Saturday Morning Show w/ Redeemed Zoomer
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 фев 2024
- Thank you for supporting Scholastic Answers
Click the join button above to get all your livestream questions answered.
NEW AQUINAS ACADEMY
Link: www.christianbwagner.com/newa...
Discord: aquinas.cc/la/en/~DePrinNat.C1
Donate: / newaquinasacademy
FURTHER RESOURCES
To get Tutoring: www.christianbwagner.com/book...
Annotated Thomist: www.christianbwagner.com/anno...
Scholastic Courses: www.christianbwagner.com/courses
SPONSOR
Use the code “Militant” for 20% off to learn Greek here: fluentgreeknt.com/
MUSIC
• Song of Kings - Clamav...
• Solemn Mass in Thanksg...
SUPPORT
Subscribe: / @militantthomist
Become a Patron: / militantthomist
Donate: www.paypal.com/donate/?busine...
SusbscribeStar: www.subscribestar.com/militan...
FOLLOW
Website: www.christianbwagner.com/
Facebook: / militantthomist
Facebook Group: / 543689120339579
Twitter: / militantthomist
Instagram: / militantthomist
WATCH
/ @militantthomist
LISTEN
Podcast: www.christianbwagner.com/podcast
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/0exZN1v...
Apple Podcasts: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
Anchor: anchor.fm/militantthomist
SHOP
Book Store: www.christianbwagner.com/shop
Merch: www.christianbwagner.com/merch 
Развлечения
The Prots will converts.
No.
Don't think
The Church will be One
@@alonsoACR at The Great Day so long expected
@@dimitrimolotovvyacheslav4604 Brother by your name, are you Orthodox?
Why wouldn't you want unity in the Mother Church?
Or is it because we're Latins. I don't get it. Catholics pray for the schism to be healed.
The Jews need to repent and believe in the gospel ✝️☦️🙏😇 Muslims too 😇
Christian is the perfect interviewer -- respectful, attentive, and an excellent listener. Bravo!
Add this man to your Rosaries!
I like Redeemed Zoomer, but the whole discussion on ecumenism looks basicly like this:
RZ "I love my Catholic brothers, I like a lot of things about your church, we should unite againts liberalism."
MT "Bruh, you're heretic tho"
I can't help but imagine this in a "sojac vs chad" meme format
Uniting with heretics "against the greater evil" is liberalism.
He's close to converting that's amazing
As a Lutheran it's not shocking. He's been simping for you guys forever.
@@BoondockBrony thank God for that
Yeah, he's literally a week away from converting
So true
Maybe you should have a dialogue with Christian then? It'd be interesting to see how a Lutheran and a Catholic hammer out these 500-year-old contentions. And then maybe you could correct some of zoomers misconceptions of his own tradition... That would fare better than to just call him a simp, what you see as a symp others may see as a soft hearted man yearning for the truth... So it's obvious you'd be hostile to his questioning....@@BoondockBrony
I think even though our Church clearly teaches Pre destination its very different from the Calvanist view of Predestination in a few ways. A few are Irresistible Grace, Free Will, Unconditional election, and Participation in Grace. Also our view that God predestines all of us to recieve the offer of Grace is not the same as the Calvanist view bc we acknowledge that Christ died for all (not just the elect) and that free will ultimately decides your end fate. This is all quite different from the Calvanist view of Predestination. I definitely cant agree that the Catholic Church and Calvanist Ideology have the same view of Predestination, perhaps you could expand on how they do? I find it unlikely with all these major differemces. Good Video Wagner, I really enjoy your work.
In other words, you don’t believe in predestination. Giving a few spiritual hints here and there and hoping they follow you isn’t predestination.
@@charles21137 read Aquinas and Augustine on it, they add quite a few nuances Calvin leaves out
This is fantastic. I hate that I have to postpone listening to the rest of it until after I write a dumb article, but that's what they pay me for. A pittance, but still.
(OK, updating to note that it *is* permitted to be a Molinist in the Catholic Church. 😁)
An ad every 5 mins is crazyyyy
I will debate redeemed zoomer about the relationship between "cultural marxism" and protestant liberalism. His understanding is absolutely regarded.
Whats ur view on it
@@yepyep5006 The intellectual currents he wants to fight within the mainline churches are much older and more ideologically ambiguous than "it's all George Soros and the Frankfurt school"
Particularly with regards to who was doing the funding during the fundamentalist-modernist controversy, the very area of history zoomer is so concerned about as it gave rise to figures like Machen, his analysis is not only anachronistic, but completely off the mark. I highly recommend reading the short paper 'John D. Rockefeller, Jr., and the Interchurch World Movement of 1919-1920: A Different Angle on the Ecumenical Movement'. It's extremely frustrating how neglected the details of this history are, even by interested parties. Consider the episode Reformed Forum did on "Shall the Fundamentalists Win" a passing remark on the fact that Fosdick was a Baptist preaching to Presbyterians with some expressing bewilderment at how that was. If they did *any* research they would know that he was preaching at Riverside Church, which was funded by Rockefeller Jr. to specifically be an interdenominational church, and not only that but that Fosdick's brother was a close advisor of Rockefeller, and trustee on the board of the Rockefeller Foundation.
@@yepyep5006 What zoomer is trying to fight is much older and more ideologically ambiguous than "George Soros and the Frankfurt School" I highly recommend the short essay 'John D. Rockefeller, Jr., and the Interchurch World Movement of 1919-1920: A Different Angle on the Ecumenical Movement' for extremely important information on some of the funding going on during the Fundamentalist Modernist controversy, when ideological control of the mainline churches was actually politically valuable. It's frustrating how many people interested in this period and committed in one way or another to how it plays out, people like zoomer and reformed forum, know so little about the details. In reformed forum's episode about Harry Emerson Fosdick, they realize he's a Baptist preaching to Presbyterians, but they don't seem to realize that Riverside Church was specifically built with funding from Rockefeller Jr. to be an interdenominational church, or that Fosdick's brother was a close advisor to Rockefeller and on the board of the Rockefeller Foundation. If you want to fight something effectively, it pays to know the history, including the gritty bureaucratic details, even from over a hundred years ago. His grasp of the deeper history at least has to be more robust than it is now.
Much older and more ideologically ambiguous than he implies. Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy is very important and people tend to realize it, but they don't know about the gritty details. Check out John D. Rockefeller Jr., and the Interchurch World Movement of 1919-1920.
As a Nahum 2:4 enjoyer I approve
He’s from new York city area. But you were talking about Montgomery county Maryland. I grew up there and we got every single Jewish holiday off. I think the first Jewish county executive was there. Anyhow it be great if Richard became Catholic or Orthodox
I’d also like to add that having experience around a lot of secular Jews, they are very liberal. I don’t know much about Jewish synagogue or institutional history of the past hundred years or so. But I wonder if they had a similar infiltration that the main line denominations had?
No way
Just saw this channel newly, did not even watch the video but man the thumbnail is too epic to not check, I love maps and this is perfect, all we need is an actual video of reconquest in Spain but like the thumbnail lol
That map was so cool, had to click on the thumbnail. Pax et bonum
Really appreciate this video.
I wonder How many points of T.U.L.I.P does thomism agree with?
Do either of you (or anyone reading this) know of any documentaries or videos onnthe Frankfort indoctrination of public schools, and Christian denominations? This is new to me and I'm interested on how this happened. Thanks!
Much Respect to Redeemed Zoomer but the classical Protestant arguments remind me why I converted to Traditional Catholicism
1:09:50 bro seriously just spouted off a random reference and it just happened to be one of the most metal ones
Im from NY and I knew he was a NY Jew by his voice, not the looks.
I meant this is the most endearing and loving way as a NYer
Matthew 10:42 cannot be compared to John 6:54
“And whoever in the name of a disciple gives to one of these little ones even a cup of cold water to drink, truly I say to you, he shall not lose his reward.””
Matthew 10:42 NASB1995
"In the name of a disciple"
"lose his reward"
Not the same as “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
John 6:54 NASB1995
Hey, can you clarify what you mean when you said at 1:44:50 that "we don't think that works at all constitute ones justification". Are you using Justification as standing before God or personal righteousness? I know that Trent says we do increase in justification based on works but I am unclear if you are using the term in the same sense here. Thanks!
Sorry RZ, but you can't hold to the Nicene creed as a protestant, unless you reinterpret what "Catholic" and "Apostolic" means in the creed.
bruh
Please never say this again.
Why?
🤡
It's the same deal with "one."
Off topic but your intro goes unbelievably hard.
I don’t get how someone can be in union with Christ while watching pornography. This (correct me if I’m wrong) seems to be a necessary position to hold as a reformed.
The doctrine of mortal sin makes a lot more sense to me along with confession to a priest.
Union with Christ in the Reformed schema consists of Justification and Regeneration. So while a man may be legally "righteous" before God, his sin nature is continually being subdued by the sedes of regeneration. In this sense, union with Christ has both legal and progressive elements.
The exhortation from Paul in Romans 6, for example, was not that their sin severed them from Union, but that it showed they weren't living in accordance with their Union (this presupposes the reality of their Union). They've been baptized and united to Christ, and so they are obliged by the Covenant to repent and walk in righteousness.
Does that make sense?
@@naterpotater7739 That's why making distinctions is important.
To preface, in Catholic doctrine, we can't presume to know who's Elect or who may persevere, and our language reflects that (usually, sometimes we may still say we were Called or Chosen for XYZ, though only if its certain, eg recently I went to a retreat, and a nun introduced us by saying that God is the one who sent us there). Now onto the matter at hand.
In Catholic theology, baptism and your state as a Child of God is irrevocable since your Baptism. You're a baptized Christian, no matter your sins.
But you could apostasize, that is, willfully cut yourself off from Christ. Calvin did believe in apostasy, didn't he? Though he qualified it, I'm pretty sure he held apostates won't get saved (or were never Elect, or properly saved, or whatever this doesn't matter here). Just in case, see this as an example of someone that Christ did explicitly say was called, but wasn't elect: "Did I not choose you, the twelve? Yet one of you is a devil." (John 6:70b)
Mortal sin, properly speaking, is committing a grave sin while knowing it's grave and out of your own unimpeded free will. It's basically apostasy through your actions, therefore you willingly cut yourself off from Christ.
In case you may wondee about the "cutting off" language, Christ does use this analogy in John 15:1-11
Scripture does use similar language regarding actions that are tantamount to denying Christ, and language about, well, I'll just post some verses, if I may.
"That testimony is true. For this reason rebuke them sharply, so that they may become sound in the faith, not paying attention to Jewish myths or to commandments of those who reject the truth. To the pure all things are pure, but to the corrupt and unbelieving nothing is pure. Their very minds and consciences are corrupted. 16 They profess to know God, but they deny him by their actions. They are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work." - Titus 1
Therefore, while you may believe in the articles of faith, and profess to have faith, your actions do truly make you an apostate ("deny [God] by their actions").
The first half of the passage I quoted, chillingly enough, implies that if act corrupt, we won't be sanctified and our minds and conscience will be corrupt either (which implies a dead faith).
Now Jude 1
"But you, beloved, build yourselves up on your most holy faith; pray in the Holy Spirit; keep yourselves in the love of God; look forward to the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ that leads to eternal life. And have mercy on some who are wavering; save others by snatching them out of the fire; and have mercy on still others with fear, hating even the tunic defiled by their bodies."
Note the language about saving other people from hell. Also, note that about making sure we keep ourselves in union with God (or in the love of God), which implies it may be a hypothetical that we cut ourselves off (not hypothetical in God's perspective as He decreed in such a way that He knows what we'll choose, but regardless).
St. Jude in 1:1 specifically addresses the letter to those called and chosen. This may be worth pointing out.
Therefore, I think it's warranted for us to talk about the Union of Christ (regarding salvation or saving grace) being broken. Given that Union with Christ may be confused with baptismal graces and such, we more often call this the State of Grace.
May God bless you and us all with illumination.
I've not heard of the Reformed talking of degrees of union with Christ. The union itself either exists or not, and with it justification, but the degree of sanctification ought to increase.
My point in that area of discussion was to point out that the subjective form for justification and “sanctification” is the same form.
What is that intro song?
Clamavi de profundis - song of kings
1:30:15 Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't limited atonement and irresistible grace, two condemned heresies as far as the Catholic Church is concerned, central to Reformed soteriology?
This is exactly my thoughts, those things are condemned by the Catholic Church, same with Unconditional Election.
I think Thomists use the term infallible grace, but they do basically mean the same thing, no doubt. Even many Calvinists dont actually like the term irresistible grace. It’s like with the term free will. The catholic church necessitates that you believe in free will. But what definition of free will? Thomists define free will differently. So these things are incredibly subtle. It was for instance incredibly difficult for the Church to anathematize the Jansenists coz whenever a condemnation of some things they believed came out, rhey said they didn’t believe it. Not because they didn’t believe it but because they could hide behind different wording and terminology and they could work their way around propositions
@@nonpossenonpeccare9104 The thing is though, Catholicism doesn’t just mandate free will, it condemns belief in irresistible grace. So I’m not sure how Thomists get around that.
@@thehighlander6770. One thing you might try is reading Jimmy Akin’s take on TULIP, where he more-or-less admits that Thomists believe in everything but the “P.”
Luther believed that intrinsically efficacious grace takes away liberty. The Council anathematizes those who speak thus. Its intention is to declare that even intrinsically effcacious grace does not deprive man of liberty, for he can resist if he so wills. The Council does not maintain that man does, in fact, sometimes dissent, but that “he can dissent if he so wills.” In other words, the contrary power remains, but under efficacious grace man never wills to resist, nor does he; otherwise the grace would not be efficacious or there would be a contradiction in terms; that is, otherwise grace would not cause us to act.@@thehighlander6770
Is saying we inheirt original sin, but are not personally guilty of Adam's sin semi-pelagianism? This is how the Orthodox express it. I used to be an Orthodox catechumen, I'm now omw to being baptised Roman Catholic, but I still have an affinity for the eastern view of original sin, that we inherit it as its effects on the Cosmos are essential, however we aren't all personally guilty of Adam's sin in deciding to reject God for the fruit. I'd just like to learn more about it, especially since to me it still makes sense that our most holy Lady is personally sinless because God protected her from personal sin, but as a human she was still subject to the effects of original sin, having essential and natural effects on humans, such as death. I dont adopt this view personally anymore as I'm to be a Catholic I believe our Mother is in Heaven body and soul, but I think both views make sense, though they're not compatible
Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called "concupiscence".
Hope that clears it up
From the catechism btw
Romans 9 doesn't teach predestination though, Richard. Watch Sam Shamoun's various breakdowns of the passage. I hope it helps
Yes it does.
Sam Shamoun is not Catholic. He’s a heretic, on this issue and others.
@@MilitantThomistNot as defined by the Calvinists, no.
Sam Shamoun literally thinks Leighton Flowers, a Pelagian heretic, gives the correct interpretation of this passage.
@@j.athanasius9832 Isn't that an ad hominem attack, though? You can agree with someone on some things and disagree in others