As one who has come from a Calvanist background but who is now discerning Catholicism, this is unfortunately very common in Protestant circles, especially Reformed/Calvanist ones. Often it's only real purpose is for the pastor to beat his chest and proclaim that he his much holier than thou. Edit: For context, I'm no longer Calvanist (or Reformed) at all
Praying for you. I was previously in the PCA for a decade, even helped plant a church. Was under consideration to be an Elder. We joined the Church last Easter. 😊
Holier than though? Doesn’t sound like a “Calvinist”. Maybe it is because no one is perfect. but definitely not my my church. But a lot of Calvinists/reformers understand we are sinners and that we need Christ to save us. It isn’t of our own doing but Christ’s.. so we shall not boast because we aren’t deserving of the grace we are given.
@Timetravlin Of course. I don't think that most Calvanists do this. What I'm saying is that high-profile Calvanists do often do this, I even had a pastor like this. Of course this sort of boasting isn't Calvanist, it's not Christian at all, but it nevertheless happens quite frequently, at least in my experience.
@@jamessral-subclassact I mean no disrespect. you can say the same thing about the catholic priests and what they did to children. Obviously not all do that and just because some priests did what they did it doesn’t prove Catholicism false. But what’s the point of your statement? You’re taking an inconsistent jab at Calvinism when it’s the people not the theology and that same argument can be used against the Catholics. Some “catholic”priests teach woke nonsense Some “Protestant” churches teach woke nonsense. Some Catholics act all high and mighty. Some Protestant Calvinists act high and mighty. Neither of them is an argument against the validity of the theology.
It’s called Divine Pedagogy. God doesn’t lead with the Gospel (evangelism); He first prepares the world to receive the Gospel. There is a pre-Gospel work of preparing people to receive the Gospel. Following the Parable of the Sower, we must strive to cultivate as much good soil as we can, so that it is ready to receive the seeds of the Gospel when it is scattered.
In the context of the Joe Rogan show, you don’t lead with the Bible or Christian teaching on marriage. Someone like Joe thinks Christianity is false and the Bible is a book of fairy tales. It’s not wrong to argue from religion but for matters of public policy, guiding people down a logical, natural law route involving social science and reason is the much better way. See for example “What is Marriage” By Ryan Anderson, Robert George and Sherif Girgis. Also, Matt isn’t really a trained Catholic apologist. He does well enough but that’s not his expertise by any stretch.
Which is odd, in my opinion. He is a seasoned political/cultural apologist, hardcore conservative, he has a Catholic tattoo, a sister who is a nun... Shouldn't he meet the criteria to be an apologist for his faith...which ostensibly is far more important than all the rest? He should have said, "Joe - different people, different purpose, different outcome. In legal matters It will require a different name but they won't accept that. You can see the damage and confusion this has caused in martial arts but you can't see it in, or are willfully ignoring it, in marriage, why?"
@@HaleStorm49 Honestly, I'd count him as one. I still gotta see the clip in question, but maybe he stressed out? Easy to poorly word ones argument under pressure.
@@ten_tego_teges He did an interview with Ben Shapiro where Ben asked him about heaven and Walsh crumbled, stumbled, and quoted CS Lewis. Paul says you can't draw water from dry wells so It was a little hard to watch. Surprising as I can't understand how Matt doesn't have more experience discussing his faith articulately.
@@HaleStorm49 Walsh definitely does not have the same chops as guys like Trent Horn. A number of years ago, he went on Allie Beth Stuckey's program to discuss the differences between protestantism and Catholicism, and it ended up being a rather awkward, unproductive back and forth over whether or not people with genuinely good qualities can end up in hell.
Trent Horn, please offer a rebuttal to the dialogue between Destiny and Matt Dillahunty on the "Bodily Autonomy" argument! It would be so much of use and help. And great video btw. I'm becoming more convinced of Catholicism
I could hardly watch it. Two people who don't believe moral fact exist discussing the rights and wrongs of human rights and morality seems absurd to me.
@@LtDeadeye I agree very much with your reply. What was very frustrating was that Dillahunty kept saying that "I don't care about the morality of it, just the legality". Um, like what? Law is the codification of morality, which follows there are some just and unjust laws. Not everything that is legal is moral and not everything that is moral is legal. Dudes really be thinking they're philosophers but they don't know much at all 😂
@@tuav Ugh, I can’t stand Dillahunty. He’s the epitome of “angry atheist”. I tried listening to his podcast for a bit, but he just bashes any guest that calls in with insults and abuse. Would LOVE to see Destiny and Trent dialogue, though.
I become more and more convinced that Calvinism is designed by the devil to: > Make sincere Christians speak blasphemy against God. > Convince non-believers that not only is Christianity foolish, but morally repugnant
Yeah lol, I could see how that would have went: Joe: What is marriage? Matt: A union between a man and a woman. Joe: How do you know this? Matt: The Bible. (Cites scripture). Joe: Why think that’s true? Matt: It’s God’s word. Joe: How do you know this? Matt: The Bible. Aaaaaaand around and around we go.
@@WhyWasntIBornInTheMiddleAges I know that. My point was to illustrate the purely scriptural approach many Protestants seem to think Matt should have taken in his debate on marriage with Joe, and why I think it would have failed. They express frustration with Matt for not making a biblical case, but Joe is (as far as I know) an atheist, therefore a natural law approach seems the best way forward. So all I was trying to suggest was that the scriptural approach might have put Matt in a worse position in trying to defend marriage from a nonbeliever.
@@WhyWasntIBornInTheMiddleAges have you ever asked a Protestant how they know the Bible is the complete and exclusive source of divine revelation? They will answer you with a Bible verse nearly 100% of the time. Or they'll say they accept the Bible as a pure act of faith. If you try to rationalize the inspiration of the Bible, you'll end up learning the history of its creation. And then you'll end up Catholic.
@@johnhoelzeman6683 I’ve actually asked many of my Protestant friends, they either don’t answer the question or they just give circular reason. To accept the Bible is too accept the authority of the Catholic Church. So it’s hard for them to acknowledge that. Usually they’ll just say by faith they believe it. Of course that doesn’t seem to work because then what reason do we have to reject the Quran or the Book of Mormon if we use that type of reasoning.
You are exactly right, Trent. When arguing these issues, we need to remember who our audience is. If we only use our Christian values or the Bible as an argument, then our audience dismissed us and we never change their minds.
Dr Jennifer R Morse is the best defender of marriage from reason. She emphasizes the positive rights of children, taking the moral high ground. Never heard Ryan Anderson do it powerfully and persuasively.
The LAST THING Matt should have done is try to evangelize Rogan because Rogan is a staunch atheist who would have been immediately turned off by that. The best way to get to Arkham is by arguing from logical grounds because he strongly believes in materialism and reason.
Rogan doesn't even have the empathy to see others views. He just thinks they're unintelligible. So firstly it would be necessary to connect to him on a human level, to point out that actually things aren't neutral, he has his own deeply held beliefs he wants to impress on others, before he would even entertain being open to your point of view. Frankly this is where Walsh is failing. I know people balk at the idea, but you're never going to change Rogan's mind on his podcast, so the least you can do is peel back the layers on his unfounded sense of moral superiority. What reasons does Rogan have for any of his beliefs other than conformity and his own hedonism? You need to do something to attack the framing of "my views are just reasonable and morally neutral while _you_ are trying to push your religion on people." No, Rogan holds religious values. They are in no way neutral. He just takes them for granted because they are more in line with the mainstream/accepted morality of the ruling class.
'You need to do something to attack the framing of "my views are just reasonable and morally neutral while you are trying to push your religion on people." No, Rogan holds religious values. They are in no way neutral.' Exactly! I don't think he sees some of the false logic in his self made Religion. At least, he doesn't see it YET. In God's perfect timing, the Holy Spirit will get to him. I like Joe, and quite honestly believe he is a future Christian convert. I'm praying for him, because I can see him being a great evangelist some day!
@@gch8810 On the surface, the major issue is its critique of classical apologetics. Their criticism is a misunderstanding of what the stance and method of classical apologetics is. Deeper, there are (ironically enough) issues of epistemology and methodology: it presumes a more Kantian framework (specifically the distinction between the noumena and phenomena), and it is inconsistent (or incomplete) concerning apologetics against, say, Muslims or Mormons or Jews.
@@barelyprotestant5365 Thanks a lot! I find presuppositionalism to be a street peacher's guide to philosophizing, if that makes sense? Gimmicky and beneath the dignity of the sort of reasoning that pleases our Lord.
These past few videos on the Rogan Walsh discussion are some of the most useful videos you have put out in awhile. I commend you. I think another person you might consider reviewing on your podcast is someone quite new on the scene. It is Bronte Remsik who is a woman who has been defending Abortion and has been on the rise in social media. I believe Stand to Reason did a quick response. I'd be interested in seeing videos on that.
I do agree with James White, ( no I don’t agree with him about Rome )when I saw the interview, Joe Rogan is thinking why should we push our views onto others since others have different point of views. But there is a higher law, and that it is of God. I think Joe Rogan would’ve understood that this is the mindset of God not man. Without pointing to God, it now becomes are own point of view. And we all have different point of views, there’s no way to win an argument of this sort without pointing to a higher law then ourselves.
He's just lying. It's a rhetorical posture that boils down to the paradox of tolerance. Rogan believes in pushing his religion on everyone else, no doubt.
Absolute absurdity of reformed theology as espoused by James White and others, is that no amount of evangelisation and prayers will change anything. Their idea of god has already decided the fate of everyman. Those saved can never be unsaved and the Lost of course are terminally lost forever.
Maybe this is just a random though with no value, but maybe the reason reformed are more likely to take a presuppositionist approach to apologetics when discussing these sorts of issues is because Calvinism (really Protestantism in general) grew up in a culture where the Bible and Christianity were already presupposed, whereas Catholicism grew up in a pagan culture and thus had to convince others to agree with our moral beliefs with more general natural law arguments because many would not accept Christianity, whereas a Protestant moral theologian in the 1500s would only have had to quote a verse from scripture because the person being argued against would almost definitely also presuppose Christianity.
11:28 One point in favour of White. St. Paul's Roman Empire usually wasn't Atheistic / Nihilistic. Epicuraeans were a minority, popular religion was a mix of polytheism of the animistic type to pantheism (so, like a mix between Shinto and Hindoo), most of the élite were Stoics, pantheists. NONE of them believed that "values are a subjective (perhaps collectively so) byproduct of matter complexifying itself" ... they had world views that contained errors but definitely gave theoretically some room for "natural law" which Western atheism in and of itself doesn't.
Generally, I'm all for presuppositional apologetics, because they're what caused me to really become confident in my faith, but coming to see the natural theology arguments as rational was an important step going down that road to questioning my presuppositions.
Acting as if intersex people means human's don't have two sexes is like saying people born with one arm means humans don't have two arms. And there are only two sexes, male vs female gametes, where the sex of a whole organism is determined by which one they have. Chimerism is also extremely common. It happens to all women who get pregnant. Does that mean your mother isn't a woman if she's had sons? Of course not, that's idiotic.
Trent, I agree with everything you said except at the end when you said if your in front of the media that you would keep a narrow topic otherwise you would get shut down. The apostles were constantly shut down. That's what sharing the gospel will get you. Even if the media platform is against you, use it to share the gospel. That is all. Thank you for defending our faith brother ✊🏽
Maybe the idea is to at the very least stay narrow to have the potential of reaching someone vs getting completely shut down and being disallowed even the possibility of reaching someone.
@@liamreckley agree to disagree brother, your right in the sense that we shouldn't bible thump people to the point where they don't want to hear anything that we have to say. But if you have a platform use it. That could be the only time someone would ever hear the good news of our Lord.
Trent is absolutely right. The reason you keep it narrow is so you can actually address the thing. Everybody just shotgun blasts stuff at you (a la the Gish Gallop) and constantly changes topic. People can hurl 18 unrelated things at you and always have you backpedaling so you can never defend anything adequately. Trent has talked about this many times before, and I’ll wager he’s much more experienced at debating than you are, both in formal settings and on “sidewalks.”
@@definitelynotaheretic.7295 I'll wager I don't care how much experience someone has in debates. That's not the issue or topic. Did you read my message or did you come on to be a keyboard warrior. Agree to disagree. God WILL NOT say "how many debates did you win". We will be judged on if we shared the gospel even if it was a little muddy because we were nervous.
@@rivV2 I think, as Trent does, that this is just the wrong approach. I am sure it feels good to check a box and say “I shared the gospel,” but the more important thing is helping that person connect to it. So, you bring them along through the mode that works for them and then find a way to connect it to the Gospel. We are trying to actually win souls for God, not just pat ourselves on the back for speaking the Gospel. St Thomas Aquinas spent his whole life building ways for us to connect with all types of people through reason. He could have just skipped all the philosophical arguments and said, “the Bible says God exists.” Let’s learn from the saints, if not from Trent.
You should not use transgender affirming names, for at least two reasons: 1. To use that name is to recognise the authority of the individual to name them self, and hence to usurp the legitimate authority of parents (think here of why we do not and cannot name our guardian angels). 2. For the very same reason that it is important to a transgender person to change their name, we must NOT recognise the new name. A name is not an arbitrary string of sounds and letters to pick out an individual (after all, that's why it matters so much to the lefitist ideology that the old name never be used). Rather, a name encodes assumptions about the bearer. The new name has a history, its history is as a statement that the individual is in fact their selected gender. We all recognise that some names are not fitting (it's why we have girl names and boy names). To use the new name is to tacitly legitimate the assumptions that the historical origination of the new name presupposes.
@@councilofflorence4896 Two men can legally get "married" too. That doesn't mean it's morally legitimate in any way whatsoever. What's legal is not the same as what is moral A more interesting objection might be that, in some cases, name change is legitimate. But those are cases like wives taking their husbands name. But this is ok precisely because she becomes subject to a new network of authority, and so her name is liable to change given the changes in the family structures/authority structures that she falls under. Similar considerations apply when members of religious orders change names. None of this though, would justify anyone in the ordinary course of life changing their name willy nilly as though their name was up to them.
@@alistairkentucky-david9344 Which is irrelevant to my point. There's nothing wrong with changing your name, and that you think so is frankly ridiculous. And this argument has nothing to do with transgenders, but rather in general people can change their names. The Church even recognises their new name - give any evidence to your ridiculous claim please. You're even allowed to change your name to your confirmation name, if you want.
@@councilofflorence4896 Did you even read what I wrote? I grounded the impermissibility in the locus of the relevant authority over the name. I then detailed how the paradigm exceptions are grounded in transfers of authority or additions of authority (from parents to spouse, or from parents to the Church). If you think I am saying that all name changes are impermissible, then you didn't understand what I wrote in detail. I will end the discussion here if you have nothing further to add than "There's nothing wrong with changing your name!!" Otherwise, I'll reply if you can engage with my actual point. God bless.
@@alistairkentucky-david9344 You claimed changing your name usurps parental authority. Unless you think parents don't help in legitimately changing your name, and that their permission doesn't validate the new name, then you made a moot point. Also, the argument is problematic in other cases. First, what if your parent abused you and you ran away, and, due to the horrid experience, decided to change your name legally? Or how about in the cases of orphans etc. You never gave any inclination there were any exceptions to your claim. And does parental permission make it permissible? My aunt gave permission to their daughter to change her name to a masculine one. Is that valid just because they have permission?
It is certainly the case that we should not be ashamed of the Gospel but the Lord said don't cast your pearls before swine for a reason. Rogan wasn't even receptive to conversation at hand. He is swine.
I don't understand the criticism that Walsh's approach wasn't evangelical enough. This example's absurd, of course, but if I followed that to its logical conclusion, it feels like the only possible response to most secular questions is just to say some form of "Do you believe in God? Have you given your life to Jesus?" like a street-corner preacher.
One of the best examples of the difference between White’s approach, and the natural law, dialogical approach to moral matters, is Trent’s exchange with Barandan Robertson, and White’s recent encounter with Robertson. Robertson is wrong, on multiple levels. But Trent exposed that by letting Brandan speak for himself, and then addressing what he said. White just clobbered him over the head, which won’t convince anyone who doesn’t already know Robertson is wrong.
Presup is not only erroneous but it is based in pride, not humility. It states & asserts. It doesn't ask questions at its core. It plays God. Let God be God, yes? Can He not prove Himself without you asserting Him to those who reject Him? Grace & humility speaks louder than arguments. Come: let us reason together. 🙏
What will evangelisation actually achieve if reformed theology is true? One of the most utterly confounding things about reformed protestantism /fundamentalism is on the one hand they claim all we must do is repent and so are saved by faith alone . Apparently our day of judgement has nothing to do with salvation. Matt 16 27, Rom 2 6. Then they say their god's Will is Sovereign and has already decided everyone's eternal fate before the creation of the world. So in what had to be some obscene unjust Predestination lottery, "He decided with himself the eternal fate of everyman", however, we don't really know who is saved or eternally lost. This is supposed to bring an all loving God (John 3 16), glory??? Oh, but they say "it's a mystery!" Do they not realise how barking mad, unjust and ridiculous this makes this god look to agnostics and atheists. The only thing they have in common with atheists like Sam Harris, is they must deny free will. Sam maintains we are just the end product of causes and effects beyond which we have no control. We are just wind-up toys of some capricious deity, certainly not the God of John 3:16.
11:56 The Gentiles for the most part had not been offered the Mosaic law. This is a very different position from someone who was offered the Christian law (or a Protestant perversion of it) through grandparents, or if they were already Atheists and had a deconversion story from great-grand-parents. And neighbours. A divorcee does not recover her virginity, C. S. Lewis said, and an apostate is not a pagan.
I actually don’t think that White’s deferral to the presuppositional method is actually a bad move. While classical apologetics does indeed have its place, I think natural law arguments can only go so far if your opponent can’t agree on the nature of reality itself. For example, while it is obviously true that sex has the natural end of procreation, if a person doesn’t believe that violating the nature of sex is wrong then explaining how it is contrary to the natural law isn’t going to get you very far. There does have to be some underlying agreement on reality itself for classical apologetics to take root.
Wow I just had an epiphany with the different ways and the potential of so many different people who because of policies might have no clue of the actual blood parents and ergo it's very similar to the issue Justin martyr was writing to address the Romans of them having a much higher chance to incest in the future
We will never win the marriage debate until we win culture over to the reality that one isn't born gay. We have no evidence that a person is genetically determined to be gay. In fact, we have strong evidence to the contrary. One of the first things the Human Genome Project did in the 90's after sequencing the human genome was to look for a genetic marker for homosexuality, which everyone assumed was an inherited trait. They found no gene that was shared amongst all gay men that wasn't present in a decent percentage of the general population, debunking the claim that homosexuality was genetic. We then moved to an epigenetic model, and it was shown that exposure to high levels of estrogen in utero was linked to a higher likelihood of a man identifying as gay as an adult. But the problem with the epigenetic model was that most boys exposed to high levels of estrogen in utero did not identify as gay. Which meant that it could be a compounding factor at most. The reality of the situation is that homosexuality is developed. The human mind is incredibly plastic, and what one finds sexually arousing is incredibly responsive to what one has seen and experienced in a sexual manner. We recognize this with porn today. Young men exposed to porn (but I repeat myself) develop sexual arousal around scenarios that they view and masturbate to. We are beginning to recognize the truly devastating effects porn can have on young men in this way. But we do not seem to recognize that homosexuality may be linked to homosexual scenario exposure when young. Many homosexual men will tell you that their first sexual experience was with an older man or boy they looked up to. Some will recognize this to be the rape that it is, and some won't. But it actually does seem to be the cause of homosexuality. And if homosexuality is primarily caused by pederasty, as it seems, I would expect the American public to be more hesitant to place children into the homes of two gay men.
Admittedly, I'm on the fence with this one, leaning towards the nature theory. However, a big question with the origin of homosexuality is that if it's genetic, then how come it survived natural selection? Evolutionary theory would suggest that such a trait would perish over a couple generations.
@@ten_tego_teges Well, we know it's not genetic. We have sequences the entire human genome and know that there exists no gene that causes homosexuality. The epigenetic case is the best solution for the born this wave concept now, but the overall evidence points towards a late development rather than an inherent cause. Doesn't mean it's a choice. I utterly reject that. But I do think it is developed through exposure to sexual scenarios.
@@josephmoya5098 Do you follow Fr. Paul Sullins' research? Is there anyone outside of The Ruth Institute who is actively trying to research what causes same-sex attraction? Also, what about same-sex attracted women?
"until we win culture over to the reality that one isn't born gay" When your view on culture relies on people openly embracing your dellusions, and the fact that it's a dellusion is openly known then it's a lost fight for you. The only way you can win in this scenario is i.e. hijacking enough power to suppress the truth on a global scale so you can mislead enough people into beliving that it's not a natural phenomena, but at that point you pretty much have a theocratic state so you can just go back to christian traditions of persecuting nonchristians.
@10:56 Trent, I'm curious if you believe that men and women will keep their "gender identity" after this life? Is this the natural order or a supernatural order implying permanence, ie eternal? The next question would be is marriage part of this supernatural order? Perhaps the core issue with marriage is Christians and non-christians share a limited vision when it comes to the actual scope of marriage in God's plan.
Well, the only reason we know there are intersex people is because we know there are two sexes in the first place! Granted, people who are born intersex are human and children of God, that's the way we know that its an abnormality in the first place, as do people born with other defects! We don't go around saying that human aren't by default born with eyes, limbs, 20 fingers although we know there are many people who lack, do we? Its just the same, we don't and SHOULD NOT go around saying human aren't by default man and woman.
My problem as a protestant wasn't so much to do with his methodology but rather his content. He performed very poorly in the "debate", and seemed oddly unprepared for questions that would likely be brought up.
@@bilbobaggins9893 isn't it evident? We are commenting here right now 😉. I was talking about White not Walsh. Matt Walsh's channel is also free for commenting
Trent, respectfully, the issue is not what exactly happens biologically with a union of a man and a woman. The institution of marriage (one man and one woman) is something only found in scriptures. There is no necessity for such a thing as monogamy other than pragmatism from a natural law perspective. That is insufficient for moral foundations.
Why not use both arguments depending on your audience? More than one way to witness. Rogan would likely boot him out or be antagonized if Matt tried to prosletyze him on air, Rogan thinks the bible is hokum fairy tales.
I think Matt Walsh did a good job in trying to keep religion out of the conversation as much as possible, because it was necessary. Like all Catholics, Matt believes that we are here to work our way toward heaven, and there are certain things that help us and other things that will get in the way of that. Like all atheists, Joe is of the belief that this life is all there is so everyone should be out to get whatever they can from it in the forms of power, pleasure and prestige (the false gods of today) as long as you don't break any government-made laws. I think I heard he is of the opinion that people should be allowed to marry, divorce, and remarry as they please, to be "happy" if that's what it takes. From these two different viewpoints, Matt was working to find common ground first through the view of natural law. That needed to be the starting point or it would go nowhere fast.
White offers thorough criticism of people doing things he will never have the opportunity to do. Not because of his religion or world view but because he’s incredibly dislikable. Keep heckling from the nose bleeds, James. Matt Walsh is on the field and can’t hear you.
Sorry mate but i really think you should make video about mental, psycological and spiritual healt and hate issues of those gentlemen, towards Catholic Church and at the same time have a guts, calling themselfs not only Christians but good ones or real ones or true ones and who found necesery to even comment that in today world instead to unite behind him The fact is one of us is under demonic influence and need of really Jesus I mean seriously like in whole humility God bless
A few thoughts as a reformed protestant: 1. Appealing to reason and natural law may have been well and good in former generations when even if people were not themselves Christians they still broadly accepted a Christian worldview because our society was saturated by it. Now however with the rise of postmodernism we cannot simply appeal to reason and natural law because society has rejected reason and has no basis for it. 2. Related to the first point, I am not opposed to reason based arguments in the context of a presuppositional apologetic. The issue I had with Walsh in his interview here (and I genuinely think Walsh is brilliant in many areas) is that he could never go at Rogans opinion with anything other than his own opinion. At that point it is just a "what do you like better?" Question.
It is necessary to appeal to reason. It is the common ground with people that don't believe in God or religion. These people DO know that they can't reject reason or their arguments won't work. They just don't realize they're denying it.
@@leonardoherreraornelas4667 but these people have rejected the very basis for reason and have become unreasonable themselves. You cannot have reason apart from God.
For a Christian, yes. For a believing Jew, yes. For a Muslim, yes as a prophet. Maybe even for an Orthodox Jew because Jesus quotes the Torah. But in all those scenarios there's common ground because Jesus is an authority or because the Scriptures themselves are authoritative. With an atheist that authority is not granted.
@@Justas399 But if your whole point of discussing with them is to make them agree with you, then of course it matters. Walsh is debating. All he wants to do is make somebody agree with him. He's going to use the logic he thinks is going to work best on the guy.
@@Justas399 Of course not. But he talked about different things at different times. For instance, he did not talk about the resurrection when he explained why one should pay taxes to Caesar. Jesus was good at argument; he kept things on-topic. Also remember that Jesus was Jewish, but he didn't argue with Samaritans to try to convert them to Judaism. He just let them know that He was the new savior and was starting Christianity, even though the Samaritans WERE wrong in their disagreement with the Jews. Don't hide the truth at all. Just argue. My point is that it's not helpful to argue that one person didn't make a good argument in the right way because he didn't address the argument that you wanted him to. Walsh isn't hiding the truth anymore in this discussion any more that he would be if he didn't argue that the sky was blue. The sky is blue, that's the truth. Shouldn't he have said something about that? My point is that you don't have to address every true thing in the world to support your argument. Of course Jesus Christ said marriage is between one man and one woman and that they cannot be separated by humans. But if you're arguing with an atheist about marriage, then what's the point of arguing that we should do something because Jesus said so? Joe Rogan knows Jesus said so, but he doesn't care. Remember that Matt Walsh is not a religious apologist. He's just a conservative political commentator who is a religious guy. Criticizing him for not bringing enough religion into his argument is like criticizing a professional chess player for not using the Bible to explain his chess strategies. This man has a secular job: he talks about politics. And so in his discussions, even when his religious faith informs his views (like here, where his Catholicism is the reason he rejects gay marriage), he uses political arguments and natural law discussions, because that's what he does. If someone asked you why you are against abortion, you would probably say (at least I would say) "because I'm Christian and so I believe murder is wrong." But if that person's not a Christian, then they're not going to be convinced by your or my beliefs. I can quote Scripture all I want, but if the person in question does not believe in Scripture because he/she is an atheist, agnostic, deist, Buddhist, whatever, then you have to use other strategies to discuss the argument. Now, if you are a religious apologist, then perhaps a smart thing to do would be, in a different discussion, try to convince that person that Christianity is true. The trouble is that it's a different argument than the abortion debate. Whether or not abortion (like gay marriage) is a good thing exists independently of whether or not Christianity is true or not. Arguments for and against the existence of a triune God, for instance, are only indirectly related to whether or not gay marriage is wrong. They're different questions. So you come to a crossroads. You can either go with the natural law route or you can go with explaining to the other person why Jesus is a good authority (i.e., why Christianity is true), because if Christianity is true, then Jesus is a good authority, and we should listen to what He says. Either way, you're revealing truth, just different parts of the truth. Now, you might raise the objection that divine revelation is a more important truth than natural law. Okay, let's say that's the case, and therefore explaining why Jesus's words are indeed divine revelation should take priority. The problem with this argument is that your opponent is going to raise the objection that (as your opponent likely presupposes gay marriage to be a good thing) Jesus can't be a good authority because He's against gay marriage, and since gay marriage is good, then Jesus can't be an authority because He is wrong. So now you're back to square one: you have to prove that gay marriage is wrong on naturalistic terms. Especially if you're a secular political debater like Matt Walsh, this is a much easier route. But guess what? After you've convinced your opponent on this issue, then you've just removed one of their objections to Christianity. If gay marriage is indeed bad, then Jesus was not wrong on the subject, so His credibility is boosted in the eyes of your atheist/agnostic opponent. Jesus didn't have too many nonreligious people to deal with back in 30 AD, because atheism wasn't really a thing in 1st-century Israel. Now that we have them in 21st-century America, we need ways to convert these atheistic people to Christianity. And one of these ways is to remove their preexisting problems with Christianity, like its opposition to gay marriage. Once you have explained reasoning behind gay marriage's wrongness, the atheist is more open to persuasion about how Christianity might be true. Anyway, that took like an hour to write and I've got a lot of stuff to do today, so I probably will not be able to get back to you on this topic. God bless!
@@CatholicCarlismEnjoyer Who says its "for the sake of pleasure"? Same could be said for a straight couple. What is a strange and unfounded presumption.
Lifelong Same-sex unions (regardless of what you call such unions) very often make the persons involved better and more productive members of society by providing sustained meaning, growth, stability, happiness, and selfless/giving tendencies. You may think they’re sinful. That’s fine. But let’s not smear the relationships. Also, there should be legal protections for such unions to some degree (life and death decisions, ICU visitations, etc)
Once they were given an inch, they took a mile. There is no neutral stagnant point with issues. Once it was tolerated, they moved to normalize it at the expense of natural relations. And the whole ideology around it causes mental health problems, disease problems, and the people who engage in it are higher in psycopathology. I would rather live in a society where that truth is not suppressed. Even now bringing up the public health aspect in public will get you smeared and cancelled as a "-phobe"
@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns I kinda do agree and also not. Because I can understand if 2 gay or lesbian people will absolutely never change their mind so if they want to share their assets why not make a contract that allows them like what a civil union is. But again it sorta ackonwledges they are still in a relationship albeit not ond as marriage. So yeah it should be a possibility.
Oof. Walshsplaining. Bottom line...Romans 1:16-17. I am not ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ and neither should any other Christian. And Jesus tells us why Walsh looked bad in that interview.,,"But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand."
Evangelization won't work if he doesn't first try to charitably understand his interlocutor's position. We don't just force Jesus and the Gospel to anyone we meet, much less for a person in the far-left, atheist crowd. We'll just end up being treated as condescending and blindly-zealous people (think of the reception "God is not Dead series," for example). It's a much more effective method to reasonably argue why sin is wrong in the most natural sense, and explore deeply why it is morally wrong and why morality even makes sense, and find the missing piece in God's Word, which is never in conflict at all with logical truth, for God created all things and his Spirit IS the Spirit of Truth.
@Anthony M. Didn't he, though? In the synagogues he spoke as a Jew and reasoned from Scripture, but in the marketplace he spoke as a Greek and reasoned with the philosophers.
@@jamessral-subclassact " 21Since God in his wisdom saw to it that the world would never know him through human wisdom, he has used our foolish preaching to save those who believe. 22It is foolish to the Jews, who ask for signs from heaven. And it is foolish to the Greeks, who seek human wisdom. 23So when we preach that Christ was crucified, the Jews are offended and the Gentiles say it’s all nonsense. 24But to those called by God to salvation, both Jews and Gentiles,f Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25This foolish plan of God is wiser than the wisest of human plans, and God’s weakness is stronger than the greatest of human strength. 26Remember, dear brothers and sisters, that few of you were wise in the world’s eyes or powerful or wealthyg when God called you. 27Instead, God chose things the world considers foolish in order to shame those who think they are wise. And he chose things that are powerless to shame those who are powerful. 28God chose things despised by the world,h things counted as nothing at all, and used them to bring to nothing what the world considers important. 29As a result, no one can ever boast in the presence of God. 30God has united you with Christ Jesus. For our benefit God made him to be wisdom itself. Christ made us right with God; he made us pure and holy, and he freed us from sin. 31Therefore, as the Scriptures say, “If you want to boast, boast only about the LORD.”
@@anthonym.7653 If you are a protestant you shouldn't speak about Saint Paul because just you being Protestant affirms you don't know what Saint Paul preached.
What Trent does when criticizing reformer apologetics is he first agrees with them and then fabricates a disagreement from A topic that didn’t exist in the first place. When I watch that interview in its entirety withWhite and Drew I don’t get the sense that white went off the cuff. In fact white stands his ground. What Trents doing is trying to create more viewership by editing what he’s critiquing. He does this with Mike Winger, James White, every other reformer out there. Because he can’t make an argument off of what they’re talking about categorically, he can only make an argument based on what he can fabricate and inflate from the argument under his own control and then lead the conversation with elegant speech. The Bible actually speaks against those that try to use eloquent persuasive speech.
What an idiotic thing to say. And "off the cuff" and "stands his ground" aren't contradictory. Winger is a dishonest person, as is White even if he presents it in more clever way.
What I meant was humans matter in a special sense of having intrinsic dignity and basic rights whereas non-human animals do not matter in that sense. They do matter in other respects such as being the object of God's creation.
@@TheCounselofTrent I was merely asserting that, Non Human animals don't have intrinsic dignity is not to be found universally as a precept of natural law. This is a belief only present in Abrahamic Religions. I don't think you're disagreeing with me.
@@snokehusk223 That's a completely ignorant statement. Consciousness is present in almost every living being. With higher forms having the intellect of "Self awareness". A chimpanzee and a dolphin have a conscious experience much more developed than fertilized ovum in a human womb. Yet your theology demands the status of personhood for the latter and not the former.
There is a time and place to proclaim the gospel? Only a Catholic would say something so stupid. I’ve never filtered my voice of the gospel with anyone. If there’s an opportunity, I share. I do not withhold the truth to be somehow politically respectful in some sort of political correct groove. This is the problem I have with Trent and Catholicism. You guys don’t understand the lord and savior that saved you. There is no filter and time in place to share the gospels. You’re either hated by the world were loved by it. There is no in between or lukewarm believer. You’re either cold or hot. My own wife is mired by Catholicism and believes that preaching the gospel is only for apologetics. Catholicism teaches a damning heresy contrary to Scripture because it holds itself parallel if not above scripture. John MacArthur talk to Ben Shapiro. The man does not hold the gospels back regardless of Shapiro’s personal belief. If now is not the time to share the gospel, then when? Is it time when you’re comfortable? Is it time when it’s on your timetable? If you’re not led by the Holy Spirit to speak to others with confidence about the one that saved you then you’re not really saved.
I was an agnostic once. Yes, absolutely there are times and places to discuss God. Then there are times and places to bring the conversation to God. Evangelicals sometimes wander around with the discernment of a bull elephant.
PS - Maybe your wife, who if she is practicing, hears the Gospels every single week is not the heretic in your marriage. Maybe try a little more respect of your marriage and your wife's views.
If you think it was an appropriate time and place, okay but you also seem to think you know better than Jesus' Apostles and 2000 years of Church existence. As it is, I believe in God/Jesus Christ and your moment of "sharing" was a tad counter productive in terms of persuasion.
As always, Trent Horn nails it. And does so in a deceptively meek way. Camouflage truth bombs.
As adult, well-catechized Catholics, we have the greatest responsibility to orient our argument to the person we're talking with.
and that's why Saint Thomas Aquinas wrote Summa contra Gentiles and Summa Theologiea.
Absolutely crucial. As you say Well Cathechised ». The problem is that so many of us are not.
That's also directly mentioned in the Bible: 1 Corinthians 9:22, and similarly Jude 22, 23.
James White: "Your argument doesn't hold water because it's not explicitly taught in the Bible."
Also James White: believes in Sola Scriptura
As one who has come from a Calvanist background but who is now discerning Catholicism, this is unfortunately very common in Protestant circles, especially Reformed/Calvanist ones. Often it's only real purpose is for the pastor to beat his chest and proclaim that he his much holier than thou.
Edit: For context, I'm no longer Calvanist (or Reformed) at all
Praying for you. I was previously in the PCA for a decade, even helped plant a church. Was under consideration to be an Elder. We joined the Church last Easter. 😊
@@Vaughndaleoulaw Thank you! I also used to be PCA but am currently Anglican (in ACNA).
Holier than though? Doesn’t sound like a “Calvinist”. Maybe it is because no one is perfect. but definitely not my my church. But a lot of Calvinists/reformers understand we are sinners and that we need Christ to save us. It isn’t of our own doing but Christ’s.. so we shall not boast because we aren’t deserving of the grace we are given.
@Timetravlin Of course. I don't think that most Calvanists do this. What I'm saying is that high-profile Calvanists do often do this, I even had a pastor like this. Of course this sort of boasting isn't Calvanist, it's not Christian at all, but it nevertheless happens quite frequently, at least in my experience.
@@jamessral-subclassact I mean no disrespect. you can say the same thing about the catholic priests and what they did to children. Obviously not all do that and just because some priests did what they did it doesn’t prove Catholicism false. But what’s the point of your statement? You’re taking an inconsistent jab at Calvinism when it’s the people not the theology and that same argument can be used against the Catholics. Some “catholic”priests teach woke nonsense Some “Protestant” churches teach woke nonsense. Some Catholics act all high and mighty. Some Protestant Calvinists act high and mighty. Neither of them is an argument against the validity of the theology.
It’s called Divine Pedagogy. God doesn’t lead with the Gospel (evangelism); He first prepares the world to receive the Gospel. There is a pre-Gospel work of preparing people to receive the Gospel. Following the Parable of the Sower, we must strive to cultivate as much good soil as we can, so that it is ready to receive the seeds of the Gospel when it is scattered.
In the context of the Joe Rogan show, you don’t lead with the Bible or Christian teaching on marriage. Someone like Joe thinks Christianity is false and the Bible is a book of fairy tales. It’s not wrong to argue from religion but for matters of public policy, guiding people down a logical, natural law route involving social science and reason is the much better way. See for example “What is Marriage” By Ryan Anderson, Robert George and Sherif Girgis.
Also, Matt isn’t really a trained Catholic apologist. He does well enough but that’s not his expertise by any stretch.
Which is odd, in my opinion. He is a seasoned political/cultural apologist, hardcore conservative, he has a Catholic tattoo, a sister who is a nun... Shouldn't he meet the criteria to be an apologist for his faith...which ostensibly is far more important than all the rest?
He should have said, "Joe - different people, different purpose, different outcome. In legal matters It will require a different name but they won't accept that. You can see the damage and confusion this has caused in martial arts but you can't see it in, or are willfully ignoring it, in marriage, why?"
@@HaleStorm49 Honestly, I'd count him as one. I still gotta see the clip in question, but maybe he stressed out? Easy to poorly word ones argument under pressure.
@@ten_tego_teges He did an interview with Ben Shapiro where Ben asked him about heaven and Walsh crumbled, stumbled, and quoted CS Lewis. Paul says you can't draw water from dry wells so It was a little hard to watch. Surprising as I can't understand how Matt doesn't have more experience discussing his faith articulately.
@@HaleStorm49 Walsh definitely does not have the same chops as guys like Trent Horn. A number of years ago, he went on Allie Beth Stuckey's program to discuss the differences between protestantism and Catholicism, and it ended up being a rather awkward, unproductive back and forth over whether or not people with genuinely good qualities can end up in hell.
@@Emper0rH0rde I didnt know about that but it's fascinating to me.
Is it just me or is James White becoming even less rational in argument and prejudiced towards Catholics?
You are correct
That's just the next step before he becomes one of us. 🙂
One word: Yep!
@@saintmatthew956 I do pray he will convert one day
I think Cameron Bertuzzi was his last hope on countering Catholicism rationally.
Trent Horn, please offer a rebuttal to the dialogue between Destiny and Matt Dillahunty on the "Bodily Autonomy" argument! It would be so much of use and help. And great video btw. I'm becoming more convinced of Catholicism
Honestly would like it if just debated Destiny on abortion. I saw him interact with Ruslan was wishing Trent was there
I could hardly watch it. Two people who don't believe moral fact exist discussing the rights and wrongs of human rights and morality seems absurd to me.
@@LtDeadeye I agree very much with your reply. What was very frustrating was that Dillahunty kept saying that "I don't care about the morality of it, just the legality".
Um, like what? Law is the codification of morality, which follows there are some just and unjust laws. Not everything that is legal is moral and not everything that is moral is legal. Dudes really be thinking they're philosophers but they don't know much at all 😂
+1 +1 +1 +1 +1
@@tuav Ugh, I can’t stand Dillahunty. He’s the epitome of “angry atheist”. I tried listening to his podcast for a bit, but he just bashes any guest that calls in with insults and abuse.
Would LOVE to see Destiny and Trent dialogue, though.
I become more and more convinced that Calvinism is designed by the devil to:
> Make sincere Christians speak blasphemy against God.
> Convince non-believers that not only is Christianity foolish, but morally repugnant
Whoa a saintposter
Cool story
Thanks for not calling James White "Dr" since he got his degree from a diploma mill.
Well then. I dug into that a bit more, and even James White's website doesn't call him "Dr". I'll make that change moving forward as well.
@@KyleWhittington yeah you can't even say he put the work in.
@@terilien6124 since he doesn’t have Dr. in front of his name means he didn’t put in any work?
Like “Dr” Jill Biden.
Yeah lol, I could see how that would have went:
Joe: What is marriage?
Matt: A union between a man and a woman.
Joe: How do you know this?
Matt: The Bible. (Cites scripture).
Joe: Why think that’s true?
Matt: It’s God’s word.
Joe: How do you know this?
Matt: The Bible.
Aaaaaaand around and around we go.
Nice strawman, literally no thinking Christian says the Bible is God's word because it says so.
@@WhyWasntIBornInTheMiddleAges I know that. My point was to illustrate the purely scriptural approach many Protestants seem to think Matt should have taken in his debate on marriage with Joe, and why I think it would have failed. They express frustration with Matt for not making a biblical case, but Joe is (as far as I know) an atheist, therefore a natural law approach seems the best way forward. So all I was trying to suggest was that the scriptural approach might have put Matt in a worse position in trying to defend marriage from a nonbeliever.
@@WhyWasntIBornInTheMiddleAges have you ever asked a Protestant how they know the Bible is the complete and exclusive source of divine revelation? They will answer you with a Bible verse nearly 100% of the time. Or they'll say they accept the Bible as a pure act of faith.
If you try to rationalize the inspiration of the Bible, you'll end up learning the history of its creation. And then you'll end up Catholic.
@@WhyWasntIBornInTheMiddleAges what do they say instead? If they're a protestant, I mean
@@johnhoelzeman6683
I’ve actually asked many of my Protestant friends, they either don’t answer the question or they just give circular reason. To accept the Bible is too accept the authority of the Catholic Church. So it’s hard for them to acknowledge that. Usually they’ll just say by faith they believe it. Of course that doesn’t seem to work because then what reason do we have to reject the Quran or the Book of Mormon if we use that type of reasoning.
Thank you. Never realized the Salesians were connected with St. Francis De Sales.
You are exactly right, Trent. When arguing these issues, we need to remember who our audience is. If we only use our Christian values or the Bible as an argument, then our audience dismissed us and we never change their minds.
Thank you for the video, Trent.
Dr Jennifer R Morse is the best defender of marriage from reason. She emphasizes the positive rights of children, taking the moral high ground. Never heard Ryan Anderson do it powerfully and persuasively.
why are Protestants like this? What are Biblical arguments going to do against a guy who believes the Bible was written by Constantine?
I don't know. Protestants quite often fall into the magic book trap
The LAST THING Matt should have done is try to evangelize Rogan because Rogan is a staunch atheist who would have been immediately turned off by that. The best way to get to Arkham is by arguing from logical grounds because he strongly believes in materialism and reason.
Rogan doesn't even have the empathy to see others views. He just thinks they're unintelligible. So firstly it would be necessary to connect to him on a human level, to point out that actually things aren't neutral, he has his own deeply held beliefs he wants to impress on others, before he would even entertain being open to your point of view. Frankly this is where Walsh is failing. I know people balk at the idea, but you're never going to change Rogan's mind on his podcast, so the least you can do is peel back the layers on his unfounded sense of moral superiority. What reasons does Rogan have for any of his beliefs other than conformity and his own hedonism? You need to do something to attack the framing of "my views are just reasonable and morally neutral while _you_ are trying to push your religion on people." No, Rogan holds religious values. They are in no way neutral. He just takes them for granted because they are more in line with the mainstream/accepted morality of the ruling class.
Finally someone sees it.
I wouldn't say that the beliefs he holds are all that deep. You can pretty much boil it down to whateverworksformeism
'You need to do something to attack the framing of "my views are just reasonable and morally neutral while you are trying to push your religion on people." No, Rogan holds religious values. They are in no way neutral.' Exactly! I don't think he sees some of the false logic in his self made Religion. At least, he doesn't see it YET. In God's perfect timing, the Holy Spirit will get to him. I like Joe, and quite honestly believe he is a future Christian convert. I'm praying for him, because I can see him being a great evangelist some day!
Yeah, you nailed on the explanation on what I feel hearing Rogan even on mildly moral issues.
Excellent analysis. The Cornelius Van Til school of apologetics is problematic in a variety of ways.
What would you say is the biggest issue with it?
@@gch8810 On the surface, the major issue is its critique of classical apologetics. Their criticism is a misunderstanding of what the stance and method of classical apologetics is.
Deeper, there are (ironically enough) issues of epistemology and methodology: it presumes a more Kantian framework (specifically the distinction between the noumena and phenomena), and it is inconsistent (or incomplete) concerning apologetics against, say, Muslims or Mormons or Jews.
@@barelyprotestant5365 Where can I find more about arguments against presuppositionalism? I'm surrounded by evangelicals who swear by it at my school.
@@actuallicensedteacher1846 presuppositionalism is the new kid in town. I'd recommend Scholastic Lutherans, on RUclips here.
@@barelyprotestant5365 Thanks a lot! I find presuppositionalism to be a street peacher's guide to philosophizing, if that makes sense? Gimmicky and beneath the dignity of the sort of reasoning that pleases our Lord.
These past few videos on the Rogan Walsh discussion are some of the most useful videos you have put out in awhile. I commend you. I think another person you might consider reviewing on your podcast is someone quite new on the scene. It is Bronte Remsik who is a woman who has been defending Abortion and has been on the rise in social media. I believe Stand to Reason did a quick response. I'd be interested in seeing videos on that.
I do agree with James White, ( no I don’t agree with him about Rome )when I saw the interview, Joe Rogan is thinking why should we push our views onto others since others have different point of views. But there is a higher law, and that it is of God. I think Joe Rogan would’ve understood that this is the mindset of God not man. Without pointing to God, it now becomes are own point of view. And we all have different point of views, there’s no way to win an argument of this sort without pointing to a higher law then ourselves.
He's just lying. It's a rhetorical posture that boils down to the paradox of tolerance. Rogan believes in pushing his religion on everyone else, no doubt.
Absolute absurdity of reformed theology as espoused by James White and others, is that no amount of evangelisation and prayers will change anything. Their idea of god has already decided the fate of everyman. Those saved can never be unsaved and the Lost of course are terminally lost forever.
Maybe this is just a random though with no value, but maybe the reason reformed are more likely to take a presuppositionist approach to apologetics when discussing these sorts of issues is because Calvinism (really Protestantism in general) grew up in a culture where the Bible and Christianity were already presupposed, whereas Catholicism grew up in a pagan culture and thus had to convince others to agree with our moral beliefs with more general natural law arguments because many would not accept Christianity, whereas a Protestant moral theologian in the 1500s would only have had to quote a verse from scripture because the person being argued against would almost definitely also presuppose Christianity.
11:28 One point in favour of White.
St. Paul's Roman Empire usually wasn't Atheistic / Nihilistic.
Epicuraeans were a minority, popular religion was a mix of polytheism of the animistic type to pantheism (so, like a mix between Shinto and Hindoo), most of the élite were Stoics, pantheists.
NONE of them believed that "values are a subjective (perhaps collectively so) byproduct of matter complexifying itself" ... they had world views that contained errors but definitely gave theoretically some room for "natural law" which Western atheism in and of itself doesn't.
Generally, I'm all for presuppositional apologetics, because they're what caused me to really become confident in my faith, but coming to see the natural theology arguments as rational was an important step going down that road to questioning my presuppositions.
Good morning Trent!
Acting as if intersex people means human's don't have two sexes is like saying people born with one arm means humans don't have two arms. And there are only two sexes, male vs female gametes, where the sex of a whole organism is determined by which one they have. Chimerism is also extremely common. It happens to all women who get pregnant. Does that mean your mother isn't a woman if she's had sons? Of course not, that's idiotic.
Trent, I agree with everything you said except at the end when you said if your in front of the media that you would keep a narrow topic otherwise you would get shut down. The apostles were constantly shut down. That's what sharing the gospel will get you. Even if the media platform is against you, use it to share the gospel. That is all. Thank you for defending our faith brother ✊🏽
Maybe the idea is to at the very least stay narrow to have the potential of reaching someone vs getting completely shut down and being disallowed even the possibility of reaching someone.
@@liamreckley agree to disagree brother, your right in the sense that we shouldn't bible thump people to the point where they don't want to hear anything that we have to say. But if you have a platform use it. That could be the only time someone would ever hear the good news of our Lord.
Trent is absolutely right. The reason you keep it narrow is so you can actually address the thing. Everybody just shotgun blasts stuff at you (a la the Gish Gallop) and constantly changes topic. People can hurl 18 unrelated things at you and always have you backpedaling so you can never defend anything adequately.
Trent has talked about this many times before, and I’ll wager he’s much more experienced at debating than you are, both in formal settings and on “sidewalks.”
@@definitelynotaheretic.7295 I'll wager I don't care how much experience someone has in debates. That's not the issue or topic. Did you read my message or did you come on to be a keyboard warrior. Agree to disagree. God WILL NOT say "how many debates did you win". We will be judged on if we shared the gospel even if it was a little muddy because we were nervous.
@@rivV2 I think, as Trent does, that this is just the wrong approach. I am sure it feels good to check a box and say “I shared the gospel,” but the more important thing is helping that person connect to it. So, you bring them along through the mode that works for them and then find a way to connect it to the Gospel. We are trying to actually win souls for God, not just pat ourselves on the back for speaking the Gospel. St Thomas Aquinas spent his whole life building ways for us to connect with all types of people through reason. He could have just skipped all the philosophical arguments and said, “the Bible says God exists.” Let’s learn from the saints, if not from Trent.
You should not use transgender affirming names, for at least two reasons:
1. To use that name is to recognise the authority of the individual to name them self, and hence to usurp the legitimate authority of parents (think here of why we do not and cannot name our guardian angels).
2. For the very same reason that it is important to a transgender person to change their name, we must NOT recognise the new name. A name is not an arbitrary string of sounds and letters to pick out an individual (after all, that's why it matters so much to the lefitist ideology that the old name never be used). Rather, a name encodes assumptions about the bearer. The new name has a history, its history is as a statement that the individual is in fact their selected gender. We all recognise that some names are not fitting (it's why we have girl names and boy names). To use the new name is to tacitly legitimate the assumptions that the historical origination of the new name presupposes.
People can legally change their names though, and not be trsnsgender. I fail to see how this is wrong.
@@councilofflorence4896 Two men can legally get "married" too. That doesn't mean it's morally legitimate in any way whatsoever. What's legal is not the same as what is moral
A more interesting objection might be that, in some cases, name change is legitimate. But those are cases like wives taking their husbands name. But this is ok precisely because she becomes subject to a new network of authority, and so her name is liable to change given the changes in the family structures/authority structures that she falls under. Similar considerations apply when members of religious orders change names. None of this though, would justify anyone in the ordinary course of life changing their name willy nilly as though their name was up to them.
@@alistairkentucky-david9344 Which is irrelevant to my point. There's nothing wrong with changing your name, and that you think so is frankly ridiculous. And this argument has nothing to do with transgenders, but rather in general people can change their names. The Church even recognises their new name - give any evidence to your ridiculous claim please. You're even allowed to change your name to your confirmation name, if you want.
@@councilofflorence4896 Did you even read what I wrote? I grounded the impermissibility in the locus of the relevant authority over the name. I then detailed how the paradigm exceptions are grounded in transfers of authority or additions of authority (from parents to spouse, or from parents to the Church). If you think I am saying that all name changes are impermissible, then you didn't understand what I wrote in detail.
I will end the discussion here if you have nothing further to add than "There's nothing wrong with changing your name!!" Otherwise, I'll reply if you can engage with my actual point.
God bless.
@@alistairkentucky-david9344 You claimed changing your name usurps parental authority. Unless you think parents don't help in legitimately changing your name, and that their permission doesn't validate the new name, then you made a moot point. Also, the argument is problematic in other cases. First, what if your parent abused you and you ran away, and, due to the horrid experience, decided to change your name legally? Or how about in the cases of orphans etc. You never gave any inclination there were any exceptions to your claim. And does parental permission make it permissible? My aunt gave permission to their daughter to change her name to a masculine one. Is that valid just because they have permission?
It is certainly the case that we should not be ashamed of the Gospel but the Lord said don't cast your pearls before swine for a reason. Rogan wasn't even receptive to conversation at hand. He is swine.
@@_ready__ Do you? Based on your other comments it is seems pretty clear that you do not.
trent please do a review of the michael knowles vs Bronte Remsik on abortion
Great explanation
I'd love to hear you and Jimmy critique presuppositional apologetics. Sye Ten Bruggencate is usually easier to have a dialogue with than Jeff Durbin
I don't understand the criticism that Walsh's approach wasn't evangelical enough. This example's absurd, of course, but if I followed that to its logical conclusion, it feels like the only possible response to most secular questions is just to say some form of "Do you believe in God? Have you given your life to Jesus?" like a street-corner preacher.
Presuppositional arguments seem circular.
Apostle Paul talks about the natural way
perhaps a more in-depth treatment of pre-suppositionalism itself would be useful
This discussion is another example of Catholicism's both/and approach.
One of the best examples of the difference between White’s approach, and the natural law, dialogical approach to moral matters, is Trent’s exchange with Barandan Robertson, and White’s recent encounter with Robertson.
Robertson is wrong, on multiple levels.
But Trent exposed that by letting Brandan speak for himself, and then addressing what he said.
White just clobbered him over the head, which won’t convince anyone who doesn’t already know Robertson is wrong.
Presup is not only erroneous but it is based in pride, not humility. It states & asserts. It doesn't ask questions at its core. It plays God. Let God be God, yes? Can He not prove Himself without you asserting Him to those who reject Him? Grace & humility speaks louder than arguments.
Come: let us reason together. 🙏
Mr. White and his misrepresentations. It’s super annoying.
Just say you're not bright enough to understand. It's okay, not everyone is.
Wonderful
If the church is the bride of Christ how many brides/churches does He have or does He have one?
To me James White is a pseudo intellectual Calvinist, in the same way Sam Harris is a pseudo intellectual atheist
All atheist are pseudo intellectuals. One can make the same case for Calvinists.
What will evangelisation actually achieve if reformed theology is true? One of the most utterly confounding things about reformed protestantism /fundamentalism is on the one hand they claim all we must do is repent and so are saved by faith alone . Apparently our day of judgement has nothing to do with salvation. Matt 16 27, Rom 2 6. Then they say their god's Will is Sovereign and has already decided everyone's eternal fate before the creation of the world. So in what had to be some obscene unjust Predestination lottery, "He decided with himself the eternal fate of everyman", however, we don't really know who is saved or eternally lost. This is supposed to bring an all loving God (John 3 16), glory??? Oh, but they say "it's a mystery!"
Do they not realise how barking mad, unjust and ridiculous this makes this god look to agnostics and atheists. The only thing they have in common with atheists like Sam Harris, is they must deny free will. Sam maintains we are just the end product of causes and effects beyond which we have no control. We are just wind-up toys of some capricious deity, certainly not the God of John 3:16.
11:56 The Gentiles for the most part had not been offered the Mosaic law.
This is a very different position from someone who was offered the Christian law (or a Protestant perversion of it) through grandparents, or if they were already Atheists and had a deconversion story from great-grand-parents. And neighbours.
A divorcee does not recover her virginity, C. S. Lewis said, and an apostate is not a pagan.
Trent, always enjoy your episodes but you got to change your intro music. Sounds like 90s talk show intro music. 😅
Perhaps, but I am nostalgic for the 90's
@@TheCounselofTrent you can be LGBT and Catholic 👨❤️👨
... I don't get the joke here. What does this have to do with Trent being nostalgic for the 90's?
@@samueljennings4809 it was cool to be in the closet back then
@@dansaber4427 What?
I actually don’t think that White’s deferral to the presuppositional method is actually a bad move. While classical apologetics does indeed have its place, I think natural law arguments can only go so far if your opponent can’t agree on the nature of reality itself. For example, while it is obviously true that sex has the natural end of procreation, if a person doesn’t believe that violating the nature of sex is wrong then explaining how it is contrary to the natural law isn’t going to get you very far. There does have to be some underlying agreement on reality itself for classical apologetics to take root.
God bless you
Wow I just had an epiphany with the different ways and the potential of so many different people who because of policies might have no clue of the actual blood parents and ergo it's very similar to the issue Justin martyr was writing to address the Romans of them having a much higher chance to incest in the future
Trent your the best!
We will never win the marriage debate until we win culture over to the reality that one isn't born gay. We have no evidence that a person is genetically determined to be gay. In fact, we have strong evidence to the contrary. One of the first things the Human Genome Project did in the 90's after sequencing the human genome was to look for a genetic marker for homosexuality, which everyone assumed was an inherited trait. They found no gene that was shared amongst all gay men that wasn't present in a decent percentage of the general population, debunking the claim that homosexuality was genetic. We then moved to an epigenetic model, and it was shown that exposure to high levels of estrogen in utero was linked to a higher likelihood of a man identifying as gay as an adult. But the problem with the epigenetic model was that most boys exposed to high levels of estrogen in utero did not identify as gay. Which meant that it could be a compounding factor at most.
The reality of the situation is that homosexuality is developed. The human mind is incredibly plastic, and what one finds sexually arousing is incredibly responsive to what one has seen and experienced in a sexual manner. We recognize this with porn today. Young men exposed to porn (but I repeat myself) develop sexual arousal around scenarios that they view and masturbate to. We are beginning to recognize the truly devastating effects porn can have on young men in this way.
But we do not seem to recognize that homosexuality may be linked to homosexual scenario exposure when young. Many homosexual men will tell you that their first sexual experience was with an older man or boy they looked up to. Some will recognize this to be the rape that it is, and some won't. But it actually does seem to be the cause of homosexuality. And if homosexuality is primarily caused by pederasty, as it seems, I would expect the American public to be more hesitant to place children into the homes of two gay men.
Admittedly, I'm on the fence with this one, leaning towards the nature theory. However, a big question with the origin of homosexuality is that if it's genetic, then how come it survived natural selection? Evolutionary theory would suggest that such a trait would perish over a couple generations.
@@ten_tego_teges Well, we know it's not genetic. We have sequences the entire human genome and know that there exists no gene that causes homosexuality.
The epigenetic case is the best solution for the born this wave concept now, but the overall evidence points towards a late development rather than an inherent cause. Doesn't mean it's a choice. I utterly reject that. But I do think it is developed through exposure to sexual scenarios.
@@josephmoya5098 Do you follow Fr. Paul Sullins' research? Is there anyone outside of The Ruth Institute who is actively trying to research what causes same-sex attraction? Also, what about same-sex attracted women?
"until we win culture over to the reality that one isn't born gay"
When your view on culture relies on people openly embracing your dellusions, and the fact that it's a dellusion is openly known then it's a lost fight for you. The only way you can win in this scenario is i.e. hijacking enough power to suppress the truth on a global scale so you can mislead enough people into beliving that it's not a natural phenomena, but at that point you pretty much have a theocratic state so you can just go back to christian traditions of persecuting nonchristians.
@@Mish844 What evidence do you have that I am wrong?
It's interesting that Orthodox apologist, Jay Dyer, utilizes the same Protestant approach of presuppositionalism.
@10:56 Trent, I'm curious if you believe that men and women will keep their "gender identity" after this life? Is this the natural order or a supernatural order implying permanence, ie eternal?
The next question would be is marriage part of this supernatural order? Perhaps the core issue with marriage is Christians and non-christians share a limited vision when it comes to the actual scope of marriage in God's plan.
You don't stop being a man or a woman after you die, afaik
Doubtful on the gender identity, but I wouldn’t even pretend to know what goes on in heaven
James White is illiterate.
Debate him then if you’re so confident
@@timetravlin4450 set it up
lol, this is the dumbest statement yet on Dr. White.
Well, the only reason we know there are intersex people is because we know there are two sexes in the first place! Granted, people who are born intersex are human and children of God, that's the way we know that its an abnormality in the first place, as do people born with other defects! We don't go around saying that human aren't by default born with eyes, limbs, 20 fingers although we know there are many people who lack, do we? Its just the same, we don't and SHOULD NOT go around saying human aren't by default man and woman.
U ARE THE BEST TRENT ❤🕇
Not been impressed with Theopolis' scholarship or the tenor of their evangelism
How do we argue against Rogan’s claim that people can get married to just be together in a childless marriage?
Marriage has always included children on expectation. The government has a vested interest in the next generation being created and stable.
👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
Good luck evangelizing Joe.
I’m sure Joe prepared to ask those questions ahead of time…
My problem as a protestant wasn't so much to do with his methodology but rather his content. He performed very poorly in the "debate", and seemed oddly unprepared for questions that would likely be brought up.
The guy now sits in an echo chamber where he's disabled all comments and live chats. It's like he loves hearing himself speak
@@Kevin5279 who are you referring to?
@@bilbobaggins9893 isn't it evident? We are commenting here right now 😉. I was talking about White not Walsh. Matt Walsh's channel is also free for commenting
Trent, respectfully, the issue is not what exactly happens biologically with a union of a man and a woman. The institution of marriage (one man and one woman) is something only found in scriptures. There is no necessity for such a thing as monogamy other than pragmatism from a natural law perspective. That is insufficient for moral foundations.
Why not use both arguments depending on your audience? More than one way to witness. Rogan would likely boot him out or be antagonized if Matt tried to prosletyze him on air, Rogan thinks the bible is hokum fairy tales.
I got 99 problems and the pope is one
Jesus made Peter the first pope!
@@johnyang1420 haha no he didnt
I think Matt Walsh did a good job in trying to keep religion out of the conversation as much as possible, because it was necessary. Like all Catholics, Matt believes that we are here to work our way toward heaven, and there are certain things that help us and other things that will get in the way of that. Like all atheists, Joe is of the belief that this life is all there is so everyone should be out to get whatever they can from it in the forms of power, pleasure and prestige (the false gods of today) as long as you don't break any government-made laws. I think I heard he is of the opinion that people should be allowed to marry, divorce, and remarry as they please, to be "happy" if that's what it takes. From these two different viewpoints, Matt was working to find common ground first through the view of natural law. That needed to be the starting point or it would go nowhere fast.
White offers thorough criticism of people doing things he will never have the opportunity to do. Not because of his religion or world view but because he’s incredibly dislikable.
Keep heckling from the nose bleeds, James. Matt Walsh is on the field and can’t hear you.
Sorry mate but i really think you should make video about mental, psycological and spiritual healt and hate issues of those gentlemen, towards Catholic Church and at the same time have a guts, calling themselfs not only Christians but good ones or real ones or true ones and who found necesery to even comment that in today world instead to unite behind him
The fact is one of us is under demonic influence and need of really Jesus
I mean seriously like in whole humility
God bless
A few thoughts as a reformed protestant:
1. Appealing to reason and natural law may have been well and good in former generations when even if people were not themselves Christians they still broadly accepted a Christian worldview because our society was saturated by it. Now however with the rise of postmodernism we cannot simply appeal to reason and natural law because society has rejected reason and has no basis for it.
2. Related to the first point, I am not opposed to reason based arguments in the context of a presuppositional apologetic. The issue I had with Walsh in his interview here (and I genuinely think Walsh is brilliant in many areas) is that he could never go at Rogans opinion with anything other than his own opinion. At that point it is just a "what do you like better?" Question.
Even more people reject religion. You can't bring in reason but you can bring in religion ?
But Rogan also thinks religious beliefs are opinions.
It is necessary to appeal to reason. It is the common ground with people that don't believe in God or religion.
These people DO know that they can't reject reason or their arguments won't work. They just don't realize they're denying it.
@@leonardoherreraornelas4667 but these people have rejected the very basis for reason and have become unreasonable themselves. You cannot have reason apart from God.
So Jesus's view on what marriage is not enough?
For a Christian, yes. For a believing Jew, yes. For a Muslim, yes as a prophet. Maybe even for an Orthodox Jew because Jesus quotes the Torah. But in all those scenarios there's common ground because Jesus is an authority or because the Scriptures themselves are authoritative. With an atheist
that authority is not granted.
@@housecry Does not matter if an atheist grants authority to Christ or Scripture. They are mere men and carry no weight with their corrupt minds.
@@Justas399 But if your whole point of discussing with them is to make them agree with you, then of course it matters. Walsh is debating. All he wants to do is make somebody agree with him. He's going to use the logic he thinks is going to work best on the guy.
@@jamesleman3339 do you think Christ hid the truth to get people to agree with Him?
@@Justas399 Of course not. But he talked about different things at different times. For instance, he did not talk about the resurrection when he explained why one should pay taxes to Caesar. Jesus was good at argument; he kept things on-topic. Also remember that Jesus was Jewish, but he didn't argue with Samaritans to try to convert them to Judaism. He just let them know that He was the new savior and was starting Christianity, even though the Samaritans WERE wrong in their disagreement with the Jews.
Don't hide the truth at all. Just argue. My point is that it's not helpful to argue that one person didn't make a good argument in the right way because he didn't address the argument that you wanted him to. Walsh isn't hiding the truth anymore in this discussion any more that he would be if he didn't argue that the sky was blue. The sky is blue, that's the truth. Shouldn't he have said something about that? My point is that you don't have to address every true thing in the world to support your argument. Of course Jesus Christ said marriage is between one man and one woman and that they cannot be separated by humans. But if you're arguing with an atheist about marriage, then what's the point of arguing that we should do something because Jesus said so? Joe Rogan knows Jesus said so, but he doesn't care.
Remember that Matt Walsh is not a religious apologist. He's just a conservative political commentator who is a religious guy. Criticizing him for not bringing enough religion into his argument is like criticizing a professional chess player for not using the Bible to explain his chess strategies. This man has a secular job: he talks about politics. And so in his discussions, even when his religious faith informs his views (like here, where his Catholicism is the reason he rejects gay marriage), he uses political arguments and natural law discussions, because that's what he does.
If someone asked you why you are against abortion, you would probably say (at least I would say) "because I'm Christian and so I believe murder is wrong." But if that person's not a Christian, then they're not going to be convinced by your or my beliefs. I can quote Scripture all I want, but if the person in question does not believe in Scripture because he/she is an atheist, agnostic, deist, Buddhist, whatever, then you have to use other strategies to discuss the argument.
Now, if you are a religious apologist, then perhaps a smart thing to do would be, in a different discussion, try to convince that person that Christianity is true. The trouble is that it's a different argument than the abortion debate. Whether or not abortion (like gay marriage) is a good thing exists independently of whether or not Christianity is true or not. Arguments for and against the existence of a triune God, for instance, are only indirectly related to whether or not gay marriage is wrong. They're different questions.
So you come to a crossroads. You can either go with the natural law route or you can go with explaining to the other person why Jesus is a good authority (i.e., why Christianity is true), because if Christianity is true, then Jesus is a good authority, and we should listen to what He says. Either way, you're revealing truth, just different parts of the truth.
Now, you might raise the objection that divine revelation is a more important truth than natural law. Okay, let's say that's the case, and therefore explaining why Jesus's words are indeed divine revelation should take priority. The problem with this argument is that your opponent is going to raise the objection that (as your opponent likely presupposes gay marriage to be a good thing) Jesus can't be a good authority because He's against gay marriage, and since gay marriage is good, then Jesus can't be an authority because He is wrong.
So now you're back to square one: you have to prove that gay marriage is wrong on naturalistic terms. Especially if you're a secular political debater like Matt Walsh, this is a much easier route. But guess what? After you've convinced your opponent on this issue, then you've just removed one of their objections to Christianity. If gay marriage is indeed bad, then Jesus was not wrong on the subject, so His credibility is boosted in the eyes of your atheist/agnostic opponent.
Jesus didn't have too many nonreligious people to deal with back in 30 AD, because atheism wasn't really a thing in 1st-century Israel. Now that we have them in 21st-century America, we need ways to convert these atheistic people to Christianity. And one of these ways is to remove their preexisting problems with Christianity, like its opposition to gay marriage. Once you have explained reasoning behind gay marriage's wrongness, the atheist is more open to persuasion about how Christianity might be true.
Anyway, that took like an hour to write and I've got a lot of stuff to do today, so I probably will not be able to get back to you on this topic. God bless!
Walsh didn't take that approach because it would be an even faster stalemate with Rogan. Walsh would have lost even faster.
@@CatholicCarlismEnjoyer Walsh, White and Trent are trying to demonize that love for some people.
@@CatholicCarlismEnjoyer Who says its "for the sake of pleasure"? Same could be said for a straight couple. What is a strange and unfounded presumption.
@@CatholicCarlismEnjoyer And saying people are "free" to do so is kind of the whole point. Free will was a God design.
@@CatholicCarlismEnjoyer "Free" means only making approved decisions? That's...that's not what that means.
@@veddermn8 True freedom is submission to God's will.
First?
Yup!
Never been first before. Woohoo! Praise the Lord. I do need to get to sleep now. God Bless :)
@@EatMyKos Are you Aussie? its quarter past midnight here right now
@@alistairkentucky-david9344 yes I am!
Yes
Lifelong Same-sex unions (regardless of what you call such unions) very often make the persons involved better and more productive members of society by providing sustained meaning, growth, stability, happiness, and selfless/giving tendencies.
You may think they’re sinful. That’s fine. But let’s not smear the relationships.
Also, there should be legal protections for such unions to some degree (life and death decisions, ICU visitations, etc)
Civil unions exist in majority of west countries. So I don't know what is your point here.
@@snokehusk223 you are correct. My point is merely to express a hope that we keep it that way.
Once they were given an inch, they took a mile. There is no neutral stagnant point with issues. Once it was tolerated, they moved to normalize it at the expense of natural relations. And the whole ideology around it causes mental health problems, disease problems, and the people who engage in it are higher in psycopathology. I would rather live in a society where that truth is not suppressed. Even now bringing up the public health aspect in public will get you smeared and cancelled as a "-phobe"
The argument that went to the Supreme court was over what to call them.
@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns I kinda do agree and also not. Because I can understand if 2 gay or lesbian people will absolutely never change their mind so if they want to share their assets why not make a contract that allows them like what a civil union is. But again it sorta ackonwledges they are still in a relationship albeit not ond as marriage. So yeah it should be a possibility.
Oof. Walshsplaining. Bottom line...Romans 1:16-17. I am not ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ and neither should any other Christian.
And Jesus tells us why Walsh looked bad in that interview.,,"But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand."
Evangelization won't work if he doesn't first try to charitably understand his interlocutor's position. We don't just force Jesus and the Gospel to anyone we meet, much less for a person in the far-left, atheist crowd. We'll just end up being treated as condescending and blindly-zealous people (think of the reception "God is not Dead series," for example).
It's a much more effective method to reasonably argue why sin is wrong in the most natural sense, and explore deeply why it is morally wrong and why morality even makes sense, and find the missing piece in God's Word, which is never in conflict at all with logical truth, for God created all things and his Spirit IS the Spirit of Truth.
@@chicken-911 thankfully, Paul did not evangelize that way.
@Anthony M. Didn't he, though? In the synagogues he spoke as a Jew and reasoned from Scripture, but in the marketplace he spoke as a Greek and reasoned with the philosophers.
@@jamessral-subclassact
" 21Since God in his wisdom saw to it that the world would never know him through human wisdom, he has used our foolish preaching to save those who believe. 22It is foolish to the Jews, who ask for signs from heaven. And it is foolish to the Greeks, who seek human wisdom. 23So when we preach that Christ was crucified, the Jews are offended and the Gentiles say it’s all nonsense.
24But to those called by God to salvation, both Jews and Gentiles,f Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25This foolish plan of God is wiser than the wisest of human plans, and God’s weakness is stronger than the greatest of human strength.
26Remember, dear brothers and sisters, that few of you were wise in the world’s eyes or powerful or wealthyg when God called you. 27Instead, God chose things the world considers foolish in order to shame those who think they are wise. And he chose things that are powerless to shame those who are powerful. 28God chose things despised by the world,h things counted as nothing at all, and used them to bring to nothing what the world considers important. 29As a result, no one can ever boast in the presence of God.
30God has united you with Christ Jesus. For our benefit God made him to be wisdom itself. Christ made us right with God; he made us pure and holy, and he freed us from sin. 31Therefore, as the Scriptures say, “If you want to boast, boast only about the LORD.”
@@anthonym.7653 If you are a protestant you shouldn't speak about Saint Paul because just you being Protestant affirms you don't know what Saint Paul preached.
What Trent does when criticizing reformer apologetics is he first agrees with them and then fabricates a disagreement from A topic that didn’t exist in the first place. When I watch that interview in its entirety withWhite and Drew I don’t get the sense that white went off the cuff. In fact white stands his ground. What Trents doing is trying to create more viewership by editing what he’s critiquing. He does this with Mike Winger, James White, every other reformer out there. Because he can’t make an argument off of what they’re talking about categorically, he can only make an argument based on what he can fabricate and inflate from the argument under his own control and then lead the conversation with elegant speech.
The Bible actually speaks against those that try to use eloquent persuasive speech.
What an idiotic thing to say. And "off the cuff" and "stands his ground" aren't contradictory. Winger is a dishonest person, as is White even if he presents it in more clever way.
Why does the Bible's opinion matter at all? And how does a book have an opinion?
@@atrifle8364 Either scripture is the word of God or it’s not. Either you have salvation or you don’t
@@bobbyrice2858 Scripture is the Word of God. That does not mean that it interprets itself. No book will ever do that.
@@bobbyrice2858 - Why is it the Word of God? Why not the Koran or the writings of Ellen White?
14:56 That's a false assumption.
Human beings matter and other animals don't is only an Abrahamic notion.
It's the other assumptions which are wrong. Humans matter more than other animals.
What I meant was humans matter in a special sense of having intrinsic dignity and basic rights whereas non-human animals do not matter in that sense. They do matter in other respects such as being the object of God's creation.
@@TheCounselofTrent I was merely asserting that, Non Human animals don't have intrinsic dignity is not to be found universally as a precept of natural law. This is a belief only present in Abrahamic Religions.
I don't think you're disagreeing with me.
@@st.mephisto8564 Animals don't have consciousness so aren't aware of who they are and can't reason. They are not of same worth as humans.
@@snokehusk223 That's a completely ignorant statement.
Consciousness is present in almost every living being. With higher forms having the intellect of "Self awareness".
A chimpanzee and a dolphin have a conscious experience much more developed than fertilized ovum in a human womb. Yet your theology demands the status of personhood for the latter and not the former.
There is a time and place to proclaim the gospel? Only a Catholic would say something so stupid. I’ve never filtered my voice of the gospel with anyone. If there’s an opportunity, I share. I do not withhold the truth to be somehow politically respectful in some sort of political correct groove. This is the problem I have with Trent and Catholicism. You guys don’t understand the lord and savior that saved you. There is no filter and time in place to share the gospels. You’re either hated by the world were loved by it. There is no in between or lukewarm believer. You’re either cold or hot.
My own wife is mired by Catholicism and believes that preaching the gospel is only for apologetics. Catholicism teaches a damning heresy contrary to Scripture because it holds itself parallel if not above scripture.
John MacArthur talk to Ben Shapiro. The man does not hold the gospels back regardless of Shapiro’s personal belief. If now is not the time to share the gospel, then when? Is it time when you’re comfortable? Is it time when it’s on your timetable? If you’re not led by the Holy Spirit to speak to others with confidence about the one that saved you then you’re not really saved.
I was an agnostic once. Yes, absolutely there are times and places to discuss God. Then there are times and places to bring the conversation to God. Evangelicals sometimes wander around with the discernment of a bull elephant.
PS - Maybe your wife, who if she is practicing, hears the Gospels every single week is not the heretic in your marriage. Maybe try a little more respect of your marriage and your wife's views.
If you think it was an appropriate time and place, okay but you also seem to think you know better than Jesus' Apostles and 2000 years of Church existence. As it is, I believe in God/Jesus Christ and your moment of "sharing" was a tad counter productive in terms of persuasion.
@@atrifle8364 James 1:22 But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.
@@atrifle8364 it’s not my job to persuade you. It’s the work of God in your heart that persuades people. I Can only simply give you the good news