How to Tell a SERIOUS Protestant from a NOISEMAKER

[@AnglicanPolack]

It’s not James White who tells unreasonable Protestants what to believe…it’s John MacArthur. 😏

[@zrayish5164]

Not sure why I got this recommended, but I really appreciate this distinction. As a confessional Lutheran, I find myself on the side of Catholics over unreasonable "Protestants" all the time. And I say that as someone who comes from a Pentecostal/non-denominational family that could definitely be considered unreasonable (they really do mean well though). Not to overlook our very significant differences with Catholics, but my eyes roll every time I see "Protestants" attacking Catholics for things that classical Protestants all affirmed even if they had differences in what it meant or how it was expressed (baptismal regeneration, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, Mary as the Mother of God/Theotokos, the historical liturgy/mass, etc). The dialogue of Christian theology would be so much more fruitful and even appealing to outsiders if we were actually fighting for the truth within the realm of relative orthodoxy without the outlandish input from people with no regard for the historical Christian church and a disdain for all the very Christian traditions from which they came.

[@theredneckcatholic1417]

Thank you! Church history is important, and while the gaps between Catholics and Traditional Protestants are significant, at least we're both trying to stay grounded and not go flying off the rails on whatever our or Pastor Bob's personal interpretation of the Bible happens to be today. Such common grounding is essential for meaningful conversation, and that's why we Catholics have such a difficult time dealing with the more unreasonable Protestants.

[@pete3397]

@@theredneckcatholic1417 I think one of the ways this manifests itself is the issue of Tradition. Roman Catholics and Confessional Lutherans both have regard for Tradition and it is a point of often sharp disagreement on the role that Tradition should play in the formation of doctrine. Most often this comes up in discussions of sola scriptura and general broadsides from Roman Catholics against a generic caricature of Protestants. This caricature relies upon a view that all Protestants hold to what is essentially a nuda scriptura stance, i.e. "me and my Bible." I understand that a) this is an easy caricature to argue against, and b) it also ends up distorting the positions of Lutherans and many Anglicans and Reformed which ends up being infuriating when trying to simultaneously argue for a position that respects Tradition against the radical Protestants and shows deference to the Bible over and above Tradition against the Roman Catholic view.

[@cherylschalk9106]

When I encounter Protestants online, I never hear about what reformed protestanism is about. The unreasonable ones are very spiteful and hateful.

[@cherylschalk9106]

When I encounter Protestants online, I never hear about what reformed protestanism is about. The unreasonable ones are very spiteful and hateful. Great video by the way.

[@pete3397]

@@cherylschalk9106 Where confessional Lutherans will jump on RC's: posting stuff about Luther that is slanderous and absent of actual fact (this is rampant on the RC youtubes). Next would probably be everything and anything having to do with the legitimacy of the papacy.

[@rexlion4510]

The difference between worship and veneration seems to be one of degree more than of of substantial difference. The word "worship" means worth-ship, ascribing or regarding higher worth or value. The word "veneration" means having respect or awe due to another's higher value. Here are definitions from Webster's Dictionary: WORSHIP: 1: reverence offered a divine being or supernatural power also : an act of expressing such reverence 2: a form of religious practice with its creed and ritual 3: extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem VENERATION: 1: respect or awe inspired by the dignity, wisdom, dedication, or talent of a person Here is the question: do you ascribe supernatural power to Mary, and do you offer her reverence and extravagant respect? If "dulia" is veneration, isn't "hyperdulia" an artificial construct developed to skirt the issue? These are questions each Catholic should ask himself about his own beliefs and practices. I can't answer them for you, the individual. But I can say that we don't have any evidence from the first 150 years of the church for the practice of Marian devotion; such devotion developed after, and seemingly because of, the Gnostic-influenced writings which began to appear in the late Second Century and beyond. If Mary were being accorded hyperdulia in the Apostolic Age church, I think one of the Epistles would have taught it or at least mentioned it; instead, Mary seems to disappear into the background after Acts 2, as if she were not regarded as important to the life of the Christian in the church.

[@Nirvanafanboy1991]

Great video, apostolic succession is so important i would love to see you do a video on it at some point.

[@theredneckcatholic1417]

I'd love to, but as you'll see in my next video, I've got some major life changes coming up shortly that will seriously affect the amount of time I will have to run this channel. We'll just have to see.

[@Nirvanafanboy1991]

@@theredneckcatholic1417 Best of luck with your life changes i hope and pray everything works out well🙏

[@rexlion4510]

I am one of the reasonable witnesses for Christ. And I was a solid, well-catechized Roman Catholic for the first 25+ years of my life. But I am not afraid to call out irregularities in the Catholic faith versus the Biblical Christian faith. My main thrust in addressing my dear Catholic friends is, "Trust in the Lord with all your heart," Prov. 3:5. We want to guard ourselves against placing our trust in men, in our church, in our reception of Sacraments, etc., and trust wholeheartedly in Jesus Christ who made full propitiation on the cross to redeem us from every one of our (past and future) sins. I get a lot of flack for that, from people who have misplaced their trust (their faith, their belief).

[@elperinasoswa6772]

What silliness, talk about trusting Jesus but you left the Church he instituted, what trust? More like betrayal. Clearly, you're not well catechized.

[@rexlion4510]

@@elperinasoswa6772 I have the inner peace of knowing that I am in right standing with God through faith in Christ, and I know that I have eternal life? Do you have the same confidence? Does your Catholicity justify you? Does your reception of Sacraments assure you of eternal life? Joh 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, Joh 3:15 that _whoever believes in him may have eternal life._ Joh 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. Joh 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Joh 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. Joh 6:47 Truly, truly, I say to you, _whoever believes in me has eternal life._ Rom 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, Rom 3:24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, Rom 3:25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith... Rom 10:9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. Rom 10:10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. Rom 10:11 For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” Rom 10:12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. Rom 10:13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” 1Jn 5:13 I write these things to _you who believe_ in the name of the Son of God, that _you may know that you have_ eternal life. Rom 8:1 _There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus._ Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. Rom 8:3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, Rom 8:4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. Rom 8:5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. Rom 8:6 For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. Rom 8:7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Rom 8:8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. Rom 8:9 You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. Rom 8:10 But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. Rom 8:11 If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you. Rom 8:12 So then, brothers, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. Rom 8:13 For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. Rom 8:14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.

[@nickoli477]

To be fair, there are noise maker Catholics too.

[@justthink8952]

True. Many don't defend their faith reasonably

[@realDonaldMcElvy]

As an Anglican, an Episcopalian, our Apostolic Succession was recognized by the Roman Catholic Church all the way up to 1870, when it got canceled by Vatican I.

[@bibleman8010]

In 1896 Pope Leo XIII issued a bull, Apostolicae Curae, in which he declared Anglican orders to be absolutely null and utterly void. There were several reasons. One concerned the form, the form of words in the consecration rite, in the Edwardine Ordinal used from 1551 until 1662 (except for Mary's five-year reign when the Roman rite was restored, and the Cromwellian Period when bishops were abolished). Following the words "Receive the Holy Ghost" the word "bishop" was not mentioned, nor anything definite to say what a bishop is. Although this was fixed, so to speak, in the 1662 Book, Leo said the defect of form meant there were no valid consecrations in England for over 100 years and so the hierarchy had died out. Even if the form was acceptable after 1662, there were no valid bishops to use it. The Anglican line had died out.

[@realDonaldMcElvy]

@@bibleman8010 But that's Donatism. It's a heresy to teach that a minister could override the grace of God with a defective celebration of a sacrament. People have used that argument to deny the Validity of a Baptism, and every other sacrament, not just Holy Orders.

[@bibleman8010]

@@realDonaldMcElvy and you don't know what the hell your talking about

[@theredneckcatholic1417]

Donatism is not that incorrect form invalidates a sacrament, only that sins on part of the minister invalidate a sacrament. For instance, if a priest were to commit murder, then under Donatist thought, he would be incapable of baptizing, saying Mass, etc. Catholicism staunchly opposes this line of thought, which is a completely different point than incorrectly celebrating a sacrament.

[@elperinasoswa6772]

It got cancelled because your church deviated from the proper formula for anointing Priests, and thus rendering your ordination invalid.

[@DanielSpringer-oj1mm]

Is something that is absolutely simple necessarily something that is absolutely one?

[@YeshuaisYahwah]

The first time i was visting Canada with a croup i saw a catholic church,i was notting off it was so boreing i wanted to go do something else.I saw statues and im like why are there statues kinda creepy. God wants us to sing his name like a warrior. AND YES ONLY THE LORD SAVES NOT MARRY.

[@theredneckcatholic1417]

See, you Protestants keep claiming that we disagree with you when you say "The Lord saves not Mary," but in fact we agree with you on this. All Catholics are required to believe that it is God who saves us. That's one of the points of this video - many Protestants don't know or care what we believe, they just want to make noise. Please be reasonable and try to understand what our disagreements actually are; don't try to make them up. I also explained in the video why it's fine to have statues, so don't post comments on things I've already answered unless you have something new to add or a concern I didn't address.

[@John_Six]

Here is a prime example. A protestant that is not serious.

[@michele-33]

Unreasonable Protestants double down ~ reasonable Protestants become Catholic :) 🕊️🕯️🤍

[@joshcornell8510]

Reasonable protestants know the difference be the real catholic (universal) church and the Romanist pagans cosplaying as Christians.