Really waiting for Steve’s objective standard for determining what is and isn’t scripture. I’m a protestant that is looking for an intelligent reason not to become catholic and I’m struggling to find one
The main argument against the Catholic canon is from the apostle Paul who stated the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God, which refers to the OT Scriptures. And no Jew ever embraced the Catholic OT canon, like they did the Protestant OT canon. Trent was not able to produce even a single ECF or early council prior to the fourth century that embraced all 46 books of the Catholic OT canon, while you can find both early Christians & Jews from antiquity that embraced all 39 books of the Protestant OT canon. That's why I began my debate quoting the Council of Trent, Catechism of the Catholic Church, and Dr. Anders from EWTN who all stated that the canon was passed down from Jesus & the apostles "hand to hand." IOW, it did not "develop" well into the church age the way contemporary Catholic apologists believe. The problem from the Catholic side is that the canon lists in the church age are inconsistent, except for their lists being identical or near identical to Protestant OT canons. For example, Baba Bathra 14b which is a second century written tradition enumerates EVERY book from the Protestant OT, but NONE from the Catholic OT. And this written dates its source back to Gamaliel from the book of Acts in the NT, who was the mentor of the apostle Paul. However, you don't get an IDENTICAL Catholic OT canon list until 1441.
@@3leon306 I crossed the Tiber the other way. Ex-Catholics make the best evangelicals, because they know all the false narratives made by Rome, including their arguments about the canon.
@@BornAgainRN I’m well aware of the toxic stew of ego, resentment, and Jacobin rebelliousness that creates the kind of Protestant obscurantist “truth” you’re clinging to ... good luck.
Note to self 0:01 Welcoming speech 1:25 Sponsor acknowledgement (Exodus 90) 3:06 Introducing Steve 4:35 Introducing Trent 6:00 Format 6:30 OS: Steve - 15 mins 21:27 OS: Trent - 15 mins 36:35 Rebuttal: Steve - 7 mins 43:44 Rebuttal: Trent - 7 mins 50:48 2nd Rbttl: Steve - 4 mins 55:03 2nd Rbttl: Trent - 4 mins 59:07 Spnsr Acknwldgmnt (Ethos Logos Inv.) 1:00:52 Cross examination format 1:01:24 CE: Steve - 12 mins 1:13:28 CE: Trent - 12 mins 1:25:46 Support Pints 1:27:17 Q&A - 30 mins 1:50:03 CS: Steve 1:55:11 CS: Trent 2:00:08 Debaters info "Now, rule of thumb is, never ever buy a whiskey that's flavoured. If you have to flavour it, it probably wasn't good to begin with. This is also true with coffee. - Matt Fradd
I love Trent man, such an humble and nice guy. From a "protestant" who is now currently studying Catholicism and orthodoxy I have to say that Trent won in my eyes.
Sorry my friend he was on the defense the whole time. Unfortunately most of the time he couldn't answer directly though he is great at pacifying the topic without admission of a councils inability to define its inclusion of the apocryphal books.
@Prasanth Thomas where? Open yourr eyes and not your ears then? Lol Septuagint? Go to who held scriptures WAY prior to any catholic church? The Jews held the oracles and were responsible? Was there any of the extra books? NO! Did God forget somehow? Off course he forgot so catholic god could make corrections!!!! Lol Keep your extra books i have no problems with that? My opinion/s is as good as yours at every level. Sola Ecclesia!!! Lol
@Prasanth Thomas i use a dictionary does that make it God Breathed? Not all truth is God breathed Yes?? Lol So if they Quote from pagan writings that it is heretical so the writing is Scriptures? Lol Silly argumentations please comeback with more im thoroughly entertained 🤣!!! Congratulations on your conversion ! Cheers! That former catholic priest was just too learned for Mr Trent. SORRY!
@Prasanth Thomas obviously you would be the expert on human tendencies! Right? Adding Books, false doctrines (Marian WORSHIP, indulgences, purgatory, papal infallibility etc. Etc ) Yes please school me as you would be the expert on human tendencies. Lol. Just because he did know a source of an argumentative point does make an historical document God Breathed! Let alone win a debate? Almost every debate against catholic apologist no matter how embarrassingly one sided (not saying this debate in honesty) comes with a victorious outcry. I myself am a former catholic. My direct uncle is the former Arch Bishop of the Dolce Nombre De Maria Basilica on the island of Guam. Not hating just not in agreement teachings. Blessings.
@Prasanth Thomas I’m Protestant and I’ve watched both debates Steve Christie had with Trent Horn and Gary Michuta and I have to say that Steve Christie got SCHOOLED by Gary Michuta and Trent Horn. I told Steve Christie this and he got butthurt about it and started acting like a troll. William Albrecht has called him out for being a troll on the “Apocrypha Apocalypse” channel. Steve Christie’s RUclips channel is @BornAgainRN Gary Michuta and Trent Horn both provided historical evidence that the ancient Pharisees accepted the Deuterocanon as inspired Scripture, but Steve Christie is still in denial about this. Steve Christie is a liar and a deceiver.
@@gideondavid30 as someone who’s had a very long atheist phase, it isn’t surprising at all, especially if you’re interested in what intelligent people with other perspectives have to say, especially debates within that world of perspective
@@gideondavid30 atheists who are listening to people talk about their belief for God are in search of answers. Those who search for knowledge are open to God but are looking for convincing faith to ponder their value system. Every atheist who converts to Christianity is one who began their journey by learning more about God and why people have faith in him.
Trent was a guy who really keep his composure, he really speaks cool and has a wide knowledge about the history of the Church ..Trent I've watched atleast 3 of your debates and this one really made me believed that you're a person gifted with a talent to proclaim the truth to all of us..God bless you Trent ..keep on doing this and we're here Catholics to pray for you😊🙏✌️♥️
@@josephgoemans6948 Right, basically that whole chapter is a Messianic Prophecy. It is so explicit that it is Impressive that Protestants reject that as the Word of God, I mean if that is not Inspired by God, then by whom? I really believe that the Holy Spirit has led perfectly his church as Christ promised.
Trent believes the church over the Bible. The Bible is subservient to the church! NO its the other way around!!!!! Staying put ,...I'm fine even more so!
@@simonfinley864 me too I saw many people lying like these They say i am Catholic now because of this Another video they say i am Catholic now because of that
Here if a cut-and-paste friendly challenge to my Catholic friends: Catholics reject Sola Scriptura, which I actually do not have a problem with. However, what do Catholics suggest that I do when their teachings directly contradict my Lord Jesus Christ? Shall I obey their gospel or follow the Bible? For example, Paul said, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." When asked if Catholics agree with Paul, either they ignore these words of Paul or they disagree! Yet, no Catholic has ever been able to agree with Paul, for to do so means that they must give up their prized Catholic faith! Yet, what profit is your religion if you lose your eternal soul? Recently, one Catholic said, "Shall be saved is not the same as will be saved." Really? Is that the official Catholic 'translation' of this verse? You know, Catholics go on and on as to how I need their leaders to 'interpret' the Bible for me, yet they either ignore or deny the gospel! I pray for Catholics everywhere who are led astray from the pure, simple gospel message! For example, Jesus said, "How much more will My Father give the Holy Spirit to whoever asks of Him." Notice the ask-and-receive beauty of the gospel? That is, simply by asking, you will have rivers of living water bubbling up inside you unto eternal life, you will be a new creation, born again, and the Holy Spirit will bear witness that you are saved (Romans 8.16). Yet, Catholics say that you can have no assurance. Decide for yourself if you want Paul's gospel, where the Holy Spirit fills you and bears witness to your salvation or be a Catholic! Paul said, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let him be accursed." Paul even stated that even if he, Paul, were to preach a different gospel, Paul should be accursed - how much more so your church leaders! Yet, the guile and dishonesty of the Catholic church is overbearing for some! That is, they say that I simply am not able to understand these simple words of the Lord. Is it really that complicated? Catholics, are you listening? Watch how your leaders answer (or don't answer) this post. They will either deny Paul's gospel or they will ignore it. Yet, no Catholic can agree with Paul! That is because the Catholic gospel is, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord, is baptized in our church, and takes our communion MIGHT be saved." What can you expect from them? They will quote verses to support how you need communion or baptism to be saved. Yet, they will either ignore or deny the gospel according to Paul. Yes or no, my Catholic friend: "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." Will you deny, ignore, or embrace the gospel? Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
Barely Protestant what defines catholic church includes every single point and without a pope there is no catholicism. Christ Himself wanted a shepherd for His Church. Peter was chosen to be that shepherd and therefore the seat of Peter is honored. There can be bad popes and saintly popes but not one single pope has the right or authority to change the teachings. Check out what the Magisterium of the Catholic Church is.
I have to say, my favorite thing of this debate is the cordiality and good humor they both have. Regardless of disagreement, Steve and Trent would probably both be fun to have a discussion with over dinner.
Steve literally just said that the church would not lose sight of what books were in the canon but also he follows a new canon from the 1500s. Even if he makes the case that it was the same one that the apostles believed in, they definitely lost it if that was the case
@@MegaRoadwolf Trent is good, but the other dudes a nurse. He shouldn't have had that much trouble. DM-Simplistic arguments are difficult to disprove. For example, I heard the nurse say that the Catholic Church teaches that the canon was handed down by Jesus Christ through the Apostles. Which is true. But, for those of us who study Catholic Teaching, we understand that this is an allegorical reference to the fact that the Catholic Church had to sift through thousands of books to determine which were actually authored by Apostles and their disciples. In a verbal debate, which one looks like the slam dunk and which one looks like an excuse? All we can rely upon is the fact is that the truth is true whether anyone believes it or not.
When I heard Steve say he is an ex-catholic, I said to my self: "self, ex-catholics are the worst protestants ; ) !!" But ex-protestants are the best Catholics!! God bless both!!
As a former Protestant, I’d say yes! They do not have the complete Cannon of Scripture although, the deuterocanonical books were in the KJV until publisher’s removed them in the mid 1800s and many Protestant Christians would read them back then and really it is a recent phenomena that those books are not appreciated like they once were. I will say something I’ve heard from many a priest, both Catholic and Orthodox, “all you need to live a productive and fruitful Christian life is the NT and Psalms.
I just don’t see how you would not accept the canon Christ himself would have read and used in the Septuagint. Protestants deny “tradition” but have the hard pill to swallow in accepting a reformation era tradition with 66 books instead of the original 73.
protestantism opetates by tradition in every aspect, imposing artificial interpretation on Scripture in order to legitimize their doctrines... it's totally deceptive and disgusting...
Yeah, Protestants have plenty of traditions, most of them in contradiction to Catholicism and then claim they don't have any traditions and are "bible only."
Here if a cut-and-paste friendly challenge to my Catholic friends: Catholics reject Sola Scriptura, which I actually do not have a problem with. However, what do Catholics suggest that I do when their teachings directly contradict my Lord Jesus Christ? Shall I obey their gospel or follow the Bible? For example, Paul said, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." When asked if Catholics agree with Paul, either they ignore these words of Paul or they disagree! Yet, no Catholic has ever been able to agree with Paul, for to do so means that they must give up their prized Catholic faith! Yet, what profit is your religion if you lose your eternal soul? Recently, one Catholic said, "Shall be saved is not the same as will be saved." Really? Is that the official Catholic 'translation' of this verse? You know, Catholics go on and on as to how I need their leaders to 'interpret' the Bible for me, yet they either ignore or deny the gospel! I pray for Catholics everywhere who are led astray from the pure, simple gospel message! For example, Jesus said, "How much more will My Father give the Holy Spirit to whoever asks of Him." Notice the ask-and-receive beauty of the gospel? That is, simply by asking, you will have rivers of living water bubbling up inside you unto eternal life, you will be a new creation, born again, and the Holy Spirit will bear witness that you are saved (Romans 8.16). Yet, Catholics say that you can have no assurance. Decide for yourself if you want Paul's gospel, where the Holy Spirit fills you and bears witness to your salvation or be a Catholic! Paul said, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let him be accursed." Paul even stated that even if he, Paul, were to preach a different gospel, Paul should be accursed - how much more so your church leaders! Yet, the guile and dishonesty of the Catholic church is overbearing for some! That is, they say that I simply am not able to understand these simple words of the Lord. Is it really that complicated? Catholics, are you listening? Watch how your leaders answer (or don't answer) this post. They will either deny Paul's gospel or they will ignore it. Yet, no Catholic can agree with Paul! That is because the Catholic gospel is, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord, is baptized in our church, and takes our communion MIGHT be saved." What can you expect from them? They will quote verses to support how you need communion or baptism to be saved. Yet, they will either ignore or deny the gospel according to Paul. Yes or no, my Catholic friend: "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." Will you deny, ignore, or embrace the gospel? Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
You cannot possibly say that if you know ANYTHING about the horrific murderous, sexually immoral popes and church leadership over centuries since Constantine merged paganism from Rome into Christianity birthing the RCC. That organization is absolutely NOT the church Christ founded. Please do your research.
kk doc. Please do your research. If you would have researched you would have know that the only thing Constantine did was legalize Catholicism for the people under his rule. Many Christians at the time were being mistreated and all Constantine did was make the religion a recognized by law and therefore protecting Catholics from all sort of abuse. Constantine did not create the Catholic Church religion. You heard this from someone and YOU DID NOT research. Hypocrite
@@donjon2023 just like most Catholics I talk to. Arrogant, self righteous and nasty name callers. Assuming that I have not done any research is a bit disingenuous and reflects your confirmation bias in order to twist history. Sorry but I would prefer to have a dialogue with a fellow Christian in order to discuss facts. You don’t fit into that category mainly because Jesus would not respond to me the way you have. I suggest you read the sermon on the mount again about humility. ruclips.net/video/dNRZnqcr5bQ/видео.html
@Steve is mistaken to assume that Jesus would have revealed everything he knew to the disciples. But the scriptures shows that Jesus would rather set a way for the Church to come to the understanding of the full truth in time which he didn't yet fully revealed to his disciples. John 16:12-14 "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you."
It always comes down to this. We either trust that the Holy Spirit led his Church into all truth by means of the councils or we believe that it is up to us to reconstruct history and figure it out for ourselves. One way leads to consistency throughout the centuries, the other leads directly to textual criticism and eventual denial of the truth of Scripture.
@@gideondavid30 the Holy Spirit does guide the laity, but Christ bestowed the authority of teaching on dogmatic issues to the apostles only. Jesus didn’t say this to disciples in general … Jesus says it specifically to the apostles he chose. And Luke 22:31-32 Jesus tells Peter that Satan would assault you (plural - all the apostles) who would lead Christ’s church, but that Jesus was praying for you (singular) Peter that when you turn back (from betraying Christ) that his faith would be strong enough to support the rest of the other apostles. This passage shows how Jesus was providing Peter with his primacy. As it was done during the argument when the apostles were trying to get Jesus to say who among them was the greatest. John 16:12 Jesus tells the apostles that he has more to teach them than they could bear. But that the Holy Spirit would guide them as leaders of his church. Jesus did not say this to common followers, he said it only to the apostles who he said would teach others (laity) of the church. The discerning of new teachings for the church however is with the apostles and their successors the bishops.
I'm a return cradle Catholic. 1984 18 yrs old went nondenominational, had a great time of scripture, kindof looked from a Catholic learned perspective from my gradeschool upbringing. Atleast as it was in the 70s. I just recently returned 2019 through scripture and the Lord showing me things. In 1984 the loose sect I came into were more open to revelation. Probably a result many childhood chatechized Catholics were persuaded in that direction in a charismatic move that I believe was of the Lord. In some ways i think converting Catholics influenced them more than they influenced us. And as in my case, God used the journey as a training making us able to defend the faith biblically, which is the only way many of them can hear. 🤷🏽♀️ I may not know what is said in every council, but I can defend by scripture and reason because of my full circle journey.
57:38 Trent asks a fundamental and I daresay most important question of this debate, but it went unanswered for the entirety of the session. We cannot settle the question of errancy without FIRST settling the question of inspiration. - Trent Horn.
As Trent noted at the beginning of his closing statement, Christie's closing statement at 1:52:20 starts with a falsehood (but I'll be charitable and presume Christie got the information second hand, as it's pretty clear he got it from a "Beggars All" blogpost, based on his phrasing). Christie cites Peter Duncker as writing that "only 44%" of the Fathers of Trent approved the canon. This is false. Duncker, Peter G. "The Canon of the Old Testament at the Council of Trent." The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, vol. 15, no. 3, 1953, pp. 277-299. JSTOR 43720511. p. 289: "After much disputing, also on the question of the anathema, the Fathers were invited to vote on these points: a) Should all the books be approved that were approved at Florence? All: Placet . b) Should an anathema be added? Del Monte (together with the other 2 legates, one vote) + Pacheco + 22 others - 24 pro. Madruzzo + 14 others - 15 contra." "Placet" is a vote of assent; the Florentine canon was approved UNANIMOUSLY, contrary to what Christie claims. The Council Fathers were, however, divided as to whether an anathema should be added to the definition of the canon (the anathema won out). Two different votes, two different questions.
What's funny here is that Protestant cling to scripture alone principle but did not realised when they disagree on one thing they'll end up forming another denomination of church/es. Scripture alone does not even found in the Sacred Scripture whether implicit or explicit in the full context of the Gospel. 44% of the Fathers? as if you knew about the Fathers? if you knew them then you would have changed your personal opinion on scripture. The first 400 years of Christianity there was no NT, that you'll have to wrestle with. Catholics understood that Protestantism follow the Hebrew list of scripture as if there was a such; which according to the dead sea scroll there was no approved nor agreed cannon by the Jews. Oh! The original KJV included the 7 books yet protestants despised them because it's one of the Achilles hills of the protestantism. Finally, what I notice protestants always cite the Church fathers but those names they often mentioned were either Bishops of the first century or great Saints in the Catholic Church: Just a brotherly caution, Napoleon tried to destroy the Church, Emporors, the Jews, Hitlers even Bishops and we are still seeing that today and we Catholics are truly cautious what is happening in the Holy Mother Church as these has been foretold by the Blessed Mother whom She appears in Fatima, Akita, Guadalupe, America, La Sallete, Philippines and many parts of the world, the message is the same. How cool to be in the Church founded by Jesus Christ -a complete story of a Family!
First, I appreciate that you broke your comment into readable text. I hate text that is one massive paragraph. Now my comment...The necessity of your response to the question was necessary. Most of the time I find the kind of typical Protestant answer which is only "partially" true. In this case, it was not even partially true.
Here if a cut-and-paste friendly challenge to my Catholic friends: Catholics reject Sola Scriptura, which I actually do not have a problem with. However, what do Catholics suggest that I do when their teachings directly contradict my Lord Jesus Christ? Shall I obey their gospel or follow the Bible? For example, Paul said, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." When asked if Catholics agree with Paul, either they ignore these words of Paul or they disagree! Yet, no Catholic has ever been able to agree with Paul, for to do so means that they must give up their prized Catholic faith! Yet, what profit is your religion if you lose your eternal soul? Recently, one Catholic said, "Shall be saved is not the same as will be saved." Really? Is that the official Catholic 'translation' of this verse? You know, Catholics go on and on as to how I need their leaders to 'interpret' the Bible for me, yet they either ignore or deny the gospel! I pray for Catholics everywhere who are led astray from the pure, simple gospel message! For example, Jesus said, "How much more will My Father give the Holy Spirit to whoever asks of Him." Notice the ask-and-receive beauty of the gospel? That is, simply by asking, you will have rivers of living water bubbling up inside you unto eternal life, you will be a new creation, born again, and the Holy Spirit will bear witness that you are saved (Romans 8.16). Yet, Catholics say that you can have no assurance. Decide for yourself if you want Paul's gospel, where the Holy Spirit fills you and bears witness to your salvation or be a Catholic! Paul said, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let him be accursed." Paul even stated that even if he, Paul, were to preach a different gospel, Paul should be accursed - how much more so your church leaders! Yet, the guile and dishonesty of the Catholic church is overbearing for some! That is, they say that I simply am not able to understand these simple words of the Lord. Is it really that complicated? Catholics, are you listening? Watch how your leaders answer (or don't answer) this post. They will either deny Paul's gospel or they will ignore it. Yet, no Catholic can agree with Paul! That is because the Catholic gospel is, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord, is baptized in our church, and takes our communion MIGHT be saved." What can you expect from them? They will quote verses to support how you need communion or baptism to be saved. Yet, they will either ignore or deny the gospel according to Paul. Yes or no, my Catholic friend: "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." Will you deny, ignore, or embrace the gospel? Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
@@kenshiloh Yet Jesus Himself said, Those who call upon Lord Lord will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven!! Also.. By saying that do you mind the heresies and heretics who do accept Jesus as Lord and call upon Him but Reject certain Holy doctrines..!? Also What about when Jesus rebukes those on His Left who did MIRACLES (which u do need faith for) as I DONT KNOW YOU!! But applauded those on His right who DID some works!! So possibly RECONSIDER YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE (among the other 5000) God Bless!!
@@4thlegion253 Hi. Paul wrote that whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved. That obviously implies that Christ is Lord of their life, that the "pure in heart shall see God." Yet, simply by asking, you can receive the Holy Spirit. Do you agree with that? Jesus said, "How much more will My Father give the Holy Spirit to whoever asks of Him." He said, "Ask and you shall receive." That is the beauty and simplicity of the gospel! On the night I met the Lord, I was soundly saved and forever! In fact, in 44 years, I have not had even one second of doubt that I know the Lord and am bound for heaven - not even for a second! Is that not Scriptural? Paul wrote, "The Holy Spirit bears witness with our spirit that we are the children of God." Do not forget the qualifier, "If indeed the Holy Spirit dwells within you." Do you have the witness of the Holy Spirit that you are saved? That is Biblical salvation! Moreover, referring to the Holy Spirit, Jesus said, "Whoever believes in Me shall have rivers of living water bubbling up inside of him." Do you have that river of life, the witness of the Spirit? If not, then you are not believing on Christ unto salvation! Furthermore, if you do not know the Lord (simply by asking!), then He will say to you, "Depart from Me; I never knew you." Do you know the Lord? I hope that you will have a personal encounter with the God of the universe! Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
At the end (1h54m30s) Steve Christie showed his true motivation by mentioning 2 Cor 5:21 as a slam dunk for Imputation against Catholicism and real reason why he is Protestant. I happen to specialize in this verse and can use it as a silver bullet against Protestantism to wipe out any exegetical credibility. This verse says nothing about Imputation, it is pure presumption. In fact, the only time Imputation is mentioned is two verses prior, where of all things Paul says sin is NOT imputed. No mention of sin being imputed to Jesus and His righteousness imputed to us. The problem is that Imputation has such scant evidence in the NT that Protestantism has bet the farm on 2 Cor 5:21. Yet they won't even do a word study of the Greek word "impute" (Logizomai), which the Bible conclusively defines as the opposite meaning Protestants think, nor do they even use the Catholic principle of Scripture interprets Scripture on 5:21 (I've checked their top scholars). Instead, they can only say it must mean Imputation. But if you look at the consensus of Church Fathers who comment on 2 Cor 5 21 (which Protestantism hasn't checked), none of the ECFs ever mention Imputation. Rather, the ECF consensus all say "God made Him to be sin" in 5:21a refers to the Son becoming Incarnate, as they cross reference Romans 8:3 where it says "God sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh," which means Incarnation. No Imputation going on here. Even major Reformed Protestant English translations (ESV, NASB) cross reference 5:21 to 8:3, yet you will not see a single Protestant scholar, apologist, or pastor even show any awareness of this exegetical, cross reference, patristic interpretation of 5:21. I've looked at the Protestant sources for myself! catholicnick.blogspot.com/2014/09/is-imputation-taught-in-2-corinthians.html?m=1
I am not sure which side of the question you favor, but One thing is true. When I see a long diatribe not broken down into paragraphs or bullet points, I just will not read it. It becomes gobbledegook. EVERYONE, please break up your comments to be inevitable to readers.
@@Serquss Well, that's not fair. Steve didn't know the answer, but that doesn't mean there isn't one. I am catholic, but there are definitely Christian thinkers - even saints - who didn't hold the view that the Church's magisterium has confirmed as the correct one on this. St Jerome, St Melito of Sardis and St Gregory the Great all did not hold the deuterocanon as inspired scripture.
Serquss there were also early church fathers who did not believe in Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation. Origen is one of them. Origen didn’t believe in the books I just said above, but he wanted to include The Shepherd of Hermas in the canon. This is why you can’t believe everything the church fathers say because there were false teachers back then even when the Apostles were still alive. Read Jude 1:4 and 2 Peter 2:1
@@AnimalLover-yi5ik we use the Church Fathers' beliefs as evidence, taken with a grain of salt, not proof. The note Fathers in unison, the more likely it is the Truth.
Here if a cut-and-paste friendly challenge to my Catholic friends: Catholics reject Sola Scriptura, which I actually do not have a problem with. However, what do Catholics suggest that I do when their teachings directly contradict my Lord Jesus Christ? Shall I obey their gospel or follow the Bible? For example, Paul said, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." When asked if Catholics agree with Paul, either they ignore these words of Paul or they disagree! Yet, no Catholic has ever been able to agree with Paul, for to do so means that they must give up their prized Catholic faith! Yet, what profit is your religion if you lose your eternal soul? Recently, one Catholic said, "Shall be saved is not the same as will be saved." Really? Is that the official Catholic 'translation' of this verse? You know, Catholics go on and on as to how I need their leaders to 'interpret' the Bible for me, yet they either ignore or deny the gospel! I pray for Catholics everywhere who are led astray from the pure, simple gospel message! For example, Jesus said, "How much more will My Father give the Holy Spirit to whoever asks of Him." Notice the ask-and-receive beauty of the gospel? That is, simply by asking, you will have rivers of living water bubbling up inside you unto eternal life, you will be a new creation, born again, and the Holy Spirit will bear witness that you are saved (Romans 8.16). Yet, Catholics say that you can have no assurance. Decide for yourself if you want Paul's gospel, where the Holy Spirit fills you and bears witness to your salvation or be a Catholic! Paul said, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let him be accursed." Paul even stated that even if he, Paul, were to preach a different gospel, Paul should be accursed - how much more so your church leaders! Yet, the guile and dishonesty of the Catholic church is overbearing for some! That is, they say that I simply am not able to understand these simple words of the Lord. Is it really that complicated? Catholics, are you listening? Watch how your leaders answer (or don't answer) this post. They will either deny Paul's gospel or they will ignore it. Yet, no Catholic can agree with Paul! That is because the Catholic gospel is, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord, is baptized in our church, and takes our communion MIGHT be saved." What can you expect from them? They will quote verses to support how you need communion or baptism to be saved. Yet, they will either ignore or deny the gospel according to Paul. Yes or no, my Catholic friend: "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." Will you deny, ignore, or embrace the gospel? Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
As to the question about Judith referring to Nebuchadnezzar being the King of Assyria while he was actually the King of Babylon, there may be a historical case made that he was the king of both. The Siege of Jerusalem was 597 BC, and about a decade earlier Babylon had conquered Assyria in 609 BC.
@@davidanderson6055 For one, having conquered Assyria he would've ruled over Assyria. But I'll do you one better: according to Judith 4:3, the story is set shortly after the jews returned from some sort of captivity. If this is the return from the Babylonian exile around 537 BC (strongly implied by Judith 5:17-19), by that time said Nebuchadnezzar II was dead, so the book is likely not referencing the same guy that everyone recognizes from Daniel. Cyrus had conquered Babylon in 539, after which the Jews were allowed to return to Israel, and Ezra even mentions Assyrians helping with construction. So the Babylonians weren't really a thing in that time but the Assyrians were. An intriguing theory is that this Nebu was an Armenian claiming to be Nabonidus's son and actually called himself Nebuchadnezzar (IV) though his name was Arakha, and he was seeking to reestablish the Babylonian empire. In the rebellion, Nebu IV would take over Babylon while his general (Holofernes) would take over Assyria and Palestine. After Judith killed Holofernes, Nebu IV's rebellion broke apart and Darius conquered Babylon again. This would seem to correlate with Darius's Behistun inscription.
When it comes to Judith and Nebuchadnezzar: Nebuchadnezzar would likely have been both king of Babylon and King of Assyria, in the same way James I of England was also James VII of Scotland.
There are tons of documents historically that equate Assyrians and Babylonians etc. with each other. That argument is nonsensical. Xenophon for example.
@@MajorasTime to be fair , Orthodoxy hasn’t engaged in apologetics for centuries, having said that it is my belief that the biggest difference is the papacy of the modern Catholic Church vs the Orthodox view of the primacy of the See of St. Peter. And that includes dogma like papal infallibility and Supremacy of the bishop of Rome over all other bishops.
@@unam9931 papal infallibility? Where is that from? It’s one thing to unite behind the see of St Peter, it’s a wholly different thing to claim infallibility for the chair.
@@EricAlHarb And that Mary was born without sin. Catholics: Mary born without sin Orthodox: Mary born with sin The Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception
I am a Lutheran, and like other lutheran theologians, I recognize the deuterocanon as the Word of God. Our confessions call them “scripture”, we read them in our liturgy.
Just watched this last night, the protestant is on the affirmative and the subject is "Do the protestants have the correct OLD TESTAMENT canon" but Steve (protestant) failed to enumerate any categories why protestants have the correct OT canon, he just spent the entire time attacking the Deuterocanon hoping that if he keeps attacking them somehow it will make the protestant OT canon correct. Trent Horn keeps reminding everyone that Steve failed to do what he is supposed to do and that is to provide categories why the Protestant canon is the correct canon.
Thanks for setting up the debate, Mr. Fradd! It was great! One thing I'd change is to mute people who are not speaking during the openers. Some of the shuffling is a bit distracting. Keep up the great work!
I just can’t even imagine how Steve could think that Trent was the biased one after how he reacted to the question on the book of Luke and the year of the census.
Only 16% of the world identifies as atheist. Christianity 2.382 billion 31.0% Islam 1.907 billion 24.9% Secular[a]/Nonreligious[b]/Agnostic/Atheist 1.193 billion 15.58% Hinduism 1.161 billion 15.2% Buddhism 506 million 6.6% Can't blame you for being worried we are running up the ranks.
Here if a cut-and-paste friendly challenge to my Catholic friends: Catholics reject Sola Scriptura, which I actually do not have a problem with. However, what do Catholics suggest that I do when their teachings directly contradict my Lord Jesus Christ? Shall I obey their gospel or follow the Bible? For example, Paul said, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." When asked if Catholics agree with Paul, either they ignore these words of Paul or they disagree! Yet, no Catholic has ever been able to agree with Paul, for to do so means that they must give up their prized Catholic faith! Yet, what profit is your religion if you lose your eternal soul? Recently, one Catholic said, "Shall be saved is not the same as will be saved." Really? Is that the official Catholic 'translation' of this verse? You know, Catholics go on and on as to how I need their leaders to 'interpret' the Bible for me, yet they either ignore or deny the gospel! I pray for Catholics everywhere who are led astray from the pure, simple gospel message! For example, Jesus said, "How much more will My Father give the Holy Spirit to whoever asks of Him." Notice the ask-and-receive beauty of the gospel? That is, simply by asking, you will have rivers of living water bubbling up inside you unto eternal life, you will be a new creation, born again, and the Holy Spirit will bear witness that you are saved (Romans 8.16). Yet, Catholics say that you can have no assurance. Decide for yourself if you want Paul's gospel, where the Holy Spirit fills you and bears witness to your salvation or be a Catholic! Paul said, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let him be accursed." Paul even stated that even if he, Paul, were to preach a different gospel, Paul should be accursed - how much more so your church leaders! Yet, the guile and dishonesty of the Catholic church is overbearing for some! That is, they say that I simply am not able to understand these simple words of the Lord. Is it really that complicated? Catholics, are you listening? Watch how your leaders answer (or don't answer) this post. They will either deny Paul's gospel or they will ignore it. Yet, no Catholic can agree with Paul! That is because the Catholic gospel is, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord, is baptized in our church, and takes our communion MIGHT be saved." What can you expect from them? They will quote verses to support how you need communion or baptism to be saved. Yet, they will either ignore or deny the gospel according to Paul. Yes or no, my Catholic friend: "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." Will you deny, ignore, or embrace the gospel? Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
Here if a cut-and-paste friendly challenge to my Catholic friends: Catholics reject Sola Scriptura, which I actually do not have a problem with. However, what do Catholics suggest that I do when their teachings directly contradict my Lord Jesus Christ? Shall I obey their gospel or follow the Bible? For example, Paul said, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." When asked if Catholics agree with Paul, either they ignore these words of Paul or they disagree! Yet, no Catholic has ever been able to agree with Paul, for to do so means that they must give up their prized Catholic faith! Yet, what profit is your religion if you lose your eternal soul? Recently, one Catholic said, "Shall be saved is not the same as will be saved." Really? Is that the official Catholic 'translation' of this verse? You know, Catholics go on and on as to how I need their leaders to 'interpret' the Bible for me, yet they either ignore or deny the gospel! I pray for Catholics everywhere who are led astray from the pure, simple gospel message! For example, Jesus said, "How much more will My Father give the Holy Spirit to whoever asks of Him." Notice the ask-and-receive beauty of the gospel? That is, simply by asking, you will have rivers of living water bubbling up inside you unto eternal life, you will be a new creation, born again, and the Holy Spirit will bear witness that you are saved (Romans 8.16). Yet, Catholics say that you can have no assurance. Decide for yourself if you want Paul's gospel, where the Holy Spirit fills you and bears witness to your salvation or be a Catholic! Paul said, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let him be accursed." Paul even stated that even if he, Paul, were to preach a different gospel, Paul should be accursed - how much more so your church leaders! Yet, the guile and dishonesty of the Catholic church is overbearing for some! That is, they say that I simply am not able to understand these simple words of the Lord. Is it really that complicated? Catholics, are you listening? Watch how your leaders answer (or don't answer) this post. They will either deny Paul's gospel or they will ignore it. Yet, no Catholic can agree with Paul! That is because the Catholic gospel is, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord, is baptized in our church, and takes our communion MIGHT be saved." What can you expect from them? They will quote verses to support how you need communion or baptism to be saved. Yet, they will either ignore or deny the gospel according to Paul. Yes or no, my Catholic friend: "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." Will you deny, ignore, or embrace the gospel? Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
IF YOUR BIBLE IS MISSING: 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit, Judith, Daniel and Esther, then you are using a Bible that was codified by the Jews AFTER THEY HAD REJECTED CHRIST. If your Bible includes these books then your Bible was codified by the Catholic Church which was founded by Christ, the same Church that wrote and codified the canons of the NEW TESTAMENT.
Actually not-"Then what advantage does the Jew have? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2 Great in every respect. First, that they were entrusted with the actual words of God." Romans 3
@@Justas399 That the Jews had the words of God says neither (1) which books contain them or (2) which words they accept or reject (such as Romans itself...)
@Phil Andrew What Jews at the time of Christ asserted that the Song of Songs or Esther was not Scripture? Who were they and where can I see their writings that assert this?
Here if a cut-and-paste friendly challenge to my Catholic friends: Catholics reject Sola Scriptura, which I actually do not have a problem with. However, what do Catholics suggest that I do when their teachings directly contradict my Lord Jesus Christ? Shall I obey their gospel or follow the Bible? For example, Paul said, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." When asked if Catholics agree with Paul, either they ignore these words of Paul or they disagree! Yet, no Catholic has ever been able to agree with Paul, for to do so means that they must give up their prized Catholic faith! Yet, what profit is your religion if you lose your eternal soul? Recently, one Catholic said, "Shall be saved is not the same as will be saved." Really? Is that the official Catholic 'translation' of this verse? You know, Catholics go on and on as to how I need their leaders to 'interpret' the Bible for me, yet they either ignore or deny the gospel! I pray for Catholics everywhere who are led astray from the pure, simple gospel message! For example, Jesus said, "How much more will My Father give the Holy Spirit to whoever asks of Him." Notice the ask-and-receive beauty of the gospel? That is, simply by asking, you will have rivers of living water bubbling up inside you unto eternal life, you will be a new creation, born again, and the Holy Spirit will bear witness that you are saved (Romans 8.16). Yet, Catholics say that you can have no assurance. Decide for yourself if you want Paul's gospel, where the Holy Spirit fills you and bears witness to your salvation or be a Catholic! Paul said, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let him be accursed." Paul even stated that even if he, Paul, were to preach a different gospel, Paul should be accursed - how much more so your church leaders! Yet, the guile and dishonesty of the Catholic church is overbearing for some! That is, they say that I simply am not able to understand these simple words of the Lord. Is it really that complicated? Catholics, are you listening? Watch how your leaders answer (or don't answer) this post. They will either deny Paul's gospel or they will ignore it. Yet, no Catholic can agree with Paul! That is because the Catholic gospel is, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord, is baptized in our church, and takes our communion MIGHT be saved." What can you expect from them? They will quote verses to support how you need communion or baptism to be saved. Yet, they will either ignore or deny the gospel according to Paul. Yes or no, my Catholic friend: "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." Will you deny, ignore, or embrace the gospel? Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
@@kenshiloh 2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter. 1 Corinthians 11:2, "Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you." HEB 13-17 Obey the alders of the CHURCH .
I get the impression that steve deep down understands that his position doesn't solve the problem of the canon which presupposes an infallible teaching authority that can compile it.
Here if a cut-and-paste friendly challenge to my Catholic friends: Catholics reject Sola Scriptura, which I actually do not have a problem with. However, what do Catholics suggest that I do when their teachings directly contradict my Lord Jesus Christ? Shall I obey their gospel or follow the Bible? For example, Paul said, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." When asked if Catholics agree with Paul, either they ignore these words of Paul or they disagree! Yet, no Catholic has ever been able to agree with Paul, for to do so means that they must give up their prized Catholic faith! Yet, what profit is your religion if you lose your eternal soul? Recently, one Catholic said, "Shall be saved is not the same as will be saved." Really? Is that the official Catholic 'translation' of this verse? You know, Catholics go on and on as to how I need their leaders to 'interpret' the Bible for me, yet they either ignore or deny the gospel! I pray for Catholics everywhere who are led astray from the pure, simple gospel message! For example, Jesus said, "How much more will My Father give the Holy Spirit to whoever asks of Him." Notice the ask-and-receive beauty of the gospel? That is, simply by asking, you will have rivers of living water bubbling up inside you unto eternal life, you will be a new creation, born again, and the Holy Spirit will bear witness that you are saved (Romans 8.16). Yet, Catholics say that you can have no assurance. Decide for yourself if you want Paul's gospel, where the Holy Spirit fills you and bears witness to your salvation or be a Catholic! Paul said, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let him be accursed." Paul even stated that even if he, Paul, were to preach a different gospel, Paul should be accursed - how much more so your church leaders! Yet, the guile and dishonesty of the Catholic church is overbearing for some! That is, they say that I simply am not able to understand these simple words of the Lord. Is it really that complicated? Catholics, are you listening? Watch how your leaders answer (or don't answer) this post. They will either deny Paul's gospel or they will ignore it. Yet, no Catholic can agree with Paul! That is because the Catholic gospel is, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord, is baptized in our church, and takes our communion MIGHT be saved." What can you expect from them? They will quote verses to support how you need communion or baptism to be saved. Yet, they will either ignore or deny the gospel according to Paul. Yes or no, my Catholic friend: "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." Will you deny, ignore, or embrace the gospel? Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
@@kenshiloh "However, what do Catholics suggest that I do when their teachings directly contradict my Lord Jesus Christ?" What you mean to say is Catholics interpret Scripture different than you. I'm pointing out here that you are assuming that how you interpret scripture is the correct way and therefore your interpretation is "God's Word" ....and therefore disagreeing with your interpretation is to disagree with "God's Word". Well, thats kind of the point Ken. When we ask that, then what we discover is that no one taught the Protestant understanding of Scripture in the early church. Which means that the Protestant understanding isn't Apostolic (from the Apostles) because if it were then there would be witnesses to it and so far no one has found an instance of any early church father teaching the Protestant view on the verses that separate us. This precludes the possibility that the interpretation you hold is what God's Word means. They do, however, unanimously teach the Catholic view and that means it can be traced to the Apostles and all the men that act as witnesses on the matter fulfil the Biblical litmus test of establishing matters by witness attestation. Deuteronomy 19:15 "Every matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses." 2 Corinthians 13:1 "Every matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses." Matthew 18:16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' So, if you think you can drop a verse on the Church that wrote and compiled scripture and who can trace its teachings to the Apostles through witnesses then that just tells us that you've never bothered to question your own religion which was invented some time after the 16th century. In short, Paul doesn't teach what you think he teaches and we know that because of the early witnesses.
Steve accepts the traditions of the Hebrew Talmud for closing the OT canon?? 🤣🤣🤣 I thought Protestants didn’t accept tradition? 🤦♀️ Didn’t the Talmud also say Mary had an affair with a Roman soldier? Talmud seems pretty shaky ground to formulate doctrine. 🤔
Yeah I thought it was really interesting when he talked about how it had been preserved for 600 years as oral tradition to the year 200ad. And then just rejects apostolic tradition. Very interesting.
Here if a cut-and-paste friendly challenge to my Catholic friends: Catholics reject Sola Scriptura, which I actually do not have a problem with. However, what do Catholics suggest that I do when their teachings directly contradict my Lord Jesus Christ? Shall I obey their gospel or follow the Bible? For example, Paul said, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." When asked if Catholics agree with Paul, either they ignore these words of Paul or they disagree! Yet, no Catholic has ever been able to agree with Paul, for to do so means that they must give up their prized Catholic faith! Yet, what profit is your religion if you lose your eternal soul? Recently, one Catholic said, "Shall be saved is not the same as will be saved." Really? Is that the official Catholic 'translation' of this verse? You know, Catholics go on and on as to how I need their leaders to 'interpret' the Bible for me, yet they either ignore or deny the gospel! I pray for Catholics everywhere who are led astray from the pure, simple gospel message! For example, Jesus said, "How much more will My Father give the Holy Spirit to whoever asks of Him." Notice the ask-and-receive beauty of the gospel? That is, simply by asking, you will have rivers of living water bubbling up inside you unto eternal life, you will be a new creation, born again, and the Holy Spirit will bear witness that you are saved (Romans 8.16). Yet, Catholics say that you can have no assurance. Decide for yourself if you want Paul's gospel, where the Holy Spirit fills you and bears witness to your salvation or be a Catholic! Paul said, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let him be accursed." Paul even stated that even if he, Paul, were to preach a different gospel, Paul should be accursed - how much more so your church leaders! Yet, the guile and dishonesty of the Catholic church is overbearing for some! That is, they say that I simply am not able to understand these simple words of the Lord. Is it really that complicated? Catholics, are you listening? Watch how your leaders answer (or don't answer) this post. They will either deny Paul's gospel or they will ignore it. Yet, no Catholic can agree with Paul! That is because the Catholic gospel is, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord, is baptized in our church, and takes our communion MIGHT be saved." What can you expect from them? They will quote verses to support how you need communion or baptism to be saved. Yet, they will either ignore or deny the gospel according to Paul. Yes or no, my Catholic friend: "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." Will you deny, ignore, or embrace the gospel? Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
@@kenshiloh what are we to do when Protestant teachings directly contradict the scriptures? All Protestants cannot be teaching the scripture correctly since there are approximately 25,000 different Protestant denominations who disagree with each other in their teaching of the same scriptures. So which Protestant denomination is the correct one whose teachings are not in contradiction with the scriptures?
@@joebrinson5040 Hi Joe. Great question. Please do not think that, because I spend so much time talking about the Bible with Catholics that I am not just as concerned about many of the protestants! It is written, "Many will strive to enter, but will not be able to." That is, many will be seeking to enter (i.e. Catholics, protestants, etc), but narrow is the way that leads to life! Most Catholics and protestants won't make it. Moreover, this is, indeed, the most important conversation a person can have: at least one of us is living and preaching a false gospel. That said, can the world turn to me as a fount of knowledge, as a guide through life? At first, my answer will sound extremely arrogant, but 'yes you can!' Why? Because I will point you to two Bible verses, "The Holy Spirit will lead you into all truth" and "Whoever continues in My Word will be My disciple." Certainly, I will look at Scripture, doing my best to understand it and to live it out. Yet, ultimately, I do not trust in my own wisdom, but the Spirit of God, as promised, to lead me into all truth. I will let you know when I get there! That is why it doesn't bother me that there are so many denominations, as most 'Christians' are not Christians! Yet, can the same not be said about Catholics, that most will not make it? However, the closer a person gets to accurately dividing the Word of God, the closer that person will be to God. That said, I think there are more protestants who are saved than Catholics, as Catholics - trusting in the Church rather than the Spirit to lead them - have fallen into such grievious error. For example, Romans 10.13, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." I had one Catholic tell me, flat out, that Romans 10.13 is not true! Others, in a more circular approach, quote verses that 'contradict' the words of Paul, saying, "No! Calling on the Name of the Lord is not enough! You must take the Eucharist!" Isn't that your position? To me, that seems like a prime example of, "Whoever preaches a different gospel should be accursed." I am concerned, as I can give a hearty 'amen!' to Paul's gospel; I do not contradict it! Yet, what about places in the Bible where it is 'necessary' to partake of communion. First, does that doctrine not contradict Romans 10.13? Moreover, I have an answer for the 'Eucharist Chapter,' John 6. That is, rightly or wrongly, I can defend my position, yet no Catholic has ever taken on Romans 10.13. They all have avoided it, quoting 'contradictory' verses, calling down the wrath of apostolic tradition on me - everything but telling me what Paul meant! That is, what did Paul mean, then, by, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." Do you take that to be true? If so, explain how, without communion, a person can be saved? I write in the hope and prayer that you will have a saving encounter with Christ - just by asking! Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
I would have enjoyed this a lot, but most of it truly went over my head. I need to do a lot more research to understand what's going on here. Anyways, best of wishes to whoever is reading this in finding the truth.
Here if a cut-and-paste friendly challenge to my Catholic friends: Catholics reject Sola Scriptura, which I actually do not have a problem with. However, what do Catholics suggest that I do when their teachings directly contradict my Lord Jesus Christ? Shall I obey their gospel or follow the Bible? For example, Paul said, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." When asked if Catholics agree with Paul, either they ignore these words of Paul or they disagree! Yet, no Catholic has ever been able to agree with Paul, for to do so means that they must give up their prized Catholic faith! Yet, what profit is your religion if you lose your eternal soul? Recently, one Catholic said, "Shall be saved is not the same as will be saved." Really? Is that the official Catholic 'translation' of this verse? You know, Catholics go on and on as to how I need their leaders to 'interpret' the Bible for me, yet they either ignore or deny the gospel! I pray for Catholics everywhere who are led astray from the pure, simple gospel message! For example, Jesus said, "How much more will My Father give the Holy Spirit to whoever asks of Him." Notice the ask-and-receive beauty of the gospel? That is, simply by asking, you will have rivers of living water bubbling up inside you unto eternal life, you will be a new creation, born again, and the Holy Spirit will bear witness that you are saved (Romans 8.16). Yet, Catholics say that you can have no assurance. Decide for yourself if you want Paul's gospel, where the Holy Spirit fills you and bears witness to your salvation or be a Catholic! Paul said, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let him be accursed." Paul even stated that even if he, Paul, were to preach a different gospel, Paul should be accursed - how much more so your church leaders! Yet, the guile and dishonesty of the Catholic church is overbearing for some! That is, they say that I simply am not able to understand these simple words of the Lord. Is it really that complicated? Catholics, are you listening? Watch how your leaders answer (or don't answer) this post. They will either deny Paul's gospel or they will ignore it. Yet, no Catholic can agree with Paul! That is because the Catholic gospel is, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord, is baptized in our church, and takes our communion MIGHT be saved." What can you expect from them? They will quote verses to support how you need communion or baptism to be saved. Yet, they will either ignore or deny the gospel according to Paul. Yes or no, my Catholic friend: "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." Will you deny, ignore, or embrace the gospel? Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
Here if a cut-and-paste friendly challenge to my Catholic friends: Catholics reject Sola Scriptura, which I actually do not have a problem with. However, what do Catholics suggest that I do when their teachings directly contradict my Lord Jesus Christ? Shall I obey their gospel or follow the Bible? For example, Paul said, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." When asked if Catholics agree with Paul, either they ignore these words of Paul or they disagree! Yet, no Catholic has ever been able to agree with Paul, for to do so means that they must give up their prized Catholic faith! Yet, what profit is your religion if you lose your eternal soul? Recently, one Catholic said, "Shall be saved is not the same as will be saved." Really? Is that the official Catholic 'translation' of this verse? You know, Catholics go on and on as to how I need their leaders to 'interpret' the Bible for me, yet they either ignore or deny the gospel! I pray for Catholics everywhere who are led astray from the pure, simple gospel message! For example, Jesus said, "How much more will My Father give the Holy Spirit to whoever asks of Him." Notice the ask-and-receive beauty of the gospel? That is, simply by asking, you will have rivers of living water bubbling up inside you unto eternal life, you will be a new creation, born again, and the Holy Spirit will bear witness that you are saved (Romans 8.16). Yet, Catholics say that you can have no assurance. Decide for yourself if you want Paul's gospel, where the Holy Spirit fills you and bears witness to your salvation or be a Catholic! Paul said, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let him be accursed." Paul even stated that even if he, Paul, were to preach a different gospel, Paul should be accursed - how much more so your church leaders! Yet, the guile and dishonesty of the Catholic church is overbearing for some! That is, they say that I simply am not able to understand these simple words of the Lord. Is it really that complicated? Catholics, are you listening? Watch how your leaders answer (or don't answer) this post. They will either deny Paul's gospel or they will ignore it. Yet, no Catholic can agree with Paul! That is because the Catholic gospel is, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord, is baptized in our church, and takes our communion MIGHT be saved." What can you expect from them? They will quote verses to support how you need communion or baptism to be saved. Yet, they will either ignore or deny the gospel according to Paul. Yes or no, my Catholic friend: "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." Will you deny, ignore, or embrace the gospel? Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
James White already got destroyed by his own statements contradicting themselves, (see "the video that made James White go ballistic") so Dr. Brant Pitre is going to destroy this man
1:34:25 "I approached all the books with the same criteria." WHAT CRITERIA? The entire debate Trent asked him MULTIPLE times what his standard was for determining the inspiration of books and he wouldnt give an answer.
I am a Protestant who has been a firm believer in the inspiration of the deuterocanonical Scriptures for several years due to reading them for myself, and I have to say that the Protestant side of the debate was very weak. I believe that the easiest way to convince Protestant of the inspiration of the deuterocanon is to have them read through the book Wisdom Of Solomon. That sealed the deal for me.
I am also using Protestant very loosely, as there are many Protestants I know who would not accept my Protestantism, because of my belief in the deuterocanon, as well as belief in the intercession of saints, the veneration of Mary and my openness to Purgatory.
I'm just in the beginning of Steve's opening arguments. I don't hold to the apocrypha, I'm a mere Christian, but he's already lost me. Something about his cadence isn't compelling. Trent on the other hand is one of the best debaters. People will respond just because it's him. Gavin Ortlund gave him a terrific run in their recent Sola Scriptura debate. I did find myself captivated by both sides of that debate.
The book of Judith is referenced in the letter of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians written at the end of the first century and fragments of Tobit have been found at Qumran I think.
Steve Christie when asked certain questions replies with, "The answers are all found in the MacArthur Study Bible, just trust me on that" -- besides this answer lacking any actual argumentation to the questions asked of Steve, why would we (blindly) trust MacArthur's thoughts more than Church Fathers, Saints, Popes, Councils, etc.?
I like what you are doing with Pints With Aquinas and hope to see more similar content so I subscribed today! I am a Protestant Christian who loves to see people engaged with their faith and learning more.
Truly unfortunate that the most interesting argument I heard (that the earlier councils and Trent don't have a common understanding of what Esdras' books are canon) was glossed over and left on the table. I'll have to listen again and try to do my own research.
Long story short: Carthage says 2 books of Esdras. Steve assumes, these are the two books from the Septuagint. He is relying on the Catholic encyclopedia, which is in error. Stave does not realize the CE is not a magisterial document, so it can be in error. The fact is, the two books of Esdras are Ezra and Nehemiah from the Vulgate (which represents 2 Esdras, or Esdras B from the Septuagint). It is not plausible that the two books of Esdras are those from the Septuagint for several reasons. 1. 1 Esdras (Esdras A of the Septuagint, which is 3 Esdras of the Vulgate) wasn´t in use in the liturgy. 2. Art Sippo wrote on his blog: St. Jerome was actually in the process of translating Ezra and Nehemiah from 393-394 AD according to Kelly and the New Catholic Encyclopedia. This means that his work on these books was contemporary with the Council of Hippo and his decision as to the nature of the authentic text of the Esdras material had been made earlier. It is likely that the council fathers at Hippo knew of this work and they may have agreed with St. Jerome’s opinion on this matter. St. Jerome completed the translations for the Vulgate by 405-406 AD. When the Popes reaffirmed the Canon of Scripture from Hippo/Carthage in 401, 414, and 418 AD there is no doubt of their intentions. They saw the ‘two books of Esdras’ as identical to the books of Esdras in St. Jerome’s Vulgate translation, which were based upon the Hebrew text of Ezra and Nehemiah. It was this understanding of the text of the ‘two books of Esdras’ which was promulgated ever after in the Church and which was adopted by the Councils of Florence and Trent. 3. Jerome in his preface to the book of Kings wrote: ,, The eight is Ezra, which itself is likewise divided amongst Greeks and Latins into two books." So Steve is wrong that Jerome divided 2 Esdras. Origen, Cyrill of Jerusalem and Rufinus testifie this as well. Check out Gary Michuta´s book: Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger. 4. John Betts also published a response to William Webster on this topic. It also shows you how Steve is wrong about Augustine. You can reach it here: web.archive.org/web/20081121150055/catholic-legate.com/articles/esdras.html 5. Finally I recommend you the newest video on Apocrypha Apocalypse, where Gary Michuta, William Albrecht and Trent Horn shared thoughts and comments on this debate: ruclips.net/video/z1TuQ4PdbwY/видео.html Conclusion: Carthage, Florence and Trent are coherent. Florence did not reject any books, there is nothing such in the acta from Florence (the decree says which books are scripture, not which aren't) Steve made this up, just as he made up many many things in this debate as well as in his book.
Speaking as a Protestant, I see in Steve Christie the bulldog spirit I’ve cone to detest among our ministers. Clinical, litigious, and unimaginative. He missed his calling as a District Attorney. Also, he made some blatantly bad arguments that Trent led slide. Name conflation is fine to fix a contradiction in 1 Kings but not in Judith. The church was absolutely given the canon by Jesus, but then not really because it got lost and you can’t depend on oral instruction, so now we have to piece it together using hermeneutic arguments, and this totally means that Jesus solved the issue for the church once and for all. And Steve knows very well that not everything in the 66 books is explained. I typically enjoy these debates, but wow, this one was hard to sit through.
btw, didn't Martin Luther attempted to remove the books of James, Hebrew, Jude, and Revelation?. where did Martin Luther get the authority to remove the 7 books of the O.T. and attempt to remove the four books of the new testament?
Great Job Trent. Thank you Steve for doing this debate. Even though I am bias in my thought, I believe Steve Christie missed, “wide right.” For all you Buffalo Bills fans.
This was eye opening and gave clarity to somethings I already thought. The fact that Catholics have a continual revelation within a framework of theology and dogma. Whereas Protestants are divided by rejecting theology, and being hyperfocused on interpreting verses. And dead in Revelation. And there is no Protestant Church deciding if God speaks from other sources. And that's a biblical given anyway. He speaks through all creation, because He spoke our creation and experiences into being, and did so by His wisdom and understanding. Sadly Protestants represent God as if He is linear rather than eternal.
Protestants believe that God speaks through creation, through our personal experience. We just don't think that he speaks using those methods in a way that is reliable for basing doctrine upon. Catholics believe this too, btw.
@@SeanusAurelius And I was Protestant for 35 adult years and I don't know Protestants that think God speaks through all creation. They tend to be dense to anything they can't stifle by their doctrines.
With respect, I think most debates of this sort are not worthwhile. Trent's point around the 1:30:00 timeframe was exactly right; the tone adopted by the protestant guy is so utterly dismissive of anything he doesn't already believe that it's difficult to believe he is genuine in other areas. To paraphrase, "Jacob was a spectacular farmer so he can make a color-changing goat on-demand, and that's totally valid and unquestionable, but if God has an Angel use fish guts as an incense to drive out demons that one time, then Trent Horn has to smear fish guts in his eyes as modern medicine." Even if I considered any of the protestant's points as effective, his tone is so JamesWhite that it's difficult to hear them. If you have the Truth and the Love of God, then don't be such a dismissive and petty debater.
Trent made a very good point stating we use different criteria for judging the 66 books against the apocrypha. Tobit fish guts vs Genesis having cows mating in regards to Laban. Good words Trent
I'm left with the impression this was only really a debate about Steve's own idea about Matthew 23, with the real questions unanswered. To frame Steve's position as a "positive" claim that something is not scripture seems a bit shaky also, where I think it would have been better if it was two cases being made for what should be considered canon, rather than one idea being examined. Also, I'm a bit disheartened by some of the comments here. Straw-manning other Christian groups and insulting them does nothing for the cause. As is often the case, most of the negative comments here are ignorant of the people and beliefs they're talking about.
Yes, my friend, some commentaries as just not fair enough to the depiction of our faith. That goes beyond unbelievable level when the Catholic Church and specially the Catholic people are and were attacked in the USA, many times more viciously than one could even begin to understand the terms “hatred” or “prejudice”. So I understand your point. Bad representation on Catholicism is ironical since it is very easy to fairly portray it (due to its theological unity, although it is not monolithic) and it is very hard to fairly portray all Protestantism(s) - yet at least there are many, many commentators (and also videos) from Catholic apologists doing a much greater job representing Protestants than the other way around. But we will always feel bad (reciprocally) represented, I came to understand. What I don’t understand is the level of aggression we sometimes engage in. You are very correct, brother. God bless you!
Here if a cut-and-paste friendly challenge to my Catholic friends: Catholics reject Sola Scriptura, which I actually do not have a problem with. However, what do Catholics suggest that I do when their teachings directly contradict my Lord Jesus Christ? Shall I obey their gospel or follow the Bible? For example, Paul said, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." When asked if Catholics agree with Paul, either they ignore these words of Paul or they disagree! Yet, no Catholic has ever been able to agree with Paul, for to do so means that they must give up their prized Catholic faith! Yet, what profit is your religion if you lose your eternal soul? Recently, one Catholic said, "Shall be saved is not the same as will be saved." Really? Is that the official Catholic 'translation' of this verse? You know, Catholics go on and on as to how I need their leaders to 'interpret' the Bible for me, yet they either ignore or deny the gospel! I pray for Catholics everywhere who are led astray from the pure, simple gospel message! For example, Jesus said, "How much more will My Father give the Holy Spirit to whoever asks of Him." Notice the ask-and-receive beauty of the gospel? That is, simply by asking, you will have rivers of living water bubbling up inside you unto eternal life, you will be a new creation, born again, and the Holy Spirit will bear witness that you are saved (Romans 8.16). Yet, Catholics say that you can have no assurance. Decide for yourself if you want Paul's gospel, where the Holy Spirit fills you and bears witness to your salvation or be a Catholic! Paul said, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let him be accursed." Paul even stated that even if he, Paul, were to preach a different gospel, Paul should be accursed - how much more so your church leaders! Yet, the guile and dishonesty of the Catholic church is overbearing for some! That is, they say that I simply am not able to understand these simple words of the Lord. Is it really that complicated? Catholics, are you listening? Watch how your leaders answer (or don't answer) this post. They will either deny Paul's gospel or they will ignore it. Yet, no Catholic can agree with Paul! That is because the Catholic gospel is, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord, is baptized in our church, and takes our communion MIGHT be saved." What can you expect from them? They will quote verses to support how you need communion or baptism to be saved. Yet, they will either ignore or deny the gospel according to Paul. Yes or no, my Catholic friend: "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." Will you deny, ignore, or embrace the gospel? Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
@@kenshiloh if "Whomever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" is just that simple, then we are all saved since we all believe in Jesus, how er where do you leave Matthew 7:21-23!? Calling the name of the Lord means not only believing but to obey all he teaches, not just what you think he does... Do you think Jesus left a heretical church from the beginning!? Do you think Jesus church (the Catholic church) got corrupted after the years!? If so Jesus lied when he said" the doors Hades shall not prevail against it" And if it was intended to be this way, where is the prophecy telling us that someone in the future will reform the corrupted church!? By the contrary it is prophecied that from us will rice false teachers, and as far as i know all protestant father were Catholics... Check out 1 Timothy 4:1 onwards 2 Peter 2:1 onwards Galatians 1:6-9 1 John 2:18-19 Acts 20:28-31 Matthew 24:24-25 2 John 1:7-10 And plz tell me where were your believes been tough in the first millennium all the way to the 16 century!? Check out 1 Timothy 3:15 The church Jesus founded has the truth, and it's entrusted with keeping it
@@JoseMartinez-rx6sl Hi. Thanks for writing. If you notice, I did not interpret Romans 10.8, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord SHALL be saved." I will only give the contrapositive: according to Paul, if a person is not saved, then they did not call upon the Name of the Lord. That is, truly calling upon the Name of the Lord is salvation. Moreover, do you agree that Catholics teach, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord, is baptized Catholic, and partakes of Catholic communion MIGHT be saved"? No Catholic has ever answered this simple question. Will you answer it? Moreover, you cannot say that I am misinterpreting Scripture, as I have not interpreted Romans 10.8; I merely asked if it is different that what Catholics teach. Moreover, I hope you will have the courage and integrity to answer my question: do Catholics believe, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord, is baptized Catholic, and partakes of Catholic communion MIGHT be saved"? A simple yes or no! Remember Paul's warning, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let him be accursed." I hope you will have a saving encounter with Christ - just by asking! Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
Well done and civil on all counts. Only one constructive criticism: Steve, slow down. Whether it is just in the attempt to slam as much info into the allotted time as possible, or for any other reason, I literally can't process your statements when presented that fast. As such, I am likely to view Trent's assertions more favorably, as they are comprehensible.
Christie was on the show Reason and Theology too, he got good critiques by Albrëcht, Lofton and Ybarra as far as I can remember..... This was an interesting conversation, tho I think that Horn got the upper hand here
Here if a cut-and-paste friendly challenge to my Catholic friends: Catholics reject Sola Scriptura, which I actually do not have a problem with. However, what do Catholics suggest that I do when their teachings directly contradict my Lord Jesus Christ? Shall I obey their gospel or follow the Bible? For example, Paul said, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." When asked if Catholics agree with Paul, either they ignore these words of Paul or they disagree! Yet, no Catholic has ever been able to agree with Paul, for to do so means that they must give up their prized Catholic faith! Yet, what profit is your religion if you lose your eternal soul? Recently, one Catholic said, "Shall be saved is not the same as will be saved." Really? Is that the official Catholic 'translation' of this verse? You know, Catholics go on and on as to how I need their leaders to 'interpret' the Bible for me, yet they either ignore or deny the gospel! I pray for Catholics everywhere who are led astray from the pure, simple gospel message! For example, Jesus said, "How much more will My Father give the Holy Spirit to whoever asks of Him." Notice the ask-and-receive beauty of the gospel? That is, simply by asking, you will have rivers of living water bubbling up inside you unto eternal life, you will be a new creation, born again, and the Holy Spirit will bear witness that you are saved (Romans 8.16). Yet, Catholics say that you can have no assurance. Decide for yourself if you want Paul's gospel, where the Holy Spirit fills you and bears witness to your salvation or be a Catholic! Paul said, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let him be accursed." Paul even stated that even if he, Paul, were to preach a different gospel, Paul should be accursed - how much more so your church leaders! Yet, the guile and dishonesty of the Catholic church is overbearing for some! That is, they say that I simply am not able to understand these simple words of the Lord. Is it really that complicated? Catholics, are you listening? Watch how your leaders answer (or don't answer) this post. They will either deny Paul's gospel or they will ignore it. Yet, no Catholic can agree with Paul! That is because the Catholic gospel is, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord, is baptized in our church, and takes our communion MIGHT be saved." What can you expect from them? They will quote verses to support how you need communion or baptism to be saved. Yet, they will either ignore or deny the gospel according to Paul. Yes or no, my Catholic friend: "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." Will you deny, ignore, or embrace the gospel? Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
@@kenshiloh after a dozen of both catholic and protestant theological manuals, exegetical inquiries, analysis of patristic thought, and debates between people on both sides that are much more intelligent than you seem to be (at least infering from this pathetic comment), how disingenuous and ignorant do you have to be to cite a phrase from Romans 10 while ignoring the whole surrounding context of the epistle, the whole pauline soteriological project and the debates in first century christian circles, in order to make the cliché statement how supposedly "cAtHoLiCs cOnTrAdIcT JeSuS", tho if I were to give a dozen citations where your contemporary soteriological outlook (that is not older than some 100 to 200 years and that never existed prior to this recent english speaking protestanti revival period) contradicts the Bible, you would make self-flattering remarks about me "nOt kNoWiNg mA BaYBLeee".... I am not going to give you the satisfaction of continuing your typical american protestant rhetorical charade, and if you are realy interested in the catholic (and apostolic/patristic) undersranding of Romans, there are a dozen books out there just on that issue alone. You can start with the ex-protestant philosopher Rob Koons and his book "The Case for Catholicism" which is a great introduction to pauline soteriology outlined in Romans
@@ante3973 Hi. So I am not as smart as these other people? That is quite a compliment! Thank you! Jesus said, "I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes." That is me! Moreover, I am not here to win an argument, but, like Jesus, I say, "One thing you miss." You may have been snide and condescending to me, but I am concerned about your eternal destiny. Sadly, you did not answer my question. Is it true, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved"? Yes or no? Will you direct me to a book? Calling me ignorant, are you not able to answer a simple question? Yet, Catholics cannot answer that question. They either have to avoid it (e.g. your ad hominem attack) or contradict Paul! Catholics claim, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord, is baptized Catholic, and partakes of Catholic communion MIGHT be saved." First, do I misrepresent any point of Catholic doctrine? Secondly, if not, are you saying that you preach the same gospel as Paul? That said, by simply calling on the Name of the Lord, God will baptized you in the Holy Spirit. You will be born again and the Holy Spirit will abide with you. Do you know Him? Is He your close personal friend? Do you know Christ or will He say to you on that great and terrible day, "Depart from Me; I never knew you." Again, I am not here to attack your faith, but to examine what the Bible says. In fact, by the grace of God, if you show me my error, I will obey the Lord! Yet, it has to be from the Book! When the Catholic church contradicts the Word of God, I will follow Christ! Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
@@kenshiloh so you take pride in your ignorance and again cherry-pick biblical verses that have nothing to do with the issue discussed here (namely, your ignorance in question), you kinda proove my point. And yes, if you think that Paul teaches in Romans that whoever says that Jesus is Lord will be baptised and authomatucaly saved (which contradicts Christ's own teaching regarding being born again of water and spirit and being able, but not guaranteed, to enter the kingdom of God), than the answer is no (as all patristic writers agree upon and even traditional protestants)... the problem is not with catholics but with you who does not only understand the whole epistle but who in his own conformity does not even want to investigate the matter even after somebody suggests you realy good books on that matter..... pathetic.... Until you make yourself familiar both with catholic teaching on soteriology (by reading the acts of Trent and the Cathechism) and with the proper historical context on Romans (again, I already told you were to start), I don't see it fruitfull to continue this discussion.
@@ante3973 Hi. Thanks for writing. You wrote, "if you think that Paul teaches... that whoever says that Jesus is Lord ... (and is) authomatucaly saved... than the answer is no." That is not what I asked. I asked you a direct question, true or false, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." Yet, instead of answering, you misquoted Paul, then claimed that your misquote is not true! I am extremely concerned for you, and I mean this in all respect, but I do not think you are being honest here. Your integrity has zero impact on my life, but if you are in a false religion, in danger of eternal hell, don't you want to be on the winning side? Wouldn't you rather be enjoy heaven rather than being in torment in hell for all eternity? Is your Catholic faith really worth all eternity to you? So, please, for the sake of your eternal destiny, do not misquote Paul, then disagree with your own misquote. True or false: Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved. That is, simply by asking, the Holy Spirit will be a 'river of living water bubbling up inside you unto eternal life'. You will be born again, made into a brand new creation. Concerning works, God will give you a 'hunger and thirst after righteousness,' and, as you abide in Christ, you will be much fruit! Jesus said, "This is eternal life, that you know God and Jesus Christ Whom He has sent." Yet, how do you meet the Lord? Jesus said, "Ask and you shall receive." However, the Catholics have a different gospel, sayng, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord, is baptized Catholic and partakes of Catholic communion MIGHT be saved." Do you have any argument as to these points of Catholic doctrine? Yet, clearly it is a different, a much different, gospel than what Paul and the Lord taught! "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let them be accursed," wrote Paul! So, for the sake of your eternal soul, may the Lord help you be honest! No more smokescreens! No more misquoting Paul, then disagreeing with your own misquote. True or false: Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved. Jesus said, "Let your yea be yea and your nay be nay. Anything more is of the evil one." I hope that you will obey Christ! Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
I'm surprised nobody ever brings up Matthew 11:13. Seems like a pretty clear-cut proof that the argument that prophecy ended hundreds of years before Christ is completely false. Straight from Jesus' mouth, too. "The prophets and the law prophesied until John came." Now, if protestants want to argue that "until" doesn't necessarily mean they continued prophesying until John came, they have to explain why they insist that the word "until" must rigidly conform to our modern English equivalent when Catholics interpet Mary being a virgin _until_ Jesus was born as not indicating that she stopped being a virgin at that time.
1:20:33 - “[this] wouldn’t have been something that was invented then [when it was written], it would be a tradition that was handed down from centuries before” 1:21:36 - “That’s why it’s important to have things written down and not go by oral tradition” Come one maaan! These two statements are only ONE MINUTE APART!!
Here if a cut-and-paste friendly challenge to my Catholic friends: Catholics reject Sola Scriptura, which I actually do not have a problem with. However, what do Catholics suggest that I do when their teachings directly contradict my Lord Jesus Christ? Shall I obey their gospel or follow the Bible? For example, Paul said, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." When asked if Catholics agree with Paul, either they ignore these words of Paul or they disagree! Yet, no Catholic has ever been able to agree with Paul, for to do so means that they must give up their prized Catholic faith! Yet, what profit is your religion if you lose your eternal soul? Recently, one Catholic said, "Shall be saved is not the same as will be saved." Really? Is that the official Catholic 'translation' of this verse? You know, Catholics go on and on as to how I need their leaders to 'interpret' the Bible for me, yet they either ignore or deny the gospel! I pray for Catholics everywhere who are led astray from the pure, simple gospel message! For example, Jesus said, "How much more will My Father give the Holy Spirit to whoever asks of Him." Notice the ask-and-receive beauty of the gospel? That is, simply by asking, you will have rivers of living water bubbling up inside you unto eternal life, you will be a new creation, born again, and the Holy Spirit will bear witness that you are saved (Romans 8.16). Yet, Catholics say that you can have no assurance. Decide for yourself if you want Paul's gospel, where the Holy Spirit fills you and bears witness to your salvation or be a Catholic! Paul said, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let him be accursed." Paul even stated that even if he, Paul, were to preach a different gospel, Paul should be accursed - how much more so your church leaders! Yet, the guile and dishonesty of the Catholic church is overbearing for some! That is, they say that I simply am not able to understand these simple words of the Lord. Is it really that complicated? Catholics, are you listening? Watch how your leaders answer (or don't answer) this post. They will either deny Paul's gospel or they will ignore it. Yet, no Catholic can agree with Paul! That is because the Catholic gospel is, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord, is baptized in our church, and takes our communion MIGHT be saved." What can you expect from them? They will quote verses to support how you need communion or baptism to be saved. Yet, they will either ignore or deny the gospel according to Paul. Yes or no, my Catholic friend: "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." Will you deny, ignore, or embrace the gospel? Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
One year later and I've returned to view this video once more. I'm a Bible believer that mostly aligns with Protestant theology however I'm am more persuaded of the parts of the Apocrypha (Deuterocanon) being scripture than ever before due to my research. Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach and Baruch were considered scripture as much as Revelation and Esther. If us Protestants exclude all the Apocrypha we are shooting ourselves in the foot with Esther and Revelation as they were many times excluded from officially listed canons in the first few centuries. We must hold the Apocryphal books to the same standard as the 66 books in order to determine truth. Many of the early church fathers us Protestants would use to affirm our theology and the 66 books we dismiss when they quote the Apocrypha. Oftentimes, the new testament authors do not quote exactly the old testament: sometimes it's an allusion, a quote, a paraphrase or a blending. If you research deeply and use the same standard to that we use to observe the new testament authors quoting the old we will use the Apocrypha was used. @ThecounselofTrent @PintswithAquinas
Here are two smart people who come to different opinions. If both are being led by the Holy Spirit, then who is right. Jesus gave us the only way to discern truths free from human opinion, and this is when Jesus gave The Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven to Peter, on whom God built his Church. This is what the infallibility of the Magisterium is today. It is the ONLY way we can know what is truly Gods will, and without that, then nothing is trustworthy. I tried to make this brief, and hope It makes sense for what I was trying to say.
I'm a Protestant (as well as being a Jewish Christian), but I always like to read bibles which include the deuterocanonical books, because many of them (including those like 1 Enoch and Jubilees) were found amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran, dating from the third century BCE to the first century CE. If they were good enough for first century Jews, then they're good enough for me, especially considering that John the Baptist is often argued to have belonged to the Essenes, the Jewish sect who complied the Dead Sea Scrolls. I’m actually quite surprised that Trent didn’t bring up the Dead Sea Scrolls to refute some of Steve’s points.
My favorite Church Father listing of the Old Testament is Athanasius. When he talks about the deuterocanon and what he has to say, I feel like I’m back at synagog. It seems like the disciples were seeing these books the same way too.
" I always like to read bibles which include the deuterocanonical books, " If there were good enough for Jesus and the apostles, they are good enough for me. Inconsistent for Steve, he tacitly defers to the authority of the 4th c Catholic Church to have decided his New Testament canon - 27 writings, no more, no less, out of 300+ early Christian writings. The same Church - synods and councils of Catholic Bishops - at the same time declared the Old Testament to have 46 writings. To believe that they error'd on the latter but somehow - mere men - got the former right is most inconsistent. To say nothing that they were all Catholic Bishops, who brought both canon's into Church where they were read at Mass.
@manny4012 The canon was affirmed in AD 397 in the council of Carthage; the Catholic Council of Trent merely reaffirmed the same list in light of Protestantism.
Great debate. Although I do find the formal structure and time limits a bit restrictive. There were times when I wanted to hear what the other person was about to say and their time ran out. I'd prefer a more conversational style, like how Joe Rogan has multiple guests on at once and lets the discussion flow organically. It would really allow for all the nuances in such a complex topic to be explored.
Judith is a historical figure. The Church does not celebrate the intercessions of imaginary people. Francis and JPII referenced her as a historical figure. The Catechism references her as a historical figure. Judith may be a work of "cryptic history" cf Bergsma. ... We commemorate the righteous Judith, who slew Holofernes. ... By their holy intercessions, O God, have mercy on us and save us. Amen.
Steve needs to work on his debate skills; that opening statement is rough and jumps right into the finer points and evidence without first establishing the foundation of his argument.
Steve, a question for you, is Hanukkah a valid Jewish holiday? .. Where is it found in the Bible? If you said Jews reject Maccabees Then, where do they get Hanukkah? Are you asserting that God would do a miracle like Hanukkah and then not record it? If so, then what other miracles of that caliber affecting His people as a whole did God do and not have it be recorded in any scriptures?
Trent is the most compelling and respectful Catholic apologist of our generation
what do ya think of him compared to jesse romero? I like trent..hes cool
@@TheAdrian91706 Not too familiar with Jessse Romero's work so couldn't comment
I love Trent! I’m ready his book “ Why We’re Catholic”.
@@TheAdrian91706 jesse cannot stand in same sentence with trent in theological and aplogetics terms
Tim Staples trained Trent...Tim is the man!
So this is what I learned.
The more I learn, the less I know.
Mutual respect shown during debate.
I agree
Well said.
That's where I decided centuries of writings written by men who spent a lot more time studying(the apostolic father's) is like finding a cheat code l
Really waiting for Steve’s objective standard for determining what is and isn’t scripture. I’m a protestant that is looking for an intelligent reason not to become catholic and I’m struggling to find one
Any updates on your journey? 🙏🏻
The main argument against the Catholic canon is from the apostle Paul who stated the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God, which refers to the OT Scriptures. And no Jew ever embraced the Catholic OT canon, like they did the Protestant OT canon. Trent was not able to produce even a single ECF or early council prior to the fourth century that embraced all 46 books of the Catholic OT canon, while you can find both early Christians & Jews from antiquity that embraced all 39 books of the Protestant OT canon. That's why I began my debate quoting the Council of Trent, Catechism of the Catholic Church, and Dr. Anders from EWTN who all stated that the canon was passed down from Jesus & the apostles "hand to hand." IOW, it did not "develop" well into the church age the way contemporary Catholic apologists believe. The problem from the Catholic side is that the canon lists in the church age are inconsistent, except for their lists being identical or near identical to Protestant OT canons. For example, Baba Bathra 14b which is a second century written tradition enumerates EVERY book from the Protestant OT, but NONE from the Catholic OT. And this written dates its source back to Gamaliel from the book of Acts in the NT, who was the mentor of the apostle Paul. However, you don't get an IDENTICAL Catholic OT canon list until 1441.
I crossed the Tiber myself … evangelicals make the best Catholics :)
@@3leon306 I crossed the Tiber the other way. Ex-Catholics make the best evangelicals, because they know all the false narratives made by Rome, including their arguments about the canon.
@@BornAgainRN I’m well aware of the toxic stew of ego, resentment, and Jacobin rebelliousness that creates the kind of Protestant obscurantist “truth” you’re clinging to ... good luck.
Note to self
0:01 Welcoming speech
1:25 Sponsor acknowledgement (Exodus 90)
3:06 Introducing Steve
4:35 Introducing Trent
6:00 Format
6:30 OS: Steve - 15 mins
21:27 OS: Trent - 15 mins
36:35 Rebuttal: Steve - 7 mins
43:44 Rebuttal: Trent - 7 mins
50:48 2nd Rbttl: Steve - 4 mins
55:03 2nd Rbttl: Trent - 4 mins
59:07 Spnsr Acknwldgmnt (Ethos Logos Inv.)
1:00:52 Cross examination format
1:01:24 CE: Steve - 12 mins
1:13:28 CE: Trent - 12 mins
1:25:46 Support Pints
1:27:17 Q&A - 30 mins
1:50:03 CS: Steve
1:55:11 CS: Trent
2:00:08 Debaters info
"Now, rule of thumb is, never ever buy a whiskey that's flavoured. If you have to flavour it, it probably wasn't good to begin with. This is also true with coffee. - Matt Fradd
Thank you!
Do smoked whiskeys counts as flavored?
I love Trent man, such an humble and nice guy. From a "protestant" who is now currently studying Catholicism and orthodoxy I have to say that Trent won in my eyes.
Sorry my friend he was on the defense the whole time. Unfortunately most of the time he couldn't answer directly though he is great at pacifying the topic without admission of a councils inability to define its inclusion of the apocryphal books.
@Prasanth Thomas where? Open yourr eyes and not your ears then? Lol Septuagint? Go to who held scriptures WAY prior to any catholic church? The Jews held the oracles and were responsible? Was there any of the extra books? NO! Did God forget somehow? Off course he forgot so catholic god could make corrections!!!! Lol Keep your extra books i have no problems with that? My opinion/s is as good as yours at every level. Sola Ecclesia!!! Lol
@Prasanth Thomas i use a dictionary does that make it God Breathed? Not all truth is God breathed Yes?? Lol So if they Quote from pagan writings that it is heretical so the writing is Scriptures? Lol Silly argumentations please comeback with more im thoroughly entertained 🤣!!! Congratulations on your conversion ! Cheers! That former catholic priest was just too learned for Mr Trent. SORRY!
@Prasanth Thomas obviously you would be the expert on human tendencies! Right? Adding Books, false doctrines (Marian WORSHIP, indulgences, purgatory, papal infallibility etc. Etc ) Yes please school me as you would be the expert on human tendencies. Lol.
Just because he did know a source of an argumentative point does make an historical document God Breathed! Let alone win a debate?
Almost every debate against catholic apologist no matter how embarrassingly one sided (not saying this debate in honesty) comes with a victorious outcry.
I myself am a former catholic. My direct uncle is the former Arch Bishop of the Dolce Nombre De Maria Basilica on the island of Guam. Not hating just not in agreement teachings. Blessings.
@Prasanth Thomas I’m Protestant and I’ve watched both debates Steve Christie had with Trent Horn and Gary Michuta and I have to say that Steve Christie got SCHOOLED by Gary Michuta and Trent Horn. I told Steve Christie this and he got butthurt about it and started acting like a troll. William Albrecht has called him out for being a troll on the “Apocrypha Apocalypse” channel. Steve Christie’s RUclips channel is @BornAgainRN
Gary Michuta and Trent Horn both provided historical evidence that the ancient Pharisees accepted the Deuterocanon as inspired Scripture, but Steve Christie is still in denial about this. Steve Christie is a liar and a deceiver.
This was a phenomenal debate. As an atheist, I must say that I love Trent Horn
HMMMMMMMMMMM
he really is a level-headed guy.
Why would an athiest have any interest in this debate?
@@gideondavid30 as someone who’s had a very long atheist phase, it isn’t surprising at all, especially if you’re interested in what intelligent people with other perspectives have to say, especially debates within that world of perspective
@@gideondavid30 atheists who are listening to people talk about their belief for God are in search of answers. Those who search for knowledge are open to God but are looking for convincing faith to ponder their value system.
Every atheist who converts to Christianity is one who began their journey by learning more about God and why people have faith in him.
Trent was a guy who really keep his composure, he really speaks cool and has a wide knowledge about the history of the Church ..Trent I've watched atleast 3 of your debates and this one really made me believed that you're a person gifted with a talent to proclaim the truth to all of us..God bless you Trent ..keep on doing this and we're here Catholics to pray for you😊🙏✌️♥️
Wisdom Chapter 2 Gives me all confidence That Catholic Canon is the correct one.
Why?
+1 to @Noel Tan 's question of why?
@@noeltan1455 I'm not sure if this is exactly what Sam meant but I'm assuming it's the overly explicit prophecy about Christ.
@@renjithjoseph7135 Just tagging you so you get the notification
@@josephgoemans6948 Right, basically that whole chapter is a Messianic Prophecy. It is so explicit that it is Impressive that Protestants reject that as the Word of God, I mean if that is not Inspired by God, then by whom?
I really believe that the Holy Spirit has led perfectly his church as Christ promised.
I’m Catholic now because of this debate. I hear you Trent Horn
I highly doubt that.
Trent believes the church over the Bible. The Bible is subservient to the church! NO its the other way around!!!!! Staying put ,...I'm fine even more so!
@Idyllic 🍂 wait till you find out that, by your reasoning, every single Christian to ever exist until the 1500s was a pagan
@@simonfinley864 You highly doubt that he’s catholic?
@@simonfinley864 me too
I saw many people lying like these
They say i am Catholic now because of this
Another video they say i am Catholic now because of that
I like Mr Steve Christie but Mr Trent Horn had the more convincing arguments and very clear and precise conclusions.
Precisely...protestants can not answer straight just making his own interpretation..
Trent Horn is the best! I am a proud Catholic.
Horne is great, but there are others I find even deeper thinkers like Father Spitzer
God bless you Trent, keep up the great work for the salvation of souls
Here if a cut-and-paste friendly challenge to my Catholic friends:
Catholics reject Sola Scriptura, which I actually do not have a problem with. However, what do Catholics suggest that I do when their teachings directly contradict my Lord Jesus Christ? Shall I obey their gospel or follow the Bible?
For example, Paul said, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." When asked if Catholics agree with Paul, either they ignore these words of Paul or they disagree! Yet, no Catholic has ever been able to agree with Paul, for to do so means that they must give up their prized Catholic faith! Yet, what profit is your religion if you lose your eternal soul?
Recently, one Catholic said, "Shall be saved is not the same as will be saved." Really? Is that the official Catholic 'translation' of this verse? You know, Catholics go on and on as to how I need their leaders to 'interpret' the Bible for me, yet they either ignore or deny the gospel! I pray for Catholics everywhere who are led astray from the pure, simple gospel message!
For example, Jesus said, "How much more will My Father give the Holy Spirit to whoever asks of Him." Notice the ask-and-receive beauty of the gospel? That is, simply by asking, you will have rivers of living water bubbling up inside you unto eternal life, you will be a new creation, born again, and the Holy Spirit will bear witness that you are saved (Romans 8.16). Yet, Catholics say that you can have no assurance. Decide for yourself if you want Paul's gospel, where the Holy Spirit fills you and bears witness to your salvation or be a Catholic!
Paul said, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let him be accursed." Paul even stated that even if he, Paul, were to preach a different gospel, Paul should be accursed - how much more so your church leaders! Yet, the guile and dishonesty of the Catholic church is overbearing for some! That is, they say that I simply am not able to understand these simple words of the Lord. Is it really that complicated?
Catholics, are you listening? Watch how your leaders answer (or don't answer) this post. They will either deny Paul's gospel or they will ignore it. Yet, no Catholic can agree with Paul! That is because the Catholic gospel is, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord, is baptized in our church, and takes our communion MIGHT be saved." What can you expect from them? They will quote verses to support how you need communion or baptism to be saved. Yet, they will either ignore or deny the gospel according to Paul.
Yes or no, my Catholic friend: "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." Will you deny, ignore, or embrace the gospel? Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
Btw, Catholicism is the fullness of Christianity
Btw, the Papacy is not what defines the Catholic Faith.
You are right kirito kun
Purdy Persuasive † it IS Christianity. Every other Church broke off the Mother Church is not in the fullness of the Faith. You are right.
Barely Protestant what defines catholic church includes every single point and without a pope there is no catholicism. Christ Himself wanted a shepherd for His Church. Peter was chosen to be that shepherd and therefore the seat of Peter is honored. There can be bad popes and saintly popes but not one single pope has the right or authority to change the teachings. Check out what the Magisterium of the Catholic Church is.
@@ilonkastille2993 nope, you're wrong. The Papacy is an innovation.
I have to say, my favorite thing of this debate is the cordiality and good humor they both have. Regardless of disagreement, Steve and Trent would probably both be fun to have a discussion with over dinner.
Steve literally just said that the church would not lose sight of what books were in the canon but also he follows a new canon from the 1500s. Even if he makes the case that it was the same one that the apostles believed in, they definitely lost it if that was the case
Trent is a powerhouse.
Trent is good, but the other dudes a nurse. He shouldn't have had that much trouble.
@@MegaRoadwolf Trent is good, but the other dudes a nurse. He shouldn't have had that much trouble.
DM-Simplistic arguments are difficult to disprove. For example, I heard the nurse say that the Catholic Church teaches that the canon was handed down by Jesus Christ through the Apostles. Which is true. But, for those of us who study Catholic Teaching, we understand that this is an allegorical reference to the fact that the Catholic Church had to sift through thousands of books to determine which were actually authored by Apostles and their disciples.
In a verbal debate, which one looks like the slam dunk and which one looks like an excuse?
All we can rely upon is the fact is that the truth is true whether anyone believes it or not.
Strawman opponent.
When I heard Steve say he is an ex-catholic, I said to my self: "self, ex-catholics are the worst protestants ; ) !!" But ex-protestants are the best Catholics!! God bless both!!
Did your self reply??? 0_o
Aeroedge 😂
Us ex-catholics who became evangelical, then returned to the Catholic Church again.....only to return to the evangelical church.....are pretty good
So I'm gonna be a really good Catholic, since I was an anti-Catholicism Protestant! haha
Lol I’m an ex-protestant becoming a Catholic but i was raised by an ex-Catholic protestant 😂🤣😂
As a former Protestant, I’d say yes! They do not have the complete Cannon of Scripture although, the deuterocanonical books were in the KJV until publisher’s removed them in the mid 1800s and many Protestant Christians would read them back then and really it is a recent phenomena that those books are not appreciated like they once were. I will say something I’ve heard from many a priest, both Catholic and Orthodox, “all you need to live a productive and fruitful Christian life is the NT and Psalms.
I just don’t see how you would not accept the canon Christ himself would have read and used in the Septuagint. Protestants deny “tradition” but have the hard pill to swallow in accepting a reformation era tradition with 66 books instead of the original 73.
protestantism opetates by tradition in every aspect, imposing artificial interpretation on Scripture in order to legitimize their doctrines... it's totally deceptive and disgusting...
Yeah, Protestants have plenty of traditions, most of them in contradiction to Catholicism and then claim they don't have any traditions and are "bible only."
@Don Espoleto yes, isnt that odd
And the irony is that most of them claim that Jesus is there only mediator, their savior and they’ll quote John 14:6
@@silveriorebelo8045 it's not disgusting but it is deceptive
You can tell that Trent has heard these objections so many times
Here if a cut-and-paste friendly challenge to my Catholic friends:
Catholics reject Sola Scriptura, which I actually do not have a problem with. However, what do Catholics suggest that I do when their teachings directly contradict my Lord Jesus Christ? Shall I obey their gospel or follow the Bible?
For example, Paul said, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." When asked if Catholics agree with Paul, either they ignore these words of Paul or they disagree! Yet, no Catholic has ever been able to agree with Paul, for to do so means that they must give up their prized Catholic faith! Yet, what profit is your religion if you lose your eternal soul?
Recently, one Catholic said, "Shall be saved is not the same as will be saved." Really? Is that the official Catholic 'translation' of this verse? You know, Catholics go on and on as to how I need their leaders to 'interpret' the Bible for me, yet they either ignore or deny the gospel! I pray for Catholics everywhere who are led astray from the pure, simple gospel message!
For example, Jesus said, "How much more will My Father give the Holy Spirit to whoever asks of Him." Notice the ask-and-receive beauty of the gospel? That is, simply by asking, you will have rivers of living water bubbling up inside you unto eternal life, you will be a new creation, born again, and the Holy Spirit will bear witness that you are saved (Romans 8.16). Yet, Catholics say that you can have no assurance. Decide for yourself if you want Paul's gospel, where the Holy Spirit fills you and bears witness to your salvation or be a Catholic!
Paul said, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let him be accursed." Paul even stated that even if he, Paul, were to preach a different gospel, Paul should be accursed - how much more so your church leaders! Yet, the guile and dishonesty of the Catholic church is overbearing for some! That is, they say that I simply am not able to understand these simple words of the Lord. Is it really that complicated?
Catholics, are you listening? Watch how your leaders answer (or don't answer) this post. They will either deny Paul's gospel or they will ignore it. Yet, no Catholic can agree with Paul! That is because the Catholic gospel is, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord, is baptized in our church, and takes our communion MIGHT be saved." What can you expect from them? They will quote verses to support how you need communion or baptism to be saved. Yet, they will either ignore or deny the gospel according to Paul.
Yes or no, my Catholic friend: "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." Will you deny, ignore, or embrace the gospel? Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
You’re grabbing single verses and not looking at the whole context.. this is old.
Thankful to God that I am catholic, the church that God Himself founded🙏🏻❤️
Amen
You cannot possibly say that if you know ANYTHING about the horrific murderous, sexually immoral popes and church leadership over centuries since Constantine merged paganism from Rome into Christianity birthing the RCC. That organization is absolutely NOT the church Christ founded. Please do your research.
kk doc. Please do your research. If you would have researched you would have know that the only thing Constantine did was legalize Catholicism for the people under his rule. Many Christians at the time were being mistreated and all Constantine did was make the religion a recognized by law and therefore protecting Catholics from all sort of abuse. Constantine did not create the Catholic Church religion. You heard this from someone and YOU DID NOT research. Hypocrite
@@donjon2023 just like most Catholics I talk to. Arrogant, self righteous and nasty name callers. Assuming that I have not done any research is a bit disingenuous and reflects your confirmation bias in order to twist history. Sorry but I would prefer to have a dialogue with a fellow Christian in order to discuss facts. You don’t fit into that category mainly because Jesus would not respond to me the way you have. I suggest you read the sermon on the mount again about humility.
ruclips.net/video/dNRZnqcr5bQ/видео.html
kk doc. You call that link you gave me research? Give me a break. You can research better than that.
@Steve is mistaken to assume that Jesus would have revealed everything he knew to the disciples. But the scriptures shows that Jesus would rather set a way for the Church to come to the understanding of the full truth in time which he didn't yet fully revealed to his disciples. John 16:12-14 "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you."
wow. that's great
@@zwijac " don't think I have come to abolish the law, no, but to fulfill it. Not one letter of the law will be erased until the end of time"
@@thecatholicrabbi4170 christ is the end of the law for righteousness for everyone that belive Rom 10 , 4
It always comes down to this. We either trust that the Holy Spirit led his Church into all truth by means of the councils or we believe that it is up to us to reconstruct history and figure it out for ourselves. One way leads to consistency throughout the centuries, the other leads directly to textual criticism and eventual denial of the truth of Scripture.
No, the Holy Spirit guides the believer into all truth through systematic study of scripture. Too easy.
Canonizing the Apocrypha 1500 years later than the original 66 is not an example of being CONSISTENT. The Roman church has bogus books in its "Bible."
@@danielcristancho3738 ayesha, but there argument was no need to formalize it because no heretic challenged it.
@@gideondavid30 the Holy Spirit does guide the laity, but Christ bestowed the authority of teaching on dogmatic issues to the apostles only. Jesus didn’t say this to disciples in general … Jesus says it specifically to the apostles he chose. And Luke 22:31-32 Jesus tells Peter that Satan would assault you (plural - all the apostles) who would lead Christ’s church, but that Jesus was praying for you (singular) Peter that when you turn back (from betraying Christ) that his faith would be strong enough to support the rest of the other apostles.
This passage shows how Jesus was providing Peter with his primacy. As it was done during the argument when the apostles were trying to get Jesus to say who among them was the greatest.
John 16:12 Jesus tells the apostles that he has more to teach them than they could bear. But that the Holy Spirit would guide them as leaders of his church. Jesus did not say this to common followers, he said it only to the apostles who he said would teach others (laity) of the church.
The discerning of new teachings for the church however is with the apostles and their successors the bishops.
amen, brother!
Respect for both debater. I love Trent and Pints with Aquinas. Two of my favorite Roman Catholics. Greetings from an evangelical catholic.
I'm a return cradle Catholic. 1984 18 yrs old went nondenominational, had a great time of scripture, kindof looked from a Catholic learned perspective from my gradeschool upbringing. Atleast as it was in the 70s.
I just recently returned 2019 through scripture and the Lord showing me things.
In 1984 the loose sect I came into were more open to revelation.
Probably a result many childhood chatechized Catholics were persuaded in that direction in a charismatic move that I believe was of the Lord. In some ways i think converting Catholics influenced them more than they influenced us. And as in my case, God used the journey as a training making us able to defend the faith biblically, which is the only way many of them can hear.
🤷🏽♀️ I may not know what is said in every council, but I can defend by scripture and reason because of my full circle journey.
Thanks for your testimony
57:38 Trent asks a fundamental and I daresay most important question of this debate, but it went unanswered for the entirety of the session.
We cannot settle the question of errancy without FIRST settling the question of inspiration. - Trent Horn.
As Trent noted at the beginning of his closing statement, Christie's closing statement at 1:52:20 starts with a falsehood (but I'll be charitable and presume Christie got the information second hand, as it's pretty clear he got it from a "Beggars All" blogpost, based on his phrasing). Christie cites Peter Duncker as writing that "only 44%" of the Fathers of Trent approved the canon. This is false.
Duncker, Peter G. "The Canon of the Old Testament at the Council of Trent." The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, vol. 15, no. 3, 1953, pp. 277-299. JSTOR 43720511.
p. 289:
"After much disputing, also on the question of the anathema, the Fathers were invited to vote on these points:
a) Should all the books be approved that were approved at Florence? All: Placet
.
b) Should an anathema be added? Del Monte (together with the other 2 legates, one vote) + Pacheco + 22 others - 24 pro. Madruzzo + 14 others - 15 contra."
"Placet" is a vote of assent; the Florentine canon was approved UNANIMOUSLY, contrary to what Christie claims. The Council Fathers were, however, divided as to whether an anathema should be added to the definition of the canon (the anathema won out). Two different votes, two different questions.
That’s a very important point, my friend!!! 👏👏👏 Thanks so much!
What's funny here is that Protestant cling to scripture alone principle but did not realised when they disagree on one thing they'll end up forming another denomination of church/es. Scripture alone does not even found in the Sacred Scripture whether implicit or explicit in the full context of the Gospel. 44% of the Fathers? as if you knew about the Fathers? if you knew them then you would have changed your personal opinion on scripture. The first 400 years of Christianity there was no NT, that you'll have to wrestle with. Catholics understood that Protestantism follow the Hebrew list of scripture as if there was a such; which according to the dead sea scroll there was no approved nor agreed cannon by the Jews. Oh! The original KJV included the 7 books yet protestants despised them because it's one of the Achilles hills of the protestantism. Finally, what I notice protestants always cite the Church fathers but those names they often mentioned were either Bishops of the first century or great Saints in the Catholic Church: Just a brotherly caution, Napoleon tried to destroy the Church, Emporors, the Jews, Hitlers even Bishops and we are still seeing that today and we Catholics are truly cautious what is happening in the Holy Mother Church as these has been foretold by the Blessed Mother whom She appears in Fatima, Akita, Guadalupe, America, La Sallete, Philippines and many parts of the world, the message is the same. How cool to be in the Church founded by Jesus Christ -a complete story of a Family!
@@Rob-mr1vk well some people dont want to be part of Gods family. Soo many prodigal sons we have to pray for.
First, I appreciate that you broke your comment into readable text. I hate text that is one massive paragraph. Now my comment...The necessity of your response to the question was necessary. Most of the time I find the kind of typical Protestant answer which is only "partially" true. In this case, it was not even partially true.
So close to 100k Matt! Thanks a bunch for all your tireless work! God Bless!
Here if a cut-and-paste friendly challenge to my Catholic friends:
Catholics reject Sola Scriptura, which I actually do not have a problem with. However, what do Catholics suggest that I do when their teachings directly contradict my Lord Jesus Christ? Shall I obey their gospel or follow the Bible?
For example, Paul said, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." When asked if Catholics agree with Paul, either they ignore these words of Paul or they disagree! Yet, no Catholic has ever been able to agree with Paul, for to do so means that they must give up their prized Catholic faith! Yet, what profit is your religion if you lose your eternal soul?
Recently, one Catholic said, "Shall be saved is not the same as will be saved." Really? Is that the official Catholic 'translation' of this verse? You know, Catholics go on and on as to how I need their leaders to 'interpret' the Bible for me, yet they either ignore or deny the gospel! I pray for Catholics everywhere who are led astray from the pure, simple gospel message!
For example, Jesus said, "How much more will My Father give the Holy Spirit to whoever asks of Him." Notice the ask-and-receive beauty of the gospel? That is, simply by asking, you will have rivers of living water bubbling up inside you unto eternal life, you will be a new creation, born again, and the Holy Spirit will bear witness that you are saved (Romans 8.16). Yet, Catholics say that you can have no assurance. Decide for yourself if you want Paul's gospel, where the Holy Spirit fills you and bears witness to your salvation or be a Catholic!
Paul said, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let him be accursed." Paul even stated that even if he, Paul, were to preach a different gospel, Paul should be accursed - how much more so your church leaders! Yet, the guile and dishonesty of the Catholic church is overbearing for some! That is, they say that I simply am not able to understand these simple words of the Lord. Is it really that complicated?
Catholics, are you listening? Watch how your leaders answer (or don't answer) this post. They will either deny Paul's gospel or they will ignore it. Yet, no Catholic can agree with Paul! That is because the Catholic gospel is, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord, is baptized in our church, and takes our communion MIGHT be saved." What can you expect from them? They will quote verses to support how you need communion or baptism to be saved. Yet, they will either ignore or deny the gospel according to Paul.
Yes or no, my Catholic friend: "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." Will you deny, ignore, or embrace the gospel? Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
@@kenshiloh Yet Jesus Himself said, Those who call upon Lord Lord will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven!!
Also..
By saying that do you mind the heresies and heretics who do accept Jesus as Lord and call upon Him but Reject certain Holy doctrines..!?
Also
What about when Jesus rebukes those on His Left who did MIRACLES (which u do need faith for) as I DONT KNOW YOU!! But applauded those on His right who DID some works!!
So possibly RECONSIDER YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE (among the other 5000)
God Bless!!
@@4thlegion253 Hi. Paul wrote that whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved. That obviously implies that Christ is Lord of their life, that the "pure in heart shall see God." Yet, simply by asking, you can receive the Holy Spirit. Do you agree with that?
Jesus said, "How much more will My Father give the Holy Spirit to whoever asks of Him." He said, "Ask and you shall receive." That is the beauty and simplicity of the gospel! On the night I met the Lord, I was soundly saved and forever! In fact, in 44 years, I have not had even one second of doubt that I know the Lord and am bound for heaven - not even for a second! Is that not Scriptural?
Paul wrote, "The Holy Spirit bears witness with our spirit that we are the children of God." Do not forget the qualifier, "If indeed the Holy Spirit dwells within you." Do you have the witness of the Holy Spirit that you are saved? That is Biblical salvation!
Moreover, referring to the Holy Spirit, Jesus said, "Whoever believes in Me shall have rivers of living water bubbling up inside of him." Do you have that river of life, the witness of the Spirit? If not, then you are not believing on Christ unto salvation! Furthermore, if you do not know the Lord (simply by asking!), then He will say to you, "Depart from Me; I never knew you." Do you know the Lord?
I hope that you will have a personal encounter with the God of the universe! Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
At the end (1h54m30s) Steve Christie showed his true motivation by mentioning 2 Cor 5:21 as a slam dunk for Imputation against Catholicism and real reason why he is Protestant. I happen to specialize in this verse and can use it as a silver bullet against Protestantism to wipe out any exegetical credibility. This verse says nothing about Imputation, it is pure presumption. In fact, the only time Imputation is mentioned is two verses prior, where of all things Paul says sin is NOT imputed. No mention of sin being imputed to Jesus and His righteousness imputed to us. The problem is that Imputation has such scant evidence in the NT that Protestantism has bet the farm on 2 Cor 5:21. Yet they won't even do a word study of the Greek word "impute" (Logizomai), which the Bible conclusively defines as the opposite meaning Protestants think, nor do they even use the Catholic principle of Scripture interprets Scripture on 5:21 (I've checked their top scholars). Instead, they can only say it must mean Imputation. But if you look at the consensus of Church Fathers who comment on 2 Cor 5 21 (which Protestantism hasn't checked), none of the ECFs ever mention Imputation. Rather, the ECF consensus all say "God made Him to be sin" in 5:21a refers to the Son becoming Incarnate, as they cross reference Romans 8:3 where it says "God sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh," which means Incarnation. No Imputation going on here. Even major Reformed Protestant English translations (ESV, NASB) cross reference 5:21 to 8:3, yet you will not see a single Protestant scholar, apologist, or pastor even show any awareness of this exegetical, cross reference, patristic interpretation of 5:21. I've looked at the Protestant sources for myself!
catholicnick.blogspot.com/2014/09/is-imputation-taught-in-2-corinthians.html?m=1
I am not sure which side of the question you favor, but One thing is true. When I see a long diatribe not broken down into paragraphs or bullet points, I just will not read it. It becomes gobbledegook. EVERYONE, please break up your comments to be inevitable to readers.
Trent: who is the first christian who did not included the deuterocanonical books ? Steve: heiwbwvsodbshw😂
Melito of Sardis, 2nd century bishop.
@@Serquss Well, that's not fair. Steve didn't know the answer, but that doesn't mean there isn't one. I am catholic, but there are definitely Christian thinkers - even saints - who didn't hold the view that the Church's magisterium has confirmed as the correct one on this. St Jerome, St Melito of Sardis and St Gregory the Great all did not hold the deuterocanon as inspired scripture.
@@grzesiekzdomeyko9707 his included Wisdom.
Serquss there were also early church fathers who did not believe in Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation. Origen is one of them. Origen didn’t believe in the books I just said above, but he wanted to include The Shepherd of Hermas in the canon. This is why you can’t believe everything the church fathers say because there were false teachers back then even when the Apostles were still alive. Read Jude 1:4 and 2 Peter 2:1
@@AnimalLover-yi5ik we use the Church Fathers' beliefs as evidence, taken with a grain of salt, not proof. The note Fathers in unison, the more likely it is the Truth.
Great to see two very good biblical scholars debating in a fair arena ... well done.
I missed this live because...work ☹️ But this is now my Friday night 😄🎉
Here if a cut-and-paste friendly challenge to my Catholic friends:
Catholics reject Sola Scriptura, which I actually do not have a problem with. However, what do Catholics suggest that I do when their teachings directly contradict my Lord Jesus Christ? Shall I obey their gospel or follow the Bible?
For example, Paul said, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." When asked if Catholics agree with Paul, either they ignore these words of Paul or they disagree! Yet, no Catholic has ever been able to agree with Paul, for to do so means that they must give up their prized Catholic faith! Yet, what profit is your religion if you lose your eternal soul?
Recently, one Catholic said, "Shall be saved is not the same as will be saved." Really? Is that the official Catholic 'translation' of this verse? You know, Catholics go on and on as to how I need their leaders to 'interpret' the Bible for me, yet they either ignore or deny the gospel! I pray for Catholics everywhere who are led astray from the pure, simple gospel message!
For example, Jesus said, "How much more will My Father give the Holy Spirit to whoever asks of Him." Notice the ask-and-receive beauty of the gospel? That is, simply by asking, you will have rivers of living water bubbling up inside you unto eternal life, you will be a new creation, born again, and the Holy Spirit will bear witness that you are saved (Romans 8.16). Yet, Catholics say that you can have no assurance. Decide for yourself if you want Paul's gospel, where the Holy Spirit fills you and bears witness to your salvation or be a Catholic!
Paul said, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let him be accursed." Paul even stated that even if he, Paul, were to preach a different gospel, Paul should be accursed - how much more so your church leaders! Yet, the guile and dishonesty of the Catholic church is overbearing for some! That is, they say that I simply am not able to understand these simple words of the Lord. Is it really that complicated?
Catholics, are you listening? Watch how your leaders answer (or don't answer) this post. They will either deny Paul's gospel or they will ignore it. Yet, no Catholic can agree with Paul! That is because the Catholic gospel is, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord, is baptized in our church, and takes our communion MIGHT be saved." What can you expect from them? They will quote verses to support how you need communion or baptism to be saved. Yet, they will either ignore or deny the gospel according to Paul.
Yes or no, my Catholic friend: "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." Will you deny, ignore, or embrace the gospel? Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
As to the question about Judith referring to Nebuchadnezzar being the King of Assyria while he was actually the King of Babylon, there may be a historical case made that he was the king of both. The Siege of Jerusalem was 597 BC, and about a decade earlier Babylon had conquered Assyria in 609 BC.
That’s definitely correct, my friend:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medo-Babylonian_conquest_of_the_Assyrian_Empire
It says he rules from Ninevah. That is inaccurate. He ruled from Babylon.
@@davidanderson6055 For one, having conquered Assyria he would've ruled over Assyria.
But I'll do you one better: according to Judith 4:3, the story is set shortly after the jews returned from some sort of captivity. If this is the return from the Babylonian exile around 537 BC (strongly implied by Judith 5:17-19), by that time said Nebuchadnezzar II was dead, so the book is likely not referencing the same guy that everyone recognizes from Daniel. Cyrus had conquered Babylon in 539, after which the Jews were allowed to return to Israel, and Ezra even mentions Assyrians helping with construction. So the Babylonians weren't really a thing in that time but the Assyrians were.
An intriguing theory is that this Nebu was an Armenian claiming to be Nabonidus's son and actually called himself Nebuchadnezzar (IV) though his name was Arakha, and he was seeking to reestablish the Babylonian empire. In the rebellion, Nebu IV would take over Babylon while his general (Holofernes) would take over Assyria and Palestine. After Judith killed Holofernes, Nebu IV's rebellion broke apart and Darius conquered Babylon again. This would seem to correlate with Darius's Behistun inscription.
When it comes to Judith and Nebuchadnezzar: Nebuchadnezzar would likely have been both king of Babylon and King of Assyria, in the same way James I of England was also James VII of Scotland.
There are tons of documents historically that equate Assyrians and Babylonians etc. with each other. That argument is nonsensical. Xenophon for example.
Orthodoxy vs Catholicism discussion would be great.
Yes please!
@@MajorasTime to be fair , Orthodoxy hasn’t engaged in apologetics for centuries, having said that it is my belief that the biggest difference is the papacy of the modern Catholic Church vs the Orthodox view of the primacy of the See of St. Peter. And that includes dogma like papal infallibility and Supremacy of the bishop of Rome over all other bishops.
@@unam9931 papal infallibility? Where is that from? It’s one thing to unite behind the see of St Peter, it’s a wholly different thing to claim infallibility for the chair.
@@EricAlHarb
And that Mary was born without sin.
Catholics: Mary born without sin
Orthodox: Mary born with sin
The Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception
@@joeykordahi9927 I actually don’t consider the Marian dogmas contentious, if the papacy is figured out everything flows from there.
I am a Lutheran, and like other lutheran theologians, I recognize the deuterocanon as the Word of God. Our confessions call them “scripture”, we read them in our liturgy.
This is pretty cool
This is really interesting. My WELS pastor says that the idea that we should read the seven books is nonsense.
What denomination of Lutheran?
As the first true protestants, what the hell happened to the other denominations that dropped these books?
@@ashleyjones6888 today protestants followers bcame followers of pastors not Christ ,due to busy lifestyle.
Just watched this last night, the protestant is on the affirmative and the subject is "Do the protestants have the correct OLD TESTAMENT canon" but Steve (protestant) failed to enumerate any categories why protestants have the correct OT canon, he just spent the entire time attacking the Deuterocanon hoping that if he keeps attacking them somehow it will make the protestant OT canon correct. Trent Horn keeps reminding everyone that Steve failed to do what he is supposed to do and that is to provide categories why the Protestant canon is the correct canon.
Listen again, you missed some.
Thanks for setting up the debate, Mr. Fradd! It was great! One thing I'd change is to mute people who are not speaking during the openers. Some of the shuffling is a bit distracting.
Keep up the great work!
I just can’t even imagine how Steve could think that Trent was the biased one after how he reacted to the question on the book of Luke and the year of the census.
The Christian world needs speakers like Trent. We’re living in atheistic times. We need more speakers like him.
Only 16% of the world identifies as atheist.
Christianity 2.382 billion 31.0%
Islam 1.907 billion 24.9%
Secular[a]/Nonreligious[b]/Agnostic/Atheist 1.193 billion 15.58%
Hinduism 1.161 billion 15.2%
Buddhism 506 million 6.6%
Can't blame you for being worried we are running up the ranks.
good job Trent, i will always remember this debate..
Here if a cut-and-paste friendly challenge to my Catholic friends:
Catholics reject Sola Scriptura, which I actually do not have a problem with. However, what do Catholics suggest that I do when their teachings directly contradict my Lord Jesus Christ? Shall I obey their gospel or follow the Bible?
For example, Paul said, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." When asked if Catholics agree with Paul, either they ignore these words of Paul or they disagree! Yet, no Catholic has ever been able to agree with Paul, for to do so means that they must give up their prized Catholic faith! Yet, what profit is your religion if you lose your eternal soul?
Recently, one Catholic said, "Shall be saved is not the same as will be saved." Really? Is that the official Catholic 'translation' of this verse? You know, Catholics go on and on as to how I need their leaders to 'interpret' the Bible for me, yet they either ignore or deny the gospel! I pray for Catholics everywhere who are led astray from the pure, simple gospel message!
For example, Jesus said, "How much more will My Father give the Holy Spirit to whoever asks of Him." Notice the ask-and-receive beauty of the gospel? That is, simply by asking, you will have rivers of living water bubbling up inside you unto eternal life, you will be a new creation, born again, and the Holy Spirit will bear witness that you are saved (Romans 8.16). Yet, Catholics say that you can have no assurance. Decide for yourself if you want Paul's gospel, where the Holy Spirit fills you and bears witness to your salvation or be a Catholic!
Paul said, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let him be accursed." Paul even stated that even if he, Paul, were to preach a different gospel, Paul should be accursed - how much more so your church leaders! Yet, the guile and dishonesty of the Catholic church is overbearing for some! That is, they say that I simply am not able to understand these simple words of the Lord. Is it really that complicated?
Catholics, are you listening? Watch how your leaders answer (or don't answer) this post. They will either deny Paul's gospel or they will ignore it. Yet, no Catholic can agree with Paul! That is because the Catholic gospel is, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord, is baptized in our church, and takes our communion MIGHT be saved." What can you expect from them? They will quote verses to support how you need communion or baptism to be saved. Yet, they will either ignore or deny the gospel according to Paul.
Yes or no, my Catholic friend: "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." Will you deny, ignore, or embrace the gospel? Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
I'm really enjoying these debates. Thanks Matt!
Here if a cut-and-paste friendly challenge to my Catholic friends:
Catholics reject Sola Scriptura, which I actually do not have a problem with. However, what do Catholics suggest that I do when their teachings directly contradict my Lord Jesus Christ? Shall I obey their gospel or follow the Bible?
For example, Paul said, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." When asked if Catholics agree with Paul, either they ignore these words of Paul or they disagree! Yet, no Catholic has ever been able to agree with Paul, for to do so means that they must give up their prized Catholic faith! Yet, what profit is your religion if you lose your eternal soul?
Recently, one Catholic said, "Shall be saved is not the same as will be saved." Really? Is that the official Catholic 'translation' of this verse? You know, Catholics go on and on as to how I need their leaders to 'interpret' the Bible for me, yet they either ignore or deny the gospel! I pray for Catholics everywhere who are led astray from the pure, simple gospel message!
For example, Jesus said, "How much more will My Father give the Holy Spirit to whoever asks of Him." Notice the ask-and-receive beauty of the gospel? That is, simply by asking, you will have rivers of living water bubbling up inside you unto eternal life, you will be a new creation, born again, and the Holy Spirit will bear witness that you are saved (Romans 8.16). Yet, Catholics say that you can have no assurance. Decide for yourself if you want Paul's gospel, where the Holy Spirit fills you and bears witness to your salvation or be a Catholic!
Paul said, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let him be accursed." Paul even stated that even if he, Paul, were to preach a different gospel, Paul should be accursed - how much more so your church leaders! Yet, the guile and dishonesty of the Catholic church is overbearing for some! That is, they say that I simply am not able to understand these simple words of the Lord. Is it really that complicated?
Catholics, are you listening? Watch how your leaders answer (or don't answer) this post. They will either deny Paul's gospel or they will ignore it. Yet, no Catholic can agree with Paul! That is because the Catholic gospel is, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord, is baptized in our church, and takes our communion MIGHT be saved." What can you expect from them? They will quote verses to support how you need communion or baptism to be saved. Yet, they will either ignore or deny the gospel according to Paul.
Yes or no, my Catholic friend: "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." Will you deny, ignore, or embrace the gospel? Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
IF YOUR BIBLE IS MISSING: 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit, Judith, Daniel and Esther, then you are using a Bible that was codified by the Jews AFTER THEY HAD REJECTED CHRIST.
If your Bible includes these books then your Bible was codified by the Catholic Church which was founded by Christ, the same Church that wrote and codified the canons of the NEW TESTAMENT.
Actually not-"Then what advantage does the Jew have? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2 Great in every respect. First, that they were entrusted with the actual words of God." Romans 3
@@Justas399 That the Jews had the words of God says neither (1) which books contain them or (2) which words they accept or reject (such as Romans itself...)
@@AveChristusRex Paul is referring the OT.
@Phil Andrew If they were entrusted with the Scriptures then they would know what all the Scriptures were in the OT.
@Phil Andrew What Jews at the time of Christ asserted that the Song of Songs or Esther was not Scripture? Who were they and where can I see their writings that assert this?
I love Trent Horn's opening statement. It's spot-on!
Here if a cut-and-paste friendly challenge to my Catholic friends:
Catholics reject Sola Scriptura, which I actually do not have a problem with. However, what do Catholics suggest that I do when their teachings directly contradict my Lord Jesus Christ? Shall I obey their gospel or follow the Bible?
For example, Paul said, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." When asked if Catholics agree with Paul, either they ignore these words of Paul or they disagree! Yet, no Catholic has ever been able to agree with Paul, for to do so means that they must give up their prized Catholic faith! Yet, what profit is your religion if you lose your eternal soul?
Recently, one Catholic said, "Shall be saved is not the same as will be saved." Really? Is that the official Catholic 'translation' of this verse? You know, Catholics go on and on as to how I need their leaders to 'interpret' the Bible for me, yet they either ignore or deny the gospel! I pray for Catholics everywhere who are led astray from the pure, simple gospel message!
For example, Jesus said, "How much more will My Father give the Holy Spirit to whoever asks of Him." Notice the ask-and-receive beauty of the gospel? That is, simply by asking, you will have rivers of living water bubbling up inside you unto eternal life, you will be a new creation, born again, and the Holy Spirit will bear witness that you are saved (Romans 8.16). Yet, Catholics say that you can have no assurance. Decide for yourself if you want Paul's gospel, where the Holy Spirit fills you and bears witness to your salvation or be a Catholic!
Paul said, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let him be accursed." Paul even stated that even if he, Paul, were to preach a different gospel, Paul should be accursed - how much more so your church leaders! Yet, the guile and dishonesty of the Catholic church is overbearing for some! That is, they say that I simply am not able to understand these simple words of the Lord. Is it really that complicated?
Catholics, are you listening? Watch how your leaders answer (or don't answer) this post. They will either deny Paul's gospel or they will ignore it. Yet, no Catholic can agree with Paul! That is because the Catholic gospel is, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord, is baptized in our church, and takes our communion MIGHT be saved." What can you expect from them? They will quote verses to support how you need communion or baptism to be saved. Yet, they will either ignore or deny the gospel according to Paul.
Yes or no, my Catholic friend: "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." Will you deny, ignore, or embrace the gospel? Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
@@kenshiloh
2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.
1 Corinthians 11:2, "Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you."
HEB 13-17 Obey the alders of the CHURCH .
I get the impression that steve deep down understands that his position doesn't solve the problem of the canon which presupposes an infallible teaching authority that can compile it.
Here if a cut-and-paste friendly challenge to my Catholic friends:
Catholics reject Sola Scriptura, which I actually do not have a problem with. However, what do Catholics suggest that I do when their teachings directly contradict my Lord Jesus Christ? Shall I obey their gospel or follow the Bible?
For example, Paul said, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." When asked if Catholics agree with Paul, either they ignore these words of Paul or they disagree! Yet, no Catholic has ever been able to agree with Paul, for to do so means that they must give up their prized Catholic faith! Yet, what profit is your religion if you lose your eternal soul?
Recently, one Catholic said, "Shall be saved is not the same as will be saved." Really? Is that the official Catholic 'translation' of this verse? You know, Catholics go on and on as to how I need their leaders to 'interpret' the Bible for me, yet they either ignore or deny the gospel! I pray for Catholics everywhere who are led astray from the pure, simple gospel message!
For example, Jesus said, "How much more will My Father give the Holy Spirit to whoever asks of Him." Notice the ask-and-receive beauty of the gospel? That is, simply by asking, you will have rivers of living water bubbling up inside you unto eternal life, you will be a new creation, born again, and the Holy Spirit will bear witness that you are saved (Romans 8.16). Yet, Catholics say that you can have no assurance. Decide for yourself if you want Paul's gospel, where the Holy Spirit fills you and bears witness to your salvation or be a Catholic!
Paul said, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let him be accursed." Paul even stated that even if he, Paul, were to preach a different gospel, Paul should be accursed - how much more so your church leaders! Yet, the guile and dishonesty of the Catholic church is overbearing for some! That is, they say that I simply am not able to understand these simple words of the Lord. Is it really that complicated?
Catholics, are you listening? Watch how your leaders answer (or don't answer) this post. They will either deny Paul's gospel or they will ignore it. Yet, no Catholic can agree with Paul! That is because the Catholic gospel is, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord, is baptized in our church, and takes our communion MIGHT be saved." What can you expect from them? They will quote verses to support how you need communion or baptism to be saved. Yet, they will either ignore or deny the gospel according to Paul.
Yes or no, my Catholic friend: "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." Will you deny, ignore, or embrace the gospel? Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
@@kenshiloh
"However, what do Catholics suggest that I do when their teachings directly contradict my Lord Jesus Christ?"
What you mean to say is Catholics interpret Scripture different than you. I'm pointing out here that you are assuming that how you interpret scripture is the correct way and therefore your interpretation is "God's Word" ....and therefore disagreeing with your interpretation is to disagree with "God's Word". Well, thats kind of the point Ken. When we ask that, then what we discover is that no one taught the Protestant understanding of Scripture in the early church. Which means that the Protestant understanding isn't Apostolic (from the Apostles) because if it were then there would be witnesses to it and so far no one has found an instance of any early church father teaching the Protestant view on the verses that separate us. This precludes the possibility that the interpretation you hold is what God's Word means.
They do, however, unanimously teach the Catholic view and that means it can be traced to the Apostles and all the men that act as witnesses on the matter fulfil the Biblical litmus test of establishing matters by witness attestation.
Deuteronomy 19:15
"Every matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses."
2 Corinthians 13:1
"Every matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses."
Matthew 18:16
But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.'
So, if you think you can drop a verse on the Church that wrote and compiled scripture and who can trace its teachings to the Apostles through witnesses then that just tells us that you've never bothered to question your own religion which was invented some time after the 16th century.
In short, Paul doesn't teach what you think he teaches and we know that because of the early witnesses.
I like Trent's question in 1:21:15 how could all those early church fathers be all wrong when it was so widespread?
Trent Horn is a machine! Now I almost finished the video! Thank you so much for your time, Matt and Trent!
Years gone and it's still is informative.🎉
Fr❤
Steve really made a point and that is the Catholic Church the true church! I hope many will see light! Way to go Trent!
Steve accepts the traditions of the Hebrew Talmud for closing the OT canon?? 🤣🤣🤣 I thought Protestants didn’t accept tradition? 🤦♀️ Didn’t the Talmud also say Mary had an affair with a Roman soldier? Talmud seems pretty shaky ground to formulate doctrine. 🤔
Yeah I thought it was really interesting when he talked about how it had been preserved for 600 years as oral tradition to the year 200ad. And then just rejects apostolic tradition. Very interesting.
Talmud also inadvertently supports Jesus Christ. Talks of miracles were happening 100 of years after Christ ascended.
Here if a cut-and-paste friendly challenge to my Catholic friends:
Catholics reject Sola Scriptura, which I actually do not have a problem with. However, what do Catholics suggest that I do when their teachings directly contradict my Lord Jesus Christ? Shall I obey their gospel or follow the Bible?
For example, Paul said, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." When asked if Catholics agree with Paul, either they ignore these words of Paul or they disagree! Yet, no Catholic has ever been able to agree with Paul, for to do so means that they must give up their prized Catholic faith! Yet, what profit is your religion if you lose your eternal soul?
Recently, one Catholic said, "Shall be saved is not the same as will be saved." Really? Is that the official Catholic 'translation' of this verse? You know, Catholics go on and on as to how I need their leaders to 'interpret' the Bible for me, yet they either ignore or deny the gospel! I pray for Catholics everywhere who are led astray from the pure, simple gospel message!
For example, Jesus said, "How much more will My Father give the Holy Spirit to whoever asks of Him." Notice the ask-and-receive beauty of the gospel? That is, simply by asking, you will have rivers of living water bubbling up inside you unto eternal life, you will be a new creation, born again, and the Holy Spirit will bear witness that you are saved (Romans 8.16). Yet, Catholics say that you can have no assurance. Decide for yourself if you want Paul's gospel, where the Holy Spirit fills you and bears witness to your salvation or be a Catholic!
Paul said, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let him be accursed." Paul even stated that even if he, Paul, were to preach a different gospel, Paul should be accursed - how much more so your church leaders! Yet, the guile and dishonesty of the Catholic church is overbearing for some! That is, they say that I simply am not able to understand these simple words of the Lord. Is it really that complicated?
Catholics, are you listening? Watch how your leaders answer (or don't answer) this post. They will either deny Paul's gospel or they will ignore it. Yet, no Catholic can agree with Paul! That is because the Catholic gospel is, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord, is baptized in our church, and takes our communion MIGHT be saved." What can you expect from them? They will quote verses to support how you need communion or baptism to be saved. Yet, they will either ignore or deny the gospel according to Paul.
Yes or no, my Catholic friend: "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." Will you deny, ignore, or embrace the gospel? Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
@@kenshiloh what are we to do when Protestant teachings directly contradict the scriptures? All Protestants cannot be teaching the scripture correctly since there are approximately 25,000 different Protestant denominations who disagree with each other in their teaching of the same scriptures. So which Protestant denomination is the correct one whose teachings are not in contradiction with the scriptures?
@@joebrinson5040 Hi Joe. Great question. Please do not think that, because I spend so much time talking about the Bible with Catholics that I am not just as concerned about many of the protestants! It is written, "Many will strive to enter, but will not be able to." That is, many will be seeking to enter (i.e. Catholics, protestants, etc), but narrow is the way that leads to life! Most Catholics and protestants won't make it. Moreover, this is, indeed, the most important conversation a person can have: at least one of us is living and preaching a false gospel.
That said, can the world turn to me as a fount of knowledge, as a guide through life? At first, my answer will sound extremely arrogant, but 'yes you can!' Why? Because I will point you to two Bible verses, "The Holy Spirit will lead you into all truth" and "Whoever continues in My Word will be My disciple." Certainly, I will look at Scripture, doing my best to understand it and to live it out. Yet, ultimately, I do not trust in my own wisdom, but the Spirit of God, as promised, to lead me into all truth. I will let you know when I get there!
That is why it doesn't bother me that there are so many denominations, as most 'Christians' are not Christians! Yet, can the same not be said about Catholics, that most will not make it? However, the closer a person gets to accurately dividing the Word of God, the closer that person will be to God.
That said, I think there are more protestants who are saved than Catholics, as Catholics - trusting in the Church rather than the Spirit to lead them - have fallen into such grievious error. For example, Romans 10.13, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved."
I had one Catholic tell me, flat out, that Romans 10.13 is not true! Others, in a more circular approach, quote verses that 'contradict' the words of Paul, saying, "No! Calling on the Name of the Lord is not enough! You must take the Eucharist!" Isn't that your position? To me, that seems like a prime example of, "Whoever preaches a different gospel should be accursed." I am concerned, as I can give a hearty 'amen!' to Paul's gospel; I do not contradict it!
Yet, what about places in the Bible where it is 'necessary' to partake of communion. First, does that doctrine not contradict Romans 10.13? Moreover, I have an answer for the 'Eucharist Chapter,' John 6. That is, rightly or wrongly, I can defend my position, yet no Catholic has ever taken on Romans 10.13. They all have avoided it, quoting 'contradictory' verses, calling down the wrath of apostolic tradition on me - everything but telling me what Paul meant! That is, what did Paul mean, then, by, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." Do you take that to be true? If so, explain how, without communion, a person can be saved?
I write in the hope and prayer that you will have a saving encounter with Christ - just by asking! Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
I would have enjoyed this a lot, but most of it truly went over my head. I need to do a lot more research to understand what's going on here. Anyways, best of wishes to whoever is reading this in finding the truth.
Here if a cut-and-paste friendly challenge to my Catholic friends:
Catholics reject Sola Scriptura, which I actually do not have a problem with. However, what do Catholics suggest that I do when their teachings directly contradict my Lord Jesus Christ? Shall I obey their gospel or follow the Bible?
For example, Paul said, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." When asked if Catholics agree with Paul, either they ignore these words of Paul or they disagree! Yet, no Catholic has ever been able to agree with Paul, for to do so means that they must give up their prized Catholic faith! Yet, what profit is your religion if you lose your eternal soul?
Recently, one Catholic said, "Shall be saved is not the same as will be saved." Really? Is that the official Catholic 'translation' of this verse? You know, Catholics go on and on as to how I need their leaders to 'interpret' the Bible for me, yet they either ignore or deny the gospel! I pray for Catholics everywhere who are led astray from the pure, simple gospel message!
For example, Jesus said, "How much more will My Father give the Holy Spirit to whoever asks of Him." Notice the ask-and-receive beauty of the gospel? That is, simply by asking, you will have rivers of living water bubbling up inside you unto eternal life, you will be a new creation, born again, and the Holy Spirit will bear witness that you are saved (Romans 8.16). Yet, Catholics say that you can have no assurance. Decide for yourself if you want Paul's gospel, where the Holy Spirit fills you and bears witness to your salvation or be a Catholic!
Paul said, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let him be accursed." Paul even stated that even if he, Paul, were to preach a different gospel, Paul should be accursed - how much more so your church leaders! Yet, the guile and dishonesty of the Catholic church is overbearing for some! That is, they say that I simply am not able to understand these simple words of the Lord. Is it really that complicated?
Catholics, are you listening? Watch how your leaders answer (or don't answer) this post. They will either deny Paul's gospel or they will ignore it. Yet, no Catholic can agree with Paul! That is because the Catholic gospel is, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord, is baptized in our church, and takes our communion MIGHT be saved." What can you expect from them? They will quote verses to support how you need communion or baptism to be saved. Yet, they will either ignore or deny the gospel according to Paul.
Yes or no, my Catholic friend: "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." Will you deny, ignore, or embrace the gospel? Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
Very interesting points from both side.
Steve practically does not answer ANY of Trent’s questions in the cross examination... that was a bummer
Here if a cut-and-paste friendly challenge to my Catholic friends:
Catholics reject Sola Scriptura, which I actually do not have a problem with. However, what do Catholics suggest that I do when their teachings directly contradict my Lord Jesus Christ? Shall I obey their gospel or follow the Bible?
For example, Paul said, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." When asked if Catholics agree with Paul, either they ignore these words of Paul or they disagree! Yet, no Catholic has ever been able to agree with Paul, for to do so means that they must give up their prized Catholic faith! Yet, what profit is your religion if you lose your eternal soul?
Recently, one Catholic said, "Shall be saved is not the same as will be saved." Really? Is that the official Catholic 'translation' of this verse? You know, Catholics go on and on as to how I need their leaders to 'interpret' the Bible for me, yet they either ignore or deny the gospel! I pray for Catholics everywhere who are led astray from the pure, simple gospel message!
For example, Jesus said, "How much more will My Father give the Holy Spirit to whoever asks of Him." Notice the ask-and-receive beauty of the gospel? That is, simply by asking, you will have rivers of living water bubbling up inside you unto eternal life, you will be a new creation, born again, and the Holy Spirit will bear witness that you are saved (Romans 8.16). Yet, Catholics say that you can have no assurance. Decide for yourself if you want Paul's gospel, where the Holy Spirit fills you and bears witness to your salvation or be a Catholic!
Paul said, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let him be accursed." Paul even stated that even if he, Paul, were to preach a different gospel, Paul should be accursed - how much more so your church leaders! Yet, the guile and dishonesty of the Catholic church is overbearing for some! That is, they say that I simply am not able to understand these simple words of the Lord. Is it really that complicated?
Catholics, are you listening? Watch how your leaders answer (or don't answer) this post. They will either deny Paul's gospel or they will ignore it. Yet, no Catholic can agree with Paul! That is because the Catholic gospel is, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord, is baptized in our church, and takes our communion MIGHT be saved." What can you expect from them? They will quote verses to support how you need communion or baptism to be saved. Yet, they will either ignore or deny the gospel according to Paul.
Yes or no, my Catholic friend: "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." Will you deny, ignore, or embrace the gospel? Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
Trent Horn...you are a FANTASTIC DEBATER and CATHOLIC APOLOGETIC . GOD Bless You.
steve reading his script for closing statement...if not all, most already refuted.
Matt please help debate on the eucharist between Dr.Brant Pitre vs James White
Are we still taking james white serious? 😅
Dr brant also a good defender
James White already got destroyed by his own statements contradicting themselves, (see "the video that made James White go ballistic") so Dr. Brant Pitre is going to destroy this man
@@TheEdzy25 He's a good unintentional proselytizer for Catholics so let him speak.
1:34:25 "I approached all the books with the same criteria." WHAT CRITERIA? The entire debate Trent asked him MULTIPLE times what his standard was for determining the inspiration of books and he wouldnt give an answer.
I know I’m watching this just as a mere non-scholar laywoman, but Mr. Christie is pretty hard to follow along with.
Agreed, I don’t feel like he answered any questions asked of him and the questions he asked Trent were honestly of no consequence.
Matt, how are we gonna have a tech free weekend when we're waiting for this debate to come out? Just joking. Great content, enjoyed it.
The guy on the right wiped out the guy on the left.
I am a Protestant who has been a firm believer in the inspiration of the deuterocanonical Scriptures for several years due to reading them for myself, and I have to say that the Protestant side of the debate was very weak. I believe that the easiest way to convince Protestant of the inspiration of the deuterocanon is to have them read through the book Wisdom Of Solomon. That sealed the deal for me.
I am also using Protestant very loosely, as there are many Protestants I know who would not accept my Protestantism, because of my belief in the deuterocanon, as well as belief in the intercession of saints, the veneration of Mary and my openness to Purgatory.
@@iamjason90 You are most welcome to join us Jason. I’m sure you would if there wasn’t SOMETHING holding you back. Peace
just trust your feelings, bro
I guess that your difference with catholics is that you don't accept the papacy?
@@iamjason90 dang you don't sound like you are protesting much.
This was a interesting debate i enjoyed it ,thank you debaters
Proud to be a Catholic
I’m genuinely wondering if Steve walked away from this and actually thought he won the debate.
I'm just in the beginning of Steve's opening arguments. I don't hold to the apocrypha, I'm a mere Christian, but he's already lost me. Something about his cadence isn't compelling. Trent on the other hand is one of the best debaters. People will respond just because it's him. Gavin Ortlund gave him a terrific run in their recent Sola Scriptura debate. I did find myself captivated by both sides of that debate.
The book of Judith is referenced in the letter of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians written at the end of the first century and fragments of Tobit have been found at Qumran I think.
@Julián Babilonia Here is a link: www.newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm His comment about Judith is in ch. 55
Clement references Wisdom too
@@BornAgainEnglishmanKJVWhere exactly?
Thanks to both for this great debate!
Steve Christie when asked certain questions replies with, "The answers are all found in the MacArthur Study Bible, just trust me on that" -- besides this answer lacking any actual argumentation to the questions asked of Steve, why would we (blindly) trust MacArthur's thoughts more than Church Fathers, Saints, Popes, Councils, etc.?
I like what you are doing with Pints With Aquinas and hope to see more similar content so I subscribed today! I am a Protestant Christian who loves to see people engaged with their faith and learning more.
Truly unfortunate that the most interesting argument I heard (that the earlier councils and Trent don't have a common understanding of what Esdras' books are canon) was glossed over and left on the table.
I'll have to listen again and try to do my own research.
Long story short:
Carthage says 2 books of Esdras. Steve assumes, these are the two books from the Septuagint. He is relying on the Catholic encyclopedia, which is in error. Stave does not realize the CE is not a magisterial document, so it can be in error. The fact is, the two books of Esdras are Ezra and Nehemiah from the Vulgate (which represents 2 Esdras, or Esdras B from the Septuagint). It is not plausible that the two books of Esdras are those from the Septuagint for several reasons.
1. 1 Esdras (Esdras A of the Septuagint, which is 3 Esdras of the Vulgate) wasn´t in use in the liturgy.
2. Art Sippo wrote on his blog: St. Jerome was actually in the process of translating Ezra and Nehemiah from 393-394 AD according to Kelly and the New Catholic Encyclopedia. This means that his work on these books was contemporary with the Council of Hippo and his decision as to the nature of the authentic text of the Esdras material had been made earlier. It is likely that the council fathers at Hippo knew of this work and they may have agreed with St. Jerome’s opinion on this matter. St. Jerome completed the translations for the Vulgate by 405-406 AD. When the Popes reaffirmed the Canon of Scripture from Hippo/Carthage in 401, 414, and 418 AD there is no doubt of their intentions. They saw the ‘two books of Esdras’ as identical to the books of Esdras in St. Jerome’s Vulgate translation, which were based upon the Hebrew text of Ezra and Nehemiah. It was this understanding of the text of the ‘two books of Esdras’ which was promulgated ever after in the Church and which was adopted by the Councils of Florence and Trent.
3. Jerome in his preface to the book of Kings wrote: ,, The eight is Ezra, which itself is likewise divided amongst Greeks and Latins into two books." So Steve is wrong that Jerome divided 2 Esdras. Origen, Cyrill of Jerusalem and Rufinus testifie this as well. Check out Gary Michuta´s book: Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger.
4. John Betts also published a response to William Webster on this topic. It also shows you how Steve is wrong about Augustine. You can reach it here: web.archive.org/web/20081121150055/catholic-legate.com/articles/esdras.html
5. Finally I recommend you the newest video on Apocrypha Apocalypse, where Gary Michuta, William Albrecht and Trent Horn shared thoughts and comments on this debate: ruclips.net/video/z1TuQ4PdbwY/видео.html
Conclusion: Carthage, Florence and Trent are coherent. Florence did not reject any books, there is nothing such in the acta from Florence (the decree says which books are scripture, not which aren't) Steve made this up, just as he made up many many things in this debate as well as in his book.
@@davidszaraz4605 Amazing clarification. God bless you!
@@ghostapostle7225 Be my guest :)
I recommend Gary Michuta's channel: Apocrypha Apocalypse. You will find many helpful videos there covering this topic.
Speaking as a Protestant, I see in Steve Christie the bulldog spirit I’ve cone to detest among our ministers. Clinical, litigious, and unimaginative. He missed his calling as a District Attorney. Also, he made some blatantly bad arguments that Trent led slide. Name conflation is fine to fix a contradiction in 1 Kings but not in Judith. The church was absolutely given the canon by Jesus, but then not really because it got lost and you can’t depend on oral instruction, so now we have to piece it together using hermeneutic arguments, and this totally means that Jesus solved the issue for the church once and for all. And Steve knows very well that not everything in the 66 books is explained. I typically enjoy these debates, but wow, this one was hard to sit through.
come home
so grateful for a vid on this. Thank you for the work you do!
btw, didn't Martin Luther attempted to remove the books of James, Hebrew, Jude, and Revelation?. where did Martin Luther get the authority to remove the 7 books of the O.T. and attempt to remove the four books of the new testament?
Great Job Trent. Thank you Steve for doing this debate. Even though I am bias in my thought, I believe Steve Christie missed, “wide right.” For all you Buffalo Bills fans.
Actually, that was Scott Norwood who kicked “wide right,” not Steve Christie. But I got the pun. Thanks and God bless. It was fun.
@@BornAgainRN You are so right. Christie was a long-time kicker for the Bills. I forgot it was Norwood. Thanks.
This was eye opening and gave clarity to somethings I already thought.
The fact that Catholics have a continual revelation within a framework of theology and dogma.
Whereas Protestants are divided by rejecting theology, and being hyperfocused on interpreting verses. And dead in Revelation.
And there is no Protestant Church deciding if God speaks from other sources.
And that's a biblical given anyway.
He speaks through all creation, because He spoke our creation and experiences into being, and did so by His wisdom and understanding.
Sadly Protestants represent God as if He is linear rather than eternal.
Protestants believe that God speaks through creation, through our personal experience. We just don't think that he speaks using those methods in a way that is reliable for basing doctrine upon. Catholics believe this too, btw.
@@SeanusAurelius He speaks through all creation, they are parables.
I don't know of anything in Catholocism that says He doesn't.
@@SeanusAurelius And I was Protestant for 35 adult years and I don't know Protestants that think God speaks through all creation.
They tend to be dense to anything they can't stifle by their doctrines.
With respect, I think most debates of this sort are not worthwhile. Trent's point around the 1:30:00 timeframe was exactly right; the tone adopted by the protestant guy is so utterly dismissive of anything he doesn't already believe that it's difficult to believe he is genuine in other areas. To paraphrase,
"Jacob was a spectacular farmer so he can make a color-changing goat on-demand, and that's totally valid and unquestionable, but if God has an Angel use fish guts as an incense to drive out demons that one time, then Trent Horn has to smear fish guts in his eyes as modern medicine."
Even if I considered any of the protestant's points as effective, his tone is so JamesWhite that it's difficult to hear them. If you have the Truth and the Love of God, then don't be such a dismissive and petty debater.
1:31:44 Trent: *Looks sideways* (Woah, what can I do with this?) Lol
I loved this debate! I also love this format! Excellent job everyone!
Trent made a very good point stating we use different criteria for judging the 66 books against the apocrypha. Tobit fish guts vs Genesis having cows mating in regards to Laban. Good words Trent
I'm left with the impression this was only really a debate about Steve's own idea about Matthew 23, with the real questions unanswered. To frame Steve's position as a "positive" claim that something is not scripture seems a bit shaky also, where I think it would have been better if it was two cases being made for what should be considered canon, rather than one idea being examined.
Also, I'm a bit disheartened by some of the comments here. Straw-manning other Christian groups and insulting them does nothing for the cause. As is often the case, most of the negative comments here are ignorant of the people and beliefs they're talking about.
Yes, my friend, some commentaries as just not fair enough to the depiction of our faith. That goes beyond unbelievable level when the Catholic Church and specially the Catholic people are and were attacked in the USA, many times more viciously than one could even begin to understand the terms “hatred” or “prejudice”. So I understand your point. Bad representation on Catholicism is ironical since it is very easy to fairly portray it (due to its theological unity, although it is not monolithic) and it is very hard to fairly portray all Protestantism(s) - yet at least there are many, many commentators (and also videos) from Catholic apologists doing a much greater job representing Protestants than the other way around. But we will always feel bad (reciprocally) represented, I came to understand. What I don’t understand is the level of aggression we sometimes engage in. You are very correct, brother. God bless you!
I didn't understand that either. Why was the burden of proof laid upon the amateur instead of the world-famous apologist?
Here if a cut-and-paste friendly challenge to my Catholic friends:
Catholics reject Sola Scriptura, which I actually do not have a problem with. However, what do Catholics suggest that I do when their teachings directly contradict my Lord Jesus Christ? Shall I obey their gospel or follow the Bible?
For example, Paul said, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." When asked if Catholics agree with Paul, either they ignore these words of Paul or they disagree! Yet, no Catholic has ever been able to agree with Paul, for to do so means that they must give up their prized Catholic faith! Yet, what profit is your religion if you lose your eternal soul?
Recently, one Catholic said, "Shall be saved is not the same as will be saved." Really? Is that the official Catholic 'translation' of this verse? You know, Catholics go on and on as to how I need their leaders to 'interpret' the Bible for me, yet they either ignore or deny the gospel! I pray for Catholics everywhere who are led astray from the pure, simple gospel message!
For example, Jesus said, "How much more will My Father give the Holy Spirit to whoever asks of Him." Notice the ask-and-receive beauty of the gospel? That is, simply by asking, you will have rivers of living water bubbling up inside you unto eternal life, you will be a new creation, born again, and the Holy Spirit will bear witness that you are saved (Romans 8.16). Yet, Catholics say that you can have no assurance. Decide for yourself if you want Paul's gospel, where the Holy Spirit fills you and bears witness to your salvation or be a Catholic!
Paul said, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let him be accursed." Paul even stated that even if he, Paul, were to preach a different gospel, Paul should be accursed - how much more so your church leaders! Yet, the guile and dishonesty of the Catholic church is overbearing for some! That is, they say that I simply am not able to understand these simple words of the Lord. Is it really that complicated?
Catholics, are you listening? Watch how your leaders answer (or don't answer) this post. They will either deny Paul's gospel or they will ignore it. Yet, no Catholic can agree with Paul! That is because the Catholic gospel is, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord, is baptized in our church, and takes our communion MIGHT be saved." What can you expect from them? They will quote verses to support how you need communion or baptism to be saved. Yet, they will either ignore or deny the gospel according to Paul.
Yes or no, my Catholic friend: "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." Will you deny, ignore, or embrace the gospel? Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
@@kenshiloh if "Whomever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" is just that simple, then we are all saved since we all believe in Jesus, how er where do you leave Matthew 7:21-23!?
Calling the name of the Lord means not only believing but to obey all he teaches, not just what you think he does...
Do you think Jesus left a heretical church from the beginning!?
Do you think Jesus church (the Catholic church) got corrupted after the years!? If so Jesus lied when he said" the doors Hades shall not prevail against it"
And if it was intended to be this way, where is the prophecy telling us that someone in the future will reform the corrupted church!?
By the contrary it is prophecied that from us will rice false teachers, and as far as i know all protestant father were Catholics...
Check out 1 Timothy 4:1 onwards
2 Peter 2:1 onwards
Galatians 1:6-9
1 John 2:18-19
Acts 20:28-31
Matthew 24:24-25
2 John 1:7-10
And plz tell me where were your believes been tough in the first millennium all the way to the 16 century!?
Check out 1 Timothy 3:15
The church Jesus founded has the truth, and it's entrusted with keeping it
@@JoseMartinez-rx6sl Hi. Thanks for writing. If you notice, I did not interpret Romans 10.8, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord SHALL be saved." I will only give the contrapositive: according to Paul, if a person is not saved, then they did not call upon the Name of the Lord. That is, truly calling upon the Name of the Lord is salvation.
Moreover, do you agree that Catholics teach, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord, is baptized Catholic, and partakes of Catholic communion MIGHT be saved"? No Catholic has ever answered this simple question. Will you answer it?
Moreover, you cannot say that I am misinterpreting Scripture, as I have not interpreted Romans 10.8; I merely asked if it is different that what Catholics teach.
Moreover, I hope you will have the courage and integrity to answer my question: do Catholics believe, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord, is baptized Catholic, and partakes of Catholic communion MIGHT be saved"? A simple yes or no!
Remember Paul's warning, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let him be accursed." I hope you will have a saving encounter with Christ - just by asking! Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
Well done and civil on all counts. Only one constructive criticism: Steve, slow down. Whether it is just in the attempt to slam as much info into the allotted time as possible, or for any other reason, I literally can't process your statements when presented that fast. As such, I am likely to view Trent's assertions more favorably, as they are comprehensible.
You should have invited an Ethiopian Orthodox scholar with their canon of 81 Books of Scripture.
I am not Catholic but recently I when I come to Torah, I am reading that book. So much info
Torah or The Torah?
Christie was on the show Reason and Theology too, he got good critiques by Albrëcht, Lofton and Ybarra as far as I can remember..... This was an interesting conversation, tho I think that Horn got the upper hand here
Here if a cut-and-paste friendly challenge to my Catholic friends:
Catholics reject Sola Scriptura, which I actually do not have a problem with. However, what do Catholics suggest that I do when their teachings directly contradict my Lord Jesus Christ? Shall I obey their gospel or follow the Bible?
For example, Paul said, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." When asked if Catholics agree with Paul, either they ignore these words of Paul or they disagree! Yet, no Catholic has ever been able to agree with Paul, for to do so means that they must give up their prized Catholic faith! Yet, what profit is your religion if you lose your eternal soul?
Recently, one Catholic said, "Shall be saved is not the same as will be saved." Really? Is that the official Catholic 'translation' of this verse? You know, Catholics go on and on as to how I need their leaders to 'interpret' the Bible for me, yet they either ignore or deny the gospel! I pray for Catholics everywhere who are led astray from the pure, simple gospel message!
For example, Jesus said, "How much more will My Father give the Holy Spirit to whoever asks of Him." Notice the ask-and-receive beauty of the gospel? That is, simply by asking, you will have rivers of living water bubbling up inside you unto eternal life, you will be a new creation, born again, and the Holy Spirit will bear witness that you are saved (Romans 8.16). Yet, Catholics say that you can have no assurance. Decide for yourself if you want Paul's gospel, where the Holy Spirit fills you and bears witness to your salvation or be a Catholic!
Paul said, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let him be accursed." Paul even stated that even if he, Paul, were to preach a different gospel, Paul should be accursed - how much more so your church leaders! Yet, the guile and dishonesty of the Catholic church is overbearing for some! That is, they say that I simply am not able to understand these simple words of the Lord. Is it really that complicated?
Catholics, are you listening? Watch how your leaders answer (or don't answer) this post. They will either deny Paul's gospel or they will ignore it. Yet, no Catholic can agree with Paul! That is because the Catholic gospel is, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord, is baptized in our church, and takes our communion MIGHT be saved." What can you expect from them? They will quote verses to support how you need communion or baptism to be saved. Yet, they will either ignore or deny the gospel according to Paul.
Yes or no, my Catholic friend: "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." Will you deny, ignore, or embrace the gospel? Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
@@kenshiloh after a dozen of both catholic and protestant theological manuals, exegetical inquiries, analysis of patristic thought, and debates between people on both sides that are much more intelligent than you seem to be (at least infering from this pathetic comment), how disingenuous and ignorant do you have to be to cite a phrase from Romans 10 while ignoring the whole surrounding context of the epistle, the whole pauline soteriological project and the debates in first century christian circles, in order to make the cliché statement how supposedly "cAtHoLiCs cOnTrAdIcT JeSuS", tho if I were to give a dozen citations where your contemporary soteriological outlook (that is not older than some 100 to 200 years and that never existed prior to this recent english speaking protestanti revival period) contradicts the Bible, you would make self-flattering remarks about me "nOt kNoWiNg mA BaYBLeee".... I am not going to give you the satisfaction of continuing your typical american protestant rhetorical charade, and if you are realy interested in the catholic (and apostolic/patristic) undersranding of Romans, there are a dozen books out there just on that issue alone. You can start with the ex-protestant philosopher Rob Koons and his book "The Case for Catholicism" which is a great introduction to pauline soteriology outlined in Romans
@@ante3973 Hi. So I am not as smart as these other people? That is quite a compliment! Thank you!
Jesus said, "I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes." That is me! Moreover, I am not here to win an argument, but, like Jesus, I say, "One thing you miss." You may have been snide and condescending to me, but I am concerned about your eternal destiny.
Sadly, you did not answer my question. Is it true, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved"? Yes or no? Will you direct me to a book? Calling me ignorant, are you not able to answer a simple question?
Yet, Catholics cannot answer that question. They either have to avoid it (e.g. your ad hominem attack) or contradict Paul! Catholics claim, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord, is baptized Catholic, and partakes of Catholic communion MIGHT be saved." First, do I misrepresent any point of Catholic doctrine? Secondly, if not, are you saying that you preach the same gospel as Paul?
That said, by simply calling on the Name of the Lord, God will baptized you in the Holy Spirit. You will be born again and the Holy Spirit will abide with you. Do you know Him? Is He your close personal friend? Do you know Christ or will He say to you on that great and terrible day, "Depart from Me; I never knew you."
Again, I am not here to attack your faith, but to examine what the Bible says. In fact, by the grace of God, if you show me my error, I will obey the Lord! Yet, it has to be from the Book! When the Catholic church contradicts the Word of God, I will follow Christ! Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
@@kenshiloh so you take pride in your ignorance and again cherry-pick biblical verses that have nothing to do with the issue discussed here (namely, your ignorance in question), you kinda proove my point. And yes, if you think that Paul teaches in Romans that whoever says that Jesus is Lord will be baptised and authomatucaly saved (which contradicts Christ's own teaching regarding being born again of water and spirit and being able, but not guaranteed, to enter the kingdom of God), than the answer is no (as all patristic writers agree upon and even traditional protestants)... the problem is not with catholics but with you who does not only understand the whole epistle but who in his own conformity does not even want to investigate the matter even after somebody suggests you realy good books on that matter..... pathetic.... Until you make yourself familiar both with catholic teaching on soteriology (by reading the acts of Trent and the Cathechism) and with the proper historical context on Romans (again, I already told you were to start), I don't see it fruitfull to continue this discussion.
@@ante3973 Hi. Thanks for writing. You wrote, "if you think that Paul teaches... that whoever says that Jesus is Lord ... (and is) authomatucaly saved... than the answer is no." That is not what I asked. I asked you a direct question, true or false, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." Yet, instead of answering, you misquoted Paul, then claimed that your misquote is not true! I am extremely concerned for you, and I mean this in all respect, but I do not think you are being honest here.
Your integrity has zero impact on my life, but if you are in a false religion, in danger of eternal hell, don't you want to be on the winning side? Wouldn't you rather be enjoy heaven rather than being in torment in hell for all eternity? Is your Catholic faith really worth all eternity to you?
So, please, for the sake of your eternal destiny, do not misquote Paul, then disagree with your own misquote. True or false: Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved. That is, simply by asking, the Holy Spirit will be a 'river of living water bubbling up inside you unto eternal life'. You will be born again, made into a brand new creation. Concerning works, God will give you a 'hunger and thirst after righteousness,' and, as you abide in Christ, you will be much fruit! Jesus said, "This is eternal life, that you know God and Jesus Christ Whom He has sent." Yet, how do you meet the Lord? Jesus said, "Ask and you shall receive."
However, the Catholics have a different gospel, sayng, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord, is baptized Catholic and partakes of Catholic communion MIGHT be saved." Do you have any argument as to these points of Catholic doctrine? Yet, clearly it is a different, a much different, gospel than what Paul and the Lord taught! "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let them be accursed," wrote Paul!
So, for the sake of your eternal soul, may the Lord help you be honest! No more smokescreens! No more misquoting Paul, then disagreeing with your own misquote. True or false: Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved. Jesus said, "Let your yea be yea and your nay be nay. Anything more is of the evil one."
I hope that you will obey Christ! Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
21:28 Trent Begins
I'm surprised nobody ever brings up Matthew 11:13. Seems like a pretty clear-cut proof that the argument that prophecy ended hundreds of years before Christ is completely false. Straight from Jesus' mouth, too. "The prophets and the law prophesied until John came." Now, if protestants want to argue that "until" doesn't necessarily mean they continued prophesying until John came, they have to explain why they insist that the word "until" must rigidly conform to our modern English equivalent when Catholics interpet Mary being a virgin _until_ Jesus was born as not indicating that she stopped being a virgin at that time.
1:20:33 - “[this] wouldn’t have been something that was invented then [when it was written], it would be a tradition that was handed down from centuries before”
1:21:36 - “That’s why it’s important to have things written down and not go by oral tradition”
Come one maaan! These two statements are only ONE MINUTE APART!!
Can we expect a debate between a representative of Catholic answers and living Waters ?
Here if a cut-and-paste friendly challenge to my Catholic friends:
Catholics reject Sola Scriptura, which I actually do not have a problem with. However, what do Catholics suggest that I do when their teachings directly contradict my Lord Jesus Christ? Shall I obey their gospel or follow the Bible?
For example, Paul said, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." When asked if Catholics agree with Paul, either they ignore these words of Paul or they disagree! Yet, no Catholic has ever been able to agree with Paul, for to do so means that they must give up their prized Catholic faith! Yet, what profit is your religion if you lose your eternal soul?
Recently, one Catholic said, "Shall be saved is not the same as will be saved." Really? Is that the official Catholic 'translation' of this verse? You know, Catholics go on and on as to how I need their leaders to 'interpret' the Bible for me, yet they either ignore or deny the gospel! I pray for Catholics everywhere who are led astray from the pure, simple gospel message!
For example, Jesus said, "How much more will My Father give the Holy Spirit to whoever asks of Him." Notice the ask-and-receive beauty of the gospel? That is, simply by asking, you will have rivers of living water bubbling up inside you unto eternal life, you will be a new creation, born again, and the Holy Spirit will bear witness that you are saved (Romans 8.16). Yet, Catholics say that you can have no assurance. Decide for yourself if you want Paul's gospel, where the Holy Spirit fills you and bears witness to your salvation or be a Catholic!
Paul said, "Whoever preaches a different gospel, let him be accursed." Paul even stated that even if he, Paul, were to preach a different gospel, Paul should be accursed - how much more so your church leaders! Yet, the guile and dishonesty of the Catholic church is overbearing for some! That is, they say that I simply am not able to understand these simple words of the Lord. Is it really that complicated?
Catholics, are you listening? Watch how your leaders answer (or don't answer) this post. They will either deny Paul's gospel or they will ignore it. Yet, no Catholic can agree with Paul! That is because the Catholic gospel is, "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord, is baptized in our church, and takes our communion MIGHT be saved." What can you expect from them? They will quote verses to support how you need communion or baptism to be saved. Yet, they will either ignore or deny the gospel according to Paul.
Yes or no, my Catholic friend: "Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved." Will you deny, ignore, or embrace the gospel? Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
One year later and I've returned to view this video once more. I'm a Bible believer that mostly aligns with Protestant theology however I'm am more persuaded of the parts of the Apocrypha (Deuterocanon) being scripture than ever before due to my research. Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach and Baruch were considered scripture as much as Revelation and Esther. If us Protestants exclude all the Apocrypha we are shooting ourselves in the foot with Esther and Revelation as they were many times excluded from officially listed canons in the first few centuries. We must hold the Apocryphal books to the same standard as the 66 books in order to determine truth. Many of the early church fathers us Protestants would use to affirm our theology and the 66 books we dismiss when they quote the Apocrypha. Oftentimes, the new testament authors do not quote exactly the old testament: sometimes it's an allusion, a quote, a paraphrase or a blending. If you research deeply and use the same standard to that we use to observe the new testament authors quoting the old we will use the Apocrypha was used.
@ThecounselofTrent
@PintswithAquinas
Here are two smart people who come to different opinions. If both are being led by the Holy Spirit, then who is right. Jesus gave us the only way to discern truths free from human opinion, and this is when Jesus gave The Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven to Peter, on whom God built his Church. This is what the infallibility of the Magisterium is today. It is the ONLY way we can know what is truly Gods will, and without that, then nothing is trustworthy. I tried to make this brief, and hope It makes sense for what I was trying to say.
I’m here for all the debates!!! The passive part of me always feels like I need to hide during parts of the debates lol.
Ahaha
Why ?
I'm a Protestant (as well as being a Jewish Christian), but I always like to read bibles which include the deuterocanonical books, because many of them (including those like 1 Enoch and Jubilees) were found amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran, dating from the third century BCE to the first century CE. If they were good enough for first century Jews, then they're good enough for me, especially considering that John the Baptist is often argued to have belonged to the Essenes, the Jewish sect who complied the Dead Sea Scrolls. I’m actually quite surprised that Trent didn’t bring up the Dead Sea Scrolls to refute some of Steve’s points.
My favorite Church Father listing of the Old Testament is Athanasius. When he talks about the deuterocanon and what he has to say, I feel like I’m back at synagog. It seems like the disciples were seeing these books the same way too.
" I always like to read bibles which include the deuterocanonical books, "
If there were good enough for Jesus and the apostles, they are good enough for me. Inconsistent for Steve, he tacitly defers to the authority of the 4th c Catholic Church to have decided his New Testament canon - 27 writings, no more, no less, out of 300+ early Christian writings. The same Church - synods and councils of Catholic Bishops - at the same time declared the Old Testament to have 46 writings. To believe that they error'd on the latter but somehow - mere men - got the former right is most inconsistent. To say nothing that they were all Catholic Bishops, who brought both canon's into Church where they were read at Mass.
He brought them up around the 26:00 mark
This debate is easy, the Church says there are 73 books, debate over.
Exactly what I was thinking
Not everyone is Catholic lol.
@manny4012 The canon was affirmed in AD 397 in the council of Carthage; the Catholic Council of Trent merely reaffirmed the same list in light of Protestantism.
I'm a jew but i read the deuterocanonical books and think they are just as inspired as the other books in the tanakh ("old testatament")
Do your teachers think so?
Great debate. Although I do find the formal structure and time limits a bit restrictive. There were times when I wanted to hear what the other person was about to say and their time ran out. I'd prefer a more conversational style, like how Joe Rogan has multiple guests on at once and lets the discussion flow organically. It would really allow for all the nuances in such a complex topic to be explored.
Steve needs to return to the Sacraments or I worry for his salvation. Seems like he's trying to justify abandoning Catholicism. God have mercy on him.
Judith is a historical figure. The Church does not celebrate the intercessions of imaginary people. Francis and JPII referenced her as a historical figure. The Catechism references her as a historical figure. Judith may be a work of "cryptic history" cf Bergsma.
...
We commemorate the righteous Judith, who slew Holofernes.
...
By their holy intercessions, O God, have mercy on us and save us. Amen.
Steve needs to work on his debate skills; that opening statement is rough and jumps right into the finer points and evidence without first establishing the foundation of his argument.
It pained me when he said he is a former Catholic.
He said there is no prophecy in the apocrypha. Please read the 2nd chapter of Wisdom and tell me it ain't talking about Jesus Christ The Lord
As I mentioned during the debate, Wisdom 2 is referencing BACK to the Psalms which is prophesying about Jesus.
Steve, a question for you, is Hanukkah a valid Jewish holiday?
.. Where is it found in the Bible?
If you said Jews reject Maccabees
Then, where do they get Hanukkah?
Are you asserting that God would do a miracle like Hanukkah and then not record it?
If so, then what other miracles of that caliber affecting His people as a whole did God do and not have it be recorded in any scriptures?