Want more content from Apologia Studios? Get The Academy, Collision, Ask Me Anything, and so much more! Be a part of this ministry with us! Sign up for Apologia All Access! Click the link for more info. apologiastudios.com
@@regenerated4life ministries. Other podcasts. going out into the world for the Gospel. Going to abortion clinics. Prepping for legislation. they have families too.
The main impetus for the fall of man was the proposition of self qualification. This is why every perversion of the Doctrine of Salvation centers around man's unwillingness to set aside the fallacy that in him is the ability to contribute to his own qualification.
Thank you so much! I was brought up from birth Roman Catholic, my mother's side was very much immersed in it. My grandmother became a Nun. In my young adult days I converted to Mormonism as my husband was LDS. He stumbled upon videos from your ministry 6 years ago. By the grace of our Lord and Saviour we are saved in him, as a direct result of Apologia Studios! Thank you!!!! I have been waiting a very long time for a video on Roman Catholicism looking forward to sharing with my family
No offense friend. But if you convert from the Holy Catholic church to Mormonism it shows your Catholic doctrine was lacking. There are responses to all of these claims; these two men are very intelligent and biblically literate and they say things with such conviction it seems irrefutable but it simply is not.
@@RedRoosterRomanyes it’s easy to pick off nominal Catholics or those who may have a more thorough understanding but have been hurt by the church or may fall into the arguments and claims presented by the media. Same was it’s easy for Protestants to start deconstructing their faith and thereby lose it (I mean I suppose if they once believe but deconstruct and become atheists, then it only makes sense their salvation is lost) if they aren’t too knowledgeable about their faith
I'm not a Calvanist , but always enjoy content like this from Mr.White and J.Durbin . Excellent content and things that make you think about your faith that much more. As always, great work Gents!
@@theclown3967 well I'm open to what the Bible reveals through the Holy Spirit. Right now I'm not for it, but I certainly am NOT into argument mode with my other brothers and sisters in Christ. Just a difference of opinion at the moment. But I like a lot of what Dr.White and Jeff Durbin bring to the table and their apologetics work they do. @theclown3967 ...It's always good to hear good banter from other branches of Protestantism lol.
@@danperez3970that’s cool that your open to hearing and learning man I never used to be Calvinist leaning either, it was something I rejected as unbiblical because I thought I knew the bible, but then I decided to start reading Calvin’s institutes and saw that my preconceptions were formed off of what I had experienced of Calvinism online, so I studied Calvin’s books and compared it with the bible. I’ve read romans before, but when I read romans again after reading into some of Calvin’s institutes, it knocked me off my feet. It was like the scales had been lifted off my eyes. I’m now of the opinion that what Calvin articulates lines up with scripture (for the most part, I don’t agree with everything, Calvin’s books are not the infallible word of God after all). It was a hard pill to swallow but I’m enjoying learning more every day. I hope and pray God continues to further your learning and understanding in your walk with Christ, who knows what you will discover?
Thank you, men. This blessed me and helped me understand. I one heard Martin Lloyd Jones say, “The simplicity of the Gospel is an offense to the pride of men.” I think about it often. His teachings have also blessed me. At 60 years old, finally, I hunger for The Word as never before. I seek His face daily and my life has changed. 🙏
Hey Sister...I am reading Martin Lloyd Jones Book called "Romans: An Exposition on Chapter 8:5-17 The Sons of God." I am only 2 chapters in...but its incredible. He was saying Natural man hates Reformed Theology because they hate God. God could not have possibly "Elected" man to Salvation by Foreknowledge (Fore-Loved) it must mean foreseen according to them, because how could God possibly not give everyone a chance. Its not possible to their understanding. Like Leighton Flowers...they must re-explain the clear meaning of the text, just like Trent Horn here. These cults...its soo clear that they simply have not been Born Again. The Holy Spirit brings all truth....and we are not saved without the Holy Spirit. Its MLJ's whole exposition in Chapter 2. God Bless you Dear Sister...💕✝️🌷
@@michellecheriekjv4115while you are correct, I recommend just reading the Bible, and avoid the words of men/commentaries as they pretty much all contain bizarre false teachings. Go with the words of God instead.
Praise the Lord! Jeff your question about how and when the good ground became good, also answers the question of regeneration and faith. I am forever praising and believing Jesus is the Christ, and this is pleasing to God.
It would be wonderful if you guys got to interview and chat with Dr. Gavin Ortlund. His engagement with these ecumenical dialogues has been very enlightening to the huge problems with the RCC and the EOC.
Can u give details on where ur debate with Trent Horn will take place and how to attend. Also, love that u r responding to a video of Trent responding to Gavlin Ortlund. U and Gavlin Ortlund r a truly a blessing. The amount of knowledge and wisdom u guys share so freely is amazing and so very much needed. Please keep doing what u r doing.
Time-stamps 13:03 - White’s take on retrieval 21:15, 21:25 - Augustine on scripture 28:00, 28:32 - Papal Catholic’s marketing as opposed to real life 31:30 - Predestination to temporary salvation or eternal salvation. What’s the biblical justification for this dichotomy? Parable of the sower and the soils? The seeds that were thrown in good ground were the ones that grew. And how do you get good ground? It has to be prepared ahead of time. 49:50, 51:40, 55:49 - Church history 57:20, 57:48 - Why not? The availability of the canon, and the tendency of man. 59:00 - “The early church believed…” 1:00:36 - Frustration with church history 1:01:03 - The Papacy’s teaching as the constant faith of the church? 1:12:50, 1:13:00 - church government
Looking forward to those debates, I enjoyed the first between Trent and Dr. White a lot. Would be cool to see Jeff and Trent have a debate or conversation as well. Appreciate all three men a lot.
I would prefer a conversation. Dr W gets too loud. “Because the Church says so,” is a part of Roman Catholicism. Even the Bible says there is so much more information than can be contained in the Bible. Maybe you could just explain what you believe and why you believe it without getting tearing others down.
@@cindiloowhoo1166 John 21:25 [25] “Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.” True, but rome can not identify even one.
James white can’t have a conversation when dealing with Catholicism. He gets loud and arrogant and his defense is basically I’m older and therefore smarter
@@cindiloowhoo1166 John 20:30-31 [30] “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; [31] but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” Tell us once more why John states he wrote His account. 😀
@@cindiloowhoo1166 See, if you actually studied the scriptures instead of proof texting to twist the scriptures you would have known the context. This is why rome has never defined one thing Jesus or the apostles said, did or taught that is not in the scriptures.
It's funny, debating with Catholics over the last few years has made me more Protestant than ever. It also opened my eyes to just how brainwashed Catholics truly are.
Trent has immensely helped me get fuller clarity on the absurdity of Roman Catholicism. And please, STOP confusing the illiterates with the verbiage. Say you're Roman Catholic to be clear. Saying "Catholic" confuses the illiterates, who are not able to immediately distinguish between capitals and lower cases in the verbiage. So, just be clear and say, I'm a Roman Catholic please.
Mark 12:30-31 30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. 31 And the second is like, namely this*, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
Psalms 119:104 (KJV) Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way. Psalms 119:128 (KJV) Therefore I esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be right; and I hate every false way. You joined a cult where the leader calls himself the vicker of christ and lives in a castle and you chant vain babblings and eat flesh and blood that a man in a dress gives to you after you tell him everything you did that was wrong. You need to get saved
@@johnf817 I've already been saved my friend! By my Lord and savior Jesus Christ. I proclaim his life death and resurrection, until he comes again. For by faith I was saved! Ephesians 2:8 and by Romans 10:9!
@@JacksonmontyartYes just like Paul refers to himself as a Father to the Corinthians. You’re misinterpreting Matthew 23:9 if that’s what you’re getting at
@@jessidiaz1891you know the ninth commandment is thou shalt not lie don't you? Don't lie and say you watched it when you didn't. I'd be willing to bet you just clicked on it so you could comment. And no offense but Trent horn is extremely brainwashed and delusional. And yes, the 9th commandment is Val shalt not lie. Catholics get confused about that because they removed the second commandment but that's another story
After watching this. I went to my Bible and this was revealed; "For I have come to you in my Father’s name, and you have rejected me. Yet if others come in their own name, you gladly welcome them. No wonder you can’t believe! For you gladly honor each other, but you don’t care about the honor that comes from the one who alone is God".~ John 5:43-44 NLT. God is good. He does speak to His people through His Holy Spirit.
The Reformers literally said "my will be done" and that is not exaggerating. Martin Luther isn't who you think he is, go listen to the thorough presentation of Lloyd Joungh on Martin Luther. It is truly insane what Luther said in his sermons and writings. We Catholics come in the name of God and we respect God. But Luther said that the Epistle of James was sh** no exageration, he said that, and if it wasn't for the other Reformers it would no longer be in your Bible do you realize what I am saying??? He also threw out the book of Revelation, he did not respect the word of God. He married a nun, and in his letters to her he was complaining about how he wasn't getting aroused by prostitutes anymore. It is ridiculous. Please do your research, don't be complaisant in ignorance my friend, the Holy Spirit is giving you a hint right now. Lloyd de Jongh on Martin Luther, go watch it is crazy.
@@VirginMostPowerfull Wow! Really?! What's wrong with people? I put up a scripture and wrote at the end that "God does speak to us through His Holy Spirit". What does that and the scripture have to do with all names you called and what they are about? What they said and didnt say. What they did and didnt do. Are they Jesus? Did they die for us? Am I worshipping a denomination or humans? The word of God is eternal and life and it will alway have its way to our heart. So why not stop being a Catholic and be a Christian? Why not stop being a divider and be one with the body of Christ. "By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another"~ John 13:35. Shalom.
Both Martin Luther and the catholic cult are corrupt. What's your point? Just because Luther didn't get everything right doesn't mean that catholicism is true 😂🤣🤣 If you don't see this simple truth you are utterly blind to the truth.
Catholic Christian here as well, even though Apologia studios are Protestant Christians, I like how Apologia reaches Mormons (LDS) and Jehovah's Witnesses (JW's).
Letter of Clement to the Corinthians chapter 32 “And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.” As Abraham and Rahab.
My biggest frustration with Apologia studios is these “responses.” White and Durbin play ~10 second clip from Horn (usually far less than a fully articulated thought), and then dialogue on it for 5-10 minutes. That’s not a response, that’s using another’s ideas as a springboard to advance your own. While that’s not inherently horrible, it is completely unhelpful for those (like Me) who are trying to learn and understand the Truth.
I’ve been searching for the Truth too, honestly and humbly looking into what Catholics believe. What is keeping me grounded is the question, “What if I’m wrong?” Even Catholic teaching does not say I MUST pray to Mary or the Saint or Angels to be saved. Catholic teaching does not say I must venerate statues and icons. Catholic teaching says you must believe and confess that Jesus is Lord and you must be baptized and you must have an ongoing lifestyle of repentance of sins to go to heaven after you die. We all basically agree with this. So as a Protestant, what if I’m wrong? I still go to Heaven after I die, even according to Catholics. But if Catholics are wrong about praying to Mary and Saints and Angels and venerating statues and icons, they’re breaking the first commandment that states you shall not worship any other God than Yahweh. If you are not faithful to God, it could cost your eternal soul. You may end up spending an eternity in hell over this
@@TJMcCarty The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that the phrase, "Outside the Church there is no salvation", means, if put in positive terms, that "all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body", and it "is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ”
@@meathammer4230 The Catechism also says: “838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter." Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.” So since Vatican II they believe you can be saved if you believe in Jesus and have been baptized. That’s my understanding at least. The ultimate authority is Jesus, and Jesus says in John chapter 6 over and over that if you believe in Jesus, you will receive eternal life. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is simple. The Catholic Church preaches a different gospel. I do hope God will be merciful towards a lot of Catholics who genuinely believe in Jesus though
@@meathammer4230I would push back some on what you’re saying here. My understanding is what you are saying falls under feeneyism, where Fr. Feeney taught no Protestants can be saved and was excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church. I am a Protestant btw and believe the RCC has issues.
Thank you both for both leading MANY to the Lord Jesus Christ as well as return back to the Lord in Repentance. The crowns your ministry will throw at the feet of our Lord! I can't wait to see.
Aa a former Catholic, and then new ager, the Holy Spirit opened my blind eyes in a moment just as he did Paul, to the Truth. I was subsequently born from above very dramatically with overflowing joy peace and love. There is now no doubt in my mind after 40 years i have eternal llife that cannot be lost, a confidence that began the day i was saved. I believe few catholics are saved. They would mostly "come out of Her" i despise that idolotrous institution with a perfect hatred as i was so brain washed by them and they are leading so many multidudes of sincere lovely souls to hell.!!! Excellent discussion!
The fact that you can't see how insanely mid-witted your entire rant is, is insane to me. Do you actually believe you can't sin your way out of Heaven? Protestants are the only group of people willing to condemn absolutely other denominations and make confirmatory salvific claims in the process. You're literally claiming to know inerrantly the will and intellect of God. Blasphemy at its finest.
Try and read your bible very well so that you will know who's actually leading souls to hell...Catholic is the faith i will hold till heaven comes because it teaches nothing but the truth. What you're learning in protestant is palatable preaching that appeals to your interests....read the bible well my dear
To all sides concerned, try this: Read the entire book of Romans every week until you can give a solid overview of each chapter by memory. I would also HIGHLY RECOMMEND memorizing chapters 6 and 8. It is very common for serious deciples of Christ to have the entire book memorized. Ask God to give you understanding.
Yes! Memorizing large sections, not just snippets! I have had my faith transformed by memorizing Hebrews, and now working through Romans. It's still a bit tentative, but I'm getting it nailed down a little better with each pass.
Yes, make sure not to miss that Paul says we all will be judged by our works on final judgment day and only those who persevere in doing good will inherit eternal life and be justified (Romans 2:4-13). Also that Paul says we are united to Christ in baptism we are no longer slaves to sin in Romans chapter 6, and that the way we meet the righteous requirements of Christ’s law in ourselves by walking in the Spirit and not the flesh (ie doing good by the Holy Spirit and not sinning) (Romans 8:4), but if we Christians cease walking in the Spirit we will die eternal death (Romans 8:13). Those are important parts to believe, as Paul doesn’t waste breath regardless of what Calvinists tell you!
@@jaihummel5057 The Bible never says our salvation is apart from “good works.” It says our salvation is apart from works of the Law (of Moses, like circumcision) and works prior to initial salvation, just like Origen, Chrysostom, Jerome, etc. all correctly interpreted. I’m sorry you rely on Reformation heretics 1500 years removed from Christ instead of native ancient Greek early church writers to help you interpret Paul. Salvation is by grace because it has nothing to do with our past before having faith, repentance and being born again at baptism. “Grace” biblically is the favor AND power of God, not mere mercy for past sins as Calvinism/Lutheranisn heretically says. Jesus is said to have grown grace (Greek charis) with God and men (Luke 2:52), and Paul says grace is the power of God to overcome his weakness (2 Corinthians 12:9). The Calvinist false definition which pretends grace means “undeserved favor even though we sin every day” is heretical since implying Jesus needed that kind of grace and not simply the power of God to do what is right. All the good works a Christian does that justify on final judgment day are done by the power of the Holy Spirit, so they are all by grace.
@IAmisMaster You just affirmed Protestantism. Paul states that we can only receive the Spirit and therefore walk in the Spirit by faith (Galatians 3:14).
The problem with debating any devout Catholic is they reject the Bible as the only, or even the supreme source of truth. Trent believes, as most faithful Catholics do, that the Bible, as it is interpreted by the magisterium, is the truth. It’s Bible + Tradition - and the Bible can only be understood with the help of a priest or the Magesterium. They believe if we read it outside of what the church teaches about it, it’s just above our heads and we can’t understand it. So trying to debate that Catholicism is unbiblical with someone who requires the authority of the Catholic Church to even read the Bible is not going to go anywhere.
@@BentleyBud-wb9ft how is saying this useful or edifying? You could have commented calmly and said that you think Trent won, but instead you say Trent “crushed” James White. Cool your jets men.
@@Me-hf4iibut what makes the Bible the sole infallible rule of faith? It never says that in the Bible, thus making it a doctrine found outside of the Bible.
For every Catholic who leaves the Church a hundred Evangelicals comes back home thanks to the work of Fr. Mike Schmitz and his Bible in a Year podcast.
@@barbarasmith1085 This is incorrect. Stats don't bear this out. Latin Mass attendance and Orthodox mass attendance are rising at staggering rates. Regardless, the primary reason for anyone not attending Catholic church is bad exegesis, and the unwillingness to repent in the face of obvious sin.
Jeff read from NKJV. Jude 1:24-25 - 24 Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, And to present you faultless Before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy, 25 To God our Savior, Who alone is wise, Be glory and majesty, Dominion and power, Both now and forever. Amen.
Can either of these two men produce two or three witnesses that were present when they claim to have felt the call to preach by a spirit, as the Scriptures declare?
Great video. Catholics will agree that we are saved by grace, but in the RCC, grace is the help God gives us through the sacraments to perform good works necessary for salvation. They don't have the finished work of Christ.
Once a saint of God Almighty, the Father of Jesus Christ, always a saint. Psalm 37:28 For the Lord loveth judgment, and forsaketh not his saints; they are preserved for ever: but the seed of the wicked shall be cut off. I am forever praising and believing Jesus is the Christ, and this is pleasing to God.
Well, listening to Dr White mention Diognetus, all I could think of from then on is Wilfred Brimley. I’ll now have to watch this a bunch more times before my brain stops being stupid and thinking about the diabetes commercials
As sombody who just calls themself a christian but im super into the different churches and church history Protestantism teaches the most inportant part by faith we are saved alone but im still stuck between orthodox because they call the pope a heretic and believe in sanctification of the spirit idk but I have such love for the ancient orthodox church and how beautiful their cathedrals are but I feep the spirit guiding me too the fullness of the truth amén🎉
You choose a church thay glorifies God and teaches true gospel. NOt because of cathedrals and colors and robes. Pls be wise brother. The true church of 1st century couldn't care less about the things you mention. ITs the gospel that counts
I was part of an Anglo-Catholic Anglican church on the North Shore of Boston, one of the "Three Streams" forming Anglican Tradition or the "Anglican Way". The Anglican Way finds its identity in the Historican nature of the church over against Doctrine or Theology. As a result of this, Sola Scriptura is not emphasized or given primary authority but added to this, in equal authority is Tradition and Reason (This was articulated by Calvin Robinson of England). In short, I and my family left and presently attend a Bible believing small Baptist church that actually preaches the Gospel exegetically instead of calling on the congregation to get to know the Book of Common prayer as their primary resource and go to book.
This means nothing. "Exegetical" just means based on interpretation. I can interpret something poorly and then teach it and it would still be "exegetical". The modern ELCA is "exegetical" and they contend the Bible agrees with gay marriage, supports sodomy, and some are holding that certain doctrine is actually racist. This is what happens when you have a billion splinter groups practicing their own exegesis: you sacrifice the Deuterocanon, use another denomination's council-derived canon outside of the "apocrypha", and you enable these different splinter groups to all claim "sola scriptura".
@@jaykwonzzz This is absolute garbage. When the scripture is interpreted exegetically you get out the meaning of what is actually there as Paul taught it for instance. Your "support" for gay marriage is isogetical reading into the text what is not intended. In fact anyone can "read" into any text if they want to believe a lie. The racist crap is also an abuse of any text where present day "scholarly" idiots want to read that in as well. None of what you say is true and any true believer is going to handle the word of God faithfully and carefully. There are differences based on the light that the H.S gives us but not major doctrinal problems. Catholics have serious doctrinal issues period. The fact that protestants have a million different denominations is not the problem. You should show me a scripture passage where Paul supports gay marriage....I'd be really interested.
Can someone explain to me why it is a Believer cannot lose his salvation, when Christ provides us with several reasons why certain Christian sinners won't go to Heaven in Matthew 15:18-20, Revelation 21:8 and 22:15 and the apostle Paul gives us the rest in Ephesians 5:3-7, Colossians 3:5-6, Galatians 5:19-21, and I Corinthians 6:9-11?
Can someone help me understand how this is not a proper interpretation of James 2 on justification by works. James 2:24 says “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.” So, since the justification by faith is imputed righteousness, and the justification spoken of in this verse is the kind that comes by faith, the justification that comes from works is the same that comes by faith. So, we can understand we are imputed righteousness by faith, but not by faith alone. I know I took one verse out of a passage, but I think the context supports it.
@IG88AAA Hi. Your statement contradicts itself. Imputed righteousness comes by faith via the Holy Spirit. The real division between RCC (Roman Catholic Church) and Protestant beliefs is where in the sequence of events does works/imputed righteousness come into play? The Bible says they come AFTER we are justified by faith, not during or before. RCC says they happen at the same time. Here is what James said two verses before the one you quoted, in 2:22: “You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was COMPLETED by works.” What he is saying is that faith without a completion of works, (what Protestants commonly call a byproduct of works) is dead, as he later says in 2:26. Faith alone without works is not faith that saves - it’s not real.
Christian Hi, thanks for your reply. Your first paragraph begs the question. I know imputed righteousness is the justification that comes by faith. (Romans 4:3) The question is are we also imputed righteousness by works? To say we are “justified by works and not by faith alone” is saying the justification by works is the same one as by faith, otherwise it would make no sense to say it is not by faith alone. Your second paragraph is incorrect on the catholic teaching of justification. We are initially justified by faith through grace in baptism. No works necessary. After which we can increase in justification by works. Things such as sunday worship, reading the bible, and helping others. Increased justification is analogous to growing in righteousness. I reject the idea that the faith James was talking about wasn’t real. He said faith without works is dead, and faith without works is like a body without a spirit. The faith is there. It is it’s being alone, without works, that is the problem. If the faith wasn’t there, why did James tell the hypothetical man that he does well? If works are necessary for a saving faith, how are works not necessary for salvation?
You want to READ ROMANS 4. James 2 starts talking to saved brethren about RESPECT OF PERSONS. Not about getting saved. Second he notes of you KEEP WHOLE LAW BUT OFFEND IN ONE POINT YOU ARE GUILTY OF ALL! So you cannot keep the law you break it ALL everyday. He uses example of Abraham like Romans 4. What is the difference? If Abraham were justified by works He hath WHEREOF to glory BUT NOT BEFORE GOD! That is key difference. Men see your works. Works have NOTHING TO DO WITH SALVATION. By Grace are ye SAVED through faith and not of yourself it is the gift of God. Not of works lest any man should boast. Understand difference now??
@@IG88AAA I think the main issue here is our differing definitions for the words "imputed righteousness”, "works”, "faith" and “justification”. Firstly what I hope we can both agree on is that justification simply means to be justified in the eyes of God. Just if I'd never sinned. Pardoned for my transgressions. Therefore your first statement, “I know imputed righteousness is the justification that comes by faith.” is worded so that it doesn’t make sense. In Romans 4:3 Paul is simply making the claim that it was faith which justified Abraham in the sight of God. But faith being reckoned as righteousness is not the same thing as faith imputing righteousness. Being reckoned righteousness is the exact same thing as justification. We understand this by reading just a few verses down in Romans 4:6-8. Paul quoting David, describes justification. Imputed righteousness is different, and comes after justification. Paul talks about this in chapters 6 and 8 of Romans. This is literal freedom from sin (6:6), sin losing its dominion over us (6:14), and the explanation for how that is a literal reality and not figurative language, which is that the Holy Spirit indwells us and we are alive because of HIS righteousness inside of us (8:9-11). After explaining that we are freed from sin in the first half of chapter 6, Paul then explains the subject of our own good works in the second half: now that we have already been set free from sin, as a byproduct, we become slaves of righteousness, we yield our bodies to righteousness, and have “fruits unto holiness” (6:18-22). In other words, we live a life of good works (fruits) as a byproduct of 1. Being justified by faith, and 2. Being imputed righteousness/indwelt by God. What is important to understand is that when James talks about “works”, this is the equivalent of Paul talking about “fruits unto holiness” (sanctification if you don’t use KJV) or “fruits of the Spirit". When Paul uses the word “works” he is referring to works of the Law, always with negative implications, because the Jews believed holding all the commands of the Law is what saved you. We know James cannot be talking about the OT Law when he says works, because that would mean he is affirming that Jewish traditions must be combined with faith in Christ, as Paul perilously warns his readers to reject (for example a Christian must also be circumsized to be saved). If this was the case James would not even be a Christian. So we understand that James must be talking about something different, and is sharing Paul’s definition of works as simply being fruits. Where James says "faith”, Paul talks about our relationship with Christ, and here the two saints are talking about completely different things. Faith for Paul is not an assent to a doctrinal belief, as it is for James. When James says faith without works is dead, the equivalent would be Paul saying that a relationship to Christ without works is dead, in other words it's not a real relationship or connection to God. Someone who is indwelt by Christ will naturally produce good works. This is what I meant when I said dead faith is not real faith. I’m not saying the belief in something is absent, I mean it is not "real" faith because it lacks the works (fruits) that Paul says must come after justification and the indwelling of the Spirit, in order to prove that someone has a genuine relationship with Christ. This is real saving faith. “If works are necessary for a saving faith, how are works not necessary for salvation?” The issue is works are not necessary for saving faith. That’s the whole point! Saving faith is necessary for works, it’s not the other way around. Saving faith is faith that has produced the indwelling Spirit, so that we too can say with Paul, “it is no longer I that live, but Christ that lives in me.” Justification by faith >> indwelling of the Spirit >> good works (fruits). This is the order according to the Apostle. If Christ lives in us, our works will be the greatest works. I can try to reverse the order and place good works first, which is what I think you’re saying. If I do that the works would no longer be fruits. I therefore cannot be justified by faith alone, because I am also trying to be justified by works. There’s nothing wrong with doing works before truly being saved, but one must understand it’s not the works that contribute to their justification and therefore sanctification, which in total is salvation - it is faith alone. As for what you said about RCC, question: is it possible to be justified by grace through faith alone without water baptism? When Paul talks about being baptized into Christ in Romans 6, he doesn’t talk about water. He just uses the word baptized, which simply means immersion, and Paul says we must be immersed into Christ so that we can be immersed into His death and rise again (figuratively) into a new life of holiness. Sorry this reply was way too long! Hope this wasn’t too confusing.
Christian Thanks again for your reply. I agree, we need to know what each other means by the terms we use. I tried to sidestep confusion by using imputed righteousness. The last Protestant I talked to said imputed righteousness is justification, and is the same as being justified before God. This was due to his use of only the KJV. I see it did not help. Imputed righteousness and reckoned righteousness are the same, when I was using it. Reckoned is translated to imputed in the RSV translation compared to the KJV per my Bible app. I would also say that righteousness is also infused. We are not merely called righteous, we are made righteous. All this to say I think we agree what justification is, but I do not think imputed righteousness is distinct from justification. We agree on what James and Paul both mean by works, and by faith. We still are at a crossroads on my question. James and Paul both quote “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.” So I think it is fair to understand that in this context, faith and justification is meant the same by both of them. So, since reckoned righteousness is the justification that comes from faith, and James says we are justified by works and not by faith alone, why should we not understand the justification by works and faith as the same justification? To be clear, I do not mean that we need works to be initially justified, but justification of works can be understood as increasing in justification from God when we are in Christ and He indwealt in us. Put another way, growing in righteousness. This leads to understanding how works contribute to our salvation, by which I mean final salvation. I want to be very clear, I and the Church do not mean works are necessary to be saved or justified initially. As perfect evidence that we do not believe we can merit initial justification by good works - we baptize babies. What good works could baby do? Water baptism is necessary. There are extreme circumstances which it is not, someone dies before having a chance to and they would have given the chance, and baptism by blood, by which we mean martyrdom before receiving baptism. This is because God is not unreasonable and can work outside His ordinary means. When you take the context of baptism throughout the OT prophecies and NT, it can only be water baptism to be meant in Romans 6. One example is Acts 10 “While Peter was still saying this, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. “Can any one forbid water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”” Acts 10:44, 47 RSV-C If baptism means immersion of spirit, why did Peter still say they needed baptism? I believe this undercuts the idea that baptism in the NT could mean anything but water baptism. Another is Christs baptism. He came up from the water and the Holy Spirit descended upon Him. What better example for the reception of the Holy Spirit?
I have a very dear Roman Catholic family member. He's very dear to me, very devout, and a genuinely good man. I also once heard him say, serious as a heart attack, "God's grace is not sufficient for our salvation, we DO have to work for it." The sad fact is this, if you're a Roman Catholic who believes youre saved by grace, through faith in Christ alone, youre not actually Roman Catholic, because that is plainly NOT what the Church teaches. And if youre a catholic who believes he cam earn salvation, you utterly deny the work of Christ, trampling under foot the Son of God and His work. You do this by saying, "No, His work is insufficient to save me." Which in itseld flies in the face of Hebrews (a WILDLY misunderstood book in the bible) which explains that Christ is able to save to the uttermost, and that He is our all-sufficient Savior. Salvation is of the Lord, not us. And before I'm accused of "easy-believism" or some other nonsense, i do not remotely deny that Christians need to work, and indeed any TRUE Christian, after havjng heard the gospel and being brought into repentance, the TRUE Christian who has Shalom with Yahweh will understand how deeply sinful he is, how unable he is to save himself, and realizing the love of Christ on the cross, that true Christian will be ZEALOUS for good works as an outpouring of the spirit which bares evidence of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, along with good fruit. The VAST majority of Catholics are not saved, certainly not if they believe the countless heresies of Rome. And if the Roman Catholic denies those terrible doctrines and recognizes the truth found in scripture, then he is not truly Roman. The Holy Spirit keeps God's remnant from error regarding the source of SALVATION, the Holy Spirit would NEVER allow one of God's children to say "His grace is not sufficient." If you can say that, or anything to that affect, you are not indwelt by the Spirit. The Spirit would not allow a child of God to deny the very WORD OF GOD.
@IG88AAA no sir, Catholic doctrine effectively teaches that God's grace is insufficient for our salvation. In Roman theology, you must merit salvation through good works. More specifically, you need your own merit, the merit of past saints, and the merit of Christ. The Roman church anathematized the gospel of salvation by grace through faith in Christ. My family member was speaking true Roman doctrine according to Vatican II. There was no misunderstanding.
@@IG88AAAI don’t know where the citations would be, but my grandparents have been Catholic their whole lives and he is 87 and he told me the exact same thing. I honestly was very upset and we had an argument (although I tried very hard to keep from escalating it) and the more questions I asked the more I realized that Roman Catholicism is not Christianity, it’s essentially Paganism with Christian vocabulary. I tried to ask him if he meant that through salvation you bear good fruits that prove your salvation, but he insisted that you couldn’t be saved by grace and faith alone, and that you could only be saved through faith and works. When I quoted the scripture that refutes that he said that without the Catholic Church to guide you you couldn’t properly interpret scriptures. So no, Catholics genuinely believe that Christ’s grace is not sufficient.
“And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.” Ephesians 6:17 God is clear that we are to equip ourselves with His word. God Himself declares that we are to use scripture alone to defend the faith. We aren’t to use His word + the councils authority, or the magisterium, or even the church. The authority of God comes through His word. If I had to choose between God’s authority or church authority, I choose God.
St Paul almost definitely wrote this prior to the gospels being written and dispersed to all Christians. Words are still words if they are passed by mouth.
“[T]he custom [of not rebaptizing converts] . . . may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings” (St. Augustine, On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:23[31] [A.D. 400]). Quote courtesy of Catholic Answers
@@jessebryant9233 Babies were circumcised in Israel. They didn’t wait until they were grown up so that they could freely accept Moses as their personal Lawgiver and Egypt Deliverer. “ In him also you were circumcised with a spiritual circumcision,[a] by putting off the body of the flesh in the circumcision of Christ 12 when you were buried with him in baptism” Colossians 2:11-12a
@@bman5257 Babies are circumcised? So? Practices performed in the Nation of Israel ≠ Christian and you know it. In the New Testament where baptism is introduced, it NEVER preceds a profession of faith.
@@jessebryant9233 The Bible teaches quite plainly that baptism is the new circumcision, which I cited above Colossians 2:11-12. It’s an argument from silence to say that we don’t explicitly see a baby being baptized, so therefore baptism is just for adults. The Bible clearly teaches baptism is necessary for salvation. “Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.” John 3:5. “Baptism, corresponding to this, now saves you.” 1 Peter 3:21. If you want your babies to be saved then you should baptize them. The Early Church believed baptism was necessary for salvation and that babies should be baptized. “The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic” (St. Augustine, The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]). “By this grace baptized infants too are ingrafted into his [Christ’s] body, infants who certainly are not yet able to imitate anyone. Christ, in whom all are made alive . . . gives also the most hidden grace of his Spirit to believers, grace which he secretly infuses even into infants. . . . If anyone wonders why children born of the baptized should themselves be baptized, let him attend briefly to this. . . . The sacrament of baptism is most assuredly the sacrament of regeneration” (St Augustine, Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:9:10; 1:24:34; 2:27:43 [A.D. 412]). “Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them” (St. Hypolutus of RomeThe Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]). Quotes from CA
@@bman5257If you stop there, it sounds like the baptism ceremony causes the change. However, if the circumcision is spiritual, “without hands,” it’s possible that the baptism is without hands, too: the baptism by the Holy Spirit. So, let’s complete the passage: “[B]aptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. And when you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us and which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.” The key is “by faith in the working of God.” Do infants have faith in the working of God? One more note: Notice the symbolism of burial and resurrection. Does Catholic pouring symbolize burial and resurrection? Not one bit. In fact, they claim it symbolizes and effects the pouring of the Holy Spirit onto the baptizee. They also rationalize it by saying it’s a revision of circumcision. But have you ever read Galatians? Look beyond the ceremony and distill it to its principles. Water baptism, as practiced by Catholicism and most Protestant denominations is condemned by the Holy Spirit. You have to take it as a package: performer, symbolism, effects, and subject (the baptizee). Catholic teaching is unbiblical on every detail.
As a 35+MIA yrs revert, Amen. Thanks be to God, and "Dr." James White for showing me (without i even asking or seeking) in such a short time, how lost "Dr." White is - Lord have Mercy, Christ have mercy.
Don't follow Calvin. Follow God. Don't follow Roman Catholicism. Follow God. Just follow GOD. Do no not let any man or any institution get between you and God.
What if it’s God’s institution? Christ built a church and it is the pillar and foundation of truth. This is biblical. His church is also called the kingdom of heaven, the body of Christ, and the bride of Christ. You really want to reject this institution?? That is the same as saying you want Jesus as your king, but don’t want His kingdom. You want to follow Him, but don’t want to be part of His body. Please reconsider this idea.
Chloe No I was saying you need to reconsider the need for the church established by Christ. Your opinion that the church you belong to doesn’t matter is antibiblical.
@@IG88AAA we believers are the church. How could I be separate from being the church? I was stating that organized religion and religious people like to make up their own interpretations, and try to make people believe and follow them. Follow God. Sheesh. Why is it you seem to be having issues understanding?
Chloe Your presupposition that “believers are the church” is unbiblical. Christs church has authority and is the pillar and foundation of truth. Not some abstract amalgamation of individual people. So to say you reject Christs actual church that is an institution with authority and a hierarchy is unchristian.
There are comments byTertullian regarding JN. 6 and transubstantiation that would go over very well from a fundamentalist Baptist pulpit. As far as "perseverance" goes, He is faithful to His own. It is not our "holding out consistently" to the end that saves. I was unchurched for over 6 years through bitterness over the untimely death of a loved one. Guess what? I never fell from God's grace and needed to get saved again. I prefer "preservation" to "perseverance". Did LOT persevere all his life? Paul writes to Corinth concerning eating "unworthily" at the Lord's Supper; some even becoming ill and dying. He doesn't say they fell from grace. And the young Christian man in an unholy relationship with his father's wife...."giving him over to satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved..." I reject "easy believeism" as well; but it is not our faithfulness to Him that saves. Grace alone or it is not grace at all.... really enjoyed this video...God bless
Can you show me the quotes from Tertullian. Transubstantiation is a later explanation of the Real Presence. I haven't found a churchbfather yet who rejected the Real Presence.
@@chemnitzfan654 I promise I will get that to you; been pretty distracted. I must say this though. The basis of your question is misguided. You assume the doctrine (whatever it was called) in apostolic and early church history was and is Biblical. Therefore you read into those ECF quotes what you already believe. I have never read a church father from the second or third century who quoted or paraphrased Last Supper references who believed in a "magical" transformation of the Communion bread and wine into the LITERAL (though invisible) body and blood of Christ. Every time my church holds a Communion service, the proper passages are quoted; "This is my body..." , etc. but we don't believe the elements transform into the body and blood of the Lord. I will get back to you...God bless
@@chemnitzfan654 “Indeed, up to the present time, he has not disdained the water which the Creator made wherewith he washes his people; nor the oil with which he anoints them; nor that union of honey and milk wherewithal he gives them the nourishment of children; nor the bread by which he REPRESENTS his own proper body, thus requiring in his very sacraments the ‘beggarly elements’ of the Creator.” (Tertullian, Against Marcion, 1:14) “He says, it is true, that ‘the flesh profiteth nothing;’ but then, as in the former case, the meaning must be regulated by the subject which is spoken of. Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, ‘It is the spirit that quickeneth;’ and then added, ‘The flesh profiteth nothing,’ - meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: ‘The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.’ In a like sense He had previously said: ‘He that heareth my words, and believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life.’ Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appelation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith. Now, just before the passage in hand, He had declared His flesh to be ‘the bread which cometh down from heaven,’ impressing on His hearers constantly under the FIGURE of necessary food the memory of their forefathers, who had preferred the bread and flesh of Egypt to their divine calling.”-(Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh, 37) Nothing here indicates Tertullian believed in the REAL presence of the body of Christ during Communion service.
Is the modern catholic similar to the modern Mormon in that they reject many of the ancient catholic teachings? In doing so, may they actually be orthodox Christians living under the wrong title of Catholic?
I often wonder how much Catholics know about catholic doctrine, or how much they believe it. Seeing as over 50% of Americans consider themselves Christian but polls also show only about 4% of Americans have a Biblical worldview.
Catholics are more like Pharisees, with an Egyptian Isis sub-cult. Progressives are like Sadducees and Hellenists. NAR is like the Jewish Zealots. Mormons are like polytheists of the Jupiter cult or Hellenists of the Zeus cult, only, with terminology usurped from Christianity and some theology borrowed from Gnosticism. JWs are like the Arians.
There’s 3 different kinds of romanists Sedevacantists are romanists who don’t hold anything past 1970s Trad Caths who are in a complicated Roman position And Romanist who are pro Vatican 2
This is totally anecdotal but, in my estimation yes. Many Catholics love God, read their Bible and develop their own "doctrines", as it were that end up being contrary to Catholic theology.
One thing I find incredibly deceptive is when James White says there is more to the quotes that Trent Horn shares yet he doesn't put them up on the screen for us to see. We can only rely on what James White says! Also incredibly deceptive: at 1:04:36 when Trent is quoting St. Fulgentius - Trent Horn says this is true, but not for the same reason James White says it's true. Trent is saying this is true in regards to God knows how many will be saved and that those who are brought into Heaven will never lose their salvation and those who go to hell will never attain salvation. Trent is not using this quote to confirm the perseverance of the saints theology that reformers hold. 1:20:00 - doesn't actually address the objection at all but shifts to a Catholic doctrine.
Wait, if they believe that Mary was immaculately conceived (without sin) and as I believe it's understood the reason behind that is "how could the saviour be born by a sinful woman" wouldn't that then cause a infinite regress (up to Adam and eve) issue in regards to sin stopping the LORD Jesus from being born??
The immaculate conception isn’t believed because “she had to have no sin to have Jesus” although some Catholics might try to use this as their argument. It’s actually believed because it’s seen as “fitting” that God would keep her from sin since she’s containing God in her womb like a new arc of the covenant. He didn’t HAVE to preserve her from sin, yet did. Also she’s seen as the new Eve so if Jesus, the new Adam, is free from sin, then the belief is that well then so is the new Eve because it’s fitting. I think lots of Catholics think this too because of the Marian apparitions, one of which she announced herself as the “immaculate conception” I think to st. Bernadette? Could be wrong on that part cuz I don’t remember a ton about the apparitions.
To complement what the brother said, I'm a Catholic who makes the argument for the necessity rather than just fittingness of the Immaculate conception. Not to say God could be stained, but that if Mary was not immaculate there would be a defensive violence made in the process of receiving his human nature from Mary and this would indeed be unfitting. Moreover, the Virgin Mary by receiving the grace of immaculate conception, she is in debt to God so to say because she was graced, it was not her earning it. Thus giving the liberty to her Son Jesus Christ of not being in a sort of debt of grace like her, unless he simply made a defensive violence by mere divine power which again would be unfitting. Why not more immaculate conceptions before Mary ? Because only Mary needed it, it's the smallest number and most fitting as she is the new Eve.
@VirginMostPowerfull that's all opinion though. It's like you're saying God can't defeat sin. It's contrary to the whole point of the Gospels. Only God is good, and Mary needed a Savior, she said so herself: "My spirit rejoices in God my Savior" (Luke 1:47).
@@VirginMostPowerfull I don’t recall Eve having Adam as a child 😂. How is she the new Eve? This contradicts Paul in Romans, all have sinned. How is it possible to interpret that as all but Mary?
What does having free will to receive salvation have anything to do with man's ego or self exultation? If someone throws me a life boat, but I choose not to get on it that and drown in the sea, that isn't Gods fault that is mine. Note: I would have died without the life boat so had I gotten onto the boat God would've saved me and got credit for it.
Well you have to remember this video specifically is about the Roman Catholic Church which would have a Sacramento system, but also how can a dead man grab a lifeboat? A man who is drowned and is 100 ft underwater, how can they grab a lifeboat? This is Paul's argumentation in Ephesians chapter 2. Sadly people do not actually believe Paul which is what James White was saying. Also you're throwing in comments that have nothing to do with your argumentation, nobody is blaming God because they didn't " grab " salvation.
I was born and raised Catholic. Altar boy and all the rest. My Dad, son of an Irish Immigrant raised the same and attended Fordham Prep, and the University. We were very involved in the church. My dad used to take me to the rectory on Sundays with beer to share with the priests over football games. My dad also would invite the nuns over the house. Serving them food, a couple scotches and cigarettes. I say this for my Dad would always tell me they are people, nothing more, nothing less than you and me. We are all sinful and make mistakes our whole lives. He also told me I raise you in the church and the catholic school for I want some message of the Lord around you. Public school was never an option for me. Back in the 70's and early 80's the church was different. There were many rules and laws in the church that are non biblical. Sometimes did not make sense. But as an 8 year old I did receive the Lord in my heart and my soul. The joy of Him I recall greatly and still today at age 58. Maybe I was lucky or in a more Biblically grounded church that helped connect the Holy Spirit with me. Doctrine and rules never intruded in the number one priority of my relationship with the Lord. My dad would always remind me of this. Over the years my Dad left the church for he said it became too much rule based and pushed the narrative of Rome which he said was corrupt. He also said the the generation of sound priests have died and replaced with more liberal and world based men. He also told me that most Roman Catholics are lost and not centered on the word of God and their relationship with the Lord. He said folks dont understand the Grace of our Lord. More are stuck in doctrine.
Rules are important to God. See exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, etc. He gave His followers tons of rules, and Judaism was the true religion. Jesus told the Jews to follow the rules of the Pharisees, since they sat in the seat of Moses and had the legislative power to bind and loose doctrine. So one would expect Christ's church to have this authority considering Jesus gave the authority to bind and loose to His apostles.
9:47 Except we don’t have Church Fathers teaching against the Assumption. And we have several Church Fathers teaching that a saved Christian can lose their salvation. The first record of someone explicitly believing eternal security is John Calvin in the 16th century, the first record of the assumption is 1000 years before that. Also if Trent has a double standard than don’t you too. I think Dr. White uses arguments of silence for the Assumption, so then he should hold his Calvinist doctrines to that same standard.
Gavin Ortlund on his channel Truth United lays out the evidence against the Bodily Assumption. Have you watched the videos honestly? He summarizes numerous studies. Have you ever looked at Dr. Stephan Shoemaker, or Luigi as he cites them? I have, a decade ago. When you are making the historical claim, you have the burden of proof. Even more so when you claim it is necessary for salvation. Scripture teaches John chapter 6. John Gill in his book the cause of God and truth gives a historical defense of Reformed predestination. Have you read it? Apologia church doesn't claim that believing that perservance of the saints is a necessary doctrine for salvation. So it's apples and oranges. we have the Apostles writing, Rome doesn't have a single word from the Lord Jesus or any Apostle that isn't written in Scripture.
@@bruhmingo I don’t think you understand the Catholic Church’s view on dogma and the Church Fathers. Individual Church Fathers are not infallible. However since they are pious Christians living in the early centuries of the Church they are a non-infallible testimony to which books the Church regarded as scripture, and which doctrines the Scriptures neglected to be taught in Apostolic Tradition. The Scriptrues are infallible because they are inspired, and the Church in its magisterium is infallible. Even if the Church Fathers and Ecumenical Synods are not invested with infallibility by Protestants, the fact these pious early Christians so disagree with Protestantism and read Scripture so differently is a testament to Protestantism being disconnected from the faith passed on by the apostles.
@@duckymomo7935 Give me one passage where somebody unambiguously states a saved person can not lose their salvation before Calvin in the 1500s. Please don’t cite an ambiguous Bible verse that you think teaches it so that we can go in a circle with our different interpretations. I’m giving you 1500 years to give me one unambiguous statement. I can find you statement after statement of people denying this Protestant doctrine for 1500 years, but you can not do the same with people denying the assumption.
Right, God could do that. But did He? There are as many interpretations as there are readers of scripture. People that read what you think is perspicuous disagree on key doctrine.
Scripture says God did speak plainly and you have to exegete scripture as a whole. God is not a contradictory God, so you filter new revelation (New Testament) or even pastors/teachers on God’s previous revelation. That’s why we can emphatically say Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons are false because they interpret scripture falsely. If someone comes up to you and says “I love Jesus, he taught to eat our neighbor”, we can easily go and without a lot of difficulty show them that Jesus did not say that. You do not need post-apostle church fathers to understand the truth of the New Testament. They are good references at times, but not scripture.
Thanks for great insights! This throws the light that ultimately catholic Church's pisition is true and strengthen Catholic faith.BTW can we have debate between Christian and Saducees on Resurrection topic? 1:31:05
58:18 “The natural tendency of man is to exalt man’s capacities and to diminish God’s sovereignty.” That’s exactly what it seems like you’re doing when you leave the church Christ started to start your own.
@@essafats5728 We, Christians, have a set of books that were inspired by God. It’s called the Bible, in the Bible is the New Testament. I would highly recommend you read it, it tells you what the Church is, who Jesus is and what the Gospel of Christ is. Or you could continue worshiping your queen in heaven, Mary, and see if she tells you.
Yep.. If these guys are so sure of eternal security.. They should be in a position to prove that God the Almighty have approved their position of faith. And if so, they should be able to enumerate thousands of protestant saints who attained salvation. Right? Can they do that? never heard of any protestant saint..
I will ask you the same question I asked Dr. Ortlund after his attempt to argue that St. Augustine believed in Sola Scriptura. St. Augustine believed you were a heretic if you denied the perpetual virginity of Mary. You therefore have two options: you may say that St. Augustine bases this dogma after sacred tradition, and therefore he does not believe in sola scriptura. Or you can say that he based this off of Scripture and therefore the scriptures teach infallibly and dogmatically that Mary is a perpetual Virgin. You can extend this thought experiment to all of the things that St. Augustine believed are necessary essentials of the Christian faith which are not taken as such by Protestants, perpetual virginity being one example.
So what other authority do you accept and why/on what grounds? And what a silly belief for Augustine to hold regarding Mary! But then, we're all wonky somewhere, aren't we? "Sacred tradition"? I don't think you should be calling it that...
@@jessebryant9233 I accept Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition as expounded by Christ’s Church. Which was the view of the vast majority of Christians until the Protestant Reformation and still is for the majority of Christians today.
@@jessebryant9233 And you can call Augustine silly for his views but that just goes to show that your version of Christianity was foreign to him and unknown to the rest of the Church.
@@bman5257 "Christ's Church"? WHY do you call it "Sacred Tradition"? Because the Church says that's what it is? Is "vast majority" your ultimate standard? That's how your argue for your position? Still is the "majority of Christians today"? No it isn't... But then, what does it mean to be a "Christian"?
I really enjoy Trent generally he's a very respectful person. Now I really disagree with his conclusions. I used to look at Hebrews and come to tye conclusion salvation could be lost until James White gave a very articulate response and explanation.
@@IG88AAA Now I'm only speaking about eternal security and the way it relates to Hebrews but it was the explanation of the types of Christians and prescriptive and descriptive texts.
@@IG88AAA I really wish I could remember which video it was, I generally watch so many a week it's hard to keep up with. I can say it wasn't a debate or dividing line.
Trent Horns debate with James White is what put me over the fence for catholicism. I've been confirmed since easter.... everything I thought I knew about Catholics I got from James White. Finding out every one of those things were incorrect, mischaracterizations, strawmen, and flat out lies. Its like how much can you lie about your opponent before you're answerable to God? I hope James and Trent have a round 2!
Can you site some examples of these strawmen arguments or lies? My intuition tells me you are using strawmen and lies to say James White is. I am not a Calvinist, but can read through the council of Trent and examine the religious practices of the Catholic Church to see how idolatrous and un rooted in apostolic tradition it actually is (Mary is sinless/, a perpetual virgin, veneration of images, the extra Biblical invention of purgatory, council of Trent session 6 cannon 9 and 11, transubstantiation, etc)
@@alexglase765 “There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.” ― Fulton J. Sheen
@alexglase765 I could give tons of them..... catholics made up Marian dogmas in the midevil period, that we don't believe Christ's sacrifice is enough to save, that Christ's sacrifice was not once and for all, that we have to work to get to heaven, that we worship the saints, that we have a man centered religion, that we preach a gospel not found in scripture, that we need to go to a priest to have our sins forgiven, that we don't believe faith has anything to do with salvation, that we believe water baptism saves a man even if he has no faith, that we hold to a doctrine called sola ecclesia where scripture doesn't matter only the church. He said catholics usurped the church sometime after agustine, he said the pope could just willy nilly change any or all of our doctrines with a wave of his hand. He said the catholics are the liberal church, yet almost all the Supreme Court justices are catholics and conservative. In fact almost every catholic politician in America is republican. He said the catholic church is dying out yet we've added 2 million new members over the last 10 years in just the USA alone. The same cannot be said for calvinists and reformed baptists. In fact there are only about 16k RBs in 400 total congregations in the USA. It is an extremely unpopular denomination boasting some of the most easily refuted theology around. Herrs' nice list of former calvinist Christian apologists. Sam Shamoun, Scott Hahn, Leighton Flowers, Warren McGrew, Steve Ray, Michael Brown, Michael Lofton, Keith Coward, and recently Tyler Vela didn't just deconvert from calvinism, he left the faith entirely. The question is, are there any other denominations that are losing their apologists left and right like that? The biggest question is why are they all leaving? Just check any of them out and they'll give you a bevy of reasons why calvinism is false. Why is is dwindling, and why you should steer clear of guys like James White. Have you seen the video James White destroys James white from how to be christian? I'll post a link as a reply hope it doesn't get deleted and you watch it.
Im only just getting into the video, but the first quote from Augustine is incomplete. In that exact same paragraph (Contra Faustus book 11 para. 5) Augustine asserts that the authority of the canon is above all other writings (which is correct). But then he also says its authority is derived (!) from its connection to the apostles and (get this..) their subsequent recognition and preservation by the Church through the leadership of bishops. Augustine even implies that human writings tend to err only in 'obscure and recondite (abstruse) matters'! Here's the full paragraph for anyone interested! "As regards our writings, which are not a rule of faith or practice, but only a help to edification, we may suppose that they contain some things falling short of the truth in obscure and recondite matters, and that these mistakes may or may not be corrected in subsequent treatises. For we are of those of whom the apostle says: "And if you be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you." Philippians 3:15 Such writings are read with the right of judgment, and without any obligation to believe. In order to leave room for such profitable discussions of difficult questions, there is a distinct boundary line separating all productions subsequent to apostolic times from the authoritative canonical books of the Old and New Testaments. The authority of these books has come down to us from the apostles through the successions of bishops and the extension of the Church, and, from a position of lofty supremacy, claims the submission of every faithful and pious mind. If we are perplexed by an apparent contradiction in Scripture, it is not allowable to say, The author of this book is mistaken; but either the manuscript is faulty, or the translation is wrong, or you have not understood. In the innumerable books that have been written latterly we may sometimes find the same truth as in Scripture, but there is not the same authority. Scripture has a sacredness peculiar to itself. In other books the reader may form his own opinion, and perhaps, from not understanding the writer, may differ from him, and may pronounce in favor of what pleases him, or against what he dislikes. In such cases, a man is at liberty to withhold his belief, unless there is some clear demonstration or some canonical authority to show that the doctrine or statement either must or may be true. But in consequence of the distinctive peculiarity of the sacred writings, we are bound to receive as true whatever the canon shows to have been said by even one prophet, or apostle, or evangelist. Otherwise, not a single page will be left for the guidance of human fallibility, if contempt for the wholesome authority of the canonical books either puts an end to that authority altogether, or involves it in hopeless confusion."
@@bobloblaw2958 I’m so glad I converted to orthodox. Look how big of a douche you are lol He is a skilled debator and has a degree in philosophy. He’s debated the top Muslim apologists and won, like what a goober you are honestly. Like “oh I’m to good for Jay” stfu you’d loose dude
James you might be the best apologist for the Catholic Church, more so than any Catholic apologist. You quote the Fathers and then it sends people to the Fathers which then sends people to Catholicism or Orthodoxy lol.
Dr White, is it possible you're so caught up in scoring the "debate points" between Calvin and Cardinal Sadoleto that you're oblivious to the most patently obvious matter of their debate: Ie, Why is this lawyer arguing with an ordained successor of the Apostles of Jesus Christ? If you deny the impudence of coming up with a "new" doctrine of Justification and using "better agreement with antiquity" (ie attempting to "reset" the church) to justify breaking off from Mother Church, then ask yourself if you have any animosity towards Campbellism
That’s why James white refuses to debate Trent Horn on the matter? 😂 James just debate them and we’ll see if Trent Horn wins like the last debate between the two of you
James White did lose the debate but it's a sad example of how winning a debate doesn't mean your position is correct. James White is defending the true position. He lost the debate because of his Baptist theology. The reformed paedobaptist view of the covenant is the only way to actually give weight and meaning to the warning, falling away passages, etc without falling into the RC/Arminian view. James White really danced around this issue and hurt his witness of the truth by doing this, and yes lost the debate since this was the most foundational point he needed to answer and didn't (couldn't).
@@leahunverferth8247 Could you expound on this a little bit more for me sister/brother? I'd like to learn a bit more information on what you mean about your statement. I'm lacking in knowledge regarding this topic, thank you!
@@iggie But the reformed paedobaptist has an answer that can logically uphold (1) that the regenerate can never lose their salvation and (2) that people can fall away from “salvation.” It’s because we believe the New Covenant extends as far as its sign and seal - baptism - and covenant membership is therefore not limited to the regenerate. In other words, the visible church is the outward administration of the Covenant of Grace and therefore includes some who are unregenerate. So start with the baptismal formula of being baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. This happens both to those who are truly regenerate and those who aren’t. Yet both are in the covenant because both have God’s name placed upon them. However, the unbeliever is only in the covenant in an outward sense - a member of the visible church but not the invisible. Think of how Christ describes the visible church as having dead branches connected to him. These unbelievers are outwardly in the covenant, outwardly connected to Christ, and outwardly “Christians” even though they aren’t really saved. Now we have a group of people who can and indeed do fall away. Unbelievers in the church who apostatize are covenant breakers. They’ve violated the terms of the covenant in their baptism which is to believe on Christ. Hence they come under the covenant sanction of excommunication. This is what makes paedobaptist theology biblical over and against baptist theology. This is a response I wrote to a book that should help you - I wrote it to be understood even by those who have not read the book and it dives deeper into this topic: drive.google.com/file/d/1RhhFjH64btKLiw0X-l7XHc1KdwOAtbUI/view?usp=drive_link
@@iggie But the reformed paedobaptist has an answer that can logically uphold (1) that the regenerate can never lose their salvation and (2) that people can fall away from “salvation.” It’s because we believe the New Covenant extends as far as its sign and seal - baptism - and covenant membership is therefore not limited to the regenerate. In other words, the visible church is the outward administration of the Covenant of Grace and therefore includes some who are unregenerate. So start with the baptismal formula of being baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. This happens both to those who are truly regenerate and those who aren’t. Yet both are in the covenant because both have God’s name placed upon them. However, the unbeliever is only in the covenant in an outward sense - a member of the visible church but not the invisible. Think of how Christ describes the visible church as having dead branches connected to him. These unbelievers are outwardly in the covenant, outwardly connected to Christ, and outwardly “Christians” even though they aren’t really saved. Now we have a group of people who can and indeed do fall away. Unbelievers in the church who apostatize are covenant breakers. They’ve violated the terms of the covenant in their baptism which is to believe on Christ. Hence they come under the covenant sanction of excommunication. This is what makes paedobaptist theology biblical over and against baptist theology. This is a response I wrote to a book that should help you - I wrote it to be understood even by those who have not read the book and it dives deeper into this topic: drive.google.com/file/d/1RhhFjH64btKLiw0X-l7XHc1KdwOAtbUI/view?usp=drive_link
I find the RCC frustrating because they say they have tradition and history on their side, but at the same time they lean heavily on doctrinal development for their dogmas. However, this development seems to contradict history and tradition.
I am 100% certain of my salvation because I am 100% certain that the Lord does not break His Covenant. Even if I should become faithless, He remains eternally faithful. He cannot deny Himself. Praise the Lord our God! Holy is His Name!
“But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, a wild olive shoot, were grafted in their place to share the richness of the olive tree, do not boast over the branches. If you do boast, remember it is not you that support the root, but the root that supports you. You will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast only through faith. So do not become proud, but stand in awe. For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off.” Romans 11:17-22 RSV-C If you do not continue in His kindness, you will be cut off. He already cut off the unfaithful Jews.
@IG88AAA thank you for the good teaching. I agree that all Christians should work out their salvation with fear and trembling. But neither do I doubt my salvation in the least. I have put my faith in the Son of the Living God, and I will doubt my salvation when I doubt His faithfulness or the strength of the Blood of His Covenant which I am under.
And @1:23:49 ff is exactly my problem with the Theocast crowd and their CONSTANT appeal to the Creeds and Confessions. While we may point to them as a sort of index or compendium, our sole appeal should be to the Word of God.
Grace is not a zero sum game. By recognizing that a man can sin even after he enters into a good and right relationship with God which bears lots of fruit and then to say if he has sinned he should go to the Church - the household of God to confess my sins - does not in any way take anything from Gods Grace. This is a logical fallacy.
How does the Calvinist explain Joshua saying, "Choose you this day whom you will serve?" Or 2Peter 3:9 saying, "The Lord is not...willing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance?" Knowing full well that most are on the broad road leading to destruction. Or Jeremiah 19:5 where God says, “They have built the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal-something I did NOT COMMAND or mention, nor did it enter my mind.” Or Revelation 22:17 where it says, " Let the one who is thirsty come; and let the one who WISHES take the free gift of the water of life." Or Deuteronomy 30:10 where it says, " I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live?"
We Calvinists believe that when God saves someone in order that they will serve him, he gives them a new will which willingly comes to God. He does not save someone kicking and screaming. This they do truly choose God and choose life. 2 Peter 3:9 does speak of the Lord delaying his coming in order to give more space for repentance. He's merciful and the goodness of God is meant to lead to repentance. This is helpful for Calvinists to remember because many do forget - God first intends real grace to his creature and it is the rejection of that true offer of grace that heaps up wrath but it is not in the first place intended to heap up wrath.
LOLz to this botched attempt of a rebuttal to Horn. No protestant has even been able to give an answer to this one basic question and the desperate attempts to explain it away exposes the shallow tradition of Sola Scripture: If Scripture alone is sufficient to guide all true Christians to know the truth, then why ya'll who believe that constantly disagree with each other even on REALLY basic things like Baptism? ...Thank God for the one, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic church.
Catholicism didn’t form for another two centuries after Augustine, and Roman Catholicism didn’t form until another four centuries after that. In the 1960s-70s, there was a common trope about how Russians always tried to take credit for every invention and idea. Roman Catholics are actually like that.
Way off the mark, my friend. I think it's actually better if you read from the actual sources like Calvin, Luther, the early church fathers, Augustine, the different councils, etc... before you claim to know what you're talking about. Rather than just listen to what someone told you or some preconceived notion because you read some article, read from the actual men who lived through the times. It may radically change your mind. Scripture Alone, is the authoritative source for all true believers. Not Calvin or any other.
As a defender of the Catholic faith, when early church fathers' writings are taken out of context; especially in a manner that could be used as an argument against Christ's True Church, you should definitely look up the context of such quotes. At the very beginning, the quote used by St. Augustine, a Doctor of The Church, the quite ends too early. The very next line states, "The authority of these books has come down to us from the apostles through the successions of bishops and the extension of the Church, and, from a position of lofty supremacy, claims the submission of every faithful and pious mind."
But he wasn’t an apostle or close companion of one, so his words are not scripture. There is only one mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ. His Spirit dwells within us to correct, convict, recall to memory, etc… all things. Church fathers are not the authority, God’s word and Himself are. When you put a man at the ultimate authority on what you believe, you’ve supplanted Christ as the head of the church. Why do RC’s call the Pope Holy Father? No one is holy, none are righteous, no not one. That means Mary too.
Want more content from Apologia Studios? Get The Academy, Collision, Ask Me Anything, and so much more! Be a part of this ministry with us! Sign up for Apologia All Access! Click the link for more info. apologiastudios.com
So do you teach and believe God has predetermined every soul which goes to heaven or hell? A yes or no is fine. Just looking for clarity.
@@regenerated4lifethese are elders who hold offices in the church. They are very busy.
@@regenerated4life ministries. Other podcasts. going out into the world for the Gospel. Going to abortion clinics. Prepping for legislation. they have families too.
@@regenerated4lifethey don't owe you a response.
The main impetus for the fall of man was the proposition of self qualification. This is why every perversion of the Doctrine of Salvation centers around man's unwillingness to set aside the fallacy that in him is the ability to contribute to his own qualification.
Thank you so much! I was brought up from birth Roman Catholic, my mother's side was very much immersed in it. My grandmother became a Nun. In my young adult days I converted to Mormonism as my husband was LDS. He stumbled upon videos from your ministry 6 years ago. By the grace of our Lord and Saviour we are saved in him, as a direct result of Apologia Studios! Thank you!!!! I have been waiting a very long time for a video on Roman Catholicism looking forward to sharing with my family
No offense friend. But if you convert from the Holy Catholic church to Mormonism it shows your Catholic doctrine was lacking.
There are responses to all of these claims; these two men are very intelligent and biblically literate and they say things with such conviction it seems irrefutable but it simply is not.
@@RedRoosterRomanhardly holy with those in charge
@@RedRoosterRomanyes it’s easy to pick off nominal Catholics or those who may have a more thorough understanding but have been hurt by the church or may fall into the arguments and claims presented by the media. Same was it’s easy for Protestants to start deconstructing their faith and thereby lose it (I mean I suppose if they once believe but deconstruct and become atheists, then it only makes sense their salvation is lost) if they aren’t too knowledgeable about their faith
@@RedRoosterRoman
First of all...the catholic "church" is just a big unholy cult! Don't fall for the devil's tricks!
@@RedRoosterRomanThere are responses for every claim out there, but that doesn’t make it true now does it?
I'm not a Calvanist , but always enjoy content like this from Mr.White and J.Durbin . Excellent content and things that make you think about your faith that much more.
As always, great work Gents!
It's good to cross sides. I disagree with William Lane Craig's Molonism but his videos are still awesome
You're not a Calvinist "yet". Lol.
@@theclown3967 well I'm open to what the Bible reveals through the Holy Spirit. Right now I'm not for it, but I certainly am NOT into argument mode with my other brothers and sisters in Christ. Just a difference of opinion at the moment.
But I like a lot of what Dr.White and Jeff Durbin bring to the table and their apologetics work they do.
@theclown3967 ...It's always good to hear good banter from other branches of Protestantism lol.
@@danperez3970that’s cool that your open to hearing and learning man
I never used to be Calvinist leaning either, it was something I rejected as unbiblical because I thought I knew the bible, but then I decided to start reading Calvin’s institutes and saw that my preconceptions were formed off of what I had experienced of Calvinism online, so I studied Calvin’s books and compared it with the bible.
I’ve read romans before, but when I read romans again after reading into some of Calvin’s institutes, it knocked me off my feet. It was like the scales had been lifted off my eyes. I’m now of the opinion that what Calvin articulates lines up with scripture (for the most part, I don’t agree with everything, Calvin’s books are not the infallible word of God after all).
It was a hard pill to swallow but I’m enjoying learning more every day. I hope and pray God continues to further your learning and understanding in your walk with Christ, who knows what you will discover?
Thank you, men. This blessed me and helped me understand.
I one heard Martin Lloyd Jones say, “The simplicity of the Gospel is an offense to the pride of men.” I think about it often. His teachings have also blessed me. At 60 years old, finally, I hunger for The Word as never before. I seek His face daily and my life has changed. 🙏
Hey Sister...I am reading Martin Lloyd Jones Book called "Romans: An Exposition on Chapter 8:5-17 The Sons of God." I am only 2 chapters in...but its incredible. He was saying Natural man hates Reformed Theology because they hate God. God could not have possibly "Elected" man to Salvation by Foreknowledge (Fore-Loved) it must mean foreseen according to them, because how could God possibly not give everyone a chance. Its not possible to their understanding. Like Leighton Flowers...they must re-explain the clear meaning of the text, just like Trent Horn here. These cults...its soo clear that they simply have not been Born Again. The Holy Spirit brings all truth....and we are not saved without the Holy Spirit. Its MLJ's whole exposition in Chapter 2. God Bless you Dear Sister...💕✝️🌷
@@michellecheriekjv4115while you are correct, I recommend just reading the Bible, and avoid the words of men/commentaries as they pretty much all contain bizarre false teachings. Go with the words of God instead.
I PRAY FOR PTR JAMES WHITE FOR THAT HECTIC DEBATE DATE NEXT YR. MAY GOD CONTINUE PROVIDE HIM GUIDANCE
Praise the Lord!
Jeff your question about how and when the good ground became good, also answers the question of regeneration and faith.
I am forever praising and believing Jesus is the Christ, and this is pleasing to God.
It would be wonderful if you guys got to interview and chat with Dr. Gavin Ortlund. His engagement with these ecumenical dialogues has been very enlightening to the huge problems with the RCC and the EOC.
No just no Gavin ortland is a no over here dawg
@@AppalachianLumberjackDr gavin > trent
@@roses993 I can get behind that
I hereby bestow upon you, the wisdom of my 8 year old nephew on the subject of Purgatory. Ahem: ''Purga-story is goofy-town.'' - Josh, 8yrs.
Josh is brilliant
That is great, couldnt have said it better myself😂
I’m not catholic and dont believe in purgatory, but this kind of thinking is… counterproductive to our faith. Please research more
@@Orthodoxology how do you get to Heaven?
Josh is smarter than most RCs
Hey nice, my animation made it into another response video! I was the one that animated that video on Truth Unites :)
Awesome! Good work!
@@jonathanvickers3881 thanks! Working on the next one now 😃
Can u give details on where ur debate with Trent Horn will take place and how to attend. Also, love that u r responding to a video of Trent responding to Gavlin Ortlund. U and Gavlin Ortlund r a truly a blessing. The amount of knowledge and wisdom u guys share so freely is amazing and so very much needed. Please keep doing what u r doing.
Debates are pointless.
Time-stamps
13:03 - White’s take on retrieval
21:15, 21:25 - Augustine on scripture
28:00, 28:32 - Papal Catholic’s marketing as opposed to real life
31:30 - Predestination to temporary salvation or eternal salvation. What’s the biblical justification for this dichotomy? Parable of the sower and the soils? The seeds that were thrown in good ground were the ones that grew.
And how do you get good ground? It has to be prepared ahead of time.
49:50, 51:40, 55:49 - Church history
57:20, 57:48 - Why not? The availability of the canon, and the tendency of man.
59:00 - “The early church believed…”
1:00:36 - Frustration with church history
1:01:03 - The Papacy’s teaching as the constant faith of the church?
1:12:50, 1:13:00 - church government
Proud protestant (non calvanist) here. I truly love your work. Your videos help me be stronger in the protestant faith😊
Looking forward to those debates, I enjoyed the first between Trent and Dr. White a lot. Would be cool to see Jeff and Trent have a debate or conversation as well. Appreciate all three men a lot.
I would prefer a conversation. Dr W gets too loud.
“Because the Church says so,” is a part of Roman Catholicism. Even the Bible says there is so much more information than can be contained in the Bible.
Maybe you could just explain what you believe and why you believe it without getting tearing others down.
@@cindiloowhoo1166 John 21:25 [25] “Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.” True, but rome can not identify even one.
James white can’t have a conversation when dealing with Catholicism. He gets loud and arrogant and his defense is basically I’m older and therefore smarter
@@cindiloowhoo1166 John 20:30-31 [30] “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; [31] but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” Tell us once more why John states he wrote His account. 😀
@@cindiloowhoo1166 See, if you actually studied the scriptures instead of proof texting to twist the scriptures you would have known the context. This is why rome has never defined one thing Jesus or the apostles said, did or taught that is not in the scriptures.
James White has made me Catholic in the last few weeks. Thank you, Dr. White
It's funny, debating with Catholics over the last few years has made me more Protestant than ever. It also opened my eyes to just how brainwashed Catholics truly are.
Trent has made a stronger protestant. And white too❤😊
Trent has immensely helped me get fuller clarity on the absurdity of Roman Catholicism. And please, STOP confusing the illiterates with the verbiage. Say you're Roman Catholic to be clear. Saying "Catholic" confuses the illiterates, who are not able to immediately distinguish between capitals and lower cases in the verbiage. So, just be clear and say, I'm a Roman Catholic please.
Lol, no
Mark 12:30-31
30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
31 And the second is like, namely this*, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
love it … our epistemology is one founded on revelation… not experience … not observation… not rationalism. Thanks
I love Dr White. He’s truly a blessing from God
There is no reason for any Christian to follow an evil 16th century French lawyer.
HE NOT A REAL DR LOL
Glory to God in whom we have peace
As an ex protestant, Catholic convert, I love all of you as my brothers and sisters in Christ
Psalms 119:104 (KJV) Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way.
Psalms 119:128 (KJV) Therefore I esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be right; and I hate every false way.
You joined a cult where the leader calls himself the vicker of christ and lives in a castle and you chant vain babblings and eat flesh and blood that a man in a dress gives to you after you tell him everything you did that was wrong.
You need to get saved
@@johnf817 I've already been saved my friend! By my Lord and savior Jesus Christ. I proclaim his life death and resurrection, until he comes again. For by faith I was saved! Ephesians 2:8 and by Romans 10:9!
@@johnf817 If Catholics are not saved, how is it, Protestants are?
@@DavidValle-ej8esdo you call your church leaders father ?
@@JacksonmontyartYes just like Paul refers to himself as a Father to the Corinthians. You’re misinterpreting Matthew 23:9 if that’s what you’re getting at
Trent Horn is the man!! God Bless him and the work he does for the Catholic Faith! 🙏
Did you listen to this?
@@irvingfr33 yes indeed I did. I also prefer watching Trent Horn or Jimmy Akin debate Mr White. Have you seen those? 😉
@@jessidiaz1891 not yet! Thanks! I actually do want to see that.
@@jessidiaz1891you know the ninth commandment is thou shalt not lie don't you? Don't lie and say you watched it when you didn't. I'd be willing to bet you just clicked on it so you could comment. And no offense but Trent horn is extremely brainwashed and delusional.
And yes, the 9th commandment is Val shalt not lie. Catholics get confused about that because they removed the second commandment but that's another story
@@jessidiaz1891Dr gavin ortlund >>>>>>>trent horne 😊
After watching this. I went to my Bible and this was revealed; "For I have come to you in my Father’s name, and you have rejected me. Yet if others come in their own name, you gladly welcome them. No wonder you can’t believe! For you gladly honor each other, but you don’t care about the honor that comes from the one who alone is God".~ John 5:43-44 NLT.
God is good. He does speak to His people through His Holy Spirit.
You could very well apply this verse to the reformers...
@@RedRoosterRomanno cause we actually read the Bible, not rely on others to tell us what it says
The Reformers literally said "my will be done" and that is not exaggerating. Martin Luther isn't who you think he is, go listen to the thorough presentation of Lloyd Joungh on Martin Luther. It is truly insane what Luther said in his sermons and writings.
We Catholics come in the name of God and we respect God. But Luther said that the Epistle of James was sh** no exageration, he said that, and if it wasn't for the other Reformers it would no longer be in your Bible do you realize what I am saying??? He also threw out the book of Revelation, he did not respect the word of God.
He married a nun, and in his letters to her he was complaining about how he wasn't getting aroused by prostitutes anymore. It is ridiculous.
Please do your research, don't be complaisant in ignorance my friend, the Holy Spirit is giving you a hint right now. Lloyd de Jongh on Martin Luther, go watch it is crazy.
@@VirginMostPowerfull Wow! Really?! What's wrong with people? I put up a scripture and wrote at the end that "God does speak to us through His Holy Spirit". What does that and the scripture have to do with all names you called and what they are about? What they said and didnt say. What they did and didnt do. Are they Jesus? Did they die for us? Am I worshipping a denomination or humans? The word of God is eternal and life and it will alway have its way to our heart. So why not stop being a Catholic and be a Christian? Why not stop being a divider and be one with the body of Christ. "By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another"~ John 13:35. Shalom.
Both Martin Luther and the catholic cult are corrupt. What's your point? Just because Luther didn't get everything right doesn't mean that catholicism is true 😂🤣🤣 If you don't see this simple truth you are utterly blind to the truth.
Jeff, you are my favorite Christian teacher on the planet
I’m a Latin Mass attending Catholic and give nothing but respect to Apologia and you guys. Always enjoy your content :)
Catholic Christian here as well, even though Apologia studios are Protestant Christians, I like how Apologia reaches Mormons (LDS) and Jehovah's Witnesses (JW's).
@@Alex-yd9pf And Catholics. You guys are lost too.
Do you understand anything when going to Latin mass?
@@JanSobieskiIII I do yes. But we also have hand missals with the translations. I use that mainly for the epistle and gospel readings.
@@Beloved78 lolzzz
Letter of Clement to the Corinthians chapter 32
“And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.” As Abraham and Rahab.
My biggest frustration with Apologia studios is these “responses.” White and Durbin play ~10 second clip from Horn (usually far less than a fully articulated thought), and then dialogue on it for 5-10 minutes. That’s not a response, that’s using another’s ideas as a springboard to advance your own. While that’s not inherently horrible, it is completely unhelpful for those (like Me) who are trying to learn and understand the Truth.
The whole truth is not found within the catholic church...cult.
I’ve been searching for the Truth too, honestly and humbly looking into what Catholics believe.
What is keeping me grounded is the question, “What if I’m wrong?”
Even Catholic teaching does not say I MUST pray to Mary or the Saint or Angels to be saved. Catholic teaching does not say I must venerate statues and icons.
Catholic teaching says you must believe and confess that Jesus is Lord and you must be baptized and you must have an ongoing lifestyle of repentance of sins to go to heaven after you die.
We all basically agree with this.
So as a Protestant, what if I’m wrong? I still go to Heaven after I die, even according to Catholics.
But if Catholics are wrong about praying to Mary and Saints and Angels and venerating statues and icons, they’re breaking the first commandment that states you shall not worship any other God than Yahweh. If you are not faithful to God, it could cost your eternal soul. You may end up spending an eternity in hell over this
@@TJMcCarty The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that the phrase, "Outside the Church there is no salvation", means, if put in positive terms, that "all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body", and it "is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ”
@@meathammer4230 The Catechism also says: “838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter." Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.”
So since Vatican II they believe you can be saved if you believe in Jesus and have been baptized.
That’s my understanding at least.
The ultimate authority is Jesus, and Jesus says in John chapter 6 over and over that if you believe in Jesus, you will receive eternal life. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is simple. The Catholic Church preaches a different gospel. I do hope God will be merciful towards a lot of Catholics who genuinely believe in Jesus though
@@meathammer4230I would push back some on what you’re saying here. My understanding is what you are saying falls under feeneyism, where Fr. Feeney taught no Protestants can be saved and was excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church. I am a Protestant btw and believe the RCC has issues.
Beautiful cameras brothers!!!! And nice studio! May it produce great content
Thank you both for both leading MANY to the Lord Jesus Christ as well as return back to the Lord in Repentance. The crowns your ministry will throw at the feet of our Lord! I can't wait to see.
Aa a former Catholic, and then new ager, the Holy Spirit opened my blind eyes in a moment just as he did Paul, to the Truth. I was subsequently born from above very dramatically with overflowing joy peace and love. There is now no doubt in my mind after 40 years i have eternal llife that cannot be lost, a confidence that began the day i was saved. I believe few catholics are saved. They would mostly "come out of Her" i despise that idolotrous institution with a perfect hatred as i was so brain washed by them and they are leading so many multidudes of sincere lovely souls to hell.!!! Excellent discussion!
The fact that you can't see how insanely mid-witted your entire rant is, is insane to me. Do you actually believe you can't sin your way out of Heaven? Protestants are the only group of people willing to condemn absolutely other denominations and make confirmatory salvific claims in the process. You're literally claiming to know inerrantly the will and intellect of God. Blasphemy at its finest.
Amen. Praise the Lord!!
I do love your testimony!! I personally hope u are not a calvanist. But it's more important that you are truly born again❤ God bless u!!
Try and read your bible very well so that you will know who's actually leading souls to hell...Catholic is the faith i will hold till heaven comes because it teaches nothing but the truth. What you're learning in protestant is palatable preaching that appeals to your interests....read the bible well my dear
To all sides concerned, try this: Read the entire book of Romans every week until you can give a solid overview of each chapter by memory. I would also HIGHLY RECOMMEND memorizing chapters 6 and 8. It is very common for serious deciples of Christ to have the entire book memorized. Ask God to give you understanding.
Yes! Memorizing large sections, not just snippets! I have had my faith transformed by memorizing Hebrews, and now working through Romans. It's still a bit tentative, but I'm getting it nailed down a little better with each pass.
Yes, make sure not to miss that Paul says we all will be judged by our works on final judgment day and only those who persevere in doing good will inherit eternal life and be justified (Romans 2:4-13). Also that Paul says we are united to Christ in baptism we are no longer slaves to sin in Romans chapter 6, and that the way we meet the righteous requirements of Christ’s law in ourselves by walking in the Spirit and not the flesh (ie doing good by the Holy Spirit and not sinning) (Romans 8:4), but if we Christians cease walking in the Spirit we will die eternal death (Romans 8:13). Those are important parts to believe, as Paul doesn’t waste breath regardless of what Calvinists tell you!
@@IAmisMasterhow do you explain our salvation being from entirely from grace and apart from our own good works?
@@jaihummel5057
The Bible never says our salvation is apart from “good works.” It says our salvation is apart from works of the Law (of Moses, like circumcision) and works prior to initial salvation, just like Origen, Chrysostom, Jerome, etc. all correctly interpreted. I’m sorry you rely on Reformation heretics 1500 years removed from Christ instead of native ancient Greek early church writers to help you interpret Paul.
Salvation is by grace because it has nothing to do with our past before having faith, repentance and being born again at baptism. “Grace” biblically is the favor AND power of God, not mere mercy for past sins as Calvinism/Lutheranisn heretically says. Jesus is said to have grown grace (Greek charis) with God and men (Luke 2:52), and Paul says grace is the power of God to overcome his weakness (2 Corinthians 12:9). The Calvinist false definition which pretends grace means “undeserved favor even though we sin every day” is heretical since implying Jesus needed that kind of grace and not simply the power of God to do what is right. All the good works a Christian does that justify on final judgment day are done by the power of the Holy Spirit, so they are all by grace.
@IAmisMaster You just affirmed Protestantism. Paul states that we can only receive the Spirit and therefore walk in the Spirit by faith (Galatians 3:14).
Now tell Dr. White to do this with Orthodoxy against Jay Dyer. That’s what we all would prefer to see.
Jay Dyer is too much of a grifter, he goes to religion to religion
@@BentleyBud-wb9ft are you okay?
@@BentleyBud-wb9ft so would you say Trent Horn is good cause Jay destroyed him
It would be edifying for sure.
Jay Dyer is just a Internet troll. Everyone should just ignore him. He is not worth engaging with.
Wow! This production looks great! Good job guys!
You guys should invite Trent to debate. He debated Gavin ortlund
Early next year he’ll be debating James White
The problem with debating any devout Catholic is they reject the Bible as the only, or even the supreme source of truth. Trent believes, as most faithful Catholics do, that the Bible, as it is interpreted by the magisterium, is the truth. It’s Bible + Tradition - and the Bible can only be understood with the help of a priest or the Magesterium. They believe if we read it outside of what the church teaches about it, it’s just above our heads and we can’t understand it. So trying to debate that Catholicism is unbiblical with someone who requires the authority of the Catholic Church to even read the Bible is not going to go anywhere.
@@BentleyBud-wb9ft how is saying this useful or edifying? You could have commented calmly and said that you think Trent won, but instead you say Trent “crushed” James White. Cool your jets men.
@@Me-hf4iibut what makes the Bible the sole infallible rule of faith? It never says that in the Bible, thus making it a doctrine found outside of the Bible.
@@BentleyBud-wb9ftlol in what world ?
For every Catholic who leaves the Church a hundred Evangelicals comes back home thanks to the work of Fr. Mike Schmitz and his Bible in a Year podcast.
This isn't true but go off I guess
Lol
The RCC is hemorrhaging members. Mass attendance is low. In my area RCC churches are closing.
@@barbarasmith1085 This is incorrect. Stats don't bear this out. Latin Mass attendance and Orthodox mass attendance are rising at staggering rates. Regardless, the primary reason for anyone not attending Catholic church is bad exegesis, and the unwillingness to repent in the face of obvious sin.
Yes,Roman catholicism, the broad road to hell.
Jeff read from NKJV.
Jude 1:24-25 -
24 Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling,
And to present you faultless
Before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy, 25 To God our Savior,
Who alone is wise,
Be glory and majesty,
Dominion and power,
Both now and forever.
Amen.
Can either of these two men produce two or three witnesses that were present when they claim to have felt the call to preach by a spirit, as the Scriptures declare?
Matthew 10:22
And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: BUT HE THAT ENDURETH TO THE END SHALL BE SAVED.
Great video. Catholics will agree that we are saved by grace, but in the RCC, grace is the help God gives us through the sacraments to perform good works necessary for salvation. They don't have the finished work of Christ.
Saying that the a Catholic doesnt have the gift of Christ's sacrament but a protestant does is so ironic lmao
So scripture says by grace you have been saved through faith, then Catholicism says grace through sacraments. How don't you guys see that?
I appreciate your words
AMAZING CAMERAWORK!
Once a saint of God Almighty, the Father of Jesus Christ, always a saint.
Psalm 37:28 For the Lord loveth judgment, and forsaketh not his saints; they are preserved for ever: but the seed of the wicked shall be cut off.
I am forever praising and believing Jesus is the Christ, and this is pleasing to God.
Well, listening to Dr White mention Diognetus, all I could think of from then on is Wilfred Brimley. I’ll now have to watch this a bunch more times before my brain stops being stupid and thinking about the diabetes commercials
As sombody who just calls themself a christian but im super into the different churches and church history Protestantism teaches the most inportant part by faith we are saved alone but im still stuck between orthodox because they call the pope a heretic and believe in sanctification of the spirit idk but I have such love for the ancient orthodox church and how beautiful their cathedrals are but I feep the spirit guiding me too the fullness of the truth amén🎉
You choose a church thay glorifies God and teaches true gospel. NOt because of cathedrals and colors and robes. Pls be wise brother. The true church of 1st century couldn't care less about the things you mention. ITs the gospel that counts
I was part of an Anglo-Catholic Anglican church on the North Shore of Boston, one of the "Three Streams" forming Anglican Tradition or the "Anglican Way". The Anglican Way finds its identity in the Historican nature of the church over against Doctrine or Theology. As a result of this, Sola Scriptura is not emphasized or given primary authority but added to this, in equal authority is Tradition and Reason (This was articulated by Calvin Robinson of England). In short, I and my family left and presently attend a Bible believing small Baptist church that actually preaches the Gospel exegetically instead of calling on the congregation to get to know the Book of Common prayer as their primary resource and go to book.
This means nothing. "Exegetical" just means based on interpretation. I can interpret something poorly and then teach it and it would still be "exegetical". The modern ELCA is "exegetical" and they contend the Bible agrees with gay marriage, supports sodomy, and some are holding that certain doctrine is actually racist. This is what happens when you have a billion splinter groups practicing their own exegesis: you sacrifice the Deuterocanon, use another denomination's council-derived canon outside of the "apocrypha", and you enable these different splinter groups to all claim "sola scriptura".
@@jaykwonzzz This is absolute garbage. When the scripture is interpreted exegetically you get out the meaning of what is actually there as Paul taught it for instance. Your "support" for gay marriage is isogetical reading into the text what is not intended. In fact anyone can "read" into any text if they want to believe a lie. The racist crap is also an abuse of any text where present day "scholarly" idiots want to read that in as well. None of what you say is true and any true believer is going to handle the word of God faithfully and carefully. There are differences based on the light that the H.S gives us but not major doctrinal problems. Catholics have serious doctrinal issues period. The fact that protestants have a million different denominations is not the problem. You should show me a scripture passage where Paul supports gay marriage....I'd be really interested.
Can someone explain to me why it is a Believer cannot lose his salvation, when Christ provides us with several reasons why certain Christian sinners won't go to Heaven in Matthew 15:18-20, Revelation 21:8 and 22:15 and the apostle Paul gives us the rest in Ephesians 5:3-7, Colossians 3:5-6, Galatians 5:19-21, and I Corinthians 6:9-11?
Can someone help me understand how this is not a proper interpretation of James 2 on justification by works.
James 2:24 says “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”
So, since the justification by faith is imputed righteousness, and the justification spoken of in this verse is the kind that comes by faith, the justification that comes from works is the same that comes by faith. So, we can understand we are imputed righteousness by faith, but not by faith alone.
I know I took one verse out of a passage, but I think the context supports it.
@IG88AAA Hi. Your statement contradicts itself. Imputed righteousness comes by faith via the Holy Spirit.
The real division between RCC (Roman Catholic Church) and Protestant beliefs is where in the sequence of events does works/imputed righteousness come into play? The Bible says they come AFTER we are justified by faith, not during or before. RCC says they happen at the same time.
Here is what James said two verses before the one you quoted, in 2:22: “You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was COMPLETED by works.”
What he is saying is that faith without a completion of works, (what Protestants commonly call a byproduct of works) is dead, as he later says in 2:26. Faith alone without works is not faith that saves - it’s not real.
Christian
Hi, thanks for your reply.
Your first paragraph begs the question. I know imputed righteousness is the justification that comes by faith. (Romans 4:3) The question is are we also imputed righteousness by works? To say we are “justified by works and not by faith alone” is saying the justification by works is the same one as by faith, otherwise it would make no sense to say it is not by faith alone.
Your second paragraph is incorrect on the catholic teaching of justification. We are initially justified by faith through grace in baptism. No works necessary. After which we can increase in justification by works. Things such as sunday worship, reading the bible, and helping others. Increased justification is analogous to growing in righteousness.
I reject the idea that the faith James was talking about wasn’t real. He said faith without works is dead, and faith without works is like a body without a spirit. The faith is there. It is it’s being alone, without works, that is the problem. If the faith wasn’t there, why did James tell the hypothetical man that he does well?
If works are necessary for a saving faith, how are works not necessary for salvation?
You want to READ ROMANS 4. James 2 starts talking to saved brethren about RESPECT OF PERSONS. Not about getting saved. Second he notes of you KEEP WHOLE LAW BUT OFFEND IN ONE POINT YOU ARE GUILTY OF ALL! So you cannot keep the law you break it ALL everyday.
He uses example of Abraham like Romans 4. What is the difference? If Abraham were justified by works He hath WHEREOF to glory BUT NOT BEFORE GOD! That is key difference. Men see your works. Works have NOTHING TO DO WITH SALVATION. By Grace are ye SAVED through faith and not of yourself it is the gift of God. Not of works lest any man should boast. Understand difference now??
@@IG88AAA I think the main issue here is our differing definitions for the words "imputed righteousness”, "works”, "faith" and “justification”.
Firstly what I hope we can both agree on is that justification simply means to be justified in the eyes of God. Just if I'd never sinned. Pardoned for my transgressions.
Therefore your first statement, “I know imputed righteousness is the justification that comes by faith.” is worded so that it doesn’t make sense. In Romans 4:3 Paul is simply making the claim that it was faith which justified Abraham in the sight of God. But faith being reckoned as righteousness is not the same thing as faith imputing righteousness.
Being reckoned righteousness is the exact same thing as justification. We understand this by reading just a few verses down in Romans 4:6-8. Paul quoting David, describes justification.
Imputed righteousness is different, and comes after justification. Paul talks about this in chapters 6 and 8 of Romans. This is literal freedom from sin (6:6), sin losing its dominion over us (6:14), and the explanation for how that is a literal reality and not figurative language, which is that the Holy Spirit indwells us and we are alive because of HIS righteousness inside of us (8:9-11).
After explaining that we are freed from sin in the first half of chapter 6, Paul then explains the subject of our own good works in the second half: now that we have already been set free from sin, as a byproduct, we become slaves of righteousness, we yield our bodies to righteousness, and have “fruits unto holiness” (6:18-22). In other words, we live a life of good works (fruits) as a byproduct of 1. Being justified by faith, and 2. Being imputed righteousness/indwelt by God.
What is important to understand is that when James talks about “works”, this is the equivalent of Paul talking about “fruits unto holiness” (sanctification if you don’t use KJV) or “fruits of the Spirit". When Paul uses the word “works” he is referring to works of the Law, always with negative implications, because the Jews believed holding all the commands of the Law is what saved you.
We know James cannot be talking about the OT Law when he says works, because that would mean he is affirming that Jewish traditions must be combined with faith in Christ, as Paul perilously warns his readers to reject (for example a Christian must also be circumsized to be saved). If this was the case James would not even be a Christian. So we understand that James must be talking about something different, and is sharing Paul’s definition of works as simply being fruits.
Where James says "faith”, Paul talks about our relationship with Christ, and here the two saints are talking about completely different things. Faith for Paul is not an assent to a doctrinal belief, as it is for James. When James says faith without works is dead, the equivalent would be Paul saying that a relationship to Christ without works is dead, in other words it's not a real relationship or connection to God. Someone who is indwelt by Christ will naturally produce good works.
This is what I meant when I said dead faith is not real faith. I’m not saying the belief in something is absent, I mean it is not "real" faith because it lacks the works (fruits) that Paul says must come after justification and the indwelling of the Spirit, in order to prove that someone has a genuine relationship with Christ. This is real saving faith.
“If works are necessary for a saving faith, how are works not necessary for salvation?”
The issue is works are not necessary for saving faith. That’s the whole point! Saving faith is necessary for works, it’s not the other way around. Saving faith is faith that has produced the indwelling Spirit, so that we too can say with Paul, “it is no longer I that live, but Christ that lives in me.” Justification by faith >> indwelling of the Spirit >> good works (fruits). This is the order according to the Apostle. If Christ lives in us, our works will be the greatest works.
I can try to reverse the order and place good works first, which is what I think you’re saying. If I do that the works would no longer be fruits. I therefore cannot be justified by faith alone, because I am also trying to be justified by works. There’s nothing wrong with doing works before truly being saved, but one must understand it’s not the works that contribute to their justification and therefore sanctification, which in total is salvation - it is faith alone.
As for what you said about RCC, question: is it possible to be justified by grace through faith alone without water baptism? When Paul talks about being baptized into Christ in Romans 6, he doesn’t talk about water. He just uses the word baptized, which simply means immersion, and Paul says we must be immersed into Christ so that we can be immersed into His death and rise again (figuratively) into a new life of holiness.
Sorry this reply was way too long! Hope this wasn’t too confusing.
Christian
Thanks again for your reply.
I agree, we need to know what each other means by the terms we use. I tried to sidestep confusion by using imputed righteousness. The last Protestant I talked to said imputed righteousness is justification, and is the same as being justified before God. This was due to his use of only the KJV. I see it did not help.
Imputed righteousness and reckoned righteousness are the same, when I was using it. Reckoned is translated to imputed in the RSV translation compared to the KJV per my Bible app. I would also say that righteousness is also infused. We are not merely called righteous, we are made righteous. All this to say I think we agree what justification is, but I do not think imputed righteousness is distinct from justification.
We agree on what James and Paul both mean by works, and by faith. We still are at a crossroads on my question. James and Paul both quote “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.” So I think it is fair to understand that in this context, faith and justification is meant the same by both of them. So, since reckoned righteousness is the justification that comes from faith, and James says we are justified by works and not by faith alone, why should we not understand the justification by works and faith as the same justification? To be clear, I do not mean that we need works to be initially justified, but justification of works can be understood as increasing in justification from God when we are in Christ and He indwealt in us. Put another way, growing in righteousness.
This leads to understanding how works contribute to our salvation, by which I mean final salvation. I want to be very clear, I and the Church do not mean works are necessary to be saved or justified initially. As perfect evidence that we do not believe we can merit initial justification by good works - we baptize babies. What good works could baby do?
Water baptism is necessary. There are extreme circumstances which it is not, someone dies before having a chance to and they would have given the chance, and baptism by blood, by which we mean martyrdom before receiving baptism. This is because God is not unreasonable and can work outside His ordinary means.
When you take the context of baptism throughout the OT prophecies and NT, it can only be water baptism to be meant in Romans 6.
One example is Acts 10 “While Peter was still saying this, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. “Can any one forbid water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?””
Acts 10:44, 47 RSV-C
If baptism means immersion of spirit, why did Peter still say they needed baptism? I believe this undercuts the idea that baptism in the NT could mean anything but water baptism.
Another is Christs baptism. He came up from the water and the Holy Spirit descended upon Him. What better example for the reception of the Holy Spirit?
Well, the Lutheran's are here 👋
I have a very dear Roman Catholic family member. He's very dear to me, very devout, and a genuinely good man. I also once heard him say, serious as a heart attack, "God's grace is not sufficient for our salvation, we DO have to work for it." The sad fact is this, if you're a Roman Catholic who believes youre saved by grace, through faith in Christ alone, youre not actually Roman Catholic, because that is plainly NOT what the Church teaches. And if youre a catholic who believes he cam earn salvation, you utterly deny the work of Christ, trampling under foot the Son of God and His work. You do this by saying, "No, His work is insufficient to save me." Which in itseld flies in the face of Hebrews (a WILDLY misunderstood book in the bible) which explains that Christ is able to save to the uttermost, and that He is our all-sufficient Savior. Salvation is of the Lord, not us.
And before I'm accused of "easy-believism" or some other nonsense, i do not remotely deny that Christians need to work, and indeed any TRUE Christian, after havjng heard the gospel and being brought into repentance, the TRUE Christian who has Shalom with Yahweh will understand how deeply sinful he is, how unable he is to save himself, and realizing the love of Christ on the cross, that true Christian will be ZEALOUS for good works as an outpouring of the spirit which bares evidence of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, along with good fruit.
The VAST majority of Catholics are not saved, certainly not if they believe the countless heresies of Rome. And if the Roman Catholic denies those terrible doctrines and recognizes the truth found in scripture, then he is not truly Roman.
The Holy Spirit keeps God's remnant from error regarding the source of SALVATION, the Holy Spirit would NEVER allow one of God's children to say "His grace is not sufficient." If you can say that, or anything to that affect, you are not indwelt by the Spirit. The Spirit would not allow a child of God to deny the very WORD OF GOD.
He either misrepresented Catholicism inadvertently, or you misunderstood.
@IG88AAA no sir, Catholic doctrine effectively teaches that God's grace is insufficient for our salvation. In Roman theology, you must merit salvation through good works. More specifically, you need your own merit, the merit of past saints, and the merit of Christ. The Roman church anathematized the gospel of salvation by grace through faith in Christ. My family member was speaking true Roman doctrine according to Vatican II. There was no misunderstanding.
Thanks for responding.
Can you cite where this is taught?
@@IG88AAA Council of Trent, Session 6, Canons 9, 14, 20, 24, 30, and 32 are all very potent examples.
@@IG88AAAI don’t know where the citations would be, but my grandparents have been Catholic their whole lives and he is 87 and he told me the exact same thing. I honestly was very upset and we had an argument (although I tried very hard to keep from escalating it) and the more questions I asked the more I realized that Roman Catholicism is not Christianity, it’s essentially Paganism with Christian vocabulary. I tried to ask him if he meant that through salvation you bear good fruits that prove your salvation, but he insisted that you couldn’t be saved by grace and faith alone, and that you could only be saved through faith and works. When I quoted the scripture that refutes that he said that without the Catholic Church to guide you you couldn’t properly interpret scriptures. So no, Catholics genuinely believe that Christ’s grace is not sufficient.
“And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.”
Ephesians 6:17
God is clear that we are to equip ourselves with His word. God Himself declares that we are to use scripture alone to defend the faith. We aren’t to use His word + the councils authority, or the magisterium, or even the church. The authority of God comes through His word. If I had to choose between God’s authority or church authority, I choose God.
St Paul almost definitely wrote this prior to the gospels being written and dispersed to all Christians.
Words are still words if they are passed by mouth.
Love Trent Horn🌻
“[T]he custom [of not rebaptizing converts] . . . may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings” (St. Augustine, On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:23[31] [A.D. 400]). Quote courtesy of Catholic Answers
And baptizing babies who don't have any idea started when and why?
@@jessebryant9233 Babies were circumcised in Israel. They didn’t wait until they were grown up so that they could freely accept Moses as their personal Lawgiver and Egypt Deliverer. “ In him also you were circumcised with a spiritual circumcision,[a] by putting off the body of the flesh in the circumcision of Christ 12 when you were buried with him in baptism” Colossians 2:11-12a
@@bman5257
Babies are circumcised? So? Practices performed in the Nation of Israel ≠ Christian and you know it. In the New Testament where baptism is introduced, it NEVER preceds a profession of faith.
@@jessebryant9233 The Bible teaches quite plainly that baptism is the new circumcision, which I cited above Colossians 2:11-12. It’s an argument from silence to say that we don’t explicitly see a baby being baptized, so therefore baptism is just for adults. The Bible clearly teaches baptism is necessary for salvation. “Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.” John 3:5. “Baptism, corresponding to this, now saves you.” 1 Peter 3:21. If you want your babies to be saved then you should baptize them.
The Early Church believed baptism was necessary for salvation and that babies should be baptized.
“The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic” (St. Augustine, The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).
“By this grace baptized infants too are ingrafted into his [Christ’s] body, infants who certainly are not yet able to imitate anyone. Christ, in whom all are made alive . . . gives also the most hidden grace of his Spirit to believers, grace which he secretly infuses even into infants. . . . If anyone wonders why children born of the baptized should themselves be baptized, let him attend briefly to this. . . . The sacrament of baptism is most assuredly the sacrament of regeneration” (St Augustine, Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:9:10; 1:24:34; 2:27:43 [A.D. 412]).
“Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them” (St. Hypolutus of RomeThe Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).
Quotes from CA
@@bman5257If you stop there, it sounds like the baptism ceremony causes the change. However, if the circumcision is spiritual, “without hands,” it’s possible that the baptism is without hands, too: the baptism by the Holy Spirit.
So, let’s complete the passage:
“[B]aptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. And when you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us and which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.”
The key is “by faith in the working of God.” Do infants have faith in the working of God?
One more note: Notice the symbolism of burial and resurrection. Does Catholic pouring symbolize burial and resurrection? Not one bit. In fact, they claim it symbolizes and effects the pouring of the Holy Spirit onto the baptizee.
They also rationalize it by saying it’s a revision of circumcision. But have you ever read Galatians? Look beyond the ceremony and distill it to its principles. Water baptism, as practiced by Catholicism and most Protestant denominations is condemned by the Holy Spirit.
You have to take it as a package: performer, symbolism, effects, and subject (the baptizee). Catholic teaching is unbiblical on every detail.
James White has made more people catholic than most Catholic Apologists. Keep up the good work! (i'm one of them too)
I start RCIA this Sunday, this comment made me LOL!
Copeium
Awwwww, the old “I was going to leave Islam, but this video renewed my faith” claim. Very original
As a 35+MIA yrs revert, Amen. Thanks be to God, and "Dr." James White for showing me (without i even asking or seeking) in such a short time, how lost "Dr." White is - Lord have Mercy, Christ have mercy.
@@essafats5728 What's the Gospel?
Jeff, you should debate Trent Horn instead of the Catholic laity.
Don't follow Calvin. Follow God. Don't follow Roman Catholicism. Follow God. Just follow GOD. Do no not let any man or any institution get between you and God.
What if it’s God’s institution? Christ built a church and it is the pillar and foundation of truth. This is biblical. His church is also called the kingdom of heaven, the body of Christ, and the bride of Christ. You really want to reject this institution??
That is the same as saying you want Jesus as your king, but don’t want His kingdom. You want to follow Him, but don’t want to be part of His body.
Please reconsider this idea.
@@IG88AAA reconsider the RC church? No!
Chloe
No I was saying you need to reconsider the need for the church established by Christ. Your opinion that the church you belong to doesn’t matter is antibiblical.
@@IG88AAA we believers are the church. How could I be separate from being the church? I was stating that organized religion and religious people like to make up their own interpretations, and try to make people believe and follow them. Follow God. Sheesh. Why is it you seem to be having issues understanding?
Chloe
Your presupposition that “believers are the church” is unbiblical. Christs church has authority and is the pillar and foundation of truth. Not some abstract amalgamation of individual people.
So to say you reject Christs actual church that is an institution with authority and a hierarchy is unchristian.
This conversation had me lost. They’re jumping from one subject to another without setting the previous point. I’m so lost.
There are comments byTertullian regarding JN. 6 and transubstantiation that would go over very well from a fundamentalist Baptist pulpit.
As far as "perseverance" goes, He is faithful to His own. It is not our "holding out consistently" to the end that saves.
I was unchurched for over 6 years through bitterness over the untimely death of a loved one. Guess what? I never fell from God's grace and needed to get saved again.
I prefer "preservation" to "perseverance".
Did LOT persevere all his life?
Paul writes to Corinth concerning eating "unworthily" at the Lord's Supper; some even becoming ill and dying. He doesn't say they fell from grace.
And the young Christian man in an unholy relationship with his father's wife...."giving him over to satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved..."
I reject "easy believeism" as well; but it is not our faithfulness to Him that saves.
Grace alone or it is not grace at all....
really enjoyed this video...God bless
Can you show me the quotes from Tertullian. Transubstantiation is a later explanation of the Real Presence. I haven't found a churchbfather yet who rejected the Real Presence.
@@chemnitzfan654 I promise I will get that to you; been pretty distracted.
I must say this though. The basis of your question is misguided. You assume the doctrine (whatever it was called) in apostolic and early church history
was and is Biblical. Therefore you read into those ECF quotes what you already believe. I have never read a church father from the second or third century who
quoted or paraphrased Last Supper references who believed in a "magical" transformation of the Communion bread and wine into the LITERAL (though invisible)
body and blood of Christ.
Every time my church holds a Communion service, the proper passages are quoted; "This is my body..." , etc. but we don't believe the elements transform into
the body and blood of the Lord.
I will get back to you...God bless
@davidvanriper60 Every church father I've read who speaks about the Lord's Supper holds to the Real Presence.
@@chemnitzfan654 “Indeed, up to the present time, he has not disdained the water which the Creator made wherewith he washes his people; nor the oil with which he anoints them; nor that union of honey and milk wherewithal he gives them the nourishment of children; nor the bread by which he REPRESENTS his own proper body, thus requiring in his very sacraments the ‘beggarly elements’ of the Creator.” (Tertullian, Against Marcion, 1:14)
“He says, it is true, that ‘the flesh profiteth nothing;’ but then, as in the former case, the meaning must be regulated by the subject which is spoken of. Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, ‘It is the spirit that quickeneth;’ and then added, ‘The flesh profiteth nothing,’ - meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: ‘The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.’ In a like sense He had previously said: ‘He that heareth my words, and believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life.’ Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appelation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith. Now, just before the passage in hand, He had declared His flesh to be ‘the bread which cometh down from heaven,’ impressing on His hearers constantly under the FIGURE of necessary food the memory of their forefathers, who had preferred the bread and flesh of Egypt to their divine calling.”-(Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh, 37)
Nothing here indicates Tertullian believed in the REAL presence of the body of Christ during Communion service.
So cinematic, brothers! Praise the Lord!
Is the modern catholic similar to the modern Mormon in that they reject many of the ancient catholic teachings? In doing so, may they actually be orthodox Christians living under the wrong title of Catholic?
I often wonder how much Catholics know about catholic doctrine, or how much they believe it. Seeing as over 50% of Americans consider themselves Christian but polls also show only about 4% of Americans have a Biblical worldview.
Catholics are more like Pharisees, with an Egyptian Isis sub-cult.
Progressives are like Sadducees and Hellenists.
NAR is like the Jewish Zealots.
Mormons are like polytheists of the Jupiter cult or Hellenists of the Zeus cult, only, with terminology usurped from Christianity and some theology borrowed from Gnosticism.
JWs are like the Arians.
There’s 3 different kinds of romanists
Sedevacantists are romanists who don’t hold anything past 1970s
Trad Caths who are in a complicated Roman position
And Romanist who are pro Vatican 2
You can not assume that a person that calls themself catholic beleives what RC teaches. Or even knows it.
This is totally anecdotal but, in my estimation yes. Many Catholics love God, read their Bible and develop their own "doctrines", as it were that end up being contrary to Catholic theology.
One thing I find incredibly deceptive is when James White says there is more to the quotes that Trent Horn shares yet he doesn't put them up on the screen for us to see. We can only rely on what James White says!
Also incredibly deceptive: at 1:04:36 when Trent is quoting St. Fulgentius - Trent Horn says this is true, but not for the same reason James White says it's true. Trent is saying this is true in regards to God knows how many will be saved and that those who are brought into Heaven will never lose their salvation and those who go to hell will never attain salvation. Trent is not using this quote to confirm the perseverance of the saints theology that reformers hold.
1:20:00 - doesn't actually address the objection at all but shifts to a Catholic doctrine.
Wait, if they believe that Mary was immaculately conceived (without sin) and as I believe it's understood the reason behind that is "how could the saviour be born by a sinful woman" wouldn't that then cause a infinite regress (up to Adam and eve) issue in regards to sin stopping the LORD Jesus from being born??
And even sin having more power than God?
The immaculate conception isn’t believed because “she had to have no sin to have Jesus” although some Catholics might try to use this as their argument.
It’s actually believed because it’s seen as “fitting” that God would keep her from sin since she’s containing God in her womb like a new arc of the covenant. He didn’t HAVE to preserve her from sin, yet did.
Also she’s seen as the new Eve so if Jesus, the new Adam, is free from sin, then the belief is that well then so is the new Eve because it’s fitting.
I think lots of Catholics think this too because of the Marian apparitions, one of which she announced herself as the “immaculate conception” I think to st. Bernadette? Could be wrong on that part cuz I don’t remember a ton about the apparitions.
To complement what the brother said, I'm a Catholic who makes the argument for the necessity rather than just fittingness of the Immaculate conception.
Not to say God could be stained, but that if Mary was not immaculate there would be a defensive violence made in the process of receiving his human nature from Mary and this would indeed be unfitting.
Moreover, the Virgin Mary by receiving the grace of immaculate conception, she is in debt to God so to say because she was graced, it was not her earning it. Thus giving the liberty to her Son Jesus Christ of not being in a sort of debt of grace like her, unless he simply made a defensive violence by mere divine power which again would be unfitting.
Why not more immaculate conceptions before Mary ?
Because only Mary needed it, it's the smallest number and most fitting as she is the new Eve.
@VirginMostPowerfull that's all opinion though. It's like you're saying God can't defeat sin. It's contrary to the whole point of the Gospels. Only God is good, and Mary needed a Savior, she said so herself: "My spirit rejoices in God my Savior" (Luke 1:47).
@@VirginMostPowerfull I don’t recall Eve having Adam as a child 😂. How is she the new Eve? This contradicts Paul in Romans, all have sinned. How is it possible to interpret that as all but Mary?
Dr. James White debate on my birthday! God loves me!
What does having free will to receive salvation have anything to do with man's ego or self exultation? If someone throws me a life boat, but I choose not to get on it that and drown in the sea, that isn't Gods fault that is mine. Note: I would have died without the life boat so had I gotten onto the boat God would've saved me and got credit for it.
Amen!
Well you have to remember this video specifically is about the Roman Catholic Church which would have a Sacramento system, but also how can a dead man grab a lifeboat? A man who is drowned and is 100 ft underwater, how can they grab a lifeboat? This is Paul's argumentation in Ephesians chapter 2.
Sadly people do not actually believe Paul which is what James White was saying. Also you're throwing in comments that have nothing to do with your argumentation, nobody is blaming God because they didn't " grab " salvation.
I would really love and deeply appreciate if one of you could debate Dr. Taylor Marshall
I was born and raised Catholic. Altar boy and all the rest. My Dad, son of an Irish Immigrant raised the same and attended Fordham Prep, and the University. We were very involved in the church. My dad used to take me to the rectory on Sundays with beer to share with the priests over football games. My dad also would invite the nuns over the house. Serving them food, a couple scotches and cigarettes. I say this for my Dad would always tell me they are people, nothing more, nothing less than you and me. We are all sinful and make mistakes our whole lives. He also told me I raise you in the church and the catholic school for I want some message of the Lord around you. Public school was never an option for me. Back in the 70's and early 80's the church was different. There were many rules and laws in the church that are non biblical. Sometimes did not make sense. But as an 8 year old I did receive the Lord in my heart and my soul. The joy of Him I recall greatly and still today at age 58. Maybe I was lucky or in a more Biblically grounded church that helped connect the Holy Spirit with me. Doctrine and rules never intruded in the number one priority of my relationship with the Lord. My dad would always remind me of this. Over the years my Dad left the church for he said it became too much rule based and pushed the narrative of Rome which he said was corrupt. He also said the the generation of sound priests have died and replaced with more liberal and world based men. He also told me that most Roman Catholics are lost and not centered on the word of God and their relationship with the Lord. He said folks dont understand the Grace of our Lord. More are stuck in doctrine.
Rules are important to God. See exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, etc. He gave His followers tons of rules, and Judaism was the true religion.
Jesus told the Jews to follow the rules of the Pharisees, since they sat in the seat of Moses and had the legislative power to bind and loose doctrine.
So one would expect Christ's church to have this authority considering Jesus gave the authority to bind and loose to His apostles.
only 2 minutes in and want to say how AWESOME the camera quality is here lol
9:47 Except we don’t have Church Fathers teaching against the Assumption. And we have several Church Fathers teaching that a saved Christian can lose their salvation. The first record of someone explicitly believing eternal security is John Calvin in the 16th century, the first record of the assumption is 1000 years before that.
Also if Trent has a double standard than don’t you too. I think Dr. White uses arguments of silence for the Assumption, so then he should hold his Calvinist doctrines to that same standard.
Gavin Ortlund on his channel Truth United lays out the evidence against the Bodily Assumption. Have you watched the videos honestly? He summarizes numerous studies. Have you ever looked at Dr. Stephan Shoemaker, or Luigi as he cites them? I have, a decade ago. When you are making the historical claim, you have the burden of proof. Even more so when you claim it is necessary for salvation. Scripture teaches John chapter 6. John Gill in his book the cause of God and truth gives a historical defense of Reformed predestination. Have you read it? Apologia church doesn't claim that believing that perservance of the saints is a necessary doctrine for salvation. So it's apples and oranges. we have the Apostles writing, Rome doesn't have a single word from the Lord Jesus or any Apostle that isn't written in Scripture.
@@bruhmingo I don’t think you understand the Catholic Church’s view on dogma and the Church Fathers. Individual Church Fathers are not infallible. However since they are pious Christians living in the early centuries of the Church they are a non-infallible testimony to which books the Church regarded as scripture, and which doctrines the Scriptures neglected to be taught in Apostolic Tradition. The Scriptrues are infallible because they are inspired, and the Church in its magisterium is infallible. Even if the Church Fathers and Ecumenical Synods are not invested with infallibility by Protestants, the fact these pious early Christians so disagree with Protestantism and read Scripture so differently is a testament to Protestantism being disconnected from the faith passed on by the apostles.
The assumption is nowhere to be found until 5th century or at worst until 1950
@@duckymomo7935 😂not until 1950, I wonder what people did when they got to the 4th glorious mystery of the Rosary in 1949?
@@duckymomo7935 Give me one passage where somebody unambiguously states a saved person can not lose their salvation before Calvin in the 1500s. Please don’t cite an ambiguous Bible verse that you think teaches it so that we can go in a circle with our different interpretations. I’m giving you 1500 years to give me one unambiguous statement. I can find you statement after statement of people denying this Protestant doctrine for 1500 years, but you can not do the same with people denying the assumption.
Where can I get more information about Dr White’s upcoming debate in Houston?
It is a bizarre idea that the omnipotent, omniscient Creator of the universe cannot speak to us through Scripture with perspicuity.
Right, God could do that. But did He? There are as many interpretations as there are readers of scripture. People that read what you think is perspicuous disagree on key doctrine.
Martin Luther himself complained that amongst the Reformers there were as many doctrines as there were people.
Scripture says God did speak plainly and you have to exegete scripture as a whole. God is not a contradictory God, so you filter new revelation (New Testament) or even pastors/teachers on God’s previous revelation. That’s why we can emphatically say Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons are false because they interpret scripture falsely. If someone comes up to you and says “I love Jesus, he taught to eat our neighbor”, we can easily go and without a lot of difficulty show them that Jesus did not say that. You do not need post-apostle church fathers to understand the truth of the New Testament. They are good references at times, but not scripture.
Thanks for great insights! This throws the light that ultimately catholic Church's pisition is true and strengthen Catholic faith.BTW can we have debate between Christian and Saducees on Resurrection topic? 1:31:05
58:18 “The natural tendency of man is to exalt man’s capacities and to diminish God’s sovereignty.”
That’s exactly what it seems like you’re doing when you leave the church Christ started to start your own.
Christ didn’t found the modern Roman Catholic Church.
@@CCiPencil so where is the original Jesus-Christ founded church in this modern day?
@@essafats5728 We, Christians, have a set of books that were inspired by God. It’s called the Bible, in the Bible is the New Testament. I would highly recommend you read it, it tells you what the Church is, who Jesus is and what the Gospel of Christ is. Or you could continue worshiping your queen in heaven, Mary, and see if she tells you.
@@CCiPencil may the Good God have mercy on ur ignorant blackened PROTEST-ant unbiblical worshipping soul.
Peace Be With You.
Yep.. If these guys are so sure of eternal security.. They should be in a position to prove that God the Almighty have approved their position of faith. And if so, they should be able to enumerate thousands of protestant saints who attained salvation. Right? Can they do that? never heard of any protestant saint..
The "contract man" must've been the infamous Dan Corner ! Great program gentlemen.
I will ask you the same question I asked Dr. Ortlund after his attempt to argue that St. Augustine believed in Sola Scriptura. St. Augustine believed you were a heretic if you denied the perpetual virginity of Mary. You therefore have two options: you may say that St. Augustine bases this dogma after sacred tradition, and therefore he does not believe in sola scriptura. Or you can say that he based this off of Scripture and therefore the scriptures teach infallibly and dogmatically that Mary is a perpetual Virgin. You can extend this thought experiment to all of the things that St. Augustine believed are necessary essentials of the Christian faith which are not taken as such by Protestants, perpetual virginity being one example.
So what other authority do you accept and why/on what grounds? And what a silly belief for Augustine to hold regarding Mary! But then, we're all wonky somewhere, aren't we? "Sacred tradition"? I don't think you should be calling it that...
@@jessebryant9233 I accept Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition as expounded by Christ’s Church. Which was the view of the vast majority of Christians until the Protestant Reformation and still is for the majority of Christians today.
@@jessebryant9233 And you can call Augustine silly for his views but that just goes to show that your version of Christianity was foreign to him and unknown to the rest of the Church.
@@bman5257
"Christ's Church"? WHY do you call it "Sacred Tradition"? Because the Church says that's what it is? Is "vast majority" your ultimate standard? That's how your argue for your position? Still is the "majority of Christians today"? No it isn't... But then, what does it mean to be a "Christian"?
@@bman5257
Didn't call Augustine "silly"...
How does one buy tickets for that white v horn debate in houston?
Pastor White, please write a book that shows reformed doctrine in the early church fathers! We need a book of quotes 😂😂😂💪
I really enjoy Trent generally he's a very respectful person. Now I really disagree with his conclusions. I used to look at Hebrews and come to tye conclusion salvation could be lost until James White gave a very articulate response and explanation.
What convinced you?
@@IG88AAA
Now I'm only speaking about eternal security and the way it relates to Hebrews but it was the explanation of the types of Christians and prescriptive and descriptive texts.
Collectibles
Is there a video or article of White's explanation you would recommend?
@@IG88AAA
I really wish I could remember which video it was, I generally watch so many a week it's hard to keep up with. I can say it wasn't a debate or dividing line.
I prefer pronouncing his name as “Augustine” instead of “Augustine.”
😄
You’re both wrong. Obviously, it’s pronounced, “Augustine.”
For some reason my mind goes to Aug gust Steen first and then Aug gust tin....but definitely cute...☺️
What is the pillar and foundation of Truth?
It's not a what.
Trent Horns debate with James White is what put me over the fence for catholicism. I've been confirmed since easter.... everything I thought I knew about Catholics I got from James White. Finding out every one of those things were incorrect, mischaracterizations, strawmen, and flat out lies. Its like how much can you lie about your opponent before you're answerable to God? I hope James and Trent have a round 2!
Can you site some examples of these strawmen arguments or lies? My intuition tells me you are using strawmen and lies to say James White is. I am not a Calvinist, but can read through the council of Trent and examine the religious practices of the Catholic Church to see how idolatrous and un rooted in apostolic tradition it actually is (Mary is sinless/, a perpetual virgin, veneration of images, the extra Biblical invention of purgatory, council of Trent session 6 cannon 9 and 11, transubstantiation, etc)
Welcome home, you saw through the little white lies!
I'm sure we would all appreciate some examples.
@@alexglase765 “There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.”
― Fulton J. Sheen
@alexglase765 I could give tons of them..... catholics made up Marian dogmas in the midevil period, that we don't believe Christ's sacrifice is enough to save, that Christ's sacrifice was not once and for all, that we have to work to get to heaven, that we worship the saints, that we have a man centered religion, that we preach a gospel not found in scripture, that we need to go to a priest to have our sins forgiven, that we don't believe faith has anything to do with salvation, that we believe water baptism saves a man even if he has no faith, that we hold to a doctrine called sola ecclesia where scripture doesn't matter only the church. He said catholics usurped the church sometime after agustine, he said the pope could just willy nilly change any or all of our doctrines with a wave of his hand. He said the catholics are the liberal church, yet almost all the Supreme Court justices are catholics and conservative. In fact almost every catholic politician in America is republican. He said the catholic church is dying out yet we've added 2 million new members over the last 10 years in just the USA alone.
The same cannot be said for calvinists and reformed baptists. In fact there are only about 16k RBs in 400 total congregations in the USA. It is an extremely unpopular denomination boasting some of the most easily refuted theology around. Herrs' nice list of former calvinist Christian apologists. Sam Shamoun, Scott Hahn, Leighton Flowers, Warren McGrew, Steve Ray, Michael Brown, Michael Lofton, Keith Coward, and recently Tyler Vela didn't just deconvert from calvinism, he left the faith entirely. The question is, are there any other denominations that are losing their apologists left and right like that? The biggest question is why are they all leaving? Just check any of them out and they'll give you a bevy of reasons why calvinism is false. Why is is dwindling, and why you should steer clear of guys like James White. Have you seen the video James White destroys James white from how to be christian? I'll post a link as a reply hope it doesn't get deleted and you watch it.
Im only just getting into the video, but the first quote from Augustine is incomplete. In that exact same paragraph (Contra Faustus book 11 para. 5) Augustine asserts that the authority of the canon is above all other writings (which is correct). But then he also says its authority is derived (!) from its connection to the apostles and (get this..) their subsequent recognition and preservation by the Church through the leadership of bishops. Augustine even implies that human writings tend to err only in 'obscure and recondite (abstruse) matters'! Here's the full paragraph for anyone interested!
"As regards our writings, which are not a rule of faith or practice, but only a help to edification, we may suppose that they contain some things falling short of the truth in obscure and recondite matters, and that these mistakes may or may not be corrected in subsequent treatises. For we are of those of whom the apostle says: "And if you be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you." Philippians 3:15 Such writings are read with the right of judgment, and without any obligation to believe. In order to leave room for such profitable discussions of difficult questions, there is a distinct boundary line separating all productions subsequent to apostolic times from the authoritative canonical books of the Old and New Testaments. The authority of these books has come down to us from the apostles through the successions of bishops and the extension of the Church, and, from a position of lofty supremacy, claims the submission of every faithful and pious mind. If we are perplexed by an apparent contradiction in Scripture, it is not allowable to say, The author of this book is mistaken; but either the manuscript is faulty, or the translation is wrong, or you have not understood. In the innumerable books that have been written latterly we may sometimes find the same truth as in Scripture, but there is not the same authority. Scripture has a sacredness peculiar to itself. In other books the reader may form his own opinion, and perhaps, from not understanding the writer, may differ from him, and may pronounce in favor of what pleases him, or against what he dislikes. In such cases, a man is at liberty to withhold his belief, unless there is some clear demonstration or some canonical authority to show that the doctrine or statement either must or may be true. But in consequence of the distinctive peculiarity of the sacred writings, we are bound to receive as true whatever the canon shows to have been said by even one prophet, or apostle, or evangelist. Otherwise, not a single page will be left for the guidance of human fallibility, if contempt for the wholesome authority of the canonical books either puts an end to that authority altogether, or involves it in hopeless confusion."
Thanks!
would love to see more catholicism videos. have a lot of catholics in my life who i would like to educate
But do you have any educated Catholics well versed in their faith that could perhaps educate you and not believe the caricatures presented
@@EJ-gx9hl
Catholicism is a cult that defeats itself with and without any well versed catholics to "defend" it.
Re: @1:11:41
Not just a "priest" but a High Priest on the Day of Atonement!
Debate jay dyer
Not worth it
They to scared
@@BentleyBud-wb9ft than why won’t they? They are definitely invited.
Why would you bring a spoon to a gun fight?
@@bobloblaw2958 I’m so glad I converted to orthodox. Look how big of a douche you are lol He is a skilled debator and has a degree in philosophy. He’s debated the top Muslim apologists and won, like what a goober you are honestly. Like “oh I’m to good for Jay” stfu you’d loose dude
Video starts at 12:10.
#jameswhitemademecatholic
Normally James White is James White, but in this discussion I hear him.
James you might be the best apologist for the Catholic Church, more so than any Catholic apologist. You quote the Fathers and then it sends people to the Fathers which then sends people to Catholicism or Orthodoxy lol.
There's a reason the best apologetics debates are between Catholics and Orthodox.
Dr White, is it possible you're so caught up in scoring the "debate points" between Calvin and Cardinal Sadoleto that you're oblivious to the most patently obvious matter of their debate: Ie, Why is this lawyer arguing with an ordained successor of the Apostles of Jesus Christ? If you deny the impudence of coming up with a "new" doctrine of Justification and using "better agreement with antiquity" (ie attempting to "reset" the church) to justify breaking off from Mother Church, then ask yourself if you have any animosity towards Campbellism
Christ Himself could call out James White on his BS and he'd be arguing about theopneustos and exegesis.
Cover the seven epistles of Saint Ignatius of Antioch
That’s why James white refuses to debate Trent Horn on the matter? 😂 James just debate them and we’ll see if Trent Horn wins like the last debate between the two of you
You online Catholic bros really are tiresome. Your piety is as deep as the online drama allows.
James White did lose the debate but it's a sad example of how winning a debate doesn't mean your position is correct. James White is defending the true position. He lost the debate because of his Baptist theology. The reformed paedobaptist view of the covenant is the only way to actually give weight and meaning to the warning, falling away passages, etc without falling into the RC/Arminian view. James White really danced around this issue and hurt his witness of the truth by doing this, and yes lost the debate since this was the most foundational point he needed to answer and didn't (couldn't).
@@leahunverferth8247 Could you expound on this a little bit more for me sister/brother? I'd like to learn a bit more information on what you mean about your statement. I'm lacking in knowledge regarding this topic, thank you!
@@iggie But the reformed paedobaptist has an answer that can logically uphold (1) that the regenerate can never lose their salvation and (2) that people can fall away from “salvation.” It’s because we believe the New Covenant extends as far as its sign and seal - baptism - and covenant membership is therefore not limited to the regenerate. In other words, the visible church is the outward administration of the Covenant of Grace and therefore includes some who are unregenerate. So start with the baptismal formula of being baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. This happens both to those who are truly regenerate and those who aren’t. Yet both are in the covenant because both have God’s name placed upon them. However, the unbeliever is only in the covenant in an outward sense - a member of the visible church but not the invisible. Think of how Christ describes the visible church as having dead branches connected to him. These unbelievers are outwardly in the covenant, outwardly connected to Christ, and outwardly “Christians” even though they aren’t really saved.
Now we have a group of people who can and indeed do fall away. Unbelievers in the church who apostatize are covenant breakers. They’ve violated the terms of the covenant in their baptism which is to believe on Christ. Hence they come under the covenant sanction of excommunication. This is what makes paedobaptist theology biblical over and against baptist theology.
This is a response I wrote to a book that should help you - I wrote it to be understood even by those who have not read the book and it dives deeper into this topic: drive.google.com/file/d/1RhhFjH64btKLiw0X-l7XHc1KdwOAtbUI/view?usp=drive_link
@@iggie But the reformed paedobaptist has an answer that can logically uphold (1) that the regenerate can never lose their salvation and (2) that people can fall away from “salvation.” It’s because we believe the New Covenant extends as far as its sign and seal - baptism - and covenant membership is therefore not limited to the regenerate. In other words, the visible church is the outward administration of the Covenant of Grace and therefore includes some who are unregenerate. So start with the baptismal formula of being baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. This happens both to those who are truly regenerate and those who aren’t. Yet both are in the covenant because both have God’s name placed upon them. However, the unbeliever is only in the covenant in an outward sense - a member of the visible church but not the invisible. Think of how Christ describes the visible church as having dead branches connected to him. These unbelievers are outwardly in the covenant, outwardly connected to Christ, and outwardly “Christians” even though they aren’t really saved.
Now we have a group of people who can and indeed do fall away. Unbelievers in the church who apostatize are covenant breakers. They’ve violated the terms of the covenant in their baptism which is to believe on Christ. Hence they come under the covenant sanction of excommunication. This is what makes paedobaptist theology biblical over and against baptist theology.
This is a response I wrote to a book that should help you - I wrote it to be understood even by those who have not read the book and it dives deeper into this topic: drive.google.com/file/d/1RhhFjH64btKLiw0X-l7XHc1KdwOAtbUI/view?usp=drive_link
I find the RCC frustrating because they say they have tradition and history on their side, but at the same time they lean heavily on doctrinal development for their dogmas. However, this development seems to contradict history and tradition.
I am 100% certain of my salvation because I am 100% certain that the Lord does not break His Covenant.
Even if I should become faithless, He remains eternally faithful. He cannot deny Himself.
Praise the Lord our God! Holy is His Name!
“But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, a wild olive shoot, were grafted in their place to share the richness of the olive tree, do not boast over the branches. If you do boast, remember it is not you that support the root, but the root that supports you. You will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast only through faith. So do not become proud, but stand in awe. For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off.”
Romans 11:17-22 RSV-C
If you do not continue in His kindness, you will be cut off. He already cut off the unfaithful Jews.
@IG88AAA thank you for the good teaching. I agree that all Christians should work out their salvation with fear and trembling.
But neither do I doubt my salvation in the least. I have put my faith in the Son of the Living God, and I will doubt my salvation when I doubt His faithfulness or the strength of the Blood of His Covenant which I am under.
I can understand that, my only objection was when it sounded like you would remain saved if you lost faith.
And @1:23:49 ff is exactly my problem with the Theocast crowd and their CONSTANT appeal to the Creeds and Confessions. While we may point to them as a sort of index or compendium, our sole appeal should be to the Word of God.
where does it say that?
So we are not talking facts here just talking trash.... sad.
@getrit3007 I thought I was going to watch a debate.
I didn't see sources being pulled up just mockery. That's all.
Where did you get the idea that this was a debate?
@bobloblaw2958 they weren't saying in response to Trent Horn just using his picture I guess.
Well, if one actually reads the description...
Sorry that your expectations were wrong? What do you wanna hear…
Where can we get more information about that debate in February in Houston?
Grace is not a zero sum game. By recognizing that a man can sin even after he enters into a good and right relationship with God which bears lots of fruit and then to say if he has sinned he should go to the Church - the household of God to confess my sins - does not in any way take anything from Gods Grace. This is a logical fallacy.
How does the Calvinist explain Joshua saying, "Choose you this day whom you will serve?" Or 2Peter 3:9 saying, "The Lord is not...willing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance?" Knowing full well that most are on the broad road leading to destruction. Or Jeremiah 19:5 where God says, “They have built the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal-something I did NOT COMMAND or mention, nor did it enter my mind.” Or Revelation 22:17 where it says, " Let the one who is thirsty come; and let the one who WISHES take the free gift of the water of life." Or Deuteronomy 30:10 where it says, " I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live?"
We Calvinists believe that when God saves someone in order that they will serve him, he gives them a new will which willingly comes to God. He does not save someone kicking and screaming. This they do truly choose God and choose life.
2 Peter 3:9 does speak of the Lord delaying his coming in order to give more space for repentance. He's merciful and the goodness of God is meant to lead to repentance. This is helpful for Calvinists to remember because many do forget - God first intends real grace to his creature and it is the rejection of that true offer of grace that heaps up wrath but it is not in the first place intended to heap up wrath.
LOLz to this botched attempt of a rebuttal to Horn. No protestant has even been able to give an answer to this one basic question and the desperate attempts to explain it away exposes the shallow tradition of Sola Scripture: If Scripture alone is sufficient to guide all true Christians to know the truth, then why ya'll who believe that constantly disagree with each other even on REALLY basic things like Baptism? ...Thank God for the one, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic church.
Man this was good!
As calvinism appeals to Augastine as its main source, a Roman catholic lol
Nope, the reformed appeal to Scripture. The reformed agreed with Augustine where he disagrees with Rome, but not everything he ever taught.
Catholicism didn’t form for another two centuries after Augustine, and Roman Catholicism didn’t form until another four centuries after that.
In the 1960s-70s, there was a common trope about how Russians always tried to take credit for every invention and idea. Roman Catholics are actually like that.
Way off the mark, my friend. I think it's actually better if you read from the actual sources like Calvin, Luther, the early church fathers, Augustine, the different councils, etc... before you claim to know what you're talking about. Rather than just listen to what someone told you or some preconceived notion because you read some article, read from the actual men who lived through the times. It may radically change your mind. Scripture Alone, is the authoritative source for all true believers. Not Calvin or any other.
Augustine isn’t Roman…
@@caseycockerham3925 to say that Augustine was a full on Roman Catholic is absolutely absurd
As a defender of the Catholic faith, when early church fathers' writings are taken out of context; especially in a manner that could be used as an argument against Christ's True Church, you should definitely look up the context of such quotes.
At the very beginning, the quote used by St. Augustine, a Doctor of The Church, the quite ends too early. The very next line states, "The authority of these books has come down to us from the apostles through the successions of bishops and the extension of the Church, and, from a position of lofty supremacy, claims the submission of every faithful and pious mind."
But he wasn’t an apostle or close companion of one, so his words are not scripture. There is only one mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ. His Spirit dwells within us to correct, convict, recall to memory, etc… all things. Church fathers are not the authority, God’s word and Himself are. When you put a man at the ultimate authority on what you believe, you’ve supplanted Christ as the head of the church. Why do RC’s call the Pope Holy Father? No one is holy, none are righteous, no not one. That means Mary too.