91: 10 heresies every Christian needs to know about, with Trent Horn

[@UnratedAwesomeness]

"Trentius Hornius" sounds like a Monty Python sketch.

[@adamhovey407]

Fradd's giggling when he said it doesn't help.

[@ironymatt]

Poor Biggus Dickus, tho long didst the mantle be held, and by such firm grasp, alas, what was once up did indeed come down, fallen to the indomitable might of TRENTIUS HORNIUS!!!

[@chadcook4913]

Ahhhhahahaha!!

[@sandyjeannette4617]

@@ironymatt is h just Ohio uiiiii Ohio pi hi ipiuii oh you i i11111111111111111111111

[@koawallace2292]

i know im randomly asking but does anybody know of a trick to log back into an Instagram account..? I was dumb forgot my password. I appreciate any help you can offer me.

[@internetenjoyer1044]

It's really interesting how the popular understanding of Christianity is gnostic and against the material world. Seems like a mixture of misunderstanding the fall, platonism, cartesianism and CS Lewis' quote "You do not have a soul, you are a soul, you have a body" all seeping into the popular consciousness

[@dynamic9016]

Really appreciate this video.

[@towerburkindine]

Absolute gold!! Thank you for this episode!!

[@athanasiuscontramundum4127]

I can tell you, having been raised by baptist grandparents, antenomianism is extremely common among baptists and evangelicals.

[@davidjanbaz7728]

Baptist Evangelical here: YES we are saved and cannot lose it because of God's perseverance of the Saints. It's not once saved always saved; its God's Holy Spirit is what saves us , its not our goodness or eating the sacraments that imparts sanctification. Ephesians 2:8,9 the Greek is a Salvation that starts but continues throughout our lives. So, Justification as well as Sanctification is a result of a changed life through the working of the Holy Spirit. It's His motivation that causes us to do works that are righteous and acceptable to God.

[@acrxsls1766]

Starts at 13:50.

[@hawthornetree8188]

ACRX SLS Defining the terms is crucial though.

[@mikekatalenich131]

St. Mark the Ascetic's "On Those who Think that They are Made Righteous by Works" (early 5th c.) explains beautifully the Church's view on this from the earliest fathers. Google it, and you can find free .pdf's of it. It's also in Vol. 1 of the Philokalia.

[@Blabla12345Q8]

18:00 Trent Horn saying Descartes gave a 'booster shot' to Gnosticism hits different after 2020...

[@garycorn5289]

Excellent. Really helped me with the graven image question in particular.

[@adamhovey407]

I found out I was a modalist not soon after my conversion when talking to a Muslim. I'm not one now, I promise.

[@Catholicdragonslayer]

This reminds me of the book The Five Great Heresies by Hilaire Belloc.

[@aw8643]

This would be a cool one to reproduce with graphics. So much great content and would be easier to track with the Greek and differences

[@adamhovey407]

I sometimes go to a Byzantine church (Melkite), what you're thinking of is the feast of Orthodoxy, and it has to do with the seventh ecumenical council. I've written on it, if you would like to read it on my blog.

[@ilonkastille2993]

A question for Trent: the protestants who received your book , did they let you know how they felt AFTER reading the book?

[@davidfabien3856]

Although we are freed from sin (Romans 6:18, 22) we nevertheless retain our sinful nature (Romans 7:5,18,25). Thank God for two passages of Scripture that teach us how to share in the divine nature: First, 2 Peter 1:3-4 His divine power has bestowed on us everything that makes for life and devotion, through the knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and power. Through these, he has bestowed on us the precious and very great promises, so that through them you may come to share in the divine nature, after escaping from the corruption that is in the world because of evil desire. Second, 2 Corinthians 7:1 Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of flesh and spirit, making holiness perfect in the fear of God.

[@danharte6645]

Love you Mat, love from the UK

[@Zematus737]

Works Acts 26:20 "First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and then to the Gentiles, I preached that they should repent and turn to God and demonstrate their repentance by their deeds." That and Romans 3:28 is all you need to crush sola fide. James' faith without works is dead, can put the cherry on top.

[@Andromedon777]

Faith alone. Works as a result of faith. The verses you've provided show this. Demonstrate their repentance by their deeds. In other words, demonstrate that they're saved by their deeds. In other words, beer fruit as evidence of your faith. Not to cause your salvation. Faith without works is not faith. Faith naturally produces works. The Holy Spirit doesn't allow fruitless trees in His kingdom. If you don't have fruit, then you don't have a faith that is legitimate. There is no evidence that you have salvation. I don't understand how you guys mix this up. Works cannot save you. Period. Faith alone. Then works prove your faith.

[@Zematus737]

@@Andromedon777 You're wrong, my friend. I don't need the rest, but let's look into it. I mentioned Romans 3:28"For we maintain that a person is justified by faith APART from the works of the law." I'll prove to you soon enough that it is BOTH faith and works working independently which save and prove. Your error is thinking that faith alone causes a man to have works, but this is false. We see that Balaam in the old testament had faith and even boasted to have eyes that were open when he was in the presence of God. This says a great deal about him, but more is also said when the princes request his presence to curse the Israelite camp, because they know that whoever he blesses is blessed, and whoever he curses is cursed. These are the gifts of a priest of God, while the righteous are blessings or curses upon others by the actions and words of others. Yet, what do we see from Balaam. Was he not found and killed together with the Midianites who practiced divination and other detestable practices? He shared in their deeds and their festivities, otherwise he would have not been found there. If he had faith, how is it that he joins the faithless in their fate? Now consider the centurion who gave gifts to the poor, but who did not know the gifts of faith. Peter was sent to his house and the Holy Spirit was given to them to share when they BECAME acquainted with the way of faith in Christ. What about Apollos, who only knew John's baptism? He was doing the will of heaven while still being ignorant of Christ and resurrection, but received the fullness of that faith by such works. What of Saul before he became Paul? Even as he was healed, what did our Lord say regarding his expectations of Paul? Even though he was revealed the savior and knew faith, he was required to suffer to be worthy of the Name. How does one merit anything, if his acts and trials and pains are not attributed to their full cooperation? I will say that you are as blind as Paul was if you think faith alone can save you. Even the demons proclaim that Jesus is the Son of God, yet they continue to bathe with the pigs.

[@gregpaul882]

It’s funny to me that when James says you are not saved by faith alone, Protestants will read more into it, but when Paul says you’re not saved by WORKS OF THE LAW, they read that last part out. To make what is clear, obscured, and what is obscure, clear. Peter even warned against misunderstanding Paul’s letters. It just seems too ironic to be true.

[@danieljaghab2664]

“Against the Heresies” by St. Robert Bellermino

[@mreilly7463]

The Controversies by St. Robert Bellarmine, great work.

[@lukasmakarios4998]

"... and unless you can see that it's weird, you haven't fully understood what we're talking about." (48:00+/-) Right! Although for me, personally, the Lutheran idea of "consubstantiation" makes the best and simplest sense. Why can't you think that Jesus is actually, spiritually present in the bread and wine, which is, in some way, changed invisibly by his Presence and grace for us. If you want to say it's not just bread and wine, then good. We are not just old, ordinary humans either once we have truly encountered Jesus and accepted his loving grace. We become children of God. And the bread and wine, too, become his body and blood, soul and divinity, through Jesus' Presence... because He said so. I don't have to understand it. It's a mystery of faith.

[@fuhd9892]

You should call the fanbase The Pub.

[@misterkefir]

what about protestantism? :3 great podcast, God Bless You.

[@hawthornetree8188]

M3t4PhYzX it’s just the heresies rehashed

[@adamhovey407]

A very long lasting heresy.

[@cronbtc5680]

Protestantism is the modern revival of the ancient heresies

[@thivan2000]

41:49 Matt, excuse me... I'm eating... 🤣🤣🤣

[@williammcenaney1331]

I feel troubled when Catholics say that apostasy is a full rejection of the Christian Faith when it should be defined as the full rejection of Catholicism. Cameron Bertuzzi is a Protestant who wears a shirt that says, "Btw, Christianity is true." So I could ask what doctrines it includes when there are about 40,000 Protestant denominations. Is Christian doctrine is what's left when you remove the heresies? Is it composed of only the doctrines that C.S. Lewis defended in his book "Mere Christianity?" If I become a Christian by merely accepting Christ as my Lord and as my Savior, am I free to believe anything that the Bible seems to teach? The phrase "complete rejection of the Christian faith" is vague because it's hard to know what it is that the phrase "the Christian faith" signifies. I suggest that the Catechism of the Catholic Church defines apostasy as "complete rejection of the Christian faith" because its authors wrote vaguely to be tactful. I say that a religion is Christianity in itself if and only if that religion is Catholicism. What's more, I suggest that Presbyterianism, Lutheranism, Methodism, and so forth are different religions we describe with the general word "Christianity." The phrase "Roman Catholicism" can confuse people, too. Is Roman Catholicism just the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church? Does it include, say, the Ukrainian and Maronite Rites? Is the Ukrainian Rite Catholic because the Catholic Church is headquartered at the Vatican in Rome? James White would tell you that if I commit a serious sin, I'm not a real Christian. That's an example of the no true Scotsman fallacy. It's a way to dismiss, excuse, or explain away evidence against a belief. In his book Catholicism and Fundamentalism, Karl Keating says that the once-saved-always-saved doctrine prevents the certainty it's meant to give. If a real Christian wouldn't sin seriously, do I need to accept Christ each time I sin that way? Each time I sin that way, should I think, "Oh no, I accepted Christ. Maybe he didn't accept me in return."?

[@christopherskipp1525]

Which question would you be seeking an for?

[@williammcenaney1331]

@@christopherskipp1525 I want to know how to tell the difference between a Christian doctrine God has revealed and a misinterpretation of it. It's not enough to memorize Bible passages. We need to know what it is the inspired authors mean by them. With more than 40,000 Protestant sects in the world, what method do I use to find out who's right? Here's what St. Vincent of Lerins suggested in the 5th century. Chapter 2-3 are the ones you'll read, I hope. I want to believe each doctrine that God revealed. For Christianity to be true, each Christian doctrine needs to be true, too. Christ founded only one religion. But it seems to me that the members of each sect practice a different religion. Lutheranism, Methodism, Presbyterianism, Pentecostalism, Dutch Reformed Christianity, and so forth are different religions we describe with the umbrella word "Christianity." Since I'm a Catholic, I study what the early Church taught in its secondary sources. The early Christians didn't believe sola Scriptura. Chapters 2-3 of the Commonitory will tell you what they thought about authority. www.newadvent.org/fathers/3506.htm

[@christopherskipp1525]

@@williammcenaney1331 I don't know where you discovered your 40k number; that sounds like Catholic propaganda. In any event, there are longstanding approaches to interpreting the text that do not require some prelate telling you what it means. God expects every believer to be a student of the written word and the Logos.

[@williammcenaney1331]

​@@christopherskipp1525 Mr, Skipp, I know there are many methods to interpret the Bible. So I suggested St, Vincent's Commonitory to let him tell you what method he recommended in the 5th century. If you've read Chapters 2-3 in it, you know that he believes that we need to rely partly on the Church's authority to help us believe what has been believed always, everywhere, and by all. He's not saying, "Just believe your prelate," since he admits that some prelates have become heretics. There are many methods to use to interpret the Bible. The question is how we know which interpretations are accurate. However many denominations there are, disagreements still splinter them. So it seems that some interpretive methods aren't working very well. Evangelicals tell me that Scripture is their "final authority." The Bible is clearly authoritative. But it can't do what living authorities do. It can't tell me, "Bill, that's not what I meant. Let me explain." When Christians say that the Bible interprets itself, they mean that you can use some parts of it to interpret other parts of it. But what if some parts only seem to support others when someone misinterprets the supported ones, their supporters, or both? How much does the Bible's infallibility help us if no one can interpret the Bible infallibly? Many ignore what the early Church taught because they believe that the Bible is all they need to learn from. But then should it surprise them when interdenominational disagreement suggests that no one knows what the Bible means? How much do the disagreements at least seem to discredit it for, say, atheists, agnostics, and pagans? I believe I found the 40k at (HTTP://www.adherents,com), Even if 40k is a wildly inflated number, there are at least hundreds of Christian sects. That's enough evidence to show that some interpretive methods aren't working very well. In the Book of Mormon, Moroni 10, I think you'll read that the Holy Ghost will tell you that it's divinely inspired. They think He gives them what some Protestants call "internal testimony." Will internal testimony tell me how many books belong in the Bible when even some Protestant Bibles have 73 books instead of 66? How well are scholarly methods working if we can't even know for sure what canon is complete?

[@williammcenaney1331]

@@christopherskipp1525 Yes, I know there are many longstanding methods to use when we interpret the Bible. I'm not suggesting that we merely ask a prelate what Scripture means. That's partly why I linked a post to the 5th-century Commonitory by St. Vincent of Lerins, especially Chapters 2-3. He says that we need the Church's authority partly because some prelates have become heretics. Do you read extra-the biblical sources by authors from the first eight centuries of Church history? Did you know that in 431, the bishops at the Council of Ephesus thought that council taught infallibly? At (HTTP://www.ccel.org), a Protestant site, you can find a 38-volume set of writings from the early Church, including that council's documents. Here's CCEL's introduction to that council. ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.ii.html

[@diggingshovelle9669]

Not believing that the cosmos is 6000 years old ,does that make one a heretic? #

[@spartansunset]

"...so sorta like a Michael Jordan." And a ZING went across the universe.

[@Raptor3Falcon]

Matt, are you Australian? Your accent sounds like that

[@thossi09]

Seeing you've not had a response for four months, and on the chance you've not yet heard an episode where he mentions it: Yes, he's Australian.

[@eugengolubic2186]

The moment you realize dr. Craig's heresy 😮

[@TheDTCory]

I'll leave this here to show an example of the heresy of Modernism. Is there a contradiction between Vatican II’s declaration on religious liberty (Dignitatis Humanae) and traditional Catholic doctrine as expressed in numerous encyclicals, and most especially in Pope Pius IX’s Quanta Cura? In recent years some intellectual conservatives have audaciously denied that there is any such contradiction. Before commenting on their attempts, let us remind ourselves of the texts: Quanta Cura: “…against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that ‘the best condition of civil society is that in which no duty is attributed to the civil power of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except insofar as public peace may require.’ “From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal to the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, insanity, viz., that ‘liberty of conscience and worship is the proper right of every man and ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society’.” “...Amidst, therefore, such great perversity of depraved opinions, we, well remembering our Apostolic Office, and very greatly solicitous for our most holy Religion, for sound doctrine and the salvation of souls which is intrusted to us by God, and (solicitous also) for the welfare of human society itself, have thought it right again to raise up our Apostolic voice. Therefore, by our Apostolic authority, we reprobate, proscribe, and condemn all the singular and evil opinions and doctrines severally mentioned in this letter, and will and command that they be thoroughly held by all children of the Catholic Church as reprobated, proscribed and condemned.” Dignitatis Humanae (Vatican II): “This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious liberty. Such liberty consists in this: that all men must be immune to coercion whether on the part of individuals, social bodies or any human power so that in religious matters no one is constrained to act against his conscience or prevented from acting in accordance with his conscience in private and in public, alone or with others, within due limits [these due limits are defined in paragraph 7 as being those of public peace and morality]. “It further declares that the right to religious liberty is truly founded on the very dignity of the human person as known by the revealed word of God and reason itself. “This right of the human person to religious liberty in the juridical ordering of society is to be recognised so as to become a civil right.” Now to all appearances these texts are in radical contradiction on three points. Pope Pius IX condemns the following ideas: 1. all men have a right to liberty of conscience and of worship; 2. this right of religious liberty should be made a civil right in every well-ordered society; 3. the best state of society is that in which men’s civil right to religious liberty is limited only by the demands of public peace. These three points condemned by Pius IX are all three apparently taught by the Vatican II text. Moreover Pope Pius IX is exercising the Extraordinary Magisterium and teaches that these propositions are opposed to Holy Scripture (written divine revelation) while Vatican II declares its opposing doctrine to be founded on the revealed word of God and requires all Catholics to observe its teaching religiously. www.cmri.org/ novusordowatch.org/start-here/

[@thomasbailey921]

My friend you have strayed dangerously into sedevacantism. Hopefully over the course of the year that your comment has existed you have grown in faith, but in case I would like to correct you. Rather than dirty myself in the muddied semantics of this debate I would like to kindly remind you that Vatican II was an ecumenical council and as such all of its binding teachings are not only superior to ANY papal encyclical, but they are also protected by divine infallibility and as such cannot be false. You must trust the Holy Spirit will not allow any Pope to bind into law anything that would scandalize or weaken the Catholic faith. If you do not accept this, then I severely worry for the fate of your soul, and I will pray for you and others like you.

[@TheDTCory]

@@thomasbailey921 it is alien to the magisterium for an encyclical to condemn something as heretical and then an ecumenical council to supercede it as an encyclical are also of magisterial authority. Furthermore, still sedevacantist. At least we both agree to the premise that the papacy can never err.

[@thomasbailey921]

@@TheDTCory yeah about the papacy being inerrant... you do think the papacy has made a massive mistake. It's one thing to say the pope is fallible, it's another thing entirely to say that the pope is false and that the entire current papal line is false. And I'm genuinely curious how you came to that conclusion btw. How on earth is St. Pope John Paul II a false pope????

[@TheDTCory]

@@thomasbailey921 according to Vatican I the papacy cannot err. The alleged Popes of Vatican II, through the universal ordinary magisterium have promulgated the errors of religious liberty, and false ecumenism. Therefore it is impossible for them to be Popes because the Roman See cannot err. The personal errors of JP2 do not really matter but for instance he allowed female altar servers after acknowledging it was condemned by the Church and he repeated the Jovinian heresy. romeward.com/articles/239751303/jovinian-1982-by-professor-corbi

[@thomasbailey921]

@@TheDTCory of course. I was afraid that was going to be your reasoning, but didnt say so bc I thought it was too ridiculous a strawman. Your logic is, "i dont like Vatican II, the Popes like Vatican II, therefore the popes are wrong and I'm right." You're literally just protestant.

[@hawthornetree8188]

I don’t think Plato is properly a ghost in the machine guy though since senses mediate thing in the world to intellect which then recollects really existing thing in itself through using reason/ intellect. Also Socrates claim his interest is in making men good.... body’s role... in intellect rejecting rule by the body... not really a Cartesian ghost in the machine. Yes? No?

[@christopherskipp1525]

What about catholic heresies?

[@MarvelGamer2023]

Like what?

[@christopherskipp1525]

@@MarvelGamer2023 mary worship, pope worship. purgatory , just for a start.

[@MarvelGamer2023]

@@christopherskipp1525 Which Protestant group commits those heresies?

[@christopherskipp1525]

@@MarvelGamer2023 I am not familiar with any protestant groups that practice said heresies. Are you?

[@MarvelGamer2023]

@@christopherskipp1525 Who knows? There are over 30,000 Protestant denominations. I assumed you knew what you were talking about when you asked the question.

[@nosuchthing8]

No

[@josealzaibar5274]

Why are Jehovah's Witnesses apostates? They follow the Bible and have weird readings of it but I don't find them comparable to Mormons.

[@christopherskipp1525]

The watch tower and mormonism are just false religions--so neither can be apostates.

[@ko9563]

Jehovah’s witnesses deny the divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit, so they have completely left the faith of Christ.

[@christopherskipp1525]

@@ko9563 Correct, except they didn't leave, they just never belonged.

[@Kostas_Dikefalaios]

People who deny the Holy Trinity arent Christians.