1 Tim 3:15...The Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth

is an authoritative magisterial role that clarifies doctrine compatible with sola scriptura?

You make a lot of good points here. I actually think doing an honest reading of Paul it seems his use of the terms "law" "works of the law" and justification or somewhat fluid. In Rom 2 he seems to be talking essentially about Jewish ceremonial laws or "markers" if you will. He also draws a distinction between hearers of the law (the Jews) and doers of the law (I tend to think he's referring to non Jewish Christians) i.e. those who through their conscience recognize and practice virtuous conduct. He also says it's this who "do the law" who will be justified. But as you say he occasionally seems to include things that might be considered "moral law" or the aspects of the law that would just represent good moral practice for any person, and the kinds of things that Jesus and the apostles reaffirm as applying to all Christians. So, to be honest, Paul can be quite frustrating in that way. And it's hard to make a completely consistent argument of exactly where the line is drawn between justification by faith alone, justification by faith plus some level of continued obedience to Jesus. I think he's more or less sayin, "you have been justified and can have confidence in that fact (assuming one is honestly pursing Jesus), you are being justified, and you will be justified. You were justified by grace alone through faith. You are being justified by continuing in the covenant as it were. You will be justified, assuming you are not "broken off" (Rom 11) Anyway, it's probably not even that cut and dry. But that's the most concisely I could boils down his thought.

Ever since the satanic cult of sola scriptura a man made tradition invented by a devil possessed man was introduced five hundred years ago many idiots like Calvin, Smith, Zwingli, Henry Viii, Knox, Ellen, Wesley etc started to interpret the Bible on their own wild imagination and even adding their wishful thinking or twisting historical facts and even worse they tried to manipulate the holy Bible itself in order to make their satanic theology fit in the Bible and after five hundred years now around fifty thousand heretic idiots all contradicting each other all the time rendering Christianity itself into chaotic anarchism. Their main target is to destroy the Church that Jesus established under the stewardship of Peter but nothing happened to it for the last two thousand years and will remain till Jesus comes back because Jesus himself promised to Peter saying no gates of hell will prevail against it

Thank you so much for being a Catholic who gets us Protestants!

It was not a “Reformation.” It was a revolution and a failed one.

creed is product of magisterium of the church . if magisterium can be wrong so creed can be wrong too

Satan

We profess the creed, but we don't agree with the thinking of the people who wrote the creed. Oh my, what rubbish.

As a Protestant- thank you for this video. Some of the Catholic arguments on YT are so poor and not thought out.

Thanks Taylor. Couldn’t you argue that the Catholic Church Augustine is speaking isn’t the same Catholic Church today? Meaning indulgences, Marian dogmas, papal infallibility didn’t exist.

This is a really unique perspective, thank you.

Finally a Catholic that can disagree with us Protestants AND be completely honest about history without giving whitewashed history! That gets my subscription! 👍🏼

Thanks for the great video. New subscriber here.

Thank you, that was refreshing to hear.

I know this isn't squarely on Luther v Pope, but it's so strange to hear someone outside of the Lutheran tradition be able to present it so well that you sound Lutheran to me. If I were to add anything, the reason (that I understand) we see concupiscence as sin is that we see Christ as the standard and, while He was tempted, we do not believe or teach that He had "a desire of the lower appetite contrary to reason". Thus if Christ is the Standard/Mark and He didn't suffer 'sensual desire contrary to reason' then concupiscence is a missing of the mark, or 'sin'. I'd imagine that one might disagree, and say that Christ did have concupiscence but was, by His Divine strength, constantly victorious over it (as Luther held was true for The Blessed Ever-Virgin Mary); but then concupiscence would be part of the New Creation? I know there's fuzzy bits for me here too, but it's refreshing to hear a clear rejection in plain language (an added bonus that you don't stoop to Luther's polemics).

Excellent video!

Bald people are gross...

God bless you ❤

What do you think about the following? Just as a protestant can have faith that the books of scripture are true without accepting the Catholic Church, and it is true faith, those Catholics who have faith in the magisterium have an extra barrier to error when the magisterium binds them to believe something that they would otherwise remain agnostic on and disbelieve. You might say at that point they would disbelieve the magisterium, and that is an option for them, but it is an abandonment of faith just like disbelieving the Bible is an abandonment of faith if one finds an error one can't resolve in scripture, or disbelieving the goodness of God if one is convinced by the problem of evil. In either case, since faith is a (supernatural) habit, and habits are strengthened by actions, the response that is required is to make an act of faith in X teaching that you are doubting. Protestants don't have an infallible magisterium, so when they are about to deny a truth of the faith that would already be taught by the magisterium, they may hold the two in tension in their mind and make the assent of faith by God's grace. Also, I think that the kind of doctrinal unity in Ephesians 4, given that the Holy Spirit through Paul indicates that this matters a lot to God, and the Intellect and will of Christ are united to the intellect and will of God, though separate, so it seems reasonable to assume that doctrinal unity is what Christ is wishing for in John 17, in addition to the unity of brotherly love. Christ's union with the Father isn't just a unity of love but a unity of intellect, and the unity of love and intellect with God is realized in heaven among the saints by the beatific vision. Furthermore it isn't just Christian disunity of will that is a scandal for non-believers, but Christian disunity of thought. You probably hear all the time, as I have, "Christians don't even agree with themselves, so how do they expect me to agree with them?" from atheists. Anyways I think your thoughts in this video are very perceptive. Thanks for your thoughts and God bless! Let me know if I get anything wrong.

Thank you for your take! (P.s. I don’t know if this is appropriate but you’re very handsome ❤)

I humbly admit I am no scholar and may have a deficient understanding of these matters. Is keeping the Sabbath not considered a commandment of Divine law (as far as ommitting the ceremonial customs but retaining a moral law to dedicate ourselves to the Lord), why would it not be considered mortal (with full knowledge) to reject our Saviour on the day he offers himself to us? To reject being in the presence (or partaking of the Eucharist ) of the most precious gift willingly, seems to me that you reject Christ. I would perhaps have the view that one may be less culpable (i.e. not mortal) by being poorly catechised and thus lack the knowldge to the gravity of the situation. In my opinion it would not seem that Canon law is not contradicting Divine law but there is an element of culpability towards it being mortal or venial. Would appreciate your thoughts. God bless.

I am grateful for any Catholic like yourself to actually think these things through and push back without just going with the flow or piling on.

As a Protestant I have never found the arguments of Trent Horn to be compelling (and often his arguments are actually quite poor). He does generally seem a nice and charitable guy though. That being said I wonder how much he thinks these things through or if he throws it out in the pop level Catholic apologetics sphere because he knows many lay folks that are not philosophically trained will eat it up.

The shallow state of Catholic Answers apologetics is so bad now that they actually have people thinking they can't believe something unless a pope or council says they can. Trent is a nice guy but he's also a sophist that makes a living deceiving people and crafting maddeningly pathetic arguments that discourage any meaningful dialog. I appreciate you calling him out and genuinely hope he ups his game. Unfortunately, I think it's the trend with CA.

Yes! The voice of Christians throughout history carries weight.

The way you describe that Protestants as long as they are repentant they will be saved. That is also a more generous take than I have ever heard from Catholic apologists. I often hear that Protestants just in essence have a mere small possibility of being saved with the Vatican 2 Seperated brethren or invincibly ignorant appeal. I have even heard Catholics say the only way is on judgement day some Protestants might go through a green light that like beams them up which is a special exception not the norm for Protestants. I'm curious have you ever heard this about the green light?

Interesting take (and more generous than the Catholic apologist Anti Protestant types).

As a cradle evangelical turned catholic: agreed and appreciated bro.

I absolutely loved this, brother. Please, continue posting videos. God bless you!

I don't think that you described the problem correctly. Of course faith comes first, that is God's gift. Now the question is in which "system", if I may use this word, you have a guarantee of having a complete and accurate canon? If we look in the protestant "system". There isn't such. A motive is not enough, I agree, its not sufficient. If a Samaritan gives you the Torah, and that is your first encounter with the scriptures, how do you know, there aren't other books, until you actually encounter them? You might live in a system where you will proclaim all these "motivs" about the Torah, but, what if you actually meet a christian who gives you a Bible, start reading it and now you realize that you experience the same "motivs " with these other books. Now lets say you later encouter an Ethiopic Christian who gives you an even bigger Bible and sudddenly you experience the same things with the book of Enoch and Jubilees. So where should we stop? Unless there is a church that claims to be divinely protected from erring and giving you a guarantee that this particular canon is the correct one, then you have no guarantee. Now you might ask, how do you know the church is protected. That is a different question. And this is not my point. The point is, which "system" is claiming to have a protection external to the Bible. In other words, when I ask the Catholic Church, how do I know this particular Bible is the complete one, I have an answer - the canon is handed down infallibly. Now what answer can I get from a protestant church when I ask somebody there? No one can guarantee me this. The problem is "within the church" or "system". As a protestant you cannot rely on anybody being protected from erring.

He’s Alive!

❤❤❤

I appreciate all your videos. Thank you. Can I ask you a question about Marian devotion?

Woow every interesting discussion! Thank you sharing!! God bless you ❤❤

Dude, I have pretty much the exact same story...except I turned all my family protestant then went back to the Catholic church smh. Its cool to hear someone else thats had a similar journey in so many ways.

a written apostolic record from a purely historical perspective is fairly convincing

👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾

I think Sola Scriptura really collapses into Sola Apostolica, which the Church at least in theory has always held to, as every tradition claims to be following what the Apostles taught. Sola Scriptura is basically just a historically modified version of Sola Apistolica. It’s just that now, the only record we have of the Apostles teaching is in scripture. Whereas before you had their oral teachings when they were alive.

I’m guessing the classic Catholic Answers response would be … We would make a distinction between a book being viewed as scripture vs viewed as a historical document. The gospels, epistles, and other early Christian documents are treated as historical documents and give reasonable evidence of a man named Jesus who died and resurrected proving he was God. Likewise we can see evidence of him establishing an infalible authoritative church. Once one’s personal objections have been cured by these motives of credibility, all that is left is the grace of God to move the heart of the individual to supernatural faith that he could not obtain through reason alone. After the supernatural assent of faith, he has assurance in Christ and his church to proclaim which books are considered scripture as opposed to all other books. I’ve heard this being called a spiral argument because it although it seems circular because we begin with the Bible and end with the Bible, it is avoided because we begin with the Bible as mere reliable history and end with the Bible as infallible scripture.

YOU MAY GO TO HELL IN OR WITH YOUR EXPENSIVE TRUCK... PEOPLE ARE STARVING AROUND THE WORLD AND YOU BRAG ABOUT AND ARE FULL OF EVIL PRIDE HAVING AN EXPENSIVE TRUCK...OMG !!! SELL THAT JUNK AND FEED THE POOR AFRICAN CATHOLICS WITH THE PROCEEDS TO PLEASE CHRIST....

Although Trent did have a special caveat that it was possible by "special revelation " to know that you will persevere to the end i.e assurance of salvation.

Assurance is not Catholic, the Council of trent anathematizes reformers on assurance and many topics.

There are strong responses against the Catholic position on 1st Clement. Paul says whoever they were or seemed to be (i.e Cephas) it makes no difference to me God doesn't show partiality...He makes a point to say he didn't go to Jerusalem at the first (and not Rome rather he goes to Arabia). He rebukes Peter to his face (of course Catholics say he wasn't acting in his official capacity and is a sinner nevertheless it seems to me a glaring double standard as it's not accepted as evidence against the papacy but best believe if Peter had rebuked Paul the Catholics would be using it as evidence for the papacy). Paul says he got his gospel directly from Christ (not from man i.e Peter) and nobody taught him i...along with the fact that none of the others corroborate the papacy and Peter says In Scripture when writing to a local church he appeals to them as a fellow elder (not as someone with universal jurisdiction and supremacy).

Thanks for the video, I can relate to a lot of things you said, though I didn't have a profound "mystical" experience.

I had an experience where as soon as I heard the catholic claim of apostolic succession I was convinced. Nothing else made as much sense of scripture....I took my time to still research the ECF and the catechism, but I was so strongly drawn to it. Over 1 year as a catholic with no regrets.

I always enjoy your videos. I love that you describe your conversion as "I met Jesus"... I did too! I have also felt a "draw" to the Catholic church... but I'm not sure that it was a draw from God. The Catholic church looks kinda bad from the outside, but once I have experienced some regenerate Catholics and a beautiful service at a Monastery, that made me reconsider. Then, some of the apologetics I found were pretty convincing, especially for someone who grew up in the shallow waters of evangelicalism. But I kept digging and eventually found the work of Ortlund, Cooper, Nemes and others. And I went beyond the Catholic apologetics (bait) and learned more about the actual history and practice, which were a splash of cold water to my trajectory. Our family has been re-reading the New Testament to see how some of the claims I have been learning about (Catholic, Orthodox, Mormon) align with the DNA and emphasis of the earliest Christian writers. So far, that process of getting back to the apostolic deposit, is pretty forcefully pulling me away from the Catholic church... and to be honest, the common evangelical expression too. The Catholic analogy that is often used is the acorn to oak tree... but I am not seeing that at all. I do see God's working in history and even in members of the Catholic church...

I think the evidence for papal supremacy, infallibility and succession is not that great. There's something to be said for a certain kind of authority for the bishop of Rome, but the extravagant claims the papacy has made at times should be repudiated, and certainly there are no grounds for demanding that other churches assent to them when we eventually reunite with each other. I quite like what John Paul II said in Ut unum sint: "Intolerant polemics and controversies have made incompatible assertions out of what was really the result of two different ways of looking at the same reality. Nowadays we need to find the formula which, by capturing the reality in its entirety, will enable us to move beyond partial readings and eliminate false interpretations." Of course this applies in many areas other than the papacy. That said, I'm not about to up and leave my church for another one, though I don't condemn people who do. Benedict and Francis both recommended that Protestants remain as such rather than being in any haste to "convert", since we need people in every church sympathetic to other churches and working for ecumenism.

Glad to be subscribed to you. I think the overselling of the typical catholic pop apologetics is what led me out of catholicism. Had sort of a mere christianity upbringing that leaned pentecostal and was initially so moved by catholic arguments from steve ray and others that i converted. Stayed catholic for about 5 years but left within the past year after I realized that their silver bullet answers were not really silver bullets at all. Their triumphalism then seemed to me to be dishonest and irresponsible and it left a bad taste in my mouth. Trying to give all christian denominations a fair shake, but its hard to find catholic apologists that dont trigger my temper these days.