denomination. Protestantism suggests religious indifferentism, a heresy Bl. Pius IX condemns in his Syllabus of Errors. Religious indifferentists believe each person has a God-given right to practice any religion he believes. You can still be a Christian in any Christian denomination. But if you don't agree with what your denomination believes, you join another one instead. You don't get the deposit of faith by combing the doctrines from each sect because that method will produce a logically inconsistent group of doctrines. Doctrines are logically inconsistent when they can't be true together. One inconsistency makes the collection inconsistent.
His reading of Romans makes the parable of the talents Jesus gives senseless. But for the Catholic it makes perfect sense. The gift is given, but if you don’t steward the gift, it will be taken away. Protestants have no concept for that. If you have the gift, that’s it, that parable has to drive them crazy. Or like everything they just twist it into, “uhh it’s uhh just the fruits, those that were uhhh given the gift weren’t actually given it.”
‘We don’t elevate tradition over the scriptures’. *proceeds to use ONLY tradition to defend his faith. If Catholicism was Biblical, it should be defended with the Bible.
@@cruznature7545 I am not making claims about the Bible. He claimed that Catholics do not elevate their tradition over the Bible. Yet, for every point that he went to “debunk”, he only used the Catholic tradition and never went to the Bible to explain why a passage did not mean what Durban was saying is meant. Meanwhile, Durban was using other scripture to back up and explain the points that he was making. When correcting the stance and beliefs of the Cathartic church, using Catholic tradition is fine. But, when making claims of what the Bible is saying, he should have backed up his (the Catholic) interpretation with other scriptures. It is bad apologetics. To put it a different way, if I have two hammers that serve the same purpose and tell you that I don’t value one over the other, and yet I only ever use one of them, even when the other is closer, you should question if I value one over the other. He only uses tradition, even when the Bible would be easier to use if he didn’t value tradition over the Bible, or if the Bible backed up the claims/beliefs of the Catholic church.
Listening to our beloved Reformed brothers can be so frustrating at times. He has to wildly overexaggerate and insult the Catholic understanding of the plain meaning of James 2, saying it's just so obvious that it doesn't mean what it seems so unambiguously to say. Reformed do this by playing up "it's just obvious if you know the context", but it's actually made worse by the fact that "justify" can't possibly mean "justify before men, not God" in James, because the example he uses is of Abraham on top of a mountain with only one other human who could know what he was doing. Durbin even has the gall to explicitly state that James is saying that Abraham was justified before Isaac, not God. I understand that our Protestant brothers have to take that sort of interpretation (I was there once too), but it just gets old when they also sling insults that you must be stupid and bad if you don't buy their incredibly stretched, theologically-motivated interpretation.
Read James 1:1
Who is he writing to?
Those that knew faith + works?
Whereas James taught a faith that required works in order to be ‘perfect’, we are given a perfect position by our faith in Christ alone! Amen and Amen. (2 Cor 5:21, Phil 3:12)
Paul has a different audience. He writes to the church, the body of Christ that was not known or revealed until Paul.
Find it referenced outside of Paul’s epistles - you can’t.
@@_ready__ James was writing to Christians. Chiefly a Jewish audience, but Christians nonetheless. Paul refers to initial justification (when one first comes to Christ), as spoken of in the video, but if you read carefully, Paul nowhere denies that good works justify, only that works of the law (works done in order to fulfill the Mosaic covenant and be a good Jew) do not justify. This was because Paul was combatting the Judaizers, who were saying that one had to be a good Jew in order to become a Christian. He wasn't preaching the Protestant doctrine of Sola Fide, and we can know this by how explicitly it is contradicted by James, though it is less-explicitly denied elsewhere, including in many statements from our Lord.
@@lyterman read James 1:1 again
@@_ready__ Are you trying to argue that the epistle of James doesn't apply to Christians because James specifies that it is written for Jews (Jewish Christians)? If that's your argument, you ought to read James 2:1. He's clearly writing to Christians.
@@lyterman thanks for the reply. Hardly no one understands the book of James, including all the guys on the video here.
Would you like me to explain in more detail?
Grace and peace
I can’t count the number of my non-catholic friends who grew up on anti-catholic rhetoric in their churches. Even as an adult in my 40’s, I had colleagues who were virulently anti-catholic and called me a statue worshipper. I grew up in Catholicism and never once heard my priest tearing down or criticizing other christians. Never! I detest those who tear down the Catholic Church. Sickening.
Do you know what the gospel of your salvation is / the gospel of Christ as revealed unto Paul? That’s the important thing!
I'm ignoring the troll.
The nonsense being spoken by these so called Protestants is not the position of any Episcopalian, Presbyterian, &c I have ever known. It is the evangelicals who gave my HR dept such a headache by telling the wife of an Episcopal priest that she wasn't a Christian. She was an Episcopalian. She was understandably furious.
@@_ready__ Ah, you again. The important thing is KNOWING the proper Bible verses! If you can't quote the proper verses how will you ever know that you are saved? Is this how you spend your time, pestering Catholics?
Great reply to the troll@@Davcramer
@@Davcramer how do you know
I wish Jeff Durbin would do some official debates with Catholics. He shows that he really doesnt understand Catholicism.
It’s the Catholics that don’t understand Catholicism
@@Wgaither1😂 what stupidity.
How about I go around saying you proddies don’t understand your proddie beliefs and you actually belief what I say you belief.
You lot love to commit the sin of bearing false witness
Not only does he show it , but he clearly does NOT know anything about Catholic history , theology, practice, and beliefs
I know right! He would probably take the ray comfort route and try to find the catholic that knew the least to interview.
@@TheReformedRoad so is there ever a circumstance in which that is a legitimate claim?
All Calvinists think Catholics have a false gospel, but they treat John MacArthur as the Pope.
I grew up Reformed. That is not true in my experience (some appreciate Catholics as other Christians and disagree with John MacArthur). I don’t think it’s fair to make gross generalizations about other communities and Christians because of non- representative internet polemics.
@@salamander8293you know the only ones that aren’t anti-Catholic lol. It’s embedded in Calvinism .
I was a Calvinist like 4 months ago (and for my entire life). There are anti-Catholic Calvinists. There lots of views on Catholics in such churches. My ex-pastor (PCA) believes Catholics are Christians. Disagreement with Catholicism is embedded, but not hatred there off.
Exactly.. and they treated John Macarthur more than a Pope.
@@salamander8293 Many pastors I know now a days (I have been to their churches once and some good friends), especially this year, have been trashing the Catholic Church. They are from different states, but it is like they all got together and decided to go against the Church. I have many good friends who are Calvinists who do not hate the church, but are VERY skeptical about it. One pastor I know, totally quoted James White and Jack Chick. This has been going on since May of this year and has continued. This is where I am coming from. The 3 states that I have pastor friends in are Louisiana (pastor friend), Texas (went to college with this pastor), and Wyoming (quotes McArthur constantly). Just glad I am Catholic!
Man made doctrine? Like Calvinism? All Protestant denominations are man made traditions.
Catholicism is hocus pokus Pagan idolotry.
@@leonrussell262 said some men, waaaay after Christ and His apostles founded one Church.
@@GratiaPrima_ What does the word church mean to you. What is the Church?
@@leonrussell262pathetic. It is clear that the Bible came out of the Church, the canon of the Bible came out of the Church, and if you can't trust Catholicism or Orthodoxy at all, then why do you think the Bible hasn't been corrupted until Luther?
Think about it. If we Catholics are pagans, why did Luther trust our Bible? Why do you trust the Bible you protestants took from us ? Why was the King James Version written by a group of half protestants and half Catholics?
Your position right now makes no sense, you have no arguments and only delusions, I hope God will save you from your heresy.
@@leonrussell262a church means a body of believers
I see the seething copy/paste crowd has arrived. Guess you struck a nerve.
I’m tempted to pin this comment 😂
@@thecatechumendo it.
It’s how you know you’ve made it!
Jeff Durbin is like the boss on a video game where you debate youth pastors.
Imagine rather than mortal kombat it’s mortal debate.
😂😅😅😅
@@lilnallie05”Finish Him!”
Pull up a picture of John Seed from FarCry 5 lol. He's obviously not like him but the resemblance is uncanny
Great work brother. I'm excited for you in a few years I can see myself listening to you from Catholic Answers. God truly is protecting His True Church.
You beat Trent Horn to it!
I honestly feel bad for Durbin: his entire Christian walk has been completely molded and set by the mind of James White.
The correct term is "Dr." James White.
I feel sorry for those who hold anything above Gods written Word.
@@salgar1234 What about those who hold that denominations are okay even though the scriptures condemn it as evil as taught by St. Paul in Gal 5:19-2?
@@computationaltheist7267 do you have the correct reference? That verse is talking about the desires and the works of the flesh…idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, etc
@@salgar1234 I do have the correct reference. The early Christian Church did not function as demonic denominations as you practice it. Also, St. Paul's condemns sectarianism. The Greek word is schismata which means schism.
In Jeff Durbins defense, he's wrong about a lot of stuff.
😂😂😂
This video is incredible, especially since the source video only came out about 36 hours ago.
As one who spent over 30 years of adult life in four different Reformed denomination (we moved a lot), I can say that their knowledge of church history, prior to the reformation, is sorely lacking.
Similar story with me. I'm currently in a Calvinist church. I feel very drawn to the Catholic Church. The more I study the more I see that the early church was Catholic. I'm not satisfied with the chaos that is Protestantism. The secularism, individualism("my truth"), and the restorationist/cultic groups are all downstream of the reformation. It's way too obvious to me now.
Probably because most of the Christians in those denominations who deign to read much about early Christians wind up leaving the Reformed tradition. It's probably mostly just that kind of sampling bias. Though I have seen some, like James White, who have clearly put in a lot of work to study early Christian sources, yet still stubbornly persist in attacking the Catholic Church. And I suppose if there are people like that who cherry pick and distort the early sources to make a case for Reformed theology, then it provides an excuse for individual Christians to not read up on early Church history, since others have already done the legwork for you and (surprise) reached the same conclusion that Catholicism is pagan idolatry they already held before they knew anything about the Church
Problem is, that history means nothing. The Bible itself warns about wolves in sheeps' clothing. A history of wolves reveals nothing about the Shepherd.
@@Insomnolant1335i thought that scripture itself is in one way presented as history with historical facts😅 To arrive to truth you can't do away with history
@@user-ik9kf1nu1t There's a difference between a record of historical events and the continuous series of events that have happened since those original historical events, even if both are defined as "history." Jesus is the Truth, and we know what He said because of what was written down by eyewitnesses and those who interviewed eyewitnesses. But that doesn't make everyone who's ever said anything about Jesus since then correct. Surely you can understand that, right?
This was an awesome response to Jeff! Do you have a Twitter? We just shared it on our Twitter, but wanted to tag you as well, if you are on there.
Hey man! I love your stuff and am seriously honored that you took the time to watch and share the video! I don't have Twitter, but I'll be on the lookout for your response tomorrow night. God bless!
I am grateful for your ministry and you have an excellent way of conveying the message in a way I can understand.
I’m a new catholic of 2yrs having been to many different Protestant denominations and I’m glad I’m now a Roman Catholic. The amount of persecution me and my son have had from Protestants have been challenging since becoming Catholics. I was brought up and taught anti catholic teaching I’m glad I’ve reached the truth despite the barriers.
John.15 Verses 18 to 20
[18] "If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you.
[19] If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.
[20] Remember the word that I said to you, `A servant is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will persecute you; if they kept my word, they will keep yours also.
Keep strong sister. We are Christ visible body. The gates of hades will never prevail against us. In him we have life,
I am so glad you are home now, where you can grow in the Lord!
Wow! You are becoming a bona fide Catholic Apologist. Way to go! Am excited for your growth in the faith. God bless you and your work.
Always love it when they say ‘Protestants know because Scripture is inspired’
but how do they know Scripture is inspired?
How do they know the correct inspired books are in the Bible and the ones omitted aren’t the actual inspired books?
They never address that because they can’t as they have no way of saying the Canon is the inspired word of God without having to appeal to the Catholic Church
this!!
Exactly
I mean we can just be consistent and say the scriptures aren't inspired. Why shouldn't we?
@@EmberBright2077 They are after the church decided the Cannon.
@@jimlittle7111 But why should anyone trust that?
I think the best argument for Catholic Tradition is, it (The Church) came before scripture, and in scripture, God gave his authority to the Church: what you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven, what you loose shall be loosed in Heaven. Great video, Brayden! I just listened to the Cordial Catholic with Dr Burgsma, and they speak on the authority of His Church on the latest video... God bless you and your family!
This is a good argument. Christ gave authority to his Apostles and to the Church. This is why he sent the Holy Spirit to guide the Church. The Bible is not the sole authority as 1) the Bible says the exact opposite, and 2) it makes no sense because scripture is not self interpretating, so it can't be the sole authority. This is why we have so many denominations because each group of people interprets for themselves what Scripture means and this also goes against what we see in Acts and at Pentecost when the Holy Spirit enters the Church and yet so many Protestants claim their different interpretation was given by the Holy Spirit. Christ left us the Church, not just an instruction book, and he said that hell would never prevail against the Church.
‘The church came before scripture’? What in tarnation is the ‘church’; without scripture? How do you know the church came first if you did not have scripture to tell you? Scripture does interpret scripture. Why would you put faith into a man made document (the fallible teaching of Rome) above the infallible Written Word of God?
Just to know - the church you reference in the book of Matthew is the Jewish Messianic Church and not the church the body of Christ .... it was not revealed until Paul .... search the scriptures and you will not find reference outside of Pauls epistles!
Bible facts for you....
Grace and peace
@@salgar1234 Yup, you should really study Church History. The scholars think that I Thessalonians was written first, but Jesus sent the Apostles out and they began the (Catholic) Church, before the first scriptures were written (duh). You may want to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, too. Father Mike Schmitz reads it daily, and I think it's episode 15? , but yup, he states it as we all know it! He says, "it is theological, chronological, historical fact; the Church came before scripture". Please don;t get so upset to learn history! Peace...
@@ThroughKinAndClan Amen, amen, Brother! I think they just get upset when they find out the Truth: the Catholic Church was indeed started by Jesus Christ! Peace...
We made the Bible, not to compete with us, but to tell the story of the Church.
You didn’t make the Bible. Stop using that silly false argument when you guys literally do not follow the Bible
@@ProtestantKing7 , we did actually, read it n' weep 🤠
@@Kefa... you can think that you did all you want, the apocryphal was always disputed throughout history. Not by Luther but by your own popes, cardinals and “saints”
@@ProtestantKing7 , show me.
@@Kefa... you should already know but you don’t. Thank you for proving my point and defending things and speaking on things out of ignorance. But if you really don’t know I can show you the Pope I am referencing
My absolute favorite part was Jeff's part on the imputation. It was hilarious. So, God who is just, took out the wrath due to humanity on the most innocent ever and this was as Jeff said "So God would remain just". Hahahaha . Words have meaning and meanings have consequences....but who am I 😅
@@TheReformedRoad hi! I do agree that our Lord took on flesh, but where we differ is the logic of Jeff's statement. In that, if we agree that God is always just, then I'd imagine we'd also agree that God taking the wrath for guilty people on the most innocent would violate His justice. Or one would have to hold that God is not always just. So it's more of a philosophical argument than anything. I can imagine there are a lot of things protestants who look at Catholics side eyed and skeptical about. Have a great day! God bless
Why do you believe Christ left heaven to be born as a human and then willingly sacrificed himself?
@@thecaffeinatedconvert3162how does that violate His Justice? It doesn’t in any way. His justicies was meted out on Christ who did so willingly.
Dude you just became catholic and are already an apologetics force to recon with. Trent horn would be proud.
@@TheReformedRoad try attacking an argument instead. He’s either right or he’s wrong.
@@TheReformedRoad you insulted him in your criticism of his age and his recent conversion, and I didn’t see you make any arguments other than say he’s wrong. Obviously he’s not at studied as Jeff Durbin or James white or Trent horn, but that just makes his video that much more impressive. Don’t be angry dude.
@@TheReformedRoad I was just complimenting him. And ya I think he did gave a pretty good rebuttal. I have a lot of respect for Jeff but I believe that this was not one of Jeff Durbans best videos. Jeff was reading his own interpretation into James and Paul. He also made some mistakes about the Catholic Church that this video rightly pointed out.
Dire times for the Church then if God is bringing out big guns
Every refutation of protestantism can be summed up by reading the whole chapter or book that they're quoting to try and prove the assumptions of their twisted man-made system.
This is a great video. I know a lot of Christians who struggle with the Calvinist position.
Greetings! First, a big *Thank You* for making this response video! You saved me the trouble of making my own, and you nailed all the crucial points -- spot on.
Also, for your reference, and for anyone else who happens to read this comment, the response below is what I left on Durbin's video. It includes a link to deep dive video I recently released about "justification" and why various Reformation based views are a vast departure from core Christian theology. Feel free to refer to this video as necessary. In the meantime -- and again -- you did a super job in your response! We should connect sometime!
My response to Mr Durbin:
"A few thoughts here -- being that much of Jeff Durbin's phrasing about Catholic Christian belief ranges from somewhat wrong to flat-out wrong. For example, Catholics do NOT have "two epistemological standards." We have one: God's revelation. From there, God ensures His revelation by giving us a deposit of faith*. That deposit of faith has two main wings: Scripture and Tradition.
Take the Bible, for example. For almost 400 years, there was no canonized corpus of New Testament Scripture -- nor the entire Bible as we have it today. Therefore, how did most early Christian converts come to *know the Word of God? And how did they come to understand it? (See Acts 8:27-35 as one, very common example).
Through the Tradition / through the Church that carefully determined which books were, by the power of the Holy Spirit, inspired by God's revelation, we have the Bible. Also through Tradition / through the Church, we have a fully developed theology on the Trinity, Original Sin, and so much more that falls right in line with Scripture.
The point being is that Scripture and Tradition do not run in parallel. Rather, they are fully intertwined and point together to a single TRUTH. Anyhow, I happen to have a video that takes an investigative type approach to the "justification" debate and its history: I explore two of the main, yet strikingly different, positions that Martin Luther and John Calvin pushed during the early roots of the Reformation, as well as what is the actual Catholic teaching on this subject.
Above all, I tie in a word that is crucial to Christian theology, yet is often buried underneath endless debates about God's revelation and how salvation is justified. That word is COVENANT. When we all understand and embrace what Covenant means -- and that Christians are still in covenant with God -- then the Catholic position becomes clear as a cloudless, sunny day: ruclips.net/video/doM2w7Xx0KQ/видео.html
Also, a fun fact (so to speak) about the problem with using click-bait titles such as "Roman Catholicism's False Gospel": Roman Catholicism is a Rite within the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church. The Catholic Church has 23 Rites (churches that comprise the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church): one Roman Catholic Rite and *22 Eastern Catholic Rites*. Yes, the Pope sits in Saint Peter's chair in Rome; he is the Holy See; he is in the overall successive line of Popes since Peter. And yes, the Roman Catholic Rite is significantly the largest of all 23 rites. However, the Catholic Church -- as Ignatius first called it in ~107 AD -- is the universal Christian Church of now many Rites that are in communion with the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church. In other words, where is the video on "Byzantine Catholicism's False Gospel"?
Now, if Durbin and crew are simplifying terms to make an overall theological case, that is one thing. But the problem with Durbin's approach to criticizing "Rome* -- and this includes James White's approach as well -- is they are strictly using Protestant lenses to explain Catholic theology and ecclesiology. And at the risk of sounding snarky, even James White's sister, Patty Bonds, who became Catholic, once called out White for attacking Catholic beliefs / positions that simply do not exist or are severely flawed. The same goes with Mr. Durbin.
Lastly, always keep in mind that if Durbin's positions on Christian theology are in fact correct, and if Sola Scriptura is the ultimate authority for reconciling theological differences, then why are there scores of Protestant denominations that disagree on, well, Christian theology? It's what I call the "Martin Luther Complex": the idea that any random Christian can brand themselves as an authority on Christian theology and then perpetuate it as truth. Well, scores of denominations later, Protestants are still continually divided on core truths. Food for thought."
*End response*
Great and very thoughtful response! Thank you for defending our faith and uncovering evil lies against us. God bless you, my brother 🙏🏻🕊
The strongest rebuttal of the Reformed Protestant heresy comes from an in depth study of the long, extended process leading up to the canonization of the sacred texts we now call “the Bible.” Reformed scholars like to ignore this process, use it selectively to their advantage, and suppress facts which do not help their position. After all, they merely “assume” that the Catholic Church got the canon “mostly” right. Like Luther, they conveniently exclude the Deutero-Canonical books of the Old Testament. This is done for theological reasons, of course. Nothing is accidental, folks! Proceed with caution when listening to any Reformed Protestant. 😊😊😊😊
I noticed the Bible uses marriage often as a metaphor of HIs relationship with humanity. Marriage is a private declaration of love, public declaration of love, and a lifestyle of fidelity to grow and protect that love. All three things must be done for your marriage to be valid. Salvation is a private declaration of faith (prayer), public declaration of faith (baptism), and a lifestyle of fidelity and to grow and protect that faith. All three things must be done for your salvation to be valid.
That is beautiful
Idk how Protestants can't see in Acts 15, that the 1st church council did not use sola scriptura, it was the HolySpirit just has Acts 15 states.
And I was a former protestant, but when this was pointed out to me, I had to admit that they did not use sola scriptura.
So im in a online debate right now, & I was using Acts 15, to show there was new teachings, & they didn't use sola scriptura.
But idk maybe im doing something wrong here, or they have hardened their heart, & don't want to admit that Acts 15 is a new teaching, given to the church, just like John 16:12-13; states that there are new teachings, outside of scripture alone ..
Any have some advice?
Because that's not how Sola Scriptura works. There is a difference between the men personally given divine powers by God and men 2000 years later.
@@EmberBright2077 So u believe in Sola scriptura?
@@EmberBright2077 if u do, would you like to explain to me what u believe it teaches?
@@onlylove556 Different people have different beliefs, so I can only speak for myself.
I just doubt in the preservation of the oral teachings of the Apostles. Enough Church Fathers contradict each other that are all supposedly operating from the same source, that I don't think I can trust that. Add to that no one seems to be able to come out and say what the Apostles actually said, which is how oral traditions tend to work. Instead we have some vague abstract ideas of doctrines that often no one talks about until hundreds of years later, or it needs to be "clarified" in a council - I don't see why that would be as necessary if you could just produce what the Apostles said.
This is different from many Protestants, who just doubt in the authority of orally transmitted teachings, I just don't believe we actually accurately have those teachings.
@@EmberBright2077 Okay thank u, & I was honestly asking sincerely.
So u are saying that u don't believe in the oral traditions passed down, that u only believe in the scriptures only?
Also would u say that scripture only is your final authority?
@thecatechumen i thank you for doing this rebuttal on @Jeff's video its much needed personally i think we can't be quite we need brother's strong in our faith to be able to correct and teach others thank you and i pray that Jeff truly listens to this video And if he doesn't, I know it'll help others. Who are truly seeking the truth. Thank you, your brother Robert from Puerto Rico.🇵🇷
Watching reformed folks try to validate their positions is like watching the alphabet people try to validate theirs. And then the comments section under their videos is exactly the same. You have to be fully committed to that world view for it to make any sense
🙌
Durban is full of himself! Ego maniac!!
He thinks he knows everything! He knows nothing about the Catholic faith!
Jeff Durbin is awesome, and we should pray for him to receive the grace to come to full communion with Christ's One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Great work!
Ooh I used the "w word".
I also notice that Jeff Durbin speaks very little about “repentance” and “contrition” when he discusses justification by faith. Since faith is a “work of Love” (Galatians 5: 6, Acts 2: 38, Luke 23: 41-43), it is improper to speak of biblical faith without repentance. Catholics also refer to this as contrition or sorrow for sins committed. 😊😊😊😊
Notice also that Jesus isn't condemning the notion of sacred tradition when he says, "‘The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; therefore, do whatever they teach you and follow it; but do not do as they do, for they do not practice what they teach." (Matt23:2-3)
Protestants propose the doctrine of Justification by faith alone so as to make Jesus owe them salvation for their faith in Christ's redemptive work. In this process, they try to drag Catholics to argue with Christ to grant them salvation by right for having faith.
Well prots, we don't want to reason with Jesus by making our case that he ought to give us salvation because we had faith.
No. We will rather appeal to Jesus to show us mercy because we are not worthy to justify ourselves before him. We know our faith is not above board. We know our works are not above board. We know our weaknesses and shortcomings and so, we will rather appeal to Christ for his mercy.
Hi Brayden, love your videos 🫶🏼 I’m a new Catholic 🥰 could you please do a video on the involvement on the Vatican with protecting Nazis after the war? I’ve heard a lot about this recently but always from anti Catholic sources. Please help me to understand the situation ❤ Thank you and God bless you, your work and your family 🙏🏼
Well the nazis shipped out thousands of priests and nuns from the netherlands and killed them in the concentration camps. St. Edith stein, St. Maximillian Kolbe, blessed Alice Katowska, blessed michal kozal, blessed karl leisner.
You are gifted young man. May God Bless you and your Family.
On behalf of protestant christians, I apologise for the overwhelming number of terribly dogmatic, arrogant, uninformed protestant apologists who misunderstand, strawman or demonise Catholicism. Its embarrasing lol Pray for us
Catholicism is NOT a denomination. It is a religion !"Denomination" refers to different Protestant ecclesial communities.
🎯
Hey! You should do a video in response to those "unbiblical" claims jeff makes. You'd help a lot of people out including myself!
Durbin and his Calvinist camp, are wrong about a heap of things, not just Catholicism. No surprise that they get basic church history and teachings completely wrong.
Hey brother, just one tiny critique. Only cause it’s a pet peeve of mine. The Catholic Church isn’t a denomination. It’s the one holy Catholic and apostolic church. Denominations are essentially sects. And sectarianism only exists among heretics. We being Catholic are the opposite of a sect of denomination.
I love your stuff! I too am a former baptist and I really enjoy your material.
Hey! I appreciate your comment and I completely agree. Sometimes, I let it slip out coming from a formerly Baptist background. It is true that denominationalism is a Protestant phenomena under which Catholicism ought not be categorized as the One True Church. I am happy to hear that you too are a convert to the Catholic faith. It is my hope that more of our separated brethren might be drawn fully into communion with Christ through charitably sharing and defending the faith. Being careful about how we phrase things is a part of that. God bless!
Don’t understand why most Catholics don’t believe this anymore, it’s crystal clear. It’s necessary for salvation to believe this. Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
Because most people aren't going to research it
Why would you worship a fallible, sinful man? That is rebellion, sin and idolatry. Satan is doing SUCH a good job of deception. ANYTHING put above The Lord God and called holy as God is Holy and made as God, is sin and rebellion against God.
Would you want to talk about it on a public or private forum?
what if that Roman Pontiff is a wicked man? Don't listen to them, and instead listen to righteousness.
@@halleylujah247So he he out there debating this in a private forum?
Jeff Durbin also needs to make distinctions between "works of law" "works" and "good works" Several times in Paul's letters the Apostole has judaizers in mind but never pelagians. It is only by grace that good works are possible.
Great video. Thank you for making this. I was pretty frustrated when Jeff was reading one or two sentences and ignoring the rest of the works he was citing.
You're doing such a good job bro, thanks! Some of your videos are going into my playlist for references.
Audio is missing... Anyone else having this issue or is it just me?
Which part of the video? It’s coming through for me.
It's working for me.
@@thecatechumenI hear ya!
When this happens, close the video and re-open it
@@thecatechumen it's working for me now. I clicked on your video right away when you released it and couldn't hear the audio but now it's all good.
Jeff can determine the meaning of scripture, Jeff can correct and criticize the Church, Jeff denies to the Church powers Jeff believes he has. Jeff thinks he is the pope, and magisterium. Jeff advances nonsense.
It's ironic he bases his arguments on what is found in Scripture, but it was by the Catholic Church's AUTHORITY that discerned with help from the Holy Spirit which letters were Divinely INSPIRED. 😏
The mental gymnastics and twisting themselves in human pretzels would hysterical if was ever demonstrated in the physical world. 😂
Mother Mary pray for us 🙏🙏🙏
I am at the point where I believe that the great falling away spoken of in the Bible was, or at least had its beginning, in the protestant reformation.
Thanks for doing this
I cannot believe he said that because the Church Fathers are not infallible they contradict themselves. This is the most obvious case of confirmation I've ever seen. When the Church fathers affirm my teaching then they are speaking infallibly (repeating what God has revealed would be infallible to that end) otherwise they are limited by men.
Whereas a Catholic understanding would analyze what the fathers say in charity and compare what they say to Scripture, Tradition, and councils to confirm that this is an advance in doctrine. Durbin isn't doing that. He begins with his interpretation.
Nimrod beard movement.
Durbin does a clear concise job when speaking of Catholicism
No
If you believe in the preaching of the apostles as stated then you are probably trying to follow the gospel of the kingdom as does the RCC.
Remember - Peter never knew the meaning of the cross nor did he preach the cross for salvation prior to Paul.
Bible fact
That's totally false. Read Acts 2:36-39.
I never thought about this before, -because i was so busy in my pride, thinking that whatever made the most sense to me MUST be the truth- but it seems that the further back you go in traditions that have split from the Faith, the closer they are to the Original and True Catholic Faith. That shows me that once you deny the authority of the Church, you will only stray farther and farther from the Truth, with all kinds of wild and unbiblical traditions and doctrines.
Good video my kind Gent. Keep them coming. You should call him out and hve a Lil debate or even a dialog with this Durbin Lad. Maybe he will learn a Lil something fr the TRUE CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH. ☝🏻🙌🏻🙏🏻📖🍷🍞⛪️✝️🕊🫶🏻🕯📿
This is a really high level engagement of this material. Very thorough and enlightening. Thanks for your work
Calvinism just seems to me like an edgy tier misanthropic rant, the more you demean humanity the more they seem to praise you.
I feel like the big misunderstanding between Protastants and Catholics is what is the "law" that is cited so often. Protestants seem to insist the law is the moral law generally, even though in context it is clearly the mosaic temporal law. Maybe this is unfair but this is the impression I get.
This was a very solid response with a ton of great points. If I could ask for one point of clarification from you:
It seems like you're saying (by implication 1:17:35) "protestants believe that we can be justified and not changed". But it seems in every place like protestants are saying that "we are justified by faith alone but that faith will never be alone" By that they mean, saving faith always produces good works if it is real saving faith. So I am supposing that they don't say that justification is not transformative but that justification is the springboard of sanctification. dont say this as something that settles the denominational argument, I am just asking for clarification.
initial justification -> increasing justification
justification -> necessary sanctification
Additionally, I have heard it said that the difference is what you're calling the increase of justification Protestants call sanctification pointing to Hebrews 12:14.
I think these videos are great and that if it wasn't for some other doctrinal differences, on the doctrine of Salvation, RC, EO, and Protestants could really zero the gap. However I do believe that the other doctrines are not insignificant I am just musing I guess.
Good stuff brother! The future of Catholic apologetics is bright with people like you!
And yet he is defending the false teachings of Rome. EGAD!!
I think we need to be clear about the definition of terms. Protestantism is made up of many denominations. Catholicism is not a denomination. Our faith is very different from those of Protestants who ultimately and formally reject Christ's Church and therefore reject God.
There is enough evidence for those who are open to the Truth.
If they don't agree with the Magisterium's teachings, they ought to consider reviewing the bible and perhaps re-write it. If they accept that the bible is inspired by God, then they must reconsider listening to the Magisterium since it's they who compiled it.
From my perspective, they just don't want to be under an authority. If so, then don't go to university, don't listen to the government, don't listen to anyone save for yourselves and the "voice of god".
AMEN! Well said Sean!
Good job. The Burger King seems to hate everyone.
It's odd that Protestants dont recognize the similarities between the Reformation and the fall in the Garden of Eden.
In both situations God creates a place of safety for Man. A place where Man can commune with God. God simply states, you must respect my authority or risk being excommunicated.
In the Garden of Eden, Satan comes in and says, "Do you really believe in that authority? Come on, don't submit to that, because it's not even true. You know what's true. Just trust your own understanding of things."
Then in the Reformation, Satan comes along again and says, "Do you really believe in that authority? Come on don't submit to that, because it's not even true. You know what's true. Just trust your own understanding of things."
That's one of the blind spots in Protestantism. They don't see that at the center of their belief is self-interpretation. It's not submission to the word of God, it's submission to their interpretation of the word of God. That's why we see so many Protestant denominations. Fragmentation of ecclesial communities is the logical conclusion of a doctrine like Sola Scriptura, because each community can claim to have the real truth, and they need to only appeal to their self-interpretation as the final authority.
It's similar to the fragmentation we see in the secular world when it comes to creating laws using the U.S. Constitution. Depending on how you interpret the document, you can come away with wildy different understandings.
And this is where the authority of the Catholic Church serves as a proof why it is truly Christ's Church and the only ecclesial community with the fullness of truth. If there are questions, the church uses its God-given authority to provide an answer. It's like God knew that without this authoritative body, Man would just mess things up if left to his own devices.
Well done. Would the continuing growth in our justification be described well by using the term sanctification, loving God in our essence?
The free gift is actually God's unending abundant grace which results in justification and sanctification.
Thank you for this video and citing your work. I wish you all the best.
Why are so many protestants repeating the same lame objections and missrepresentations over and over again
They are doing Satan's work.
@@leojmullins 🎯
Catholicism is the faith. Protestantism contains the denominations.
Let's be honest! Reform Theology began in the 16th century with the following foundation statement by John Calvin:
"All are NOT created on EQUAL terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestined to life or to death" (The INSTITUTES of the Christian Religion, bk. 3, ch. 21, para. 5).
So, is the God of John 3 16 really compatible with the above obscene 16th century nonsense which makes God out to be a psychopathic immoral monster?
___________
To begin with, his shirt is wrong.
Compare Romans 2: 5-8 and James 2: 24. Paul and James AGREE that justification is by FAITH and WORKS…. but never by “faith alone.” 👍. John 15: 1-10. When Paul is addressing justifying faith and works (of the Mosaic law) in Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, and elsewhere he is referring to the Jewish prejudice that one is saved by being circumcised and by their ethnic identification as an Israelite. Martin Luther misread the texts of Romans and Galatians because he failed to grasp the context of both epistles. 👍. The Catholic Church has ALWAYS taught we are saved by GRACE ALONE through (the work of) FAITH and not as a result of the good WORKS OF THE MOSAIC LAW. No one can “work” their way to Heaven by their own merits. 😊. Galatians 5: 6.
So after you receive justification as a free gift of Grace through faith, you grow in, not earn more, justification. Since he perfects you, redeeming you, yourself in reality, and that growth is also a grace of God as he matures you in faith, hope, and charity. Being made that which we have been forinsically declared. Is that a strictly accurate summery?
One thing you guys seem to miss in the protestant/ catholic discussion is, what if Jeff is correct and God only meant for his revelation to be solo scriptura. If Jesus was correcting the Jewish leaders on where they went astray, are you close minded to the possibility that reformers are not inspired to point out where you have gone off the path. By your logic, you would have to also follow mormons and muslims because they equate their holy books with the scripture because they claim their revelation is also from God? I will follow Jesus that Paul speaks of when he says "if anyone leads you to follow a different Christ, one we have not already taught, he is leading you after a false Christ who cannot save.
The friendly Bible tells Durbin that the Church, not the Bible, "is the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth".
AND JESUS SAITH
"For the Son of man shall come in the Glory of His Father with His angels: and then will He render to every man according to his works"
AND HIS DISCIPLES REPLIED
"What say Ye? Works? Sola Fide, ye papist heretic! REFORMATION!"
Amen bruthuh 😤
would love to hear you defend the Sacrifice of the Mass using the letter to the Hebrews (without background music, please)
Why just Letter to the Hebrews? Genuinely curious about this.😊
Die Verbum 9-10, sounds right and correct but Roman Catholicism rejected both Tradition and scripture when it committed the sin of schism and promoted heresy against the enduring voices of the many described by Father Panayiotis Papageorgiou and that I like to simply, but less beautiful, call the enduring consensus. Durbin is equally wrong as his fundamental premise of how do you know what you know to be correct isn’t scripture necessarily, it’s the Holy Spirits continuing inspiration on the Body of Christ that created Scripture. So, in this regard Durbin and Roman Catholicism are founded in similar error in conflict with Tradition established by the Holy Spirit and defined by Scripture in Acts when James and the Apostles confronted the teaching that you had to become Jewish prior to becoming Christian. This meeting is commonly referred to as the Jerusalem or First Council who’s decision was determined “pleasing” to the Holy Spirit.
Peter may be the “Rock” and may in fact hold the “keys” to heaven, but that’s meaningless because he never assumed, demanded or exercised “Papal Authority”. Neither did any of his successors, if he had any in Rome as Clement’s appointment is unclear or at least less clear than the succession of Ignatius’ in Antioch, until the rise of the Holy Roman Empire and Charlemagne. Likewise, Durbin ignores the historical fact that the New Testament as a complete Codex wasn’t available to Bishops and Patriarchs for four hundred years and to common literate Christians for nearly 1,800 years making his flavor of worship and sola theologies impossible to be experienced as he applies them in the 21st century to earlier Christians. Durbin’s logic requires the conclusion that Christians before Luther and Calvin and after the apostles or possibly the Apostolic fathers weren’t true Christians and that simply is silly especially when you consider that it’s exactly that same timeframe from Apostolic Fathers to Constantine that the Church wrote, compiled and selected the canon of Scripture.
Attempting to stitch together a system of faith and theology with snippets of scripture or the dictates of a magisterium directed by a single individual are equally guilty of similar ignorance born of selective reading of Scripture and the Church Fathers and an almost complete denial of historical fact. Nothing I’ve put forward is meant to challenge anyone’s access to God’s grace as that is between the individual and our Savior. You don’t have to go to any Church to have a relationship with Christ, but if you wish to strengthen that relationship to its greatest potential through worship and more importantly receiving the Sacraments, all seven of them, the best place with the greatest chance to please Christ most, all things being equal, is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, the Orthodox Church that has remained committed to The Scripture and the Tradition of the Apostles, Apostolic Fathers and the Church Fathers. Lord Jesus Christ my God have mercy on me a sinner. Brothers in Christ I beg for your blessing.
Is there an obsession with Catholic “ RUclipsrs” with acknowledging every ignorant thing Protestant ministers say? It’s getting to be overkill. Love and pray for them.
So what is the Gospel of Jesus Christ according to the Roman Catholic Church?
Best apologetics vid I have seen for some time.
Protestants dismiss Catholic Tradition but they also have a tradition: Sola Scriptura.
Sola Scriptura is a man-made doctrine. At least Catholic Tradition come passed down from Christ through the apostles.
and Sola Fide
Jeff durbin is a pressup apologist (as I am but I’m eastern Catholic) so the question I want to ask hi. Is “how do you know what scripture is”he assumes the Bible but we shouldn’t let him borrow from a Christian and Catholic worldview. He would have to stand on the Churches infallible authority to get his Bible and then turn around and say we are wrong about the canon LOL
In 13:45 caller asks about traditions that “depart from what I can find in scripture” in other words, are not in scripture. 13:58 Jeff Durbin changes it to “seem to contradict the word of God” and then in his arguments he takes an example from Genesis that is directly contradicting the word of God, he never brings any example where Catholic teaching contradicts the word of God.
For as much as they tell people what Catholics teach, it seems they dont have access to a computer or a library card.
Can I be catholic and not pray to marry or saints?
You certainly can Ken
Is your show available in Podcast format through Apple or Spotify?
44:45 I would say in initial justification we would need repentance as well as faith? Could I say that and still have a orthodox/right understanding? We would need repentance in addition to faith when it comes to our re-justification after committing mortal sin. The difference is the sacrament is now Reconciliation instead of Baptism. Thoughts or insights anybody?
Why is it that reformed biblical Christians always want an open dialogue with Catholics and Catholics don't want too. In todays society conservatives always want to have an open dialogue while the other side always seems to want to be an a echo Chamber much like here. I encouraging Catholics to have more open dialogue with someone like jeff durbin
The bottom line is that there is no infallible Bible with out an infallible authority.
We have the Catholic Church but I'm not quite sure how he knows his bible is the word of God, using only the Bible to testify to itself.
Protestantism is like Darwin's theory, it hops in in the middle of creation, with out having a true beginning.
Thank you so much. God bless you Brother
Durbin still hasn't figure out what the "Works of the Law" mentioned by St-Paul refer to... *The Works of the Mosaic Law, through which those under the past covenant were "justified".* It should be obvious though, when Paul said Circumcision was one of those "Works".
And of course, we aren't "saved" through the Mosaic Law, because Christ's death on the Cross made these Laws obsolete.
*Soooo simple to understand just by reading scripture...* but I guess reading scripture with protestant "pre-installed" lenses makes them blind to the Truth, as obvious as it could be.
Please pray for the RC’s ! They need to be set free from the false teachings of their religious system. May God open their eyes to the true gospel of Jesus Christ.
The term Roman Catholic was invented by Protestants, as an insult.
Great video as always
There is a simple solution to raising understanding and echumenical dialogue... Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
It will teach you the at the very least the basics of Catholicism.
I did this as a non-denominational protestant (Baptist) and am now am a confessional Lutheran with a greater understanding and respect for Catholicism, to the point where I would rather be Catholic or Orthodox than any low church protestant.
I'd say "interreligous discussion" because Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, and so forth practice religions where a different person founded each denomination. Protestantism suggests religious indifferentism, a heresy Bl. Pius IX condemns in his Syllabus of Errors. Religious indifferentists believe each person has a God-given right to practice any religion he believes.
You can still be a Christian in any Christian denomination. But if you don't agree with what your denomination believes, you join another one instead. You don't get the deposit of faith by combing the doctrines from each sect because that method will produce a logically inconsistent group of doctrines. Doctrines are logically inconsistent when they can't be true together. One inconsistency makes the collection inconsistent.
Debate Jeff .....
His reading of Romans makes the parable of the talents Jesus gives senseless. But for the Catholic it makes perfect sense. The gift is given, but if you don’t steward the gift, it will be taken away. Protestants have no concept for that. If you have the gift, that’s it, that parable has to drive them crazy. Or like everything they just twist it into, “uhh it’s uhh just the fruits, those that were uhhh given the gift weren’t actually given it.”
‘We don’t elevate tradition over the scriptures’. *proceeds to use ONLY tradition to defend his faith. If Catholicism was Biblical, it should be defended with the Bible.
Huh? The Bible is Catholic. Lol
@@cruznature7545 I am not making claims about the Bible. He claimed that Catholics do not elevate their tradition over the Bible. Yet, for every point that he went to “debunk”, he only used the Catholic tradition and never went to the Bible to explain why a passage did not mean what Durban was saying is meant. Meanwhile, Durban was using other scripture to back up and explain the points that he was making.
When correcting the stance and beliefs of the Cathartic church, using Catholic tradition is fine. But, when making claims of what the Bible is saying, he should have backed up his (the Catholic) interpretation with other scriptures. It is bad apologetics.
To put it a different way, if I have two hammers that serve the same purpose and tell you that I don’t value one over the other, and yet I only ever use one of them, even when the other is closer, you should question if I value one over the other. He only uses tradition, even when the Bible would be easier to use if he didn’t value tradition over the Bible, or if the Bible backed up the claims/beliefs of the Catholic church.