Catholicism Debate with Jimmy Akin & Steve Gregg, Part 2 - THE NATURE OF THE CHURCH

[@pappap1702]

It's refreshing to hear civil discourse between opposing views on such push button topics as religious beliefs. These are highly emotional and strongly defended beliefs by both but they do it gracefully and in loving ways. I would listen to these debates all day and be better for doing it.

[@onesavedvoice]

I side with Gregg on almost everything. But I was so pleased and impressed with the mutual respect and kind tone throughout from both men. So rare to see a debate that can actually turn into a dialogue and still be respectful and informative.

[@IvanLovroTomac]

Steve is a full on ecclesiological gnostic/platonist, which is the logical consequemce of protestant nominalism, irrationalism and their view of fallen man.

[@sergeshmash2171]

It is an error to equate water baptism with circumcision. Water baptism is an act of obedience, a public confession of faith and an outward representation of what has already happened (baptism of the Holy Spirit on being born again). To say that water baptism (practised by Catholics on infants) is an initiation of into an institution is not only unbiblical but utterly ludicrous. The church, which actually is NOT an institution but a body of individuals led and guided by elders but individually responsible to God. Not some apostate sitting on a so-called throne.

[@Solideogloria00]

None of what you said about baptism is Biblical. I used to think like you but I had to go with God’s word.

[@sergeshmash2171]

@@Solideogloria00 no, I think you went with religious traditions. Not only what I wrote is Biblical truth but would be accepted as truth by believers who rely only on God's Word and not the false teachings of false so- called churches such as the Roman or Orthodox religions.

[@Solideogloria00]

@@sergeshmash2171 lots of assumptions there. I used to be were you are. I just had to decide if I was going to continue reading the words “representation” “symbolism” “an act public confession of faith” and all those phrases that are nowhere to find in the Bible when it talks about baptism. Baptism is what the Bible says it is and what God does through it. Gnosticism has crept into the church to make us believe that if it’s a physical thing (water) then “bad.” Read the baptism passages without adding the words above and you will get the biblical teaching of baptism. Blessings

[@sergeshmash2171]

Then my apologies for my assumptions. I am talking about water baptism which some incorrectly believe is salvific and equates to circumcision, both of which are totally unbiblical and erroneous. Baptism of the Holy Spirit occurs at the moment of regeneration. This in itself is not an initiation into any institution nor in any equates to circumcision either, but is a promise, a down-payment (so to speak) or earnest in old parlance and given as a comforter and a counsellor. One shouldn't confuse passages which clearly refer to water baptism with the baptism of the HS. Nowhere in the baptism passages does it say baptism is like unto circumcision. This is nonsense

[@morem8527]

Organizational vs. Institutional in this part. This could be a debate itself with exegetical arguments.

[@ryanbeaver6080]

These discussions between the two of you are really good and interesting. Much of what you say Steve about the Church is how I view it as well. I agree with your views Steve and I’m learning much in regards to the details within the debate. Thank you gentlemen for sharing your wisdom, appreciate you both! God bless… 🙏

[@SteveGreggVideos]

If you missed Part 1 kzbin.info/www/bejne/pIixnJ6vea6UmLM

[@James-g3w7w]

Pastor Gregg, I have been using Jacob's Blessings for his sons, Genesis 48-49 in my discussions of Zionism. First thanks for the statement "every translation is influenced by the eschatology of the Translator" that untied a big knot. I had studied British Israelism (and any eschatology I could find for that matter) and how it became British+American Israelism and then British+American+Israel Israelism primarily because of the way the blessings on Ephraim and Manasseh are translated in the KJV. King James was creating a new Israel with the KJV as the foundation for the law of the land (I think is why the reformed school of the Geneva Bible opposed it). The prophecy is specifically for the last days and as far as I can tell all the other prophets and Moses had this in mind referring back to it in some way. This means in Judah when the right to self government is lost to "Shiloh" Jesus then the prophecies have begun. It's now high treason for anyone to claim to be Israel outside the church. Then Joseph is the vine and the rock. Ephraim and Manasseh (chap 48) are according to the KJV to be a great nation and company or commonwealth of nations (British American) empire that will span the globe possessing the gates of their enemies (Christian Nationalism). But that's not what the interlinear text says rather it says Ephraim and Manasseh will have the name Israel upon them and Mannaseh will be a people (em, as in Hosea which appears to be an expansion of the Jacob prophecy) and Ephraim will be a multitude of goyim and "Israel" is commanded to bless Israel (Ephraim and Manasseh) saying "may the Lord make you as Ephraim and Manasseh". The "Jews" are supposed to bless saying may the Lord make you like the Christian church and call us Israel. I think Jesus is also referring to Joseph Ephraim and Manasseh in these blessings when he said "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" because Joseph the vine runs over the wall and is the rock and Ephraim and Manasseh possess the gates of their enemies. Thanks for the service to the Lord.

[@dave_ecclectic]

38:52 Further the printing press was not invented in the 15th century but the 8th century, it only became KNOWN to the west much later. If Sola Scriptura was indeed Gods plan, He would have chosen scribes and moved the date from the 700s up to the 33s. If not that, at least made the concept known to the west some 700 years earlier. Even paper production, although known wasn't used in context of the Bible, instead vellum or parchment was used, and 500 animals were needed. A cost just under $30,000 for one Bible. Add in the ink labor and advertisement.

[@donaldmonzon1774]

Galatians 1:8-9 🤔..... 🤔Ahhhh

[@edyaltamirano8388]

That has no relevance in this debate whatsoever

[@donaldmonzon1774]

@@edyaltamirano8388 get another hobby

[@QUESTLOGOS]

The verb tense in the binding and loosening is key between the two positions of the debaters. Catholicism says Man binds or loosens and backed up by God in the church. Protestants hold to the idea of God in charge and man backing what God has bound or loosed. It doesn't take too much thought to determine Catholicism is in grave error in regards to who is in charge of the church.

[@user-lj3ku5yd1h]

Jesus gave the authority to Peter and the other apostles. It says it clear in the text… just like how Jesus gives them the authority to declare people forgiven of sin, John 20 :23

[@TDL-xg5nn]

That does not make any sense. God is not down here on earth to bind or loose. Only man is here. Therefore only man can bind and loose on earth by the power granted by Jesus to his disciples (and the church he founded the Catholic church) and their disciples until Jesus returns.

[@user-lj3ku5yd1h]

@@QUESTLOGOS doesn’t make sense lol, God gave them the authority to bind and loosen. Jesus literally says to Peter that whatever he binds will be bound and loosens will be. So Jesus gives Peter the authority. It’s very clear, no need to make it complicated. Also go read John 20:23, Christ also gives the apostles the authority to forgive sin!

[@IvanLovroTomac]

No thats wrong, catholics dont believe that man binds and God comes in and backs it up. Thats a straw man.

[@dave_ecclectic]

Out of the two. Man backing God God backing man Which is the one that is in error? Why does God require man to *back* Him? What is being bound and loosed is not the same as who is in charge of the Church. They are completely different things. I can *back* the president, but who cares! On the other hand, the President is in charge My backing the President give me no authority whatsover. I can be *backed* by the President, and now I have some authority, The President is still in charge. He didn't lose any inchargeness because he gave someone else an authority, like the AG to bind.

[@Ternz_TV]

gregg would not be corrected 😂

[@justinchamberlain3443]

42:01 Gregg does weak at this point regarding the printing press etc and dispersement of biblical texts. But the canon is a major issue. The split of the catholic and orthodox being similar-so which text has the authority of God and/or which church

[@raskolnikov6443]

⁠@HJEvanI don’t see at all how that would needed to be mentioned. Him writing letters is a given.

[@slow2speak]

​@HJEvan His letters would have been letters at the time of writing, and therefore not of tremendous importance to be mentioned by Luke in Acts. They would have been considered valuable and authoritative for the recipients. But I don't believe they would not have been considered binding and authoritative scripture for all Christians of all time at the time of his writing. I think that understanding developed later.

[@dudeman1455]

Prophets for the OT, and Apostles for the new. Good to keep it to the books we are sure of. Apocrypha good historical books, but not written by a proven prophet of God.

[@user-lj3ku5yd1h]

I would go with the earliest one. The Catholic Church, either way orthodox also have the Eucharist and they are both apostolic churches. Protestantism definitely isn’t correct. But I would personally go with Catholicism. Even as early as 153 AD Justin martyr is talking about the Eucharist in his letters as well as he using the word ‘Catholic’ which tbh surprised me. This means that the Catholic Church without a doubt was the first church, the one that Christ established

[@rickydavis7391]

People who deny sola scriptura do so to justify following a different path.

[@TDL-xg5nn]

LOL. There are literally thousands of protestant denominations because of people following their own path. That is the result of the false doctrine of sola scriptura (Bible alone is not in the Bible).

[@rickydavis7391]

@@TDL-xg5nn How ironic to laugh about and say from, i can only assume the Catholic Church, who has never been in agreement. And the way they come to agreement is by sending the minority in the church to hell through anathema.

[@melesioalbavera8689]

People who affirm sola scriptura do so to justify following a different path.

[@rickydavis7391]

@@melesioalbavera8689 therefore?

[@rickydavis7391]

@@melesioalbavera8689 funny when i said a different path, i meant a different path explained by the word of God, but when you said it meant a different path of the Catholic church…