Lord bless u Austin, I know u did a lot of traveling in one day back & forth for this interview with Trent. Shows u are willing to sacrifice your own time to learn something new whatever that may be... And that's all we can ask for, is for someone to be open minded, to learn more knowledge small or great. Bc we are all biased in some ways with the presuppositions we hold to we just can't help it we're all sinners finite creatures. Of course that's why we can't know God's thoughts, or his ways Isaiah 55:8; it only could be passed down. So these sacrifices shows a lot about your character to learn the fullness of the truth. God will always keep blessing a person who is still willing to listen to more knowledge. To hear 1st, to learn 2nd to be slow to speak. As we can grow in Grace 2 Peter 3:18...
@@ninodjuras I like him.. basing this on other videos too. Sounds like he could accept a less strong proclamation of the assumption and maybe papacy.. time to accept what is.
@@limoncellosmith7594 Nothing at all to do with her actions in the world ? Any of those actions which popes have been apologizing for since the year 2000 ?
As a Catholic, I enjoy your vids despite having vastly different point of views. Please keep it up and don't get discouraged by the hate you receive. God bless!
@@zacharyahearn4069 redeemed zoomer tier list of “foods god loves the most” would be great “According to the Westminster confession of faith, it is plainly obvious to see that the broccoli should be above the carrot”
As a convert, being convinced of the Church's authority and the eucharist is what sealed the deal for me. There are things about the Catholic faith I might not fully understand, but I don't need too. Letting go of trying to be convinced of every detail was incredibly freeing. Being able to lean on the Church so I can live my faith, and not have to figure the faith out all by myself instead, is such a gift. Skepticism exists in all forms of Christianity, that's what the grace of faith is for. I love our Lords Bride. I love being Catholic, and that love grows daily. I can't imagine life as a non catholic ever again.
I'm a revert I'm a cradle Catholic who walked away and in my late 30s started truly looking for GOD but was persuaded by the worship style of the carismatic protestantes and the zeal. As I started learning more of which protestante denomination to join I realized the true Church was the Catholic Church thank you Jesus. 🙏🏼
As a current baptist, I'm about to join the RCIA because of these very reasons. The early Christians believed in real presence. Even Martin Luther did lol
Logically Jesus Christ created a visible, hierarchical, one, holy, catholic and apostolic church and he is the head of the body, the church. The church is also Christs bride. One body. One bride. Jesus also called for unity in John 17 in his church. Jesus promised in John14:26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. And Jesus added to His promise, John16:13 But when the Spirit of truth comes, he will lead you into all truth. He will not speak his own words, but he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is to come. Then the inspired author wrote in 1Tim3:15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. Jesus created and has maintained his Catholic Church for two millennia, Mat28: 18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”
That's basically the gist that most protestants that I've encountered suggest when they say something like "just sit down and read the Bible and ask the Holy Spirit to guide you." I always like to reply to that with, "yeah, I did that already and I'm Catholic...so now what?"
I was anti-Catholic 10 months ago but will be confirmed in 2 weeks (Austin and Trent were both pivotal!). And I've had both Catholics and Protestants throughout the year tell me to stop using my brain so much and to let my heart speak. It always made me laugh when a Protestant said that because all I could think was, "You realize my head is the only thing standing in the way of Catholicism, right"? The Protestant church is not even close to beauty of the Catholic Church's art and philosophy and certainly not the reverence. And I've had so many providential signs pointing to the church. All these Protestants who want to "follow your heart" or "follow the spirit" I don't think have ever actually taken thr Catholic church seriously
That is also how the LDS missionaries tell me that I can know with certainty that that their church and their scriptures are correct. If this is actually the manner that the Holy Spirit acts in when guiding us to all truth, then there's a problem because I can't get get a clear explanation as to why other people believe that the Holy Spirit have lead them with certainty to other churches and entirely different religions.
@@FassnightI agree: because when you don't have the Holy Spirit then other Spirit's can impersonate the Holy Spirit and lead you into false religion: instead of the true relationship to God that you need. You have to repent and accept Christ as your Savior: NOT a church as your Savior: Mormons and Catholics R saying the same thing about their own theology as being the only True church: God gives his Salvation to whom He wishes in response to Repentance and isn't limited to a particular church.
@@davidjanbaz7728And how do you know all that? How do you define 'church'? How do you define 'repentance'? What you're doing here is you're trying to push your own theology yet you're basing other religions for doing exactly the same!
I feel like God uses these Christian RUclipsrs, who just explore different denominations, etc but don’t necessarily convert themselves, to lead others to Christ in his apostolic churches ❤
Literally the same. He was doing a video with Trent and Trent laughed at him for going to Cantius since it was "traditional." 9 months ago, I had never even stepped in a Cathedral before. But my Presbyterian church is down the road from Cantius so I spontaneously went to their Latin Novus Ordo the next day. I watched Austin's reaction video on the way home and had the same thoughts (e.g. being scandalized by the short homily and young kids in the pews). I almost didn't go in because the Latin chanting sounded so cultish and I almost left during the homily because of the incense. But I stayed to the end and the reverence spoke to me. I've gone to Cantius ever since and will be confirmed in 2 weeks!
@@sivad1025How are kids in church scandalizing? I can get the short homily being odd to someone who isn’t fully aware of Eucharistic theology and is used to the sermon being the focus
I think it's a bit disenfranchising to suggest a person who believes in God, who knows Jesus, and who reads the Bible with their own congregation is "not interested in truth" because they don't engage in these theological dialogues about peripheral dogma. You are in danger of disqualifying a lot of people simply for being simpler than you. Isn't that like preventing children from coming to Jesus? Isn't that a discredit to the miracle of faith, to say yours is more valid because you have studied to show yourself approved? I'm glad you have confidence, but the gate is already narrow and the way hard to find, don't make it even harder for people that will be in heaven forever with you.
Protestant here. Appreciate all of your videos Trent. It's helped me overcome some of the anti Catholic bias I was taught as a kid. It's pretty clear to me that Catholics and Protestants are ultimately two sides of the same coin. Meaning that at our core and to overly simplify things, we love Jesus and can't wait to get to Heaven to be with Him. There's obviously some discrepancy in the exact way we get there but I think we are all going. I know many here might disagree with me and that's ok. I love my Catholic brothers and sisters and cannot wait to meet all of you in Heaven!
@@domanicvaldez oh they are awesome, for sure. It's just nice to see some more relaxed content, as so many apologists stick with debates, or end up doing long form Joe Rogan stuff.
I remember watching Gavin Ortlund, Austin, Cooper and slowly starting to watch Trent and the other brothers and not knowing what to do. It was that "in a gap" situation where you dont fit into any tradition. Rlly a challenging place to be. Thats around a yr ago. I remember stumbling over Austins video, where he is touring a catholic church and being guided by a friendly priest. I was so amazed by the beauty and the depth in the catholic faith, that i couldnt resist to start seriously thinking about going back to the catholic church after 14/15 years in evangelicalism. A few months later i went to confession and since then im so happy, being in the catholic church and seeing its depth and beauty with a heart, that loves the bible, loves Christ and loves the church. Today im so thankful and happy, that God was carrying me through the dark valley. And i know many viewers are in that same "in between" situation where they can sometimes feel kinda lost. I want to encourage you: keep praying, keep crying, keep holding on to Jesus and he will help you out! Thanks Trent and thanks Austin for your great work. God bless you!
No, no this was not good. This was supposed to be a dialog, but it became a monologue. I think Trent spoke 80% of the time. Austin was there more like a listener to a Catholic apologist lecturing on this and that. And it was very clear in most of what Trent said that he is a Catholic apologist at heart. I actually think Austin was a bit humiliated. But Austin would be too humble to admit it. I'm sure Trent is well-intentioned, but I don't think the form of dialog is his thing. He can't really handle that form. At least not this time. And what a "studio" then, sterile and boring. And the sound quality was not the best, nor was the lighting. Sorry for all the criticism, but then I'm not Catholic either.
My wife and I recently converted to Orthodoxy from cradle evangelical Protestantism. I was a seminary educated Baptist minister and deacon, so our journey towards the ancient church has been a huge shift both theologically and culturally. On this journey I have enjoyed listening to both Trent and Austin. They are both so genuine and their content so well-researched and presented. I feel like I’m friends with both of you. Ultimately, I hope that they are both able to reach many more people with the love of Christ.
I think both Austin and Trent are great. However, during this interview I think that Trent speaks too much. He was so many ideas and thoughts that he has in his mind, and is desperate to get them out. This conversation format could be great, but Trent must let the guest speak more. Austin does this better on his channel. (I'm Catholic BTW).
Where i live, Protestants are definitely the vast majority. It’s painful how ignorant everyone around me is of church history. Almost all my friends and have family have tried to save me from the pagan religion ive been lost to. Theyve just never really been pushed on theology at all and have made it a personal mission to ignore any historical information. I have lots of pastors and lay speakers in my family, they all think the king james bible fell from heaven in all it’s 66 book glory. The problem is when they come at me it’s like i use history, scripture, and logic and they think satan is playing a trick on both of us. They incredibly nonsensical things, they say things like “jesus didnt come here to start a religion, all christians are the true church, just not these” and then proceed to list every denomination they can think of from amish to zionists. It really sucks that the most ignorant sects of Christianity where i live, are the default just by majority.
I'm finding continuously using John 6 the bread of life discourse to show Jesus rejecting believes who didn't accept the teaching, and also acts, mostly the whole of acts but specifically chapter 1 to show apostolic succession.
Yes. After seeing car-crashes like the atheist channel “Mindshift”, I completely agree with you, and see the damages that Protestantism can do on people who don’t have a solid cultural background.
@@DavidTheZealot My best friend has probably been catholic answers, they have a playlist on youtube of short videos with a general explanation of almost every conceivable topic related to the faith. They have articles to match on their website and i have found them to be very helpful. I get angry and frustrated with using a sola scriptura style defense though. They ask me for bible passages, i give them the passage, then they change topics and want to know where this or that is in the bible. I work my butt off to show them again and again. They just get mad at me and cease conversation. Literally, it’s ended friendships and familial relationships just showing them the verses. As i said, many of them are pastors and they take their status as an authority for interpretation. They say things like “ive been leading a flock for decades! Ive never seen someone say the woman in revelation is MARY!” I know he’s totally ignorant of history or cultures outside our own. Its hard to debate without offending them. I really see why Jesus didnt even convince all of his family of the truth. People’s traditions get ingrained
Oh sola scriptura, my favorite, the self refuting doctrine haha. Nowhere in the bible does it say it HAS to be said in the bible. They are crazy just stay for them and know I'm having the same interactions brother
@@DavidTheZealot Thanks, nice to know im not alone. I’ve really tried to get them to look into the miracles of the church or the history but they pull an ostrich every time on that.
I was agnostic and looking through the ecumenical councils and early fathers I did not see Sola scriptura, Eternal security, Sola fide. Like Trent Horn said I saw more evidence for Catholic claims. I converted to the Catholic Church in 1997.
I didn’t see it either. But sola fide, I see in the Bible. There are like 10 explicit scriptures. There’s more scriptures on sola fide than Mary’s assumption - which has no scripture at all. And even the earliest church fathers said nothing about Mary’s assumption.
Trent, I’m not sure that the Dormition of Mary is up for debate. It’s certainly not infallibly taught, but it does appear to be the perennial teaching of the Church in both the East and the West. I don’t think Catholics are free to publicly dissent from it, even if it doesn’t quite rise to the level of demanding religious submission of intellect and will. Am I way off the mark here? Great video by the way!
As a protestant who's not so sure about Sola Scriptura anymore I found that dialogue very interesting. Could you speak more on how Catholics interpret the Bible and the history of Bible interpretation? Thanks
I attended Protestant churches in my youth and really loved the friendliness and community, which was non-existent at my Catholic parish, but every time I thought about definitively leaving Catholicism, I just couldn't cut off Mary and the saints. Even though I wasn't paying much attention to my "Mama" and "relatives" I just couldn't turn my back and leave them. That's one of the most important aspects of Catholicism to me: it's a family: a Father, older Brother, Mother, and so many siblings and cousins and aunts and uncles and grandparents and and and...!!!
Real question - what does it mean for you to "cut off" Mary and the saints? They're still your brothers and sisters in heaven (Mary isn't your mother but still). Maybe it's more important to find community on earth among those currently living in faith than holding on to a relationship with those who you can't commune with now but will later? Jesus wants you to live for Him, and you can't do that unless you are among an actual family of believers, not an institution with no real soul.
When Christian Rome took over pagan Rome. They replaced a lot of the pagan traditions with Christian traditions. For example, they had a matriarchal goddess and all of the gods that were under them. That was replaced with Mary and the Saints.
@@simonslater9024 cults follow leaders and obey whatever they say. Hmmm who is the Pope of the Protestants? And also sweetie you need to read. There aren’t 48K denominations. And you have just as many splinters of Catholics and orthodox believers. Just because you agree in unison to a group or view doesn’t make it wrong. Try again honey.
I have never gotten how protestants contend with matters of authority and history particularly when it comes to the semantics of the Bible. I thought surely no one can really think they don't have a tradition particularly for interpreting the Bible. Ink on a page doesn't contain semantic content. But they do have their traditions and authorities, they just don't call them that. That kind of treatment of obscuring what is actually happening with rhetoric is very dangerous, and was part of the problem with the protestant revolutionaries in the first place. Tradition by any other name is still tradition. They would set up a false dichotomy about them vs the Church when in fact they had some of the same qualities but just weren't justifying those qualities. The Church could say of course we have authority and tradition, and here's how it goes back to Christ.
I think it would’ve been interesting to bring up Marcion of Sinope who held mostly only to the Pauline Epistles. I think Protestants would have a hard time condemning him.
Marcion's Canon featured an early shorter version of Luke (without the infancy story) and the Pauline Epistles. No Old Testament books at all. It's funny, but once we start reading the writings of early Church Fathers ("Patristics"), biblical Canonicity becomes a boring topic. FWIW, I'm not "against" the OT or the NT canon. There's just additional important works to study alongside canonical books. The limits of translation is just as big a problem as Canonicity. @@jackieo8693
@@jackieo8693Obviously Marcion was a heretic - you can't have the story of Christ without the Hebrew scriptures. As a baptist studying theology at a protestant-based Bible school.
You do great work Trent. Don’t worry about the studio. In my humble view I would watch even if you sat on folding chairs with a white background and a small sign saying “forgoing fancy studio to give alms.” or “small studio, big heart.” 😊. But if you really feel you need one.
it is always refreshing to see Austin. It gets exhausting listening to christian RUclipsrs that you otherwise enjoy talk about Catholicism like it's a disease.
Catholics have always had the freedom to share their ideas. Be it through books, articles, or now with the internet. There has never been the need to put an imprimatur over EVERYTHING. What we need is to understand the difference between the Church's authority (Bishops in union with the Bishop of Rome) and the rest of us. Only the Bishops (in union with the Bishop of Rome) have AUTHORITY, the rest of us can though share our opinions freely.
@@GustavoAndresHerrera even if it were the case that we were always free to share our ideas (which it isn’t, nor should it be), there are influential laypeople with a reach beyond anything the church has seen before who act with de facto authority. when you have laypeople with a reach not ever seen before sowing dissent and schism, and undermining the Church's authority, She must reassert the authority granted to Her by Christ. all informal authorities must me formalized in one direction or another, either by affirmation or denial of authority. it doesn't have to be a literal imprimatur. there are analogous mechanisms in place already, they should just be expanded to include individuals.
@@fcatulo I understand your point, but I think where we disagree is that I don't see Matt Frad, or Trent Horn as "authorities", nor I see them claiming any authority. Perhaps if we use the word "influence" that'd bring us closer? It has always been the case that you have authors having influence over society at large (think Chesterton, C.S. Lewis, etc.) without imprimatur. To re-iterate: "authority" needs imprimatur, but "influence" does not.
@@GustavoAndresHerrera yes, I think influence accurately describes it. And they don’t claim authority but they have some de facto authority due to them being influential. The thing is that while there have been influential laypeople in the past, the technological limitations of their times made it hard for them to do a lot of damage in a short period of time in the way that social media allows today. Imprimatur began in response to the printing press. We are at another revolution in the means of communication, probably as big as the printing press. And just like back then, the Church ought to respond accordingly.
I really appreciate you doing these dialogs with these young guys like Gospel Simplicity and Redeemed Zoomer, and having a very noncombative and gentle spirit while you do it. You love to see it.
Guys I’ve been stuck and so ocd over catholic Protestant issues that it’s starting to consume my life. I think people need to start making content about this.
I suggest you “fast” from that for a few weeks and focus on daily prayer and Bible reading with just enabling you to have a closer walk with Jesus each day. And then come back to this stuff trusting the Lord is with you
Sometimes it is really hard to follow Trent because his brain gets ahead of his mouth and he keeps starting sentences and then jumping to the next idea before he finishes his sentence. Several times he did this multiple times in a row such that I had no idea what he was originally trying to say
Austin is such a nice guy! Great for having him on, Trent! (But Trent, if your going to do these Pints with Aquinas-style interviews, please upgrade your camera gear eventually) 😇
I love this! What a beautiful dialogue. I am a recent convert (will be confirmed this Easter). I am so thankful for all that you do, Trent. It has been a great help for me as I have considered many of the questions Austin has. :)
At 38:00, the Protestant response would definitely *not* be, "Sure you can believe that the Exodus is a myth." (I am assuming Trent is not talking about progressive Protestants, in which case there would be many such myths in the Bible) The point is that the difference between the bar for historical evidence for the Exodus vs for the Assumption is that Scripture clearly and factually lays out the Exodus, but the Assumption developed through centuries of practice and is supported in Scripture only by typology. Therefore, the burden of historical proof is much higher for the Assumption. Typology is an excellent biblical hermeneutic to illustrate and deepen understanding of doctrines that are clearly defined elsewhere in the Bible. We shouldn't base doctrine on typology alone or on devotional practice alone - and certainly not then require it as Dogma. Typology without a clear biblical foundation is like icing without any cake.
I'd love for you to have a discussion like this with Dan McCellen, or Dr Joshua Bowen. A non-combative dialogue with a popular well credentialed "secular" scholar (not an apologist).
Thanks to both of you. I really like Austin’s heart and the way he communicates. He describes our thoughts as well as we are from the Protestant church and struggling with some of what Austin mentions. Trent, I liked hearing you in this setting. You were much more gracious in your discussion with Austin and I think this is a much better way for Catholics and Protestants to talk to one another - with kindness. This is one of my favorite videos. Thanks to both of you.
The Apostles were executed for what they said they have seen, and did not back down. Would all those people die for what they knew was a lie? They said Jesus is Lord, as they saw Jesus risen from the dead, and so they were willing to die not just for a belief, but what they said they saw. “Jesus *said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.” John 14:6 NASB1995
As a former Catholic and current Protestant I encountered way too many contradictions between the traditions of the Catholic faith and the Word of God. Apparent contradictions are not in and of themselves a bad thing as they can be explained with sufficient knowledge. However, I found that Catholics did not have sufficient reasons to explain these contradictions and when asked which wins out in that event (tradition or the Bible) they just said that can't happen because the Holy Spirit guided both. So while I was staring these contradictions in the face I was being told by catholics that the existence of these contradictions were impossible. And since, in the event that there is only two mutually exclusive ways of doing something I chose to follow the Word of God.
@@Doc-Holliday1851The problem with that is Protestantism is even less credible. If you doubt the Church you should also doubt the Bible and abandon Christianity. Simple as. You can’t leap into an ignorant Protestant church where they talk in a hallowed voice about the Bible and be safe and still be intellectually honest. As Trent showed the Bible is full of things that are questionable and have to be taken on faith. If you can’t take the Church on faith there’s really no reason to take the Bible on faith either
I definitely don't agree that Protestants must accept sola scriptura. Methodists, for example, have rejected sola scriptura going all the way back to Wesley.
I'm not comfortable with how far you take Biblical unliteralism. You're presenting the Bible as if it were a myth, and that it can contain factual errors. My position is that the "style" of Genesis is a deliberate choice. I think this better aligns with what Pope Leo XIII taught in DIVINO AFFLANTE SPIRITU: Finally it is absolutely wrong and forbidden "either to narrow inspiration to certain passages of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred," since divine inspiration "not only is essentially incompatible with error but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and constant faith of the Church.
I find it odd that Trent seems to make the issue of Exodus and the Assumption of Mary equivalent. There’s a whole book of the Bible describing the Exodus. Aside from perhaps an obscure passage in Revelations, the Assumption is based almost completely on Tradition. I’m good with Tradition as part of the Church, but at least on the surface, by definition, Protestants aren’t. Why would you use the comparison and argue they are the same to a Protestant ?
No Protestants?? Interesting What about the waldenses? And the true Christian’s that we’re slaughtered by the Romans? You might say that the word Protestant doesn’t apply, but nonetheless, true Bible believing Christians were persecuted by the Roman’s and then the Catholic Church which was a continuation of the empire The empire became a church It is a mix of pagan and Christian theology
The fact that the Church recognizes the valid baptisms of other believers makes me think God has his own reasons for allowing these divisions at this time. Follow Jesus where and when he leads. Inform your conscience and follow truth as you understand it.
Small point that I might be smart enough to comment on regarding Unitarian vs Trinitarian: you may not need to believe in the Trinity to be saved but the next step of believing the Trinity is false is a step too far. Come to think of it that might be a good foundation to build out my thoughts on these issues. The reason I'm not a Catholic is not because I think Catholic doctrine is heretical (as many protestants seem to hold). The reason I'm not a Catholic is because I can't say for certain that all Catholic doctrine is true. Same for Orthodoxy but I don't know enough about Orthodoxy to say whether or not I believe in Orthodox doctrines.
I’m not being aggressive but I’m just asking , in response to your comment, what about the Filioque? I mean, the Council agreed on the Creed, and Latin Church of the west changed it unilaterally. I wonder if you might have a response to that. Peace.
Trent, in this video you're basically describing my christianity prior to converting to Catholicism. I was a non innerantist self described protestant, who held to the nicene creed, not because I was convinced by every point Scripturally, but simply because I didn't think you could have christianity without it.
My favorite video on the Gospel Simplicity channel is the interview he did with Dr Eugenia Constantineau (which I'n probably spelling wrong). I think it's titled "Think You Know What Happened at the Crucifixion?". Thanks for this dialogue. May God reunite his Church into one body and to His will. (edited for spelling & other reasons)
It felt like Trent was shadowboxing multiple different Protestants in this conversation. I think maybe diving deeper into fewer questions/arguments could be a more interesting approach then bringing so much to the table from your prior discussions. Thank you for having these talks though, I love the channel and thinking through the different points of view. God bless
@59:55 Look forward to this Trent. Your defense in another video against Atheists saying that _if you accept Paul due to martyrdom you should accept Joseph Smith as well_ ...was a limp argument. It was much more of a feelings/preference argument due to recency bias. It would be far more interesting, from a truth seeking point of view, if debaters had to prepare to advocate for the other side. You will be surprised how much you are missing P.S. Arguing about geography and/or archaeology is definitionally arguing like an atheist. An atheist would want evidence that transubstantiation can be chemically formulated and peer-reviewed...but it can't. Even if it could then they wouldn't convert anyway...they would just go to the next thing that you can't produce physical evidence for. Its not an accident that you brought up Book Of Mormon geography. The evidence is on the pages...which is why debaters rarely discuss that.
Really appreciate Austin. We cradle Catholics gain so much from hearing the insights of open minded Protestants, and i thank God for all those Protestant pastors such as Hahn, Bergsma, etc who entered the Church and have brought their love of the Bible to Catholic catechesis and scholarship.
I've never met or seen in my 55 years of life (7-8 of those as a hard-core atheist) and 35 years as a devout practicing Catholic by personal conviction, not tradition; such a brilliant mind like this young man so stuck in the paralysis of the analysis. @GospelSimplicity I will pray for God to grant you, and me, with the 7 gifts of the Holy Spirit each morning I pray the Rosary. May God guide your journey to the fullness of the truth!! 🙏🏼
Two thoughts: First, when you were talking about the Assumption of Marry, Trent, around the 25:00 mark, you starting talking about how someone might want to rely on the authority of the Church in order to assist in the belief in the Assumption. I don't want to put words into Austin's mouth, or the mouths of any Protestants, but isn't this question begging? If someone wants to say "I am not Catholic because I disagree with the Church on the necessity of believing in the Assumption", and the Catholic response is "Well, sure, but the Church actually does necessitate that we believe the Assumption", then, that seems like question begging to me. Did I completely miss your real point? I feel like I misunderstood you, so please do correct my misunderstandings! Second, at the 44:00 ish mark, you two are talking about how its possible that, if an agnostic watches a lot of smart Christians and a lot of smart atheists, that Agnostic might start to think "Wow, I am doing well to remain agnostic!". You never say this, but it seems implied that this is a bad thing, or a shame of some sort. And I guess I look at myself, and I think that I am that person, I am that agnostic who does watch a lot of Trent Horn and Graham Oppy, and I think to myself that this isn't so bad! The way that I view it is that Agnosticism is an intellectual humility - I admit that I don't know what I don't know! Do you see it differently? Do you think its a bad thing to remain agnostic? Anyway, thanks for the awesome content, I am loving all of the inter-faith dialogues!
Yes, it all comes down to authority. We should not be picking a religion based on individual beliefs but rather on whether its founder and leaders/successors have authority. Authority determines what is truly divinely revealed. The truth of individual beliefs do not and cannot determine who has authority.
@@tonyl3762 Can you see how this could be construed as an example of "begging the question" though? The non-Catholic says to the Catholic "I doubt that the Church has the authority that she claims to have, since I doubt that the Assumption of Mary was a real, historical event". Then the Catholic says "No no, we know that the Assumption is a real, historical event, because the Catholic Church said so, and She has Authority!". The Catholic here has assumed the falsity of the very point that the non-Catholic is bringing up!
@@Kevigen While I can see why you say that, it is rarely the case that the Catholic apologist is just assuming the Catholic Church has the authority she claims for herself. The sharp Catholic apologist is always welcoming a debate/dialogue about epistemology and authority. To say that the more fundamental issues of epistemology and authority need to be determined first is NOT equivalent to question-begging. It is merely inviting the Protestant/debate to go further back in the logical chain.
@@tonyl3762 I mean, isn't it begging the question, by definition? The Catholic who makes the argument as I presented above has a premises which assume the truth of the conclusion. A Catholic would need to support the Doctrine of the Assumption without leaning on the Authority of the Church in order to avoid Begging the Question, if some non-Catholic was using the Assumption as a challenge to Church Authority.
I am not Trent Horn and I am only responding in hopes that I can be of help. don't read the rest of what I write, if you don't feel like it! In answer to your last question first, the problem that was being discussed was "analysis paralysis", of listening first to one and then to another, and is swayed back and forth. But your particular question was staying in the agnostic mode, as you are. I think an agnostic who stops asking questions or listening for answers, is a sad person, because that person has lost faith in reason, which will always question. And I do not think you qualify as "that person". Do you? And in answer to your first question, what was being talked about at the 25:00 mark, was making a comparison between the inerrancy of the Bible and the infallibility of the Church. But it seems to me that your question is if a person rejects the Catholic Church because of the dogma of the Assumption, how can the authority of the Church be convincing? But, if a person believes everything *else* that the Church teaches, then that person's belief system includes a belief that the Church was instituted by Jesus. So appealing to the Church's authority would make sense (see the 37:00 mark) in that situation. Does that make sense?
For me, as a convert to Catholicism from Protestantism. Christian truth and practice does not have to go back to the apostles, but they do have to be affirmed and promulgated by the church which does go back to the apostles and Christ himself.
Christians are Born Again scripturally through baptism. Been that way now for 2000 years. My baptismal write up is below. *The Old Testament Prefigures a greater New Testament reality: The Waters of Baptism are Salvific.* - Noah and his family were saved by the water and cleansed humanity of sin, the Ark representing the Church. - The Israelites were saved by water from Pharaoh’s army crossing the sea - The Israelites were again saved by water when Moses struck the Rock *God foretells his Spirit would someday reside not in Jerusalem’s temple built by man but within mankind himself:* _25 I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. 26 A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will take out of your flesh the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances (Ez 36)._ *St John the Baptist says that Jesus would come baptizing with the Holy Spirit:* _“I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry; he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire_ (Mat 3:11). _I myself did not know him; but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit’_ (Jn 1:33). *St Paul speaks to the New Testament fulfillment, through Baptism, our body being the temple of God’s Spirit.* _Do you not know that your body is the temple of the holy spirit within you, which you have from God (1 Cor 6:19)?_ *We receive the Holy Spirit through baptism, the external washing by water signifying (a sign, a symbol, but not a sign or symbol only) of an interior spiritual change within us.* *Born Anew (Again) - through baptism, we are “born again” scripturally* _3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 4 Nicode′mus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit [baptism], he cannot enter the kingdom of God (Jn 3: 3,5)._ *Regenerated and Justified - All Sacraments are means of receiving his Grace (we are saved by Grace)* _when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, 6 which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life (Titus 3: 4-7)._ *Sanctified - the exterior sign of water signifies the interior spiritual change through baptism.* _11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God (1 Cor 6: 11)._ *Baptism Restores Sanctifying Grace and Cleanses Us of ALL Personal Sins* _And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name (Acts 22: 16).”_ *Baptism Saves Us - by having the Spirit of God in us; God can’t be any more explicit* - _“Truly, truly, unless one is born of water and the Spirit [baptism], he cannot enter the kingdom of God (Jn 3: 5).”_ - _Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Pet 3: 21)._ - _He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned_ (Mk 16: 16; believing / having faith means to follow all that Christ commanded. He commanded that Christians be baptized as a means of receiving his grace) *Note, I can cite Christian men for this whole time period who taught exactly what scripture teaches. Examples below.* “Moreover, the things proceeding from the waters were blessed by God, that this also might be a sign of men’s being destined to receive repentance and remission of sins, through the water and laver of regeneration,-as many as come to the truth, and are born again, and receive blessing from God.” Theopilus of Antioch, To Autolycus, 2: 16 (A.D. 181). *Worth repeating: How is does one receive repentance and remission of sins .... through the water and spirit (the laver or regeneration). BAPTISM.* “[W]hen they come to us and to the Church which is one, ought to be baptized, for the reason that it is a small matter to ‘lay hands on them that they may receive the Holy Ghost,’ unless they receive also the baptism of the Church. For then finally can they be fully sanctified, and be the sons of God, if they be born of each sacrament; since it is written, ‘Except a man be born again of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.’…[O]nly baptism of the holy Church, by divine regeneration, for the kingdom of God, may be born of both sacraments, because it is written, ‘Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.'” St. Cyprian, To Stephen, 71: 72 (A.D. 253). “We are circumcised not with a fleshly circumcision but with the circumcision of Christ, that is, we are born again into a new man; for, being buried with Him in His baptism, we must die to the old man, because the regeneration of baptism has the force of resurrection.” St. Hilary of Poitiers, Trinity, 9: 9 (A.D. 359). “This then is what it is to be born again of water and of the Spirit, the being made dead being effected in the water, while our life is wrought in us through the Spirit. In three immersions, then, and with three invocations, the great mystery of baptism is performed, to the end that the type of death may be fully figured, and that by the tradition of the divine knowledge the baptized may have their souls enlightened. It follows that if there is any grace in the water, it is not of the nature of the water, but of the presence of the Spirit.” St. Basil, On the Spirit, 15: 35 (A.D. 375).
Loving this Alex O'Conner route with the Channel, having conversations with all various sorts of people, and not just an echo chamber, looking forward to more!
Been a fan lf Austin for a long time. I'm almost jelousy of his charity towards other faiths. I am far less charitable and i think we can all appreciate his patience and friendly demeanor.
Trent seems to mainly interact with either liberal protestant ideas or fundamentalist ones and seems not to think there is such a thing as mere- Christian orthodoxy. Just an observation.
@@fleskenialation Not Orthodox, orthodox. And as they mention in this dialogue, a minimal approach is favored by Protestants and a maximal one by Catholics. So I'm saying there is a minimal set of doctrines discernible from history, Scripture, and tradition.
@@Jim-Mc Ah i see what you mean. Humbly, I may both agree and dissent. My concern is when we merge multiple components together to find some meta truth but we lack submission to an institutional hierarchy, we (or at least I) open ourselves to ideas that have not been stress tested and might therefore lead us too far in the wrong direction. We might then neglect our need for experiential insight.
One big hurdle for protestantism is that the Church Jesus created stood for 1500 years before protestants existed and Jesus declared that His Church built on the rock Peter would stand forever and the gates of hell will never prevail against it. The Holy Apostolic Catholic Church has been here since the beginning and will be here at the end of this earthly existence in terms of the mortal realm.
This has been an unfortunate misunderstanding of the Reformation and Protestants themselves have also fallen into this narrative. The reformers did not depart from the catholicity of the 1500 years before them. They were seeking to reclaim the *truth* of those 1500 years. They were steeped in study of the Patristics, then Augustine, Thomas, Anselm, and onward. They were rejecting the misguided 15th century "Via Moderna" of Gabriel Biel in the Roman Church in favor of the true catholicity of the former Medieval Scholastics. The Reformers did not intend to leave the Catholic Church, but to free it from accretions and abuses.They were forced to separate physically, but doctrinally remain rooted in all of the previous centuries of our Church Fathers. Faithful Protestantism is, in fact, a doctrinal branch from the same 1500 year root of the Church as the RCC, minus many of the accretions. I hope this helps.
I'm picking up that Catholicism can be way to overwhelming for people outside of the faith. Being Catholic is a life-long journey and so is the Christian walk and the trick is, when things get overwhelming in your head and when you only go on a head journey to Catholicism you miss the opportunity to fall in love.
I started my investigation of Catholicism and was logically persuaded on many things but was still in this middle ground. Then when I went to mass I was in awe. I had a more spiritual encounter there than I had ever had in my life as a Protestant. Going to continue to research for my family to discuss things with them and continue my journey in defending the faith (apologetics ministry) but I am in love.
As a former catholic, I still haven’t found the strongest reasons to have mother Mary and the saints be involved as our intercessors… For example, many Catholics believe to pray to specific saints to handle specific needs like to Saint Anthony for help to find a lost item or Saint Rita for difficult times … To believe that this is assume God grants deity-like abilities to the saints and Mary to receive prayers and answer prayers. If that is true then where in scripture do we see examples of these souls assisting us in the afterlife?
I think the best remedy would be to study and research about it. U don't have to go too deep since we already have all the resources we need from the internet 👍👍
@@Catholicguy-qs3ng I guess this is the real concern. The Bible should be enough to give us sufficient evidence for this specific matter. Going to the internet is just asking for more opinions and interpretations of scriptures. The most accurate Bible interpretations are done by comparing passage to passage, not passage to human interpretation. That said, I don’t see anywhere in the scriptures that support these claims of using the Saints & Mary as our intercessory prayer partners.
@@bychristiandiaz Revelation I believe is where you'll find the strongest instances of saints in Heaven being not only being aware of what's happening on earth (cries of the martyrs) but also the saints offering up their prayers to God.
Looking forward to this dialogue. I’ve checked out Austin’s channel in the past, and I recall him looking into Catholicism, which mirrored my experience as well.
For me, the problem with the way the subject was approached in the video is that it seemed to me that Protestantism was being treated as "a Church" in comparison to Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox. When in fact it is one category of churches (Protestant) being compared to two churches. A better approach is to compare the two categories (Protestantism vs Ecclesilialist) or comparing individual protestant churches (Lutheran, Reformed) vs Catholic vs Orthodox. If this were done, the conversation would be more viable and precise.
With regard to the exodus vs assumption issue, the key difference is that one is explicitly taught by multiple authors within the Scriptures, whereas the assumption isn't even really an implication, but a later development by tradition. So it really isn't a fair comparison
The thing is that Catholics and Orthodox also hold to sacred tradition as infallible rules of faith and the assumption is explicitly part of sacred tradition, especially in our more ancient liturgies as well as the fathers. The analogy is that the assumption is to tradition what the exodus is to scripture, not that the assumption has as much scriptural evidence as scripture does.
@maryangelica5319 right but the question was being posed as if it was the same barrier to entry for a conversion to protestants to catholics as non believers to protestants and I have a very hard time rationalizing how the two can be similar unless catholics literally believe that tradition is equal to scripture... which would imply that scripture can be contradicted by the very thing that supposedly derives its authority from scripture itself. The protestant coverting is already starting from a spiritual presupposition that the Bible contains God's word and is infallible, whereas a non believer would not, and I have to think the arguments about authority would be different from those two positions such that the analogy doesn't really line up. However thank you for your comment that did clarify the point for me
@@jonathanw1106 "I have a very hard time rationalizing how the two can be similar unless catholics literally believe that tradition is equal to scripture... which would imply that scripture can be contradicted by the very thing that supposedly derives its authority from scripture itself. " the first part is actually kinda true (kinda... there are some nuances here), but the implication is false. Essentially, what we call Sacred tradition (not just random practices called small "t" traditions) does not derive its authority from scripture. Rather, both scripture and sacred tradition derive its authority from the Word of God himself, Jesus Christ, who is more properly the true "source" of revelation; they are two interrelated channels of revelation flowing from the one Source, rather than two fully separate rules. In fact, we sometimes think of the scriptures and tradition in terms of "written" and "oral" tradition (like Paul describes in 1 Thes 2:15... (the Jews also had notions of "written" and "oral" Torah, so it's a pretty natural concept for us to have as well), since scripture is also handed down to us. And since both come from the Word of God, they cannot contradict each other, since that would mean God contradicts himself. But rather, both inform each other. To see how this works, consider that basically every aspect of sacred tradition is at least understood in terms of scripture. Even the more esoteric Marian dogmas, if not explicitly supported, are at least understood as such (see the Assumption and Revelation 13, or the immaculate conception and Luke 2+ comparisons to the purity of the ark of the covenant, etc. ), and give the actual content of tradition. On the other side, the formation of the scriptural canon itself was a matter of magisterial action appealing to sacred tradition. You can't have the scriptures qua bible without tradition (or the magisterium), and you can't have tradition without scripture. Now, there are some nuances about the level of "infallibility" here... we do say scripture is inerrant as well as infallible, but we don't say the same of tradition. The best place to see a good description of the relationship between scripture and tradition is the magisterial document "Dei Verbum" . I really recommend you read it (it was ghost-written by Benedict XVI back when he was just a priest participating in the second Vatican council). He lays it out way better than I ever could.
@maryangelica5319 great comment I appreciate the detail! I'll chew on this for a bit, although I have some additional thoughts on the analogy itself that may make sense irrespective of this particular debate over authority
The powerful Trent Horn. Defending the catholic faith. Veneration?! great respect; reverence. Psalms 135:15-18 NASB The idols of the nations are but silver and gold, The work of man’s hands. They have mouths, but they do not speak; They have eyes, but they do not see; They have ears, but they do not hear, Nor is there any breath at all in their mouths. Those who make them will be like them, Yes, everyone who trusts in them.
Thanks for having me on the channel, Trent! It was an absolute pleasure.
Is Austin still not Catholic. (I jest) We are praying for you Austin, brother. PAX
Lord bless u Austin, I know u did a lot of traveling in one day back & forth for this interview with Trent. Shows u are willing to sacrifice your own time to learn something new whatever that may be...
And that's all we can ask for, is for someone to be open minded, to learn more knowledge small or great. Bc we are all biased in some ways with the presuppositions we hold to we just can't help it we're all sinners finite creatures. Of course that's why we can't know God's thoughts, or his ways Isaiah 55:8; it only could be passed down.
So these sacrifices shows a lot about your character to learn the fullness of the truth.
God will always keep blessing a person who is still willing to listen to more knowledge. To hear 1st, to learn 2nd to be slow to speak. As we can grow in Grace 2 Peter 3:18...
@onlylove556 Totally agree AMEN it's great when someone like @Austin is willing to listen and dig in, learn & search. GOD Bless you @Austin
God bless you 🙏 awesome convo
@@robertotapia8086 Amen📿🌹🙏🏼💪🏼
I think infallibility is best viewed as Christological. Meaning the bible is Infallible in it revelation of Jesus Christ.
This guy knows the truth. He’s scared to make the move.
I think the same.
@@ninodjuras I like him.. basing this on other videos too. Sounds like he could accept a less strong proclamation of the assumption and maybe papacy.. time to accept what is.
Why, oh why, would anyone be skeptical of the Catholic church ???
Usually, ignorance about what she really teaches.
@@limoncellosmith7594 Nothing at all to do with her actions in the world ?
Any of those actions which popes have been apologizing for since the year 2000 ?
Ayy I was in that studio recently! Glad two of my favorite youtubers got to talk
As a Catholic, I enjoy your vids despite having vastly different point of views. Please keep it up and don't get discouraged by the hate you receive. God bless!
@@TokenWhiteGuyAGRbased catholic
Convert to the one true faith
NGL I paid more attention to your tier list than your well thought out discussions. I’d watch even a vegetable ranking tier list. 😂
@@zacharyahearn4069 redeemed zoomer tier list of “foods god loves the most” would be great
“According to the Westminster confession of faith, it is plainly obvious to see that the broccoli should be above the carrot”
As a convert, being convinced of the Church's authority and the eucharist is what sealed the deal for me. There are things about the Catholic faith I might not fully understand, but I don't need too. Letting go of trying to be convinced of every detail was incredibly freeing. Being able to lean on the Church so I can live my faith, and not have to figure the faith out all by myself instead, is such a gift. Skepticism exists in all forms of Christianity, that's what the grace of faith is for. I love our Lords Bride. I love being Catholic, and that love grows daily. I can't imagine life as a non catholic ever again.
Inspirador! 🙏👍
"Scripture is clear" dudes always real quiet when they read John 6
I'm a revert I'm a cradle Catholic who walked away and in my late 30s started truly looking for GOD but was persuaded by the worship style of the carismatic protestantes and the zeal. As I started learning more of which protestante denomination to join I realized the true Church was the Catholic Church thank you Jesus. 🙏🏼
100%
As a current baptist, I'm about to join the RCIA because of these very reasons. The early Christians believed in real presence. Even Martin Luther did lol
Keep up the good work Trent, love from South Korea 🇰🇷
2027
@@luizfilipecouto1030World youth day ?
그리스도 안의 친구여, 안녕하세요!
The Holy Spirit dwells in the catholic church since 33AD and guides her to all truth!
Then why does it keep changing ?
I pray you repent
Logically Jesus Christ created a visible, hierarchical, one, holy, catholic and apostolic church and he is the head of the body, the church. The church is also Christs bride. One body. One bride.
Jesus also called for unity in John 17 in his church.
Jesus promised in John14:26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
And Jesus added to His promise, John16:13 But when the Spirit of truth comes, he will lead you into all truth. He will not speak his own words, but he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is to come.
Then the inspired author wrote in 1Tim3:15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.
Jesus created and has maintained his Catholic Church for two millennia, Mat28: 18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”
That's basically the gist that most protestants that I've encountered suggest when they say something like "just sit down and read the Bible and ask the Holy Spirit to guide you."
I always like to reply to that with, "yeah, I did that already and I'm Catholic...so now what?"
I was anti-Catholic 10 months ago but will be confirmed in 2 weeks (Austin and Trent were both pivotal!). And I've had both Catholics and Protestants throughout the year tell me to stop using my brain so much and to let my heart speak. It always made me laugh when a Protestant said that because all I could think was, "You realize my head is the only thing standing in the way of Catholicism, right"? The Protestant church is not even close to beauty of the Catholic Church's art and philosophy and certainly not the reverence. And I've had so many providential signs pointing to the church.
All these Protestants who want to "follow your heart" or "follow the spirit" I don't think have ever actually taken thr Catholic church seriously
That is also how the LDS missionaries tell me that I can know with certainty that that their church and their scriptures are correct. If this is actually the manner that the Holy Spirit acts in when guiding us to all truth, then there's a problem because I can't get get a clear explanation as to why other people believe that the Holy Spirit have lead them with certainty to other churches and entirely different religions.
That's just bad/misguided Protestant advice
@@FassnightI agree: because when you don't have the Holy Spirit then other Spirit's can impersonate the Holy Spirit and lead you into false religion: instead of the true relationship to God that you need.
You have to repent and accept Christ as your Savior: NOT a church as your Savior: Mormons and Catholics R saying the same thing about their own theology as being the only True church: God gives his Salvation to whom He wishes in response to Repentance and isn't limited to a particular church.
@@davidjanbaz7728And how do you know all that? How do you define 'church'? How do you define 'repentance'?
What you're doing here is you're trying to push your own theology yet you're basing other religions for doing exactly the same!
It’s ironic that Austin was one of the people that led me to decide to be Catholic after his video touring St. John Cantius.
I feel like God uses these Christian RUclipsrs, who just explore different denominations, etc but don’t necessarily convert themselves, to lead others to Christ in his apostolic churches ❤
@@SMV1199 Odd question, are you Eastern Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, or neither?
Literally the same. He was doing a video with Trent and Trent laughed at him for going to Cantius since it was "traditional." 9 months ago, I had never even stepped in a Cathedral before. But my Presbyterian church is down the road from Cantius so I spontaneously went to their Latin Novus Ordo the next day.
I watched Austin's reaction video on the way home and had the same thoughts (e.g. being scandalized by the short homily and young kids in the pews). I almost didn't go in because the Latin chanting sounded so cultish and I almost left during the homily because of the incense. But I stayed to the end and the reverence spoke to me. I've gone to Cantius ever since and will be confirmed in 2 weeks!
Austin and Gavin Ortlund were very important in my conversion to Orthodoxy, Ortlund particularly.
@@sivad1025How are kids in church scandalizing? I can get the short homily being odd to someone who isn’t fully aware of Eucharistic theology and is used to the sermon being the focus
I think it's a bit disenfranchising to suggest a person who believes in God, who knows Jesus, and who reads the Bible with their own congregation is "not interested in truth" because they don't engage in these theological dialogues about peripheral dogma. You are in danger of disqualifying a lot of people simply for being simpler than you. Isn't that like preventing children from coming to Jesus? Isn't that a discredit to the miracle of faith, to say yours is more valid because you have studied to show yourself approved? I'm glad you have confidence, but the gate is already narrow and the way hard to find, don't make it even harder for people that will be in heaven forever with you.
Protestant here. Appreciate all of your videos Trent. It's helped me overcome some of the anti Catholic bias I was taught as a kid. It's pretty clear to me that Catholics and Protestants are ultimately two sides of the same coin. Meaning that at our core and to overly simplify things, we love Jesus and can't wait to get to Heaven to be with Him. There's obviously some discrepancy in the exact way we get there but I think we are all going. I know many here might disagree with me and that's ok. I love my Catholic brothers and sisters and cannot wait to meet all of you in Heaven!
Trent, these dialogue videos are excellent. It's so great to see Catholic content that isn't debate or "own the Protestants "stuff.
Facts but his debates and rebuttals are *chefs kiss*
I like the debates more tbh.
@@domanicvaldez oh they are awesome, for sure. It's just nice to see some more relaxed content, as so many apologists stick with debates, or end up doing long form Joe Rogan stuff.
@@spiderdxn2263 100% I do like the mix up of content!
Trent! I love your mission of dialoging with protestants. Austin is wonderful. I would love to see Matt Whitman and Ruslan on your channel as well!
I'll second Matt Whitman
Agree AMEN @Matt Whitman , @Ruslan & @Gavin Ortlund please 🙏🏼 there willing to listen. Robert from Puerto Rico 🇵🇷
I'd love to see both of those too.
@@KevinOfClay Matt is great, I completely agree.
Oh! And Anna from @MerelyChristian would be excellent to talk to as well.
I remember watching Gavin Ortlund, Austin, Cooper and slowly starting to watch Trent and the other brothers and not knowing what to do. It was that "in a gap" situation where you dont fit into any tradition. Rlly a challenging place to be. Thats around a yr ago. I remember stumbling over Austins video, where he is touring a catholic church and being guided by a friendly priest. I was so amazed by the beauty and the depth in the catholic faith, that i couldnt resist to start seriously thinking about going back to the catholic church after 14/15 years in evangelicalism. A few months later i went to confession and since then im so happy, being in the catholic church and seeing its depth and beauty with a heart, that loves the bible, loves Christ and loves the church.
Today im so thankful and happy, that God was carrying me through the dark valley. And i know many viewers are in that same "in between" situation where they can sometimes feel kinda lost. I want to encourage you: keep praying, keep crying, keep holding on to Jesus and he will help you out! Thanks Trent and thanks Austin for your great work.
God bless you!
Welcome home!
Welcome! We love that you are with us 🥰🫶🏼🕊️🙏🏼✝️
I love that you are talking to non-Catholics on video.
To non Christians!
@@davido3026 even by our own standards they’re Christian. They’re just in an imperfect communion with the Body
@@davido3026 Objectively false according to our Catechism.
@@davido3026Rad Trad alert!
heretics
No, no this was not good. This was supposed to be a dialog, but it became a monologue. I think Trent spoke 80% of the time. Austin was there more like a listener to a Catholic apologist lecturing on this and that. And it was very clear in most of what Trent said that he is a Catholic apologist at heart. I actually think Austin was a bit humiliated. But Austin would be too humble to admit it. I'm sure Trent is well-intentioned, but I don't think the form of dialog is his thing. He can't really handle that form. At least not this time. And what a "studio" then, sterile and boring. And the sound quality was not the best, nor was the lighting. Sorry for all the criticism, but then I'm not Catholic either.
You didn't have to tell me that you're not a Catholic. I know buddy. Neither am i btw. I did find your nit-picking kinda amusing lmao
My wife and I recently converted to Orthodoxy from cradle evangelical Protestantism. I was a seminary educated Baptist minister and deacon, so our journey towards the ancient church has been a huge shift both theologically and culturally. On this journey I have enjoyed listening to both Trent and Austin. They are both so genuine and their content so well-researched and presented. I feel like I’m friends with both of you. Ultimately, I hope that they are both able to reach many more people with the love of Christ.
I think both Austin and Trent are great. However, during this interview I think that Trent speaks too much. He was so many ideas and thoughts that he has in his mind, and is desperate to get them out. This conversation format could be great, but Trent must let the guest speak more. Austin does this better on his channel. (I'm Catholic BTW).
I think he was too excited. He apologized a couple of times for it but I agree, he talked too much.
Where i live, Protestants are definitely the vast majority. It’s painful how ignorant everyone around me is of church history. Almost all my friends and have family have tried to save me from the pagan religion ive been lost to. Theyve just never really been pushed on theology at all and have made it a personal mission to ignore any historical information.
I have lots of pastors and lay speakers in my family, they all think the king james bible fell from heaven in all it’s 66 book glory. The problem is when they come at me it’s like i use history, scripture, and logic and they think satan is playing a trick on both of us. They incredibly nonsensical things, they say things like “jesus didnt come here to start a religion, all christians are the true church, just not these” and then proceed to list every denomination they can think of from amish to zionists. It really sucks that the most ignorant sects of Christianity where i live, are the default just by majority.
I'm finding continuously using John 6 the bread of life discourse to show Jesus rejecting believes who didn't accept the teaching, and also acts, mostly the whole of acts but specifically chapter 1 to show apostolic succession.
Yes. After seeing car-crashes like the atheist channel “Mindshift”, I completely agree with you, and see the damages that Protestantism can do on people who don’t have a solid cultural background.
@@DavidTheZealot My best friend has probably been catholic answers, they have a playlist on youtube of short videos with a general explanation of almost every conceivable topic related to the faith. They have articles to match on their website and i have found them to be very helpful. I get angry and frustrated with using a sola scriptura style defense though. They ask me for bible passages, i give them the passage, then they change topics and want to know where this or that is in the bible. I work my butt off to show them again and again. They just get mad at me and cease conversation. Literally, it’s ended friendships and familial relationships just showing them the verses. As i said, many of them are pastors and they take their status as an authority for interpretation. They say things like “ive been leading a flock for decades! Ive never seen someone say the woman in revelation is MARY!” I know he’s totally ignorant of history or cultures outside our own. Its hard to debate without offending them. I really see why Jesus didnt even convince all of his family of the truth. People’s traditions get ingrained
Oh sola scriptura, my favorite, the self refuting doctrine haha. Nowhere in the bible does it say it HAS to be said in the bible. They are crazy just stay for them and know I'm having the same interactions brother
@@DavidTheZealot Thanks, nice to know im not alone. I’ve really tried to get them to look into the miracles of the church or the history but they pull an ostrich every time on that.
I was agnostic and looking through the ecumenical councils and early fathers I did not see Sola scriptura, Eternal security, Sola fide. Like Trent Horn said I saw more evidence for Catholic claims. I converted to the Catholic Church in 1997.
Cool!!! I converted in 1996 after a Tim Staples Defending The Faith 6 week seminar.
Did you see Purgatory, Marian dogmas or Papal Infallibility and Supremacy?
I didn’t see it either. But sola fide, I see in the Bible. There are like 10 explicit scriptures. There’s more scriptures on sola fide than Mary’s assumption - which has no scripture at all. And even the earliest church fathers said nothing about Mary’s assumption.
I don't think there is anything more than a semantic disagreement between protestants and Catholics on sola fide. @@ntlearning
@@AquinasBasedYes I would agree with that.
I love you Trent - but I wish you had been shorter with your comments and had given Austin more speaking time.
Nice I’m so pumped for inter-Christian dialogue, it was definitely a helpful resource for my conversion to Catholicism
Trent, I’m not sure that the Dormition of Mary is up for debate. It’s certainly not infallibly taught, but it does appear to be the perennial teaching of the Church in both the East and the West. I don’t think Catholics are free to publicly dissent from it, even if it doesn’t quite rise to the level of demanding religious submission of intellect and will.
Am I way off the mark here?
Great video by the way!
As a protestant who's not so sure about Sola Scriptura anymore I found that dialogue very interesting. Could you speak more on how Catholics interpret the Bible and the history of Bible interpretation? Thanks
I attended Protestant churches in my youth and really loved the friendliness and community, which was non-existent at my Catholic parish, but every time I thought about definitively leaving Catholicism, I just couldn't cut off Mary and the saints. Even though I wasn't paying much attention to my "Mama" and "relatives" I just couldn't turn my back and leave them. That's one of the most important aspects of Catholicism to me: it's a family: a Father, older Brother, Mother, and so many siblings and cousins and aunts and uncles and grandparents and and and...!!!
Second this perspective!
Real question - what does it mean for you to "cut off" Mary and the saints? They're still your brothers and sisters in heaven (Mary isn't your mother but still). Maybe it's more important to find community on earth among those currently living in faith than holding on to a relationship with those who you can't commune with now but will later? Jesus wants you to live for Him, and you can't do that unless you are among an actual family of believers, not an institution with no real soul.
When Christian Rome took over pagan Rome. They replaced a lot of the pagan traditions with Christian traditions. For example, they had a matriarchal goddess and all of the gods that were under them. That was replaced with Mary and the Saints.
You have the holy Catholic Church. You have 48,000 protestant CULTS
@@simonslater9024 cults follow leaders and obey whatever they say. Hmmm who is the Pope of the Protestants? And also sweetie you need to read. There aren’t 48K denominations. And you have just as many splinters of Catholics and orthodox believers. Just because you agree in unison to a group or view doesn’t make it wrong. Try again honey.
I have never gotten how protestants contend with matters of authority and history particularly when it comes to the semantics of the Bible. I thought surely no one can really think they don't have a tradition particularly for interpreting the Bible. Ink on a page doesn't contain semantic content. But they do have their traditions and authorities, they just don't call them that. That kind of treatment of obscuring what is actually happening with rhetoric is very dangerous, and was part of the problem with the protestant revolutionaries in the first place. Tradition by any other name is still tradition. They would set up a false dichotomy about them vs the Church when in fact they had some of the same qualities but just weren't justifying those qualities. The Church could say of course we have authority and tradition, and here's how it goes back to Christ.
Looking forward to this, Austin is good people.
I love Austin! This is such a wonderful example of how an interdenominational dialogue should occur.
Catholicism is the Christian faith, not a denomination!!!
Dialogue with younger RUclipsrs is such a great idea, thanks for sharing these discussions ❤️
I think it would’ve been interesting to bring up Marcion of Sinope who held mostly only to the Pauline Epistles. I think Protestants would have a hard time condemning him.
I'm finding some protestants are only quoting Paul! Even giving his letters primacy over the words of Jesus!
Marcion's Canon featured an early shorter version of Luke (without the infancy story) and the Pauline Epistles. No Old Testament books at all. It's funny, but once we start reading the writings of early Church Fathers ("Patristics"), biblical Canonicity becomes a boring topic. FWIW, I'm not "against" the OT or the NT canon. There's just additional important works to study alongside canonical books. The limits of translation is just as big a problem as Canonicity. @@jackieo8693
@@jackieo8693Obviously Marcion was a heretic - you can't have the story of Christ without the Hebrew scriptures. As a baptist studying theology at a protestant-based Bible school.
You do great work Trent. Don’t worry about the studio. In my humble view I would watch even if you sat on folding chairs with a white background and a small sign saying “forgoing fancy studio to give alms.” or “small studio, big heart.” 😊. But if you really feel you need one.
Our Protestant is wearing a prayer rope bracelet if I’m seeing this correctly on the screen 😂
as an occasional popper in, catholic curious, these conversations are great. much preferred to debates or trying to score points. please keep it up.
it is always refreshing to see Austin. It gets exhausting listening to christian RUclipsrs that you otherwise enjoy talk about Catholicism like it's a disease.
Catholics are the first Christians, the others protest against Christ and his church!!
He helped me convert 😂❤
I enjoyed the conversation, but I would have like to hear Austin have had more of a chance to speak. He continually was cut off.
7:19 this is unironically why there needs to be some sort of imprimatur for those who speak about the catholic faith online
Democracy has some severe drawbacks
Catholics have always had the freedom to share their ideas. Be it through books, articles, or now with the internet. There has never been the need to put an imprimatur over EVERYTHING.
What we need is to understand the difference between the Church's authority (Bishops in union with the Bishop of Rome) and the rest of us. Only the Bishops (in union with the Bishop of Rome) have AUTHORITY, the rest of us can though share our opinions freely.
@@GustavoAndresHerrera even if it were the case that we were always free to share our ideas (which it isn’t, nor should it be), there are influential laypeople with a reach beyond anything the church has seen before who act with de facto authority. when you have laypeople with a reach not ever seen before sowing dissent and schism, and undermining the Church's authority, She must reassert the authority granted to Her by Christ. all informal authorities must me formalized in one direction or another, either by affirmation or denial of authority. it doesn't have to be a literal imprimatur. there are analogous mechanisms in place already, they should just be expanded to include individuals.
@@fcatulo I understand your point, but I think where we disagree is that I don't see Matt Frad, or Trent Horn as "authorities", nor I see them claiming any authority.
Perhaps if we use the word "influence" that'd bring us closer?
It has always been the case that you have authors having influence over society at large (think Chesterton, C.S. Lewis, etc.) without imprimatur.
To re-iterate: "authority" needs imprimatur, but "influence" does not.
@@GustavoAndresHerrera yes, I think influence accurately describes it. And they don’t claim authority but they have some de facto authority due to them being influential. The thing is that while there have been influential laypeople in the past, the technological limitations of their times made it hard for them to do a lot of damage in a short period of time in the way that social media allows today. Imprimatur began in response to the printing press. We are at another revolution in the means of communication, probably as big as the printing press. And just like back then, the Church ought to respond accordingly.
The Bible never focused on the actual writers but the fact it was Holy men inspired by the Holy Spirit . The Bible has only one author and He is God !
I really appreciate you doing these dialogs with these young guys like Gospel Simplicity and Redeemed Zoomer, and having a very noncombative and gentle spirit while you do it. You love to see it.
Trent has been praying more recently
Can you invite mike winger on your channel.
He's so stiff against catholicism.
I like the discussion format. I hope this continues.
Agreed. The in-person conversation makes a big difference I think
Guys I’ve been stuck and so ocd over catholic Protestant issues that it’s starting to consume my life. I think people need to start making content about this.
I suggest you “fast” from that for a few weeks and focus on daily prayer and Bible reading with just enabling you to have a closer walk with Jesus each day. And then come back to this stuff trusting the Lord is with you
Wonderful conversation. Love from 🇿🇦
Sometimes it is really hard to follow Trent because his brain gets ahead of his mouth and he keeps starting sentences and then jumping to the next idea before he finishes his sentence. Several times he did this multiple times in a row such that I had no idea what he was originally trying to say
Austin is such a nice guy! Great for having him on, Trent!
(But Trent, if your going to do these Pints with Aquinas-style interviews, please upgrade your camera gear eventually) 😇
This is his temporary office, he is upgrading his office space currently. That's what he said on his last video I believe.
Personally, I like the stripped-down look! But whatever keeps the audio good, I'll go with it!
@@domanicvaldez Ah, great!
@@bookishbrendan8875 amen.
@@domanicvaldezMy understanding is that it is the permanent office. He just wants to kit it out
Trent, I'm Catholic and really enjoy your dialogue videos. Can you have Matt Whitman on as a guest?
I love this! What a beautiful dialogue. I am a recent convert (will be confirmed this Easter). I am so thankful for all that you do, Trent. It has been a great help for me as I have considered many of the questions Austin has. :)
God bless your journey
At 38:00, the Protestant response would definitely *not* be, "Sure you can believe that the Exodus is a myth." (I am assuming Trent is not talking about progressive Protestants, in which case there would be many such myths in the Bible) The point is that the difference between the bar for historical evidence for the Exodus vs for the Assumption is that Scripture clearly and factually lays out the Exodus, but the Assumption developed through centuries of practice and is supported in Scripture only by typology. Therefore, the burden of historical proof is much higher for the Assumption. Typology is an excellent biblical hermeneutic to illustrate and deepen understanding of doctrines that are clearly defined elsewhere in the Bible. We shouldn't base doctrine on typology alone or on devotional practice alone - and certainly not then require it as Dogma. Typology without a clear biblical foundation is like icing without any cake.
I'd love for you to have a discussion like this with Dan McCellen, or Dr Joshua Bowen. A non-combative dialogue with a popular well credentialed "secular" scholar (not an apologist).
I love listening to Trent❤
I like this format a lot
Austin is great. Good chat
Thanks to both of you. I really like Austin’s heart and the way he communicates. He describes our thoughts as well as we are from the Protestant church and struggling with some of what Austin mentions. Trent, I liked hearing you in this setting. You were much more gracious in your discussion with Austin and I think this is a much better way for Catholics and Protestants to talk to one another - with kindness. This is one of my favorite videos. Thanks to both of you.
The Apostles were executed for what they said they have seen, and did not back down. Would all those people die for what they knew was a lie?
They said Jesus is Lord, as they saw Jesus risen from the dead, and so they were willing to die not just for a belief, but what they said they saw.
“Jesus *said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.”
John 14:6 NASB1995
You don't need to know everything.
Trenttt, you didn’t let him talk, bro!
As a former Catholic and current Protestant I encountered way too many contradictions between the traditions of the Catholic faith and the Word of God. Apparent contradictions are not in and of themselves a bad thing as they can be explained with sufficient knowledge. However, I found that Catholics did not have sufficient reasons to explain these contradictions and when asked which wins out in that event (tradition or the Bible) they just said that can't happen because the Holy Spirit guided both. So while I was staring these contradictions in the face I was being told by catholics that the existence of these contradictions were impossible. And since, in the event that there is only two mutually exclusive ways of doing something I chose to follow the Word of God.
In befo da "who put your bible together?!?!"
@@anthonym.7653 what?
@@anthonym.7653 The early Church which was before any large splits, which comprised of Orthodox, Catholics, and Protestants.
@@Doc-Holliday1851The problem with that is Protestantism is even less credible. If you doubt the Church you should also doubt the Bible and abandon Christianity. Simple as. You can’t leap into an ignorant Protestant church where they talk in a hallowed voice about the Bible and be safe and still be intellectually honest. As Trent showed the Bible is full of things that are questionable and have to be taken on faith. If you can’t take the Church on faith there’s really no reason to take the Bible on faith either
I definitely don't agree that Protestants must accept sola scriptura. Methodists, for example, have rejected sola scriptura going all the way back to Wesley.
Awesome to see two Christians sit down and respectfully talk shop.
I'm not comfortable with how far you take Biblical unliteralism. You're presenting the Bible as if it were a myth, and that it can contain factual errors. My position is that the "style" of Genesis is a deliberate choice. I think this better aligns with what Pope Leo XIII taught in DIVINO AFFLANTE SPIRITU:
Finally it is absolutely wrong and forbidden "either to narrow inspiration to certain passages of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred," since divine inspiration "not only is essentially incompatible with error but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and constant faith of the Church.
Thanks Trent and Austin! I enjoyed this conversation
I find it odd that Trent seems to make the issue of Exodus and the Assumption of Mary equivalent. There’s a whole book of the Bible describing the Exodus. Aside from perhaps an obscure passage in Revelations, the Assumption is based almost completely on Tradition. I’m good with
Tradition as part of the Church, but at least on the surface, by definition, Protestants aren’t. Why would you use the comparison and argue they are the same to a Protestant ?
There was no such thing as Protestant (or Baptist) anywhere in the world (Europe, Africa, or Asia) before 1519.
Neither was there a Catholic before 0 A.D.
@@SneakyEmuBecause Christ hadn't come yet 😂
@@SneakyEmuAnd there is no such thing as 0 AD
@@MarvelGamer2023I don't know even know what point he was trying to make.
No Protestants??
Interesting
What about the waldenses? And the true Christian’s that we’re slaughtered by the Romans? You might say that the word Protestant doesn’t apply, but nonetheless, true Bible believing Christians were persecuted by the Roman’s and then the Catholic Church which was a continuation of the empire
The empire became a church
It is a mix of pagan and Christian theology
The fact that the Church recognizes the valid baptisms of other believers makes me think God has his own reasons for allowing these divisions at this time. Follow Jesus where and when he leads. Inform your conscience and follow truth as you understand it.
Is Austin still not Catholic. (I jest) We are praying for you Austin, brother. PAX
Small point that I might be smart enough to comment on regarding Unitarian vs Trinitarian: you may not need to believe in the Trinity to be saved but the next step of believing the Trinity is false is a step too far. Come to think of it that might be a good foundation to build out my thoughts on these issues.
The reason I'm not a Catholic is not because I think Catholic doctrine is heretical (as many protestants seem to hold). The reason I'm not a Catholic is because I can't say for certain that all Catholic doctrine is true. Same for Orthodoxy but I don't know enough about Orthodoxy to say whether or not I believe in Orthodox doctrines.
Let’s keep praying for Austin and his beloved wife, that one day both come home to the Church that Christ founded 2000 year as ago.
I’m not being aggressive but I’m just asking , in response to your comment, what about the Filioque? I mean, the Council agreed on the Creed, and Latin Church of the west changed it unilaterally. I wonder if you might have a response to that. Peace.
Trent, in this video you're basically describing my christianity prior to converting to Catholicism. I was a non innerantist self described protestant, who held to the nicene creed, not because I was convinced by every point Scripturally, but simply because I didn't think you could have christianity without it.
My favorite video on the Gospel Simplicity channel is the interview he did with Dr Eugenia Constantineau (which I'n probably spelling wrong). I think it's titled "Think You Know What Happened at the Crucifixion?".
Thanks for this dialogue. May God reunite his Church into one body and to His will.
(edited for spelling & other reasons)
It felt like Trent was shadowboxing multiple different Protestants in this conversation. I think maybe diving deeper into fewer questions/arguments could be a more interesting approach then bringing so much to the table from your prior discussions. Thank you for having these talks though, I love the channel and thinking through the different points of view. God bless
Excellent conversation!
@59:55 Look forward to this Trent. Your defense in another video against Atheists saying that _if you accept Paul due to martyrdom you should accept Joseph Smith as well_ ...was a limp argument. It was much more of a feelings/preference argument due to recency bias. It would be far more interesting, from a truth seeking point of view, if debaters had to prepare to advocate for the other side. You will be surprised how much you are missing
P.S. Arguing about geography and/or archaeology is definitionally arguing like an atheist. An atheist would want evidence that transubstantiation can be chemically formulated and peer-reviewed...but it can't. Even if it could then they wouldn't convert anyway...they would just go to the next thing that you can't produce physical evidence for. Its not an accident that you brought up Book Of Mormon geography. The evidence is on the pages...which is why debaters rarely discuss that.
Really appreciate Austin. We cradle Catholics gain so much from hearing the insights of open minded Protestants, and i thank God for all those Protestant pastors such as Hahn, Bergsma, etc who entered the Church and have brought their love of the Bible to Catholic catechesis and scholarship.
I've never met or seen in my 55 years of life (7-8 of those as a hard-core atheist) and 35 years as a devout practicing Catholic by personal conviction, not tradition; such a brilliant mind like this young man so stuck in the paralysis of the analysis. @GospelSimplicity I will pray for God to grant you, and me, with the 7 gifts of the Holy Spirit each morning I pray the Rosary. May God guide your journey to the fullness of the truth!! 🙏🏼
Two thoughts: First, when you were talking about the Assumption of Marry, Trent, around the 25:00 mark, you starting talking about how someone might want to rely on the authority of the Church in order to assist in the belief in the Assumption. I don't want to put words into Austin's mouth, or the mouths of any Protestants, but isn't this question begging? If someone wants to say "I am not Catholic because I disagree with the Church on the necessity of believing in the Assumption", and the Catholic response is "Well, sure, but the Church actually does necessitate that we believe the Assumption", then, that seems like question begging to me. Did I completely miss your real point? I feel like I misunderstood you, so please do correct my misunderstandings! Second, at the 44:00 ish mark, you two are talking about how its possible that, if an agnostic watches a lot of smart Christians and a lot of smart atheists, that Agnostic might start to think "Wow, I am doing well to remain agnostic!". You never say this, but it seems implied that this is a bad thing, or a shame of some sort. And I guess I look at myself, and I think that I am that person, I am that agnostic who does watch a lot of Trent Horn and Graham Oppy, and I think to myself that this isn't so bad! The way that I view it is that Agnosticism is an intellectual humility - I admit that I don't know what I don't know! Do you see it differently? Do you think its a bad thing to remain agnostic?
Anyway, thanks for the awesome content, I am loving all of the inter-faith dialogues!
Yes, it all comes down to authority. We should not be picking a religion based on individual beliefs but rather on whether its founder and leaders/successors have authority. Authority determines what is truly divinely revealed. The truth of individual beliefs do not and cannot determine who has authority.
@@tonyl3762 Can you see how this could be construed as an example of "begging the question" though? The non-Catholic says to the Catholic "I doubt that the Church has the authority that she claims to have, since I doubt that the Assumption of Mary was a real, historical event". Then the Catholic says "No no, we know that the Assumption is a real, historical event, because the Catholic Church said so, and She has Authority!". The Catholic here has assumed the falsity of the very point that the non-Catholic is bringing up!
@@Kevigen While I can see why you say that, it is rarely the case that the Catholic apologist is just assuming the Catholic Church has the authority she claims for herself. The sharp Catholic apologist is always welcoming a debate/dialogue about epistemology and authority. To say that the more fundamental issues of epistemology and authority need to be determined first is NOT equivalent to question-begging. It is merely inviting the Protestant/debate to go further back in the logical chain.
@@tonyl3762 I mean, isn't it begging the question, by definition? The Catholic who makes the argument as I presented above has a premises which assume the truth of the conclusion. A Catholic would need to support the Doctrine of the Assumption without leaning on the Authority of the Church in order to avoid Begging the Question, if some non-Catholic was using the Assumption as a challenge to Church Authority.
I am not Trent Horn and I am only responding in hopes that I can be of help. don't read the rest of what I write, if you don't feel like it!
In answer to your last question first, the problem that was being discussed was "analysis paralysis", of listening first to one and then to another, and is swayed back and forth.
But your particular question was staying in the agnostic mode, as you are. I think an agnostic who stops asking questions or listening for answers, is a sad person, because that person has lost faith in reason, which will always question. And I do not think you qualify as "that person". Do you?
And in answer to your first question, what was being talked about at the 25:00 mark, was making a comparison between the inerrancy of the Bible and the infallibility of the Church.
But it seems to me that your question is if a person rejects the Catholic Church because of the dogma of the Assumption, how can the authority of the Church be convincing? But, if a person believes everything *else* that the Church teaches, then that person's belief system includes a belief that the Church was instituted by Jesus. So appealing to the Church's authority would make sense (see the 37:00 mark) in that situation.
Does that make sense?
He will make a good Catholic! Trent, you should have let Austin talk a little more, in my opinion.
This is a dialogue so they both interact together. Not really an interview.
For me, as a convert to Catholicism from Protestantism. Christian truth and practice does not have to go back to the apostles, but they do have to be affirmed and promulgated by the church which does go back to the apostles and Christ himself.
Repenting of your sins and becoming Born-Again by asking Jesus to become your Lord and Savior is THE default, not any denomination or organization.
Christians are Born Again scripturally through baptism. Been that way now for 2000 years. My baptismal write up is below.
*The Old Testament Prefigures a greater New Testament reality: The Waters of Baptism are Salvific.*
- Noah and his family were saved by the water and cleansed humanity of sin, the Ark representing the Church.
- The Israelites were saved by water from Pharaoh’s army crossing the sea
- The Israelites were again saved by water when Moses struck the Rock
*God foretells his Spirit would someday reside not in Jerusalem’s temple built by man but within mankind himself:*
_25 I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. 26 A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will take out of your flesh the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances (Ez 36)._
*St John the Baptist says that Jesus would come baptizing with the Holy Spirit:*
_“I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry; he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire_ (Mat 3:11).
_I myself did not know him; but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit’_ (Jn 1:33).
*St Paul speaks to the New Testament fulfillment, through Baptism, our body being the temple of God’s Spirit.*
_Do you not know that your body is the temple of the holy spirit within you, which you have from God (1 Cor 6:19)?_
*We receive the Holy Spirit through baptism, the external washing by water signifying (a sign, a symbol, but not a sign or symbol only) of an interior spiritual change within us.*
*Born Anew (Again) - through baptism, we are “born again” scripturally*
_3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 4 Nicode′mus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit [baptism], he cannot enter the kingdom of God (Jn 3: 3,5)._
*Regenerated and Justified - All Sacraments are means of receiving his Grace (we are saved by Grace)*
_when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, 6 which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life (Titus 3: 4-7)._
*Sanctified - the exterior sign of water signifies the interior spiritual change through baptism.*
_11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God (1 Cor 6: 11)._
*Baptism Restores Sanctifying Grace and Cleanses Us of ALL Personal Sins*
_And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name (Acts 22: 16).”_
*Baptism Saves Us - by having the Spirit of God in us; God can’t be any more explicit*
- _“Truly, truly, unless one is born of water and the Spirit [baptism], he cannot enter the kingdom of God (Jn 3: 5).”_
- _Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Pet 3: 21)._
- _He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned_ (Mk 16: 16; believing / having faith means to follow all that Christ commanded. He commanded that Christians be baptized as a means of receiving his grace)
*Note, I can cite Christian men for this whole time period who taught exactly what scripture teaches. Examples below.*
“Moreover, the things proceeding from the waters were blessed by God, that this also might be a sign of men’s being destined to receive repentance and remission of sins, through the water and laver of regeneration,-as many as come to the truth, and are born again, and receive blessing from God.” Theopilus of Antioch, To Autolycus, 2: 16 (A.D. 181).
*Worth repeating: How is does one receive repentance and remission of sins .... through the water and spirit (the laver or regeneration). BAPTISM.*
“[W]hen they come to us and to the Church which is one, ought to be baptized, for the reason that it is a small matter to ‘lay hands on them that they may receive the Holy Ghost,’ unless they receive also the baptism of the Church. For then finally can they be fully sanctified, and be the sons of God, if they be born of each sacrament; since it is written, ‘Except a man be born again of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.’…[O]nly baptism of the holy Church, by divine regeneration, for the kingdom of God, may be born of both sacraments, because it is written, ‘Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.'” St. Cyprian, To Stephen, 71: 72 (A.D. 253).
“We are circumcised not with a fleshly circumcision but with the circumcision of Christ, that is, we are born again into a new man; for, being buried with Him in His baptism, we must die to the old man, because the regeneration of baptism has the force of resurrection.” St. Hilary of Poitiers, Trinity, 9: 9 (A.D. 359).
“This then is what it is to be born again of water and of the Spirit, the being made dead being effected in the water, while our life is wrought in us through the Spirit. In three immersions, then, and with three invocations, the great mystery of baptism is performed, to the end that the type of death may be fully figured, and that by the tradition of the divine knowledge the baptized may have their souls enlightened. It follows that if there is any grace in the water, it is not of the nature of the water, but of the presence of the Spirit.” St. Basil, On the Spirit, 15: 35 (A.D. 375).
Hi guys - moderate high-church Anglican here, and I love watching this kind of interview.
Honestly the assumption really doesn't bother me in light of Enoch, Elijah, and the pious Jewish belief of Moses' assumptions.
This was absolutely great. God bless you Trent and Austin.
Loving this Alex O'Conner route with the Channel, having conversations with all various sorts of people, and not just an echo chamber, looking forward to more!
Stimulating conversation. These dialogues are more enriching and thought provoking.
Been a fan lf Austin for a long time. I'm almost jelousy of his charity towards other faiths. I am far less charitable and i think we can all appreciate his patience and friendly demeanor.
Trent seems to mainly interact with either liberal protestant ideas or fundamentalist ones and seems not to think there is such a thing as mere- Christian orthodoxy. Just an observation.
What is mere christian Orthodoxy?
@@fleskenialation Not Orthodox, orthodox. And as they mention in this dialogue, a minimal approach is favored by Protestants and a maximal one by Catholics. So I'm saying there is a minimal set of doctrines discernible from history, Scripture, and tradition.
@@Jim-Mc
Ah i see what you mean. Humbly, I may both agree and dissent. My concern is when we merge multiple components together to find some meta truth but we lack submission to an institutional hierarchy, we (or at least I) open ourselves to ideas that have not been stress tested and might therefore lead us too far in the wrong direction. We might then neglect our need for experiential insight.
The discovery that Moses didn't write all the Pentateuch is funny considering the last chapter of Deuteronomy is about Moses' death.
God bless you! May God draw you to Him...
Trent you talked too much
Love both you guys!
One big hurdle for protestantism is that the Church Jesus created stood for 1500 years before protestants existed and Jesus declared that His Church built on the rock Peter would stand forever and the gates of hell will never prevail against it. The Holy Apostolic Catholic Church has been here since the beginning and will be here at the end of this earthly existence in terms of the mortal realm.
That by itself is all you need
This has been an unfortunate misunderstanding of the Reformation and Protestants themselves have also fallen into this narrative. The reformers did not depart from the catholicity of the 1500 years before them. They were seeking to reclaim the *truth* of those 1500 years. They were steeped in study of the Patristics, then Augustine, Thomas, Anselm, and onward. They were rejecting the misguided 15th century "Via Moderna" of Gabriel Biel in the Roman Church in favor of the true catholicity of the former Medieval Scholastics. The Reformers did not intend to leave the Catholic Church, but to free it from accretions and abuses.They were forced to separate physically, but doctrinally remain rooted in all of the previous centuries of our Church Fathers. Faithful Protestantism is, in fact, a doctrinal branch from the same 1500 year root of the Church as the RCC, minus many of the accretions. I hope this helps.
I'm picking up that Catholicism can be way to overwhelming for people outside of the faith. Being Catholic is a life-long journey and so is the Christian walk and the trick is, when things get overwhelming in your head and when you only go on a head journey to Catholicism you miss the opportunity to fall in love.
I started my investigation of Catholicism and was logically persuaded on many things but was still in this middle ground. Then when I went to mass I was in awe. I had a more spiritual encounter there than I had ever had in my life as a Protestant. Going to continue to research for my family to discuss things with them and continue my journey in defending the faith (apologetics ministry) but I am in love.
@@domanicvaldez ❤ God is love, keep on keeping on. Falling in true love is beautiful! Praying for your journey
Dear@@domanicvaldez, thank you for sharing your journey! And welcome home!
@@susand3668 thank you! God Bless.
@@shanahendricks9831 amen. Thank you!
As a former catholic, I still haven’t found the strongest reasons to have mother Mary and the saints be involved as our intercessors…
For example, many Catholics believe to pray to specific saints to handle specific needs like to Saint Anthony for help to find a lost item or Saint Rita for difficult times …
To believe that this is assume God grants deity-like abilities to the saints and Mary to receive prayers and answer prayers.
If that is true then where in scripture do we see examples of these souls assisting us in the afterlife?
I think the best remedy would be to study and research about it.
U don't have to go too deep since we already have all the resources we need from the internet 👍👍
@@Catholicguy-qs3ng I guess this is the real concern. The Bible should be enough to give us sufficient evidence for this specific matter. Going to the internet is just asking for more opinions and interpretations of scriptures.
The most accurate Bible interpretations are done by comparing passage to passage, not passage to human interpretation.
That said, I don’t see anywhere in the scriptures that support these claims of using the Saints & Mary as our intercessory prayer partners.
@@bychristiandiaz Revelation I believe is where you'll find the strongest instances of saints in Heaven being not only being aware of what's happening on earth (cries of the martyrs) but also the saints offering up their prayers to God.
I love this dude and how he talks
Looking forward to this dialogue. I’ve checked out Austin’s channel in the past, and I recall him looking into Catholicism, which mirrored my experience as well.
For me, the problem with the way the subject was approached in the video is that it seemed to me that Protestantism was being treated as "a Church" in comparison to Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox. When in fact it is one category of churches (Protestant) being compared to two churches. A better approach is to compare the two categories (Protestantism vs Ecclesilialist) or comparing individual protestant churches (Lutheran, Reformed) vs Catholic vs Orthodox. If this were done, the conversation would be more viable and precise.
Just a suggestion. Maybe you should consider having Robert Sungenis on your channel. You could be the go between for Him and Jimmy Akin. 😊
I love Austins curiosity. Its great to read about other churches and traditions. I also learn from many ex-Orthodox and ex-Catholics in my Church.
With regard to the exodus vs assumption issue, the key difference is that one is explicitly taught by multiple authors within the Scriptures, whereas the assumption isn't even really an implication, but a later development by tradition. So it really isn't a fair comparison
100%
The thing is that Catholics and Orthodox also hold to sacred tradition as infallible rules of faith and the assumption is explicitly part of sacred tradition, especially in our more ancient liturgies as well as the fathers.
The analogy is that the assumption is to tradition what the exodus is to scripture, not that the assumption has as much scriptural evidence as scripture does.
@maryangelica5319 right but the question was being posed as if it was the same barrier to entry for a conversion to protestants to catholics as non believers to protestants and I have a very hard time rationalizing how the two can be similar unless catholics literally believe that tradition is equal to scripture... which would imply that scripture can be contradicted by the very thing that supposedly derives its authority from scripture itself. The protestant coverting is already starting from a spiritual presupposition that the Bible contains God's word and is infallible, whereas a non believer would not, and I have to think the arguments about authority would be different from those two positions such that the analogy doesn't really line up. However thank you for your comment that did clarify the point for me
@@jonathanw1106
"I have a very hard time rationalizing how the two can be similar unless catholics literally believe that tradition is equal to scripture... which would imply that scripture can be contradicted by the very thing that supposedly derives its authority from scripture itself. "
the first part is actually kinda true (kinda... there are some nuances here), but the implication is false.
Essentially, what we call Sacred tradition (not just random practices called small "t" traditions) does not derive its authority from scripture. Rather, both scripture and sacred tradition derive its authority from the Word of God himself, Jesus Christ, who is more properly the true "source" of revelation; they are two interrelated channels of revelation flowing from the one Source, rather than two fully separate rules. In fact, we sometimes think of the scriptures and tradition in terms of "written" and "oral" tradition (like Paul describes in 1 Thes 2:15... (the Jews also had notions of "written" and "oral" Torah, so it's a pretty natural concept for us to have as well), since scripture is also handed down to us. And since both come from the Word of God, they cannot contradict each other, since that would mean God contradicts himself. But rather, both inform each other. To see how this works, consider that basically every aspect of sacred tradition is at least understood in terms of scripture. Even the more esoteric Marian dogmas, if not explicitly supported, are at least understood as such (see the Assumption and Revelation 13, or the immaculate conception and Luke 2+ comparisons to the purity of the ark of the covenant, etc. ), and give the actual content of tradition. On the other side, the formation of the scriptural canon itself was a matter of magisterial action appealing to sacred tradition. You can't have the scriptures qua bible without tradition (or the magisterium), and you can't have tradition without scripture.
Now, there are some nuances about the level of "infallibility" here... we do say scripture is inerrant as well as infallible, but we don't say the same of tradition. The best place to see a good description of the relationship between scripture and tradition is the magisterial document "Dei Verbum" . I really recommend you read it (it was ghost-written by Benedict XVI back when he was just a priest participating in the second Vatican council). He lays it out way better than I ever could.
@maryangelica5319 great comment I appreciate the detail! I'll chew on this for a bit, although I have some additional thoughts on the analogy itself that may make sense irrespective of this particular debate over authority
The powerful Trent Horn. Defending the catholic faith. Veneration?! great respect; reverence. Psalms 135:15-18 NASB The idols of the nations are but silver and gold, The work of man’s hands. They have mouths, but they do not speak; They have eyes, but they do not see; They have ears, but they do not hear, Nor is there any breath at all in their mouths. Those who make them will be like them, Yes, everyone who trusts in them.