After all the comments I shared with fellow commentors, I went back and listened to the video. I agree with the speaker 100%. The only thing I would add is he lacks the full understanding of the so-called Catholic rituals as he calls them. That is he doesn't understand the graces that come through the rituals eg. baptism, confirmation (laying on of hands), Confession and the Eucharist (eating and drinking the body and blood of Jesus). He is correct, however, that Catholics & Orthodox (the only two churches that have valid orders to perform the Sacraments) who merely go through the rituals are not embracing a saving faith. Furthermore, they are profaning the body and blood of Jesus if they eat and drink without examining their conscience concerning grave sin. Otherwise, I am in complete agreement with the speaker. God's blessings to all.

Holy Scripture teaches we must cooperate with God's saving grace and repent and bear fruit and forgive others and love one another and keep the commandments and persevere to the end to be saved! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!

Psalm 115:3: "Our God is in heaven; He does as He pleases." this verse shows us that god has given himself freewill. We are made in his image and likeness, meaning that the same ability that god has given himself has been granted to us. This does not mean there are no consequences. also, Free will can be thought of as actions within a time, whereas god having knowledge of all things and had planned for everything before creation does not mean there is no free will, it simply means that god knows what will be done using free will and has planned everything with perfect knowledge.

True story: Many years ago, I was in Atlanta, which is in the "Bible Belt" and I was reading the "Letters to the Editors" of the large Sunday newspaper. I counted THREE letters that people had written in about a recent mass shooting. A preacher had preached at the funeral of the mass shooter. He had said that, because the murderer and some of his victims had asked Jesus to come into their hearts, they were all together in heaven now. This upset the readers of the newspaper so much about their view of heaven that THREE people had written letters to argue against it!

The Catholic church teaches that we are saved by a lifelong cooperation with God's grace. We show it through trust, obedience and striving for holiness and making our environment holy.

Hey Brother Ash, Merry Christmas to you and your family! I hope you had a very merry Christmas! Can you help me understand quantum gravity in the simplest terms possible and explain how the Hartle-Hawking model which eliminates the singularity and imaginary time can be debunked and what Planck time means?

Hey Brother Ash, what do you say about the Hartle-Hawking no-boundary model and imaginary time and how can they be debunked?

Keep preaching brother a good message

Most of the apostles disappear from history, never to be heard about or from ever again. Of the few for which there are claims of martyrdom, there are no first hand accounts of their demise, including no account that they were threatened with death and given a chance to recant. If apologists want to just assume these things, that's their prerogative, but it's useless as evidence to anyone who isn't already a believer.

Enjoyed the video thx

The belief that if people died for something, then that something must be true is so preposterous that I am stuck for words. 1. Dead people can be wrong too. 2. They might have been trying to retract or deny their belief before they met their end. 3. It is all ancient hearsay. 4. How would these martyrs known anything more than anyone else at the time, most of whom probably thought they were batshit crazy. 5. There are also Muslim, Nazi, Communist, Atheist, Flat Earth, you name it, martyrs who died for what they believe. Accepting the beliefs of people who allegedly died for their belief, probably means believing EVERYTHING.

Muslims martyred themselves on 9/11. Many Japanese kamikaze pilots martyred themselves in the Second World War.

FUN FACT: Claims that there WERE martyrs, doesn't mean there were. If you say otherwise, present the hard evidence

Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved. All other issues are secondary, tertiary even. Point blank, period. Next question.

The key component of Protestant Christianity is the belief in sola scriptura - or that that scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice for Christians. So why after being a practising Christian of over 30 years did I not know that Catholics have an extra 7 books in their version of the Bible? And why does not one of my other Christian friends and family members know about this either? As you read this, are you even aware that Catholics have 7 extra books in the Old Testament? If so, don't be surprised. I'm over 50 now and have been a practising Christian for over 30 years and nobody ever said a thing. Countless Sunday sermons, plenty of special events, weekends and retreats. Lots of ridicule and judgement against Catholics, and the veneration of Mary and the Saints. Oh yes, all that teaching about Catholics being a pagan Roman faith and not really the original church. Or worse, the veneration of Mary being akin to some kind of pagan goddess worship. It all becomes clear that this kind of teaching is a complete pack of lies if you spend the time doing your own research and asking the questions of Catholics exactly what their faith is about. Insisting on a teaching of Sola Scriptura if you know that Luther simply removed seven books of the bible is lying by omission and calls the whole basis and authenticity of Protestantism into question. And no, these are not the apocryphal scriptures that were left out of the original Christian canon. They are literally bible books that Luther, a mere man, removed from the Christian bible and then announced that his new version alone is "authoritative for the faith and practice". Imagine the furore if as many as seven books of the bible were removed from scripture today and the butchered result being sold back to us as complete? So I started to wonder, what other lies are we fed as Protestants? If you are really a Christian and therefore a believer in Truth, it's time to start asking much harder questions about ourselves, where our faith comes from and if it's gone astray. I've done the work myself and have come to the conclusion that it is we Protestants are in error. It's the Catholics that are keeping the true faith.

Bless your hearts

Heaven was empty before Luther

Heaven was empty before Luther 😂

In the Church we do the things Christ asked of us; that is the very definition of belief. Evangelical Christians have man made hoops they tell people they must jump through, that is not faith in Christ. That is putting faith in a man made system

Given that most Protestant denominations are derivative of Catholicism to one extent or another, one would think the answer to be a self-evident "yes." Augustine of Hippo, Thomas Aquinas, Anselm of Canterbury, Bernard of Clairvaux, and Erasmus of Rotterdam all stand as Catholic theologians who have had a profound influence on Protestant doctrines. Given this shared intellectual heritage, it would require intense mental gymnastics to condemn Catholics/Catholicism while still affirming Protestantism. Moreover, the role of the Catholic Church in the discernment and formalization of the Biblical canon cannot be ignored. Pope Damasus I, for example, played a pivotal role in evaluating the writings under consideration, while The Council of Rome (382 AD) addressed the issue of the Biblical canon. The Council of Hippo (393 AD) and the Council of Carthage (397 AD) reaffirmed the same canon. Similarly, the first known list of the 27 books of the New Testament as we know them today was provided by Saint Athanasius, the Bishop of Alexandria. The Catholic Church has played an essential role in shaping the Christian tradition as we know it today. As such, if Catholicism was worthy of condemnation, a very solid portion of Protestantism would logically be worthy of condemnation as well. As a side note, those curious to gain a glimpse into Catholic spirituality would really benefit from reading Dark Night of the Soul by Saint John of the Cross.

If “faith alone” is true then you would think everyone who isn’t an atheist would be saved.

There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus!

This is why we venerate those who are canonized as saints. They lead by example on how we are to live with and like Christ. They are always praying for us. The gospel makes it clear on how were saved. Faith(Jhn 3:16), baptism(Jhn 3:5), consuming his body and blood(Jhn 6:54) and denying yourself (picking up your own cross Mat 10:38-39) and thats only through Christ.

This video is adding more confusion of how to believe in Jesus Christ,for people think after they have’d read the scriptures themselves or are taught the scriptures by someone else understands that in order to believe in Jesus and be saved is just a thought or a feeling that convinced a person that they are saved and so salvation is so easy and simple to achieve,now Jesus taught immensely of the things that one must learn understand and do. Why is that,it’s because in order to really believe in Jesus one must learn understand and do the many things that we humans are always going to be tempted and deceived throughout our daily lives and commit sins that will condemn a person and it includes the so called believers of Jesus Christ and that’s what Jesus Christ was meaning when he told the crowd why do you call me lord lord but do not the things I TELL YOU TO DO so it’s evidently clearer than daylight Jesus is warning them that they were not doing the many things that he was teaching them to DO in order to believe in him and be saved.And I must say that this is just one of the many other passages in scriptures that speaks about how and what a person must learn understand and do the many things that Jesus said himself that one must do in order to be SAVED

😏 Catholics if Protestants are right: "Oh well, no harm done!" 😨 Protestants if Catholics are right (1000 years in purgatory): "Wait, WHAT?! Purgatory?!" 😱 Protestants and Catholics if Orthodox are right: "We're ALL in trouble!"

As a Catholic I can tell you: even we don't know if we (or anyone else) are saved, or damned save for formally canonized Saints. We (and everyone else) are at the mercy of Christ. Also: someone smarter than me, feel free to correct me if I unintentionally said anything heretical. God Bless you!

Yes. Catholics are saved. Catholics believe that Christ came to forgive sins.

I think you should have a discussion with Bryan Mercier of Catholic Truth to discuss this. And if you're feeling brave enough, try debating with Peter Dimond of vaticancatholic.

Islam and Protestantism are fundamentally the same. They are a reaction to and distortion of Catholicism based on personal revelation. Believing that God failed in 33AD and waited hundreds of years, or worse, over 1,500 or 2,000 years to reveal a woke relative truth. And of course supported by constant lies and misrepresentations about Catholicism by people who know nothing about Catholicism. The printing press helped to spread the errors of Protestantism. However, the internet is already starting to destroy the falsehoods of Islam and Protestantism.

Only Faithful Catholics will be saved. Traditional Catholicism is True Christianity (the “narrow gate” spoken of by our Lord). Most reject this truth however and will go into the pit when they die.

The only christians that will be in heaven are the ones who find heaven now.

Did you accept Jesus as your “personal savior”? If so, that came from Charles Fullers popular radio show Old Fashioned Revival Hour that aired from 1937 to 1968. What about the sinner’s prayer? Billy Graham 1950s. Neither are in the Bible. They are modern man made traditions. The Biblical church is the one that gave you the Bible, not radio slogans.

Protestants in general need to be asking themselves this question. "Why is there a willingness to believe that all Protestant denominations are able to be saved and are "Christian" but not Catholics?" Just remember that Peter and Paul were Catholic/Eastern Orthodox.

I am devoutly Catholic and I think you misunderstand what Catholics believe. Christ’s death and resurrection is absolutely the only reason why anyone is saved! Salvation is a free gift from God and there is NOTHING we can do to warrant salvation. Catholics are not Palagianists! We are called to cooperate with God’s free grace given to us at baptism meaning we must repent of sins we commit and continue to abide in Jesus! Paul puts it plainly in Romans 6 “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our former man was crucified with him so that the sinful body might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin.” - Romans 6:1-6

The usual Catholic-Protestant misunderstandings are at play, here: *Catholic:* _receives Eucharist, or receives absolution, properly disposed, in faith..._ *Protestant, observing:* "You're doing a ritual-thing which I don't believe in. If I thought Christ had taught/commanded it, I would also do/believe it; but, since I don't think Christ taught/commanded it, I don't bother doing/believing it. Therefore, I don't regard it as something one puts one's trust in _as a logical consequence of faith in Christ._ Instead, I regard it as something one puts one's trust in for no logical reason, and unrelated to trust in Christ." *Catholic, responding:* "Well, yeah, I see how that holds together from your perspective. But, you see, I _do_ believe that Christ taught/commanded it, and that He actually _promised_ to "show up" with divine power when we obey him by doing it, and don't put impediments like disobedience or disbelief in the way. Since that is what I believe, it logically follows that _doing_ this "ritual" -- it's much _more_ than that, but I agree with you that it is not _less than_ a kind of ritual, so I'm provisionally willing to use the word -- is an active expression of faith in Christ. It is my way of saying, "I believe He keeps His promises; therefore, I go out of my way to receive what He has promised." If I _didn't_ take Him at His word, I wouldn't bother. But _because_ I take Him at His word, these actions, which flow _from_ my trusting in Him, logically follow." *Protestant:* "How, then, do you explain the Catholics who live like total hellions but still show up to receive the Eucharist as if they thought that ritual would save them?" *Catholic:* "Such persons are using the sacraments _superstitiously,_ a sin which the Catechism of the Catholic Church describes in paragraph 2111, found here: www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7E.HTM ..., and which should obviously be avoided. But note that _abusus non tollit usum._ Just because a thing can be done _wrongly_ is no argument for _not doing it at all._ Rather, it's an argument for doing it rightly. One ought to receive the sacraments -- those things which liberal theologians call mere rituals -- properly disposed, and motivated by supernatural faith, hope, and charity. And I would use the same analysis of any Protestant who sang a Praise-and-Worship song on Sunday because it made him feel spiritually revved-up, but who was regularly and unrepentantly fornicating with his girlfriend or cheating on his schoolwork. It is not that we should never praise God, merely because some folk do it for the wrong reasons. But we should love and obey God, and then praise Him from the heart. Of such Christians, whether Protestant or Catholic, Isaiah prophesied and Our Lord spoke, saying, 'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.'" *Protestant:* "Funny to hear you quoting that verse, 'cause the tradition that _I_ learned from _my_ pastors and theologians says that what _you guys_ teach about the sacraments is precisely _merely human rules,_ like that verse cites." *Catholic:* "Yep, I know; and likewise our pastors and theologians say that about what _you guys_ say. Moreover, we consider you guys _theological liberals,_ because your doctrines, historically, are novelties: Largely unknown, or present only as tiny-minority positions, for the first three-quarters of the history of Christianity." *Protestant:* "Whoa, hang on a second there. My group is fairly conservative! Some call us nearly _fundamentalist._ How can you be calling us liberals?!" *Catholic:* "Not trying to be mean about it! I'm just saying, relative to the _timeline,_ guys like Zwingli look like innovators to us. You and I are united in certain contemporary struggles: We all decry the re-definition of marriage; but isn't also quite reasonably to decry the re-definition of baptism? ...or of communion? Those re-definitions happened in the 16th century, and only among a comparatively new and minority-group of Christians. But we still regard them as a left-wing-style changing of the definitions of words." *Protestant:* "Ahh, but that would only be true if we presume _your_ definitions are faithful to how those things are described and commanded _in the Bible._ We _don't_ presume that. In fact, we think we have good arguments demonstrating that _you guys_ redefined those things _first,_ and we're just changing them _back._ So, it's not that we're the _liberals._ Rather, you guys were the _liberals_ a long time ago, and we're more like _belated restorationists,_ trying to do the Beatles Thing. Y'know: Get back to where you once belonged." *Catholic:* "Heh. Your pop-culture reference is a bit dated, but what the heck, I'm a traditionalist, so I'll take it. And I get what you're saying, but I think it doesn't work. It doesn't work in practice, and can't work even in principle, because your problem is an epistemic one." *Protestant:* "Dude. Whippin' out the thirty-dollar words on me, are ya'?" *Catholic:* "Sorry! I didn't make up the word _epistemology,_ or _epistemic._ It's not my fault they don't teach it in schools! But it's the right word to describe the problem. What'm I going to do, _not_ use it?" *Protestant:* "Yeah, but the folks watching this may not know what it means." (For a moment, both speak ceasing and briefly break the fourth wall by turning towards us, the listeners. Then they shrug and return to facing one another.) *Protestant:* "Fine. For exposition's sake, I'll just speak to the air, here." (Clears throat.) "Epistemology is the topic of _how you know,_ or can _come to know,_ the things that you know, and with what degree of certainty you can claim to know them. In practice, your epistemology is like a mental toolset you can use to distinguish whether your beliefs are warranted by sufficiently incontrovertible evidence, or argument, or trust in sufficiently trustworthy authorities, or other stuff like that." *Catholic:* (grins) "Yep. Thanks. So, the reason we think Protestants have an epistemic problem is because they all claim they're using the Bible, which, to be a working Epistemology, should result in them all coming to the same conclusions. But they don't: They differ on nearly every topic. Moreover, people didn't start reading the Bible in the 16th century. Nearly every Church Father had a command of the Scriptures equal to that of the Reformers, _plus_ they were closer in language and culture to the apostles. Yet there's not a Presbyterian or a Freewill Baptist in the whole lot of them! If they're _reading the same Bible,_ yet coming to radically different conclusions ...and if _all of y'all_ are reading the same Bible, yet coming to radically different conclusions, doesn't it appear that _trying to derive the required content of the Christian religion_ from Scripture alone doesn't consistently work? "Plus, the Church Fathers whom a Protestant must trust to have transmitted a correct canon-list of the New Testament are the _same_ Church Fathers who disagree with those Protestants about doctrine. So are they heterodox or orthodox? If the former, then how can you trust your Bible-canon to be correct? If the latter, why don't you trust their judgments about the sacraments the way you trust their judgments about the inerrancy of the Book of Jude? "So, we're calling that an Epistemic Problem. What we all need, to resolve these disputes, is a way of Coming To Know the Required Content of the Christian Religion, so that we can believe it and obey it. Since a method to come to know something is called an Epistemology, we might say that you're looking for an Epistemology of Faith, or an Epistemology of Christianity. You've proposed an Epistemology built around a 16th-century innovation called _Sola Scriptura._ But it appears that Epistemology doesn't work."

Perhaps you would like to come to Mass. I think you are you misinformed on somethings. Please try not to come off as sounding self-righteous. It may turn off your target audience.

pretty sure that catholicism is the church founded by Jesus

Hey man, an Eastern Catholic here. I appreciate that your heart is in the right place. I'd like to point out that it'd be nice to open your presentation by sharing your denomination or with which protestants group you're leaning towards, just so that we can get an idea where you're coming from into this topic. Quick note on the "Depart from me, you workers of lawlesness". Some translations say "you evildoers". A quick look into the original Greek, the words used are basically "workers without law [because ignorant of the law OR willingly breaking the law]". So it's slightly more terrifying of a prospect in the old Greek.

So you know, if you have faith you'll do the works Christ commanded of you - not to merit salvation, but to obey the Word of God in all things.

Mark 9:38-41. Just saying. Rev 14:1 symbolic number. 12x12,0000. Judaism will be just fine. If you do not believe me I’m not going to decide you are unsaved. Think whatever you want. Let Catholics be already. People try to convert other Christians to feel validated. It’s all ego. He came, He died, He rose, He will come again, He opened up the gates of heaven so that man may enter. Part of the problem is Protestants are reading an English Bible. It was written in a few languages. That is why the confusion over whether Mary did ‘it’ or not. It’s kin, different than sibs. Part of the problem was Luther chucked some books cause he didn’t like they justified things like purgatory. Revelation says can’t add or take away. And yet… But go ahead and deny purgatory exists. I’m not going to decide you are unsaved. Fortunately God decides and can receive home who He wants to receive home. I really don’t understand this distraction people have on another’s life or afterlife. Is it to avoid focusing or realizing something difficult in one’s own walk?

Im a atual protestant a Lutheran yes they are saved anyone who is baptized is being and will be saved.

What does the Scripture say?

Great video. Very informative. 👍👍

Hey bro! Good to know that God is working through you. May God give you the strength to keep up this momentum!!!

Are saved, being saved and will be saved.

Catholics could be the only ones saved as they're the only church established by christ, I'm not even catholic and I can admit that lol

That's a dumb question given that Catholics are the O.Gs of Christianity. Part of the reason I can't stand Protedtanism is, it's thick with ignorance, but then again, it is predicated upon ignorance. Enlighten yourself about Church history and you'll cease to be a Protestant, and therefore, convoluting and distorting history is a thing of Protestanism because without it there will be no Protestanism. Bible alone is the authority nvm that the Bible said the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. So avoid history lest you find out the Church mentioned in the Bible is the Catholic Church. And for that, middle Finger to Protestanism.

Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then every man will receive his commendation from God. 1 Corinthians 4:5 You seem like a good kid, but you still have a lot to learn. I’d suggest you start by reading the early Church fathers. Might I also suggest the book, Why We are Catholic, by Trent Horn. And while I’m on a role, keep in mind that the only reason you know anything about Jesus Christ, have a Bible to read, or why you have a Christian Faith that didn’t fall into heresy centuries and centuries ago, is because of the Holy Catholic Church. The same Church that Jesus Christ established two thousand years ago and promised that the gates of hell will never prevail against it. The Church that the Bible says is the pillar and foundation of truth. I hope you keep an open mind and an open heart. God Bless you always.

No one ever says “Are German Protestants saved?”.

*Lies Creationists Tell - Infinite regress* One of the most frequent attack on science is the “Infinite Regress” argument by Creationists, which is not really an argument, but a feeble attempt to trap science in (what they think) a contradiction. It goes something like this; (1) what was before the Big Bang --- answer: a Singularity, (2) what was before the Singularity ---- answer: we do not know. Even if we could answer that and state that before the Singularity there was “abcd”, the creationists would immediately follow up with: what was before the “abcd” and so on ad infinitum. In reality, we do not have a problem admitting that at a certain point, our understanding terminates FOR NOW. If we turn the very same tactic back on creationists, their hypocrisy gets exposed. Questioning the “god concept” (a) so what was there before god, or who/what created god? Creationists, as dishonest as they are, refuse the only logical answer that “we just do not know”. So they have to invent something like “god always existed and is not subject to laws of nature”. You see, if they did own up to not knowing, their deity would be immediately downgraded to just one of the many ordinary mysteries of the universe, and as a consequence, their religion which makes the claims of being founded on absolute unquestionable truths, would crumble starting with its very foundation.