My In-Person Dialogue with Trent Horn on Catholicism

[@WeirdEducator]

I appreciate that Trent actually had a dialogue with you, whereas James White talked down to you for an hour.

[@dan6481]

You gotta admit Trent horn is a really good Christian apologist. He has a rounded view on issues. He is not a one dimensional thinker.

[@jesuspascual9080]

@@tony1685 Care to distinguish the difference?

[@nanagaga2001]

@@tony1685 John 14:15 "If you love me you will keep my commandments". Check. Catholics do that.

[@marvalice3455]

@@tony1685 read the church fathers.

[@marvalice3455]

@@tony1685 "appropriately" you are not a master to demand respect. you are a heretic

[@clarekuehn4372]

Just as Roman Catholicism does. Very deep and wide. Gloria in excelsis Deo and Ave Maria 🙏❤

[@RealAtheology]

Regardless of whether CC swims the Tiber or not, I think we should all admire the care, thought, and effort he's taking in approaching these issues. Especially in terms of studying the best arguments on both sides of the matter, exercising intellectual virtues, and most of all having humility.

[@calebp6114]

As a Christian, I love your channel! Thank you for your impact on the philosophy of religion debate 👏

[@astrol4b]

I hope he doesn't swim, the Tiber is so dirty he could die, there are a lot of bridges though.

[@Jack-uo7gz]

I thought this was supposed to be some kind of coded dig at the Church. It took me a second to get the joke.

[@sneakysnake2330]

@@astrol4b He could also charter a boat

[@halleylujah247]

@@astrol4b 😁

[@danharte6645]

Trent Horn is probably my favourite Christian apologist so thanks for having him on your channel again Cameron

[@jesussotelo4775]

@@tony1685 Catholics are Christians.

[@DrownedinDesigner]

@@tony1685 touch grass

[@joeterp5615]

@@samtomes7604 Are you familiar with the old “You might be a redneck… if…” jokes (from the comedian Jeff Foxworthy)? I’ve been watching a lot of Catholic apologetics and debate videos over the last few months, and have gotten very used to the Catholic-hating trolls, and the characteristics that define them - and I think we could make a list to help identify these trolls. So here is a start. You might be a Catholic-hating troll… IF… …You never refer to Catholics as just “Catholics” but instead ALWAYS use “Roman” in front of it (I think all the other Catholic rites must feel so ignored lol) …You write very very long replies to people, yet despite this, you seldom answer or address questions others ask to you …You have to use the word “paganism” in at least every other post you make (as an equivalent to Catholicism) …You can’t deviate from a script much and you do a WHOLE LOT of cut and paste in your never-ending “quote a scripture” game to demonstrate that Catholics aren’t Christians and are all going to hell …You don’t ACTUALLY WATCH the videos that you comment on, as you are not interested in what any “deceived” Catholics have to say …You like to lure people into a “discussion” with a simple question or statement… but you really have no interest in their answer, as their answer is merely just a pretext for launching into a long series of cut-and-past posts which “prove” how bad the RCC is (RCC is also a favorite abbreviation) …You keep very late hours making your long KZbin posts, as you view letting the world know “how bad the RCC is” to be a serious business, a personal vocation …You claim to you know a lot about the Catholic Church and what it teaches, yet have never read any part of the Catholic catechism …You never state what your own denomination is … And, if anyone ever asks you about any of the above, you simply ignore them and keep doing your thing (after all, you have a mission to accomplish) These are some of the things that I’ve come up with that are typical defining features. Of course, the Catholic-hating trolls know who they are lol… but sometimes very well-meaning other posters start to engage these trolls without realizing they AREN’T getting into a conversation with another human who is interested in a true good-faith conversation. So my advice to others is to be respectful of the trolls, but not to get sucked into long back-and-forth discussions with them that will leave you frustrated and scratching your head. They truly don’t care about anything you have to say. You must understand this. If you have even the slightest pro-Catholic opinion on anything… then you have been “deceived” by the pagan church in their eyes. These people believe they have a direct connection to God, and that you have NO connection - thus they can speak with 100% confidence in all they say. So figure out your own way to try to love and pray for these people, but be clear-headed when on KZbin and realize that not ONE of these people has EVER been convinced by a pro-Catholic viewpoint articulated in KZbin comments. God may get through to them in a different way eventually - perhaps by the lifetime witness and prayers of a family member or by some personal crisis of faith that humbles them and makes them reassess their faith - but none of our comments will convince them. Heck, they don’t even watch or care about the wonderful videos right in front of them by people like Trent, or Scott Hahn, or many others - so they certainly don’t give a hoot about any comments us average Catholics can come up with - no matter how sincere we may be in engaging them and how well we may think we’ve elucidated some aspect of Catholic teaching or belief. So beware of time-wasting trolls (unless you just want to use the opportunity to sharpen your own apologetics skills, regardless of the quality of the overall engagement). Love them and pray for them, but don’t allow them to suck you in.

[@danharte6645]

@@tony1685 a catholic is a Christian Toney

[@DrownedinDesigner]

@@tony1685 yes, which Catholics do. What came first the Catholic Church or the Bible?

[@ACF1901]

I don't understand how Cameron can think even those 66 books are the "word of god" without a visible authority. There are many internet protestants who are not going in the opposite direction and saying the catholic church has "hidden" the word of God by not including books like Enoch, or other old testament apocrypha... So Protestantism is just a huge mess of endless discussion amongst individuals, with some preachers becoming popular because they appeal to whatever is the popular cultural mindset of the time.

[@noahfletcher3019]

yawn.

[@manny75586]

Kinda funny to watch this after Cameron crossed the Tiber. Trent Horn the ultimate source of conversion haha

[@nicoleyoshihara4011]

Wohoo! God Bless you both! Praying that Cameron converts to Catholicism 🙏❤

[@t.d6379]

He did.

[@andoylanggid]

I thought he is already one. Did he swim back across the Tiber?

[@calebp6114]

As a self-described ‘mere Christian’, this was a very interesting dialogue :)

[@dmd418]

Mere Christianity is very good 👍 Receiving the eucharist is much better.

[@crobeastness]

What's the difference between you and a Protestant? Don't you also believe in sola scriptura, an invisible church, and that communion is only symbolic? Along with the other things most protestants believe like Jesus apparently having full blood siblings for example.

[@crossbearer6453]

@@tony1685 doing what Jesus said is pagan??

[@dmd418]

@@tony1685 what is a pagan?

[@dmd418]

@@tony1685 which Church father said there was no Eucharist or is that something your pastor told you and you believed it because you don't want to be wrong about leaving the Church to pursue yourself as your own Pope?

[@ricobonifacio1095]

I have so much greater respect and love for the Catholic Church and its followers then I did 5 years ago. But I'm not sure I could ever convert. I love to listen to Trent and Matt and all the other really good Catholic Apologists though.

[@dmd418]

Just curious, what is keeping you from converting?

[@TheOtherCaleb]

@@dmd418 For me, not Rico: Historical continuity, impeccable arguments for sola scriptura (in my opinion), biblical data, etc.

[@dmd418]

@@TheOtherCaleb oh I've never heard an impeccable argument for sola scriptural, will you please share it? I've found the argument that sola scriptura isn't in the Bible pretty much a death blow to that argument.

[@TheOtherCaleb]

@@dmd418 First off, sola scriptura is a deductive recognition, not a doctrine explicitly and dogmatically taught in the Bible. The idea of sola scripture is that the Bible is the only infallible authority for *faith* and *practice* . Just because we proclaim that the Bible is the sole authority for those things does not mean that we cannot logically deduce an apodictic thing by observing the nature of scripture and the things around it, in fact, that’s how we come to the knowledge of the Bible’s authority in the first place. Again, the idea that the Bible is the sole authority for faith and practice is deductive, not purely hermeneutical. I’ll try to formulate a well put syllogism here soon. It would be a lot easier if I went ahead and did that.

[@justinharnett]

I had no idea I would myself. I was listening to a video by the 10 Minute Bible Hour and he was interviewing a Catholic buddy. I had the overwhelming urge to study Church history and did...and am now Catholic. My love for Jesus and the Scriptures is even moreso now than ever!

[@OrthoReadings]

Are you ever going to have an Orthodox Christian speaker on your channel?

[@Mrs_Homemaker]

I find it interesting that Cameron not being able to define Protestant (beyond perhaps, "not Catholic or Orthodox") is less of an issue for him than accepting Catholic authority, which at the very least CAN define itself and its beliefs. I have watched a fair amount of Cameron's interviews but not all of them so perhaps I've missed some pieces. I just find his VERY analytical journey to researching Catholicism to be so starkly different from how he speaks about protestantism.

[@Roma-rusk]

Well that's because that's what protestant is. It was the breakaway from the Catholic church. There isn't much more definition past that unless you go into denomination's but that isn't the definition of protestant.

[@Mrs_Homemaker]

@@Roma-rusk agreed, that's the base defining feature. But the claim from many pastors/protestant apologetics folks is that they can all agree on core doctrines. But as far as I've seen (and lived, as a former protestant) its just not true. Beyond belief in a risen Christ there isn't much commonality.

[@Roma-rusk]

@@Mrs_Homemaker oh I see! I agree with you. They all are completely different. You tell a baptist that your anything other than a baptist and they say "well you should come to my church." The Catholic church doesn't change. It's the same in whatever area your in. Glory to God.

[@patriciajohnson1894]

I think Cam is enamored by catholicism but I'll be surprised if he ever becomes Catholic. Catholicism is not for sissies and is challenging. It will never be purely intellectual. There must be a balance between Faith and reason. He seems to go in circles on one subject. I get it's difficult for protestants to get their heads around some of the Catholic dogma, tradition etc but to me anyway, If I'm wrong I apologise but it seems he looks very hard to object and poke holes into even the most reasonable explanation. Sometimes I pick up aah that makes sense but..... The fact that he keeps on saying Catholics are trying to convert him . We can only inform true conversion cones from God given conviction and inner journey . I'm really not trying to be unkind but catholicism is about the mind and the heart. Faith and reason. I've watched most of his journey when he interviews protestant s , it's like yeah I agree, then on the Catholic Forum he's yeah I get it But..... There's going to come a time when he will have to make a choice you cannot have your feet in both camps. So may God bless his journey

[@idongesitx1873]

As long as you serve God and believe in Jesus that’s all that matters. Christianity isn’t about picking sides

[@malachi487]

I had the same comment about Cam listening to this conversation and I felt Cam was somewhat flippant hearing Mr. Horn's comments regarding the faith. I heard the podcast with Cam, Matt Fradd, and Dr. Scott Hahn and I thought the arguments Dr. Hahn made for the Papacy were solid- the Papacy being one of Cam's blocks to Catholicism. But it seemed Cam was much more receptive back then... as opposed to now. Here, Cam has the "yea but" thing going or "lets change topics" which I find common discussing the faith with protestants. Cam is not going to admit he is on the wrong path to Salvation (as I've read many converts admit) nor IF he converted Catholic how to make an income. But, as Mr. Horn has stated before... he's not trying to convert necessarily the person in front of him but more towards protestants that might be on the fence.

[@NaruIchiLuffy]

Intellectual pride, we all suffer from it. More likely to be exacerbated by a career in apologetics.

[@TonyKeeh]

I feel similarly. I am also concerned, if he did convert, it may be for the wrong reasons. Hope he just takes his time with it and falls into Catholicism naturally if he does convert.

[@australopithecusafarensis5386]

He will probably convert but he just wants to be careful about it

[@MrLeadman12]

The beginning of this dialogue is interesting. Protestant doesn’t mean a Christian who is not Catholic or Orthodox. Protestantism historically has affirmed that Scripture is the sole infallible rule for faith and practice, as opposed to tradition or human reason or experience, etc. so I’m a little confused at Cameron’s hesitancy at Trent’s characterization of Protestantism’s understanding of authority. And I’m saying this as a Protestant.

[@IESBiblia]

his concern is that there is a lot of believers that disagree with what protestants have cited as the "statement on inerrancy" and so would not be considered as "protestant' in Horn's definition.

[@pbjpodcast9983]

Agreed. I've been following a good portion of Cameron's exploration of Catholocism, and it's starting to seem like he's unwilling to commit to any serious consideration of Catholicism. To me, this shows itself in instances like the one you mentioned; he gets bogged down by an inability or unwillingness to clarify terms and then explore the contrast. At best, he states, "I haven't thought enough about XYZ" as his defense against taking a position one way or the other. I'm almost tempted to say that it appears he's simply in a stage of general deconstruction rather than considering "Catholicism or Ptrotestantism" due to his aforementioned lack of holding a position. This begs the question for me: is Cameron genuinely considering the Catholic arguments, or is this merely a series of hosting and being hosted on KZbin under the guise of "swimming the Tiber"? I don't mean to imply malice or a lust for clout, as Cameron doesn't strike me that way. All I'm attempting to say is that this process seems more like Cameron simply enjoys having conversations and may not actually be allowing himself to be affected by them.

[@repentantrevenant9776]

Then what are they? What label would you use for a Christian who is neither Roman Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox, yet does not fit within the narrow definition above?

[@MrLeadman12]

@@repentantrevenant9776 I’ll answer your question but it’s interesting that Merriam-Webster defines Protestant in the following way: “a member of any of several church denominations denying the universal authority of the Pope and affirming the Reformation principles of justification by faith alone, the priesthood of all believers, and the primacy of the Bible as the only source of revealed truth broadly : a Christian not of a Catholic or Eastern church” you can see in the first definition, it’s narrower it involves some key affirmations of the Protestant reformation. It’s true we sometimes use the label colloquially to refer to the broader group described under the “broadly” section. That’s fine in certain contexts, but I just think it’s sloppy when you are having a conversation about the actual beliefs and commitments of these different groups. In terms of what to call them, it depends on what they are. For example Progressive Christians are not Catholic or Orthodox but most of them have very little in common with the Protestant reformers, so I would just call them Progressive Christians. You might have some Barthians who don’t believe that Scripture is the word of God but it testifies to Christ who is the Word of God. Call them neo Orthodox or Barthians. I wouldn’t call Mormons or JWs Protestants either. They would be called Mormons or JWs. Perhaps you would even have some people that would only fit the description of a Mere Christian. Again, all of these groups could colloquially referred to as Protestant in some broad sense that they are not Catholic or Orthodox, but they are not good representations of historic Protestantism at a definitional level because they are missing those key theological emphases that sparked the Protestant reformation, one of which is a strong commitment to the primacy of Scripture over against any alternative authority.

[@faustinuskaryadi6610]

For me, Protestant is simply mind group of people who claim they are Christian that based their Faith on Sola Fide, Sola Gracia, Sola Scriptura.

[@MBFModernHomesteading]

Enjoyed the dialogue :)

[@cristian_5305]

please talk with Dr. Jordan Cooper, he’s one of the brightest, historically grounded protestant voices on KZbin

[@noahfletcher3019]

yes. and the other paul, steven nemes and gavin ortlund.

[@sloanjackson8]

Big fan of Trent.. thank you both SO much! God bless you.

[@mugsofmirth8101]

The word "fan" is synonymous with fanatic, sycophant, ideologue, zealot, cultist, etc. If you're truly a fan of Trent Horn you're his follower and no one else's. One can't be a follower of both Christ and Trent Horn. One can't serve two masters. Fandom is cultism.

[@sloanjackson8]

@@mugsofmirth8101 or instead of dancing around synonyms to make me look like a heretic you could look at the definition of what it means to be a fan of someone.. "an enthusiastic devotee (as of a sport or a performing art) usually as a spectator. 2 : an ardent admirer or enthusiast (as of a celebrity or a pursuit) science-fiction fans." You're silly if you're not kidding. 🤠 But on a real note.. I'm a bigger fan of Christ and I think Trent Horn does a fantastic job at bringing people closer to Christ in His fullest integrity - that of the Eucharist, the body of Christ found in His physical church, with it's physical members and physical doors, which interprets the Word correctly.

[@mugsofmirth8101]

@@sloanjackson8 I never called you a heretic. If you look up the word "fan" in a thesaurus you will find those synonyms. That's a fact, not my opinion. And you admit that "fan" means "devotee" so what does that tell us? That you're devoted to Trent Horn, by your own admission. I wouldn't doubt that you spend more hours listening to Trent Horn than you do reading Scripture.

[@sloanjackson8]

@@mugsofmirth8101 God bless you sir. I hope your heart can be healed.

[@mugsofmirth8101]

@@sloanjackson8 my heart is in perfect health, thank you very much.

[@MrPeach1]

I hope Trent does a show with Dr Pitre on the did Jesus have brother questions. He can't get behind the brothers of a separate marriage theory.

[@DuckOnQuack47]

I'm really getting hyped up for a theological discussion. Why am I like this lol.

[@loc_press]

As an intellectual convert from "mere Christianity" (with certain and specific Protestant influences) to the Catholic Church myself, I would say, of course Protestantism isn't a general Christian starting point because it's historically a defective consequence of bad Catholics. And that's with the history of Eastern Orthodoxy being ignored. It indeed all comes down to Teaching Authority. And a Magisterium guided by the Holy Spirit, as Scripturally promised by Christ, has also historically proven to be more effectively Unifying then the partially educated intellects of individuals reading the Bible for themselves, as Scripturally condemned by St. Peter. That's since been proven chaos as Protestant Denominational-ISM.

[@TrueChristianityWithSandra]

Sola Scriptura, specifically, has resulted in theological chaos (aka Protestantism)👍🏼

[@ACF1901]

Cameron should really read a catholic catechism.

[@DavidRodriguez-cm2qg]

One of the wisest, most commonsensical comments in this thread

[@ACF1901]

@@DavidRodriguez-cm2qg The Catechism of St. Pius X or the Penny Catechism are two short catechisms good for someone who doesn't know much about catholicism, without overwhelming someone.

[@ACF1901]

@@marym.338 No it's not. Catechisms are not references, but teaching books. People prior to modern liberal theology used to memorize catechisms so they KNEW their faith. Sitting on a shelf and only picking it up on occasion when a question might come up is not knowing the faith, after all you could go years believing something only to find out its wrong when you decide to pick up a catechism at random.

[@pat1442]

How have eucharistic miracles, fatima, the Lourdes healings, and the lives of the saints not come up at all? Why do they never come up?

[@snokehusk223]

That is what I also wonder. Jesus is present in our Church from first days. Miracles are constantly happening. If Catholic Church wasn't the Church that Jesus established then there wouldn't be miracles in it but others but there aren't as we can see.

[@eucharistenjoyer]

I think protestant authority is a more implicit one. There's one Brazilian Baptist guy who does anti-catholic content all the time on youtube and he dismisses the writings of the apostolic fathers as "secondary sources" which aren't enough to validate some Catholic claims, like transubstantiation and an strict hierarchy inside the Church, even if they don't contradict what's in the Bible and are as good as it gets from a historical source point of view of what the early Church believed. It's like he wants his listeners to take his authority of what he think is and what isn't valid over people who actually knew the Apostles. People who consume his content take his vision of Christianity as an authority. Maybe it's a collection of opinions from different pastors, apologists and their own interpretation mixed in it, but there's still a huge element of authority. They just point to the Scriptures as a form of scapegoat, we all know how many thousands different interpretations they got after the protestant revolution (revolution is a better fitting name, a claim of no need for authority which ended up just with lots of authorities). Sorry for any English mistakes, ESL here.

[@ameebedford9555]

Read the Bible Over and over Old and new .man made laws mostly is were the conflicts come in i was born in the chatholic.home but at 15 i saw things i felt were not wright.iam 72.now and i am a born again Christian. From the age of 23..i found my Jesus. Love all be kind and understand.as Jesus was.to all that is what Jesus says. Blessing to all of you no matter how u are .

[@EpoRose1]

If you were Baptized in the Catholic Church as a baby, then you were “born again” as Jesus answered Nicodemus in John 3:5. I’m sorry you probably had horrible catechism that cause you to be easily lead astray. I hope you continue to learn about what the Catholic Church really is watching more people like Trent Horn.

[@Tsalagi978]

​@@tony1685 Catholicism is original Christianity. East and West. I find it hilarious that people think God waited 1500 years to correct the Church. If the Church fell into error, it's probably made up and Christianity is false. That view has me thinking God is asleep or something or doesn't exist. There's no other option. Either Christ is Christ and he gave us the Church or it's all made up. Protestantism hasn't a leg to stand one.

[@snokehusk223]

​@@Tsalagi978 facts!

[@KH-vp4ni]

Love Trent Horn!! He doesn't water down a thing!

[@IESBiblia]

I think it is simple to argue that Scripture is MORE reliable as a final authority, than any person or position.

[@PeterTvonK]

As long as you don't attempt to interpret it.

[@PeterTvonK]

@@tony1685 Can you give me an example of Bible interpreting itself?

[@PeterTvonK]

@@tony1685 So Deut says do not add, then Rev adds on top of that. Do I understood it correctly?

[@zarganon9594]

@@tony1685 Add to what exactly? The NT wasn’t written at the time of Deutoronomy and we certainly added to that. Rev. 22:18 is referring specifically to the book of revelation, not the bible as a whole as it wasn’t canonized yet.

[@TrueChristianityWithSandra]

Prob is, the Printing Press wasn’t invented until mid 15th century, and until it was finally in common use bibles were meticulously hand copied by monks. Took between one and three years per bible. That means for most of Christian history the ability to own a bible was limited due to $$$ (the very rich, royalty, and the Church). Add to that the problem of illiteracy, which was between 70% to 90% among the population at different times. It would have been impossible for Scripture to be the sole rule of faith for each Christian outside of the Church. That’s why Jesus founded a Church, not a Book. ❤

[@timgcrawley]

Two big ones for me. Paul was around when Mary was still alive, yet not once did he mention her. And speaking of Mary. Prayers to her, in my opinion, are blasphemous. Good woman, but not worthy of worship.

[@Tim097]

We don’t worship her. We ask her intercession similar to asking your friends to pray for you.

[@MrLeadman12]

At about 28:00 Trent says “If you believe that Christian authority is not relegated to Scripture alone, but there is a living voice of the church that has continued since the apostles, then I think that really only Orthodoxy and Catholicism the primary live options.” I have to disagree here. Sola Scriptura does not mean that authority is relegated to Scripture alone. It means Scripture alone is infallible and therefore the final authority for every thing else. The reformers would have had no problem with the idea of church tradition having authority, it’s just not an unerring one and therefore can be corrected by Scripture. Now you may have reasons to disagree with that, but this is what Protestants have historically affirmed, which is why Calvin, Luther and the other reformers were constantly referencing the church fathers and every major protestant denomination holds to the early catholic creeds, including the Apostles Creed, The Nicene creed and the Chalcedonian creed.

[@shlamallama6433]

Question: how does appeal to tradition play out concretely if you have two people disagree on the meaning of scripture? It seems tradition is useless because for both of them scripture trumps tradition.

[@jonathanstensberg]

This fundamentally misunderstands Tradition, removes all substance from Tradition, and thereby proves Trent's point. Tradition cannot be corrected by Scripture, for Tradition is the proper lived interpretation, application, and extrapolation of Scripture. The authority of Tradition is as the interpretive key of Scripture in life. If, on the other hand, it is supposed that Scripture can overrule Tradition, then Tradition no longer possesses the very content that constitutes its authority. The only authority that remains is Scripture, just as Trent States.

[@MrLeadman12]

@@shlamallama6433 if tradition held NO authority for these two people then that’s how it would play out. And that’s how some Protestants operate. But if they operated like the reformers and the best of the historic Protestant tradition, then they wouldn’t do as you suggest. In general, the more universal a belief or doctrine is in church history and the closer it is to those beliefs which are necessary for salvation, the more weight they hold when influencing our interpretation of Scripture. For example, if one of these people is saying something with little or no precedent in church history and especially if it’s on a doctrine that, if one were to err in it, could jeopardize one’s salvation, that is one of the primary arguments which the other person should use against it, on top of any exegetical or theological arguments against it. A good example of this is beliefs about the nature of hell. The predominant view in church history is eternal conscious torment, but you can find some support for annihilationism and universalism. One of the arguments which proponents of the predominant view is this is how the church has understood the Scriptures for most of its life, with few exceptions. That’s a very powerful argument I think although not finally conclusive, since it doesn’t seem like it’s necessary for salvation and although early church councils certainly affirm the reality of final judgment they refrained from speaking too dogmatically about its specific nature. In other words, exegetical considerations are the most important kinds of evidence to look at but church tradition is virtually always appealed to in one way or another. The catholic or orthodox May retort by saying, but tradition is still not finally conclusive for the Protestant, and that’s true, but to say that does not mean it’s not significant or influential or hasn’t actually shaped Protestant interpretations of Scripture. It most certainly has, because for Protestants tradition is genuinely authoritative, just not infallibly and finally so.

[@MrLeadman12]

@@jonathanstensberg I still don’t see why “Tradition has no authority” follows from “Tradition does not have the same level of authority as Scripture”. It’s like saying that because a local policeman is not the head of the FBI or CIA then he has no authority. A lesser authority is still an authority.

[@jonathanstensberg]

​@@MrLeadman12 That is not a particularly good analogy; there is no sense in which federal law enforcement gets to overrule state or local law enforcement. But grant it that we could come up with a better analogy in the same genre, such as the federal legislature passing a law to overrule the laws of a state legislature. This is still not a good analogy for Scripture and Tradition because it lies in the wrong genre of analogy. Scripture and Tradition are not two agents capable of going back and forth with one another. There is no sense in which the two make proposals and then one of them has to win out--as in the case of the two legislatures. Rather, Tradition brings to life what is exposed in the Scripture beyond the confines of Scripture. It is not a lesser legislature bringing an alternative proposal; it is the sum total of the jurisprudence regarding the proposals of the legislature. Moreover, this proper understanding of Tradition is the safeguard of the authority of the Scriptures over against the interpretive will of the individual. If Tradition can be overruled Scripture, then a claim of Scripture can be asserted over and against any other claim of Scripture. There is no recourse to resolving such disputes: Scripture and overruleable-Tradition together have no special power against an a claim that Scripture shows the Traditional understanding of Scripture is wrong and therefore must be overruled--that's nothing more than the essential assertion of the Protestant Reformation! Consequently, everyone is left to the favorite interpretation of Scripture, hence the steady profusion of Protestant denominations.

[@javiermariscal5712]

Love my Protestant homies. Thats why I want them to become Catholic :) Srsly though all Christians need to band together (while respectfully debating important differences) against the craziness going on today. So many holy and good Protestant Christians.

[@DavidRodriguez-cm2qg]

Bien dicho

[@javiermariscal5712]

@@DavidRodriguez-cm2qg Gracias amigo!

[@noahfletcher3019]

thanks but no thanks.

[@77Friction]

Love my Catholic homies, thats why i want them to reject their idolatrous cult.

[@daman7387]

yay the ending message is not cut off anymore! 👍👍👍

[@kyle7240]

Hello! Thank you for the video. I am a protestant who has an identical twin who converted to Roman Catholicism. As such I have been investigating many of the claims of Roman Catholicism for several years. I have for months been plodding through the book Roman but Not Catholic and was pleased to see it referenced and discussed here. The book I find to be one of the best works in answer to the claims of Roman Catholicism from a protestant perspective. I have had difficulty finding any Roman Catholic response to it or a any work in a similar vein directed towards the claims of Protestantism. Would be appreciative of any direction which can be provided here. I found most interesting in the video the discussion on argumentation as my main criticism of the work by Collins and Walls is that the same argument from skepticism is used repeatedly to the point of exhaustion and I agreed that care should be taken in argumentation so as to avoid inconsistent approaches to the discussion, proofs and dismissal of religious ideas. Pure skepticism would lead I think to angosticism neither for or against God and so I find it troublesome in the way it is applied at times in religious disputes such as how it is applied in Collins and Walls work. That said their treatment is quite comprehensive and approaches the discussions from a better place and I have yet to find any comprehensive Roman Catholic response to it. This I state as a challenge should someone feel free to respond! Thanks again for the video!

[@ismarril]

Hello, Kyle. You asked for sources to aid your research, and I apologize for not being able to contribute, but allow me to suggest an additional element that may improve your investigations. Look into the history of miracles in the Catholic Church. For example, Padre Pio is a famous miracle worker from recent times. You also have saints with a more intellectual and monastic life experience also rich in miracles. Saints Tereza of Avila, Therese of Lisieux, John Vianney, John Bosco, Margaret Mary Alacocque, Gemma Galgani, to name a few. There are also eucharistic miracles, prophesies from centuries past that foretold the 1960's cultural and spiritual upheaval, and many more. In short, it's a never ending source of research on miracles, and truly wonderful, full of triumph and also woes (eg, exactly one hundred years before the French revolution, to the exact day, Our Lord appeared to the king of France asking him to consecrate the country to Him & his Sacred Heart. The king and his successors didn't fufillthe request, and so the revolution broke out 100 years later and the country wasn't able to resist it. The execution of 11 carmelite nuns by guillotine became a spiritual landmark). There's also the battle of Lepanto and many other events. In case you're interested, ask and I'll share youtube links for both short and long videos to meet your convenience. And above all, may Our Lord guide us and kindle His Spirit in our hearts.

[@kyle7240]

@@ismarril Hello and thank you for taking some time to read and respond on my comment. I appreciate the input. I have not much looked at the history of miracles in the Roman Catholic church and perhaps I should take more of a look there. The primary reason I can say that I have not is that I am familiar with miracle stories from some protestant traditions as well as personally from some protestants. This admittedly makes it difficult to know what miracles can tell us regarding the correctness of a perspective aside from the fact that God is very good and gracious in his dealings with us regardless of the correctness of our views. That said I have not delved much into the history of miracles in the Roman Catholic or for that matter in the Eastern Orthodox traditions but I did recently go through the The Life of St. Anthony by Athanasius and found it facinating. Thanks again for the input!! I will give it more consideration.

[@snokehusk223]

​@@kyle7240 If you want proven physical evidence for Catholic Church eucharistic miracles are a go to as well as saints lives and appartitions of Mary. There are a miracles happening throughout Catholoc Church and many have been proven scientifically. This doesn't happen in any other church (well at least it is not proven if there was aomething) which might indicate which church is the one which Jesus established and is with constantly.

[@kyle7240]

@@snokehusk223 Hello! Appreciate the comments and information. Your comment is similar to another I received. I am not 100% certain but I think the CCC affirms true miracles and works of the Holy Spirit occuring in protestant traditions so I'm unsure in what sense you are meaning. If God is good and generous and if I am a separatated brother would you not expect me to be able to give testimony to true and proven miracles? Just because I don't agree on a topic like Transubstantiation, it to me doesn't seem to follow that God would restrict real miracles from occuring in my life, in fact I might expect them as a way for him to maybe soften me or discipline me towards your Church right?? All this to say from my own experience and reflection I find miracles a dubious kind of evidence in and of themselves to prove much of anything. This said however I would expect them in connection to correct belief. As a way to flip things perhaps eucharistic miracles are God's mercy to encourage you in your beliefs irregardless of how right it is in order to direct your spiritual thoughts more towards Him for Him to eventually open you up to more generous view of protestantism?? 😉 Just because a miracle occurs in connection to a belief doesn't mean it actually proves that belief though of course it might. I don't deny the supernatural so am open to God's wonder working power to confirm truth however He wishes in my life. So far this has not been to convince me of Roman Catholicism however He has, through miracles in my life, made me more open in that regard. I do have issues with forms of protestantism that would deny the supernatural and would critique Roman Catholicism for it's claim of miracles. Hope this helps explain more where I am coming from. Thank you for taking time to read and comment!

[@snokehusk223]

@@kyle7240 Good comment. No i don't deny that God works through other Christians as well even non Christians. Many muslims said God talled to them in the dream and they converted. But my point was that either Catholicism or Protestantism is true Christianity. So it has to be one. So tthrough miracles he is directing people to Catholicism. And when you look that Protestants don't believe in Transubstantiation it means they are lacking something very important im regards to faith. This in in my opiniom is very alarming. I hope you research more about Catholic Church from times of Apsotoles till today. It is good to think about things and challenge your viewpoint.

[@existential_o]

Trent's counsel ;)

[@dlfincher6887]

SO, there’s a huge elephant in the room being ignored here. The discussion about Protestant/Sola Scriptura/Mere Christianity is suspended in rarified air only even plausible in a modern context with Christianity in a million pieces and speaking in a context without any roots or foundations. There were ZERO “Christians” in 38 A.D. having these discussions. If you were a Christian, it was because you heard apostolic preaching about Christ from his Church via apostles or men under their authority. If you repented and believed, that Church baptized you and made you a disciple by believing what THEY had been taught from the Lord and incorporated you into Christ’s body. They fed you with the true body & blood of Christ in the Eucharist. You became part of a local church. Only apostles were able to incorporate churches and all believers were ultimately under their authority. “How shall they hear without a preacher” and that one had to be sent under the authority of the apostles. You guys are discussing theories totally without any grounding in what the apostles (and their successors) would have considered “Christian”; a Christianity without the authority of Christ. Sorry, you can play with ideas & theories but you can’t have authentic Christianity that is fundamentally different than in the beginning. You can’t have Christ, the head, without accepting his body as well.

[@clarekuehn4372]

Sola scriptura is not just lacking magisterium; it is an extremely different tendency of revolutionary behaviour and authoritarianism. Ironically, harsh political authoritarianism tends to rise when fractionation increases.

[@IESBiblia]

The name itself says what Protestantism is (or should be) .. .a Protest that resulted in the five Solas. All else is a morph or hybrid but not true Protestantism.

[@sarahboehlke744]

The point raised by Trent about Jews not adhering to a salvation by works doctrine but rather by grace was interesting, I've never heard that before. Could anyone provide some resources for this? It's crazy to think about just how much of the way we unassuming protestants view scripture derives itself from Reformer propaganda.

[@TheNikolinho]

I really wish Cameron stops with the Catholic obsession and transfer to the Eastern Orthodox side a bit. Why not reading and interviewing them for a change? It's so repetitive.

[@TheNikolinho]

@@tony1685 no, why would they do that? these laws weren't given to anyone else but the Israelites. you obviously don't know much about the church history - EO are independent of the RC. that's why the Church split in the 11th century. they have nothing to do with them lol. Romans 14 for you and please leave me alone with your dogmatic approach and legalism - trying to convert everyone to Judaism. we're talking about the Eastern Orthodox folks, not your branch/sect, ok? take care. i won't be responding anymore to provocations or to nonsense, btw :D

[@mugsofmirth8101]

Maybe this isn't the channel for you.

[@arkofthecovenant6235]

You make a valid point. Allow me to suggest another channel where the protagonist also tries to find his way home: Gospel Simplicity.

[@TheNikolinho]

@@mugsofmirth8101 it used to be until the dude became obsessed with one church/denomination. the folks he invites usually come from ONE side! i mean, i wouldn't want him to interview only people from my church either. it's boring, it's dull, it's dry, it's just from one angle. how about him interviewing fr. Andrew Stephen Damick, or fr. Stephen De Young???

[@mugsofmirth8101]

@@TheNikolinho not a bad point you're making. Cameron should interview a wide range of people, like how about Pastor Steven Anderson or G Edward Griffin ?

[@theneverending9319]

I'm honestly not surprised he converted. Dude let catholic mods run his FB page for a while now.

[@Dylan_Devine]

The way I heard it explained best was this: Catholics have three equal authorities: Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium. Orthodox Christians only have two: Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Protestants only have one: Sacred Scripture, and Mere-Christians have no established authority yet. One might be tempted to ask, "What if tradition / the magisterium contradict Scripture?" to which I'd reply, "They can't." The Holy Spirit guides all three, and the Holy Spirit can't lie or contradict itself. In the same vein, there are some passages in Scripture that appear to "contradict," but don't actually contradict, because Sacred Scripture can't and doesn't contradict itself, at least not in theological teaching or doctrine.

[@Dylan_Devine]

20:07 You can't appeal to the Church's authority to prove Mere Christianity because the Church's authority comes from Chirst. If there is no God and Christ didn't come back from the dead, then the Church has no authority--so believing in God and the divinity of Christ is a pre-requisite to respecting the ordinances of the Church that He established.

[@stevedoetsch]

When you're dealing with people who think that hating religion qualifies them as philosophers then you know you're not dealing with the sharpest crayons in the box. These are the people who sneer "We don't follow old books" and think that bigotry is critical thinking. Trent has the patience of a saint for the small-mindedness he has to deal with.

[@taylorj.1628]

I swam the Tiber thanks to Suan being on CC.

[@TrueChristianityWithSandra]

Suan rocks👍🏼❣️

[@winstonbarquez9538]

Is it welcome to the Catholic Church Cameron?

[@joelmontero9439]

God bless you brothers 🙏

[@onlylove556]

Everyone needs to read the didache, the early apostolic church fathers for themselves, and study why the protestant bible is smaller having 66 books, cuz the canon is not 66 books. Study study study, man has corrupted Christianity in the West, and you need to find out how, why, and when to get the answers, all of our important history of the church is written down for us to start studying deeper. God bless u all , i pray u guys find ur way back home to Rome, the church Jesus Christ started in the 1st century. And stop having a presupposition, bc we Catholics been telling you guys, the RCC is the true church of Jesus Christ from the 1st century, and you need to find out the true reason why we say that, bc r history is written down, U must seek out and u will find it with a soft heart only

[@geomicpri]

“Protestantism” isn’t a type of Christianity. It’s a historical tag given to any movement that can trace back to the Catholic Church. If a tribe on an island found a Bible in their language & converted to a form of Christianity that was *identical* to, say, Evangelicalism, they would not be Protestant because they did not come from a movement that protested the RCC.

[@cheechak481]

Cameron...have you looked into Lutheranism?....they too have formal liturgy and sacraments including the Eucharist, their theology is not exactly the same as the RCC on these as can be expected. The Lutheran concept of apostolic succession differs in that their "succession" pertains more to "doctrinal succession" rather than succession through the "laying on of hands". When one attends a Lutheran liturgy it has many similarities to the Catholic mass, including participation in the Eucharist....they believe in consubstantiation rather than transubstantiation. Jordan Cooper would make a great guest for you to have on your show.....IMHO. kzbin.info/www/bejne/hnPRXmCvg7WjnK8

[@IESBiblia]

and YES support CC... I do when I can but I am a missionary/pastor/professor in a 3rd world country so cant always pitch in... but YOU CAN!!!

[@mrfabulous4640]

The fundamental issue of Christianity is one being in right relationship with God. Christ Jesus came to earth to make a way for sinful man (sinful man being man in an incorrect relationship with God) to God and He taught, along with His commissioned apostles, how we can be/live in right relationship with God. This right relationship was made in the form of a covenant and from that a kingdom (with Christ being the king of God’s kingdom). The authority then is Christ Jesus and after that His commissioned apostles who were made ministers of the covenant by Christ Jesus. Epistemically then there are three proposed ways to know what this authority teaches/commands: 1. Written texts from these authorities (either written by them or done in approval of them while they were around). Some then make this epistemic way back to the authority as being the authority itself (maybe with the claim this was inspired by God to be the recorded rule of the original authority to be followed by generations not alive in the apostles time). 2. Historical figures that somehow have a link back to the apostles while they were on earth. Some then make this epistemic way back to the authority as being the authority itself (maybe with claim the authority can actually be passed down/transferred successively and that this is not just a mere epistemic way back to it). 3. The Holy Spirit leading people into the truth of all that Christ Jesus and the apostles taught/commanded. Some then make this the epistemic way back to authority as being the authority. God bless

[@alexhuffvn]

When he was talking about soteriology, he made a lot of claims but didn't back them up.

[@IESBiblia]

because most theists that are not Christian dont have an issue with another person being an Atheist. No reason to...apart from "I am the way and the truth and the life" Also Islamics (non-Christian Theists) regularly will debate against Atheism.

[@chrisazure1624]

The problem with the magisterium is how do you explain the pope bringing in the idol Pachamamma into the Vatican?

[@NaruIchiLuffy]

Not every word or action the Pope says or takes becomes part of the magisterium. Especially, when it contradicts the other legs of the stool, namely Sacred Tradition, and Sacred Scripture. How do you explain it? Well, the Church has been infiltrated over the last 100+ years by Communists, freemasons, and the like, who at the end of the day are Satanists whether they are conscious of it or not. These people seek to destroy the Church from within by leading many souls astray and into hell. Our Lady of Good Success is a Marian apparition from the 1600s that predicted this would happen to the T. Now, you have put quite the magnifier on the Catholic Church in seeking what fault you may find with it. We have the Sacraments, Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture (a gift of Tradition to thee btw), solid catechisms (Council of Trent, Explained by Fr. Spirago, etc.), the teachings of the saints, and priests that have held to the Orthodox Catholic faith among other things to hold onto. Have you done the same with the position you hold? Some examples: Please explain to me on what basis do you deny Jesus's words about His Body and Blood as symbolism (or otherwise)? See, Matthew 26:26, John 6, Mark 14:22, 1 Cor 11:26, 1 Cor 5:7. On what basis, do you deny His very words about divorce? Matthew 19. Or Confession/Reconciliation/Penance - John 20:22, 2 Cor 5:18? Or justify contraception when the Bible clearly condemns it and praises fertility - Gen 1:27, Ex 23:25, Psalm 127:3, Hos 9:10, Lev 21:20

[@chrisazure1624]

@@NaruIchiLuffy magisterium - the teaching authority of the Roman Catholic Church, especially as exercised by bishops or the Pope. The Pope brought in pagan idols into the Vatican under his official authority. Yet you have to backtrack that says it has to align with sacred scripture and this changeable so-called sacred tradition. This is proof that he is only a man and has to be questioned. The evil in the Bishops is also proof that they are not guided by God, but their own lusts. I just can't follow an organizations that pretends to have authority when there is so much bad fruit. I do appreciate the faithful passing down of scripture. It is our most reliable measuring rod. And I appreciate the catechism. The Catholic Church reserves authority for itself, but violates the scripture all the time. I don't deny anything from scripture. I do question the interpretation of it by the Catholic Church. In particular, I don't connect Lev 21:20 to contraception. I see Catholics as my brothers and sisters. As long as you have placed your faith in the works of Jesus Christ and depend upon him for salvation I believe you are saved. It is the faith in the human made Catholic church that I can't align with. I believe in the true universal church, but not what man has built and claims is holy.

[@RuslanKD]

7:55 but what about the oriental orthodox authority claim? Or the Eastern Orthodox authority claim. I think Trent posed a false binary here and I dont really see the point. What if all 4 branches of Christianity have an equal authority claim and lack there of

[@koppite9600]

The only authority in Christianity is the Papacy. Every sheep looks to the Seat of St Peter our shepherd.

[@The_AgentSmith]

​@@koppite9600 nop: every Apostles all 12 has an authority.

[@koppite9600]

@@The_AgentSmith all of them have authority through St Peter. Or what happens if they disagree? We get 12 authorities? St Peter has the keys for the other 11.

[@The_AgentSmith]

@@koppite9600 Holy Spirit came to guide all the 12 till the end. Christ promised to be with the apostles until the end of time all 12 apostles are ordained to Judge on the world after the second coming of Christ while knowing this, if you say cuz except peter's apostolic succession all other's traced to be under Orthodox Church so that only Peter has the authority and the correct one and all 11 has no authority Christ is not with them, the Holy Spirit is not guiding them and they all are wrong... I mean if you have such mentality, it's highly narcissistic

[@koppite9600]

@@The_AgentSmith St Peter in the Council of Jerusalem told them that God haf chosen him specifically from among them... what did he mean? Acts 15 7 ...God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe...

[@rolandovelasquez135]

But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you. Matthew 6:6

[@BackToOrthodoxy]

The protestant authority is the scriptures because it's inspired by the Holy Spirit of God.

[@mugsofmirth8101]

Are you Orthodox or Protestant ?

[@BackToOrthodoxy]

Protestant.

[@mcspankey4810]

How did you guys decide what is scripture tho

[@BackToOrthodoxy]

@@mcspankey4810 I didn’t decide anything lol

[@stevenstuart4194]

@@BackToOrthodoxy You accepted a tradition on faith. You didn't read the Bible first to know every book therein was inspired. It was handed on to you.

[@cheerfulmouse]

The same reason I don't look for which denomination matches the Bible is the same reason I'm not Catholic. Just read the unadulterated Bible & follow Christ Jesus 🙏✝️ Pretty simple

[@Tim097]

Just tell us you didn’t watch the video

[@cheerfulmouse]

@@Tim097 literally responding to what was said in the discussion. 🤷‍♀️🤦‍♀️

[@lior38]

Where can we watch the debate between Alex and Trent?

[@itzhak6068]

Respectfully, where does he get this notion that one is saved by being a Jew in Jewish thought? Gentiles can be righteous too; in fact, it is easier for a gentile than for a Jew because a Jew is held to a higher standard through the Law of Moses. Gentiles need only abide the seven laws of Noah.

[@NaruIchiLuffy]

Dear Itzhak have you held perfectly to the 600+ commandments? Wouldn't it be easier to accept the Messiah prophesied throughout the OT? If you're looking for a summer read, might I recommend The Crucified Rabbi? God bless

[@itzhak6068]

@@NaruIchiLuffy I am already a Christian Jew, friend. Not to be confused with a Hebrew Roots or Messianic Jew. I am not a Judaizer, just a Jew. However, I will say that the Law is not a burden. It is a gift from HaShem and, for a Jew, the greatest source of joy in the physical world.

[@extract8058]

@@itzhak6068 liar

[@itzhak6068]

@@extract8058 In what regard?

[@jimmoore9490]

Here is a question that I beleive was inspired by the Holy Spirit to me early this morning to ask Catholics. Can Mother Theresa go to hell? Can Jeffrey Dahmer go to heaven? Yes or no. Also how do you beleive an orthodox jew would answer this? Just so everyone knows I have nothing against Mother Theresa. This is just a perception question.

[@Jerome616]

Any person has the potential to go to hell, and any villain has the potential to go to heaven. Both depend on the forgiveness of God, and the repentance of the sinner. That being said, certain miracles are attributed to Saint Teresa’s intervention after her death, and the church has declared that she is a saint, AKA she is in heaven.

[@jimmoore9490]

@@Jerome616 Miracles have been shown to be done by demons that doesnt mean they come from God. Demons have been shown to give site to the blind because they are trying to deceive and get people to follow them through demonic activities. As far as the Catholic belief they would say Mother Theresa is in heaven because she did good things (works) and Jeffrey Dahmer would be in hell because he did bad things. But the bible is clear the only way to get TO God is through accepting His son and what HE completed on the cross. NO OTHER WAY. NO PURGATORY. NO INFANT baptism or church for salvation.

[@benjaminread5287]

Both Origen and Jerome believed in the Protestant canon. And sola scriptura is simply holding everything by the standard of the bible. The reason Protestants exist is because they believed that the RC Church gave up their authority by contradicting the bible. And no it's not 'just anyone's interpretation of the bible' but a thorough and objective study of it. Apostolic succession is a good idea but it can easily turn into a game of Chinese Whispers.

[@crobeastness]

9:00 3? there are 4 branches of Christianity: Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic (Oriental Orthodox), Protestantism. anyone else is not a Christian. I suppose you could divide Protestantism into 2 camps: high church and low or no church protestantism.

[@Adam-ue2ig]

At 13:40 he refers to Mormons but they are not Christian let alone Protestant as they get Christology wrong. Jesus is not a created being/brother of Satan as the Mormons claim. Jesus Christ is the eternal logos...in the begining was the Word, and Word was with God and the Word was God, The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, etc...I think Trent Horn knows this and unfortunately Trent received no push back.

[@randymcray1039]

And I was a little irritated with Cameron. Here’s why. He kept asking Trent the question about the authority of Protestantism in Trent kept giving them but he kept pushing back and never satisfied with an answer. Yet Cameron himself never offered up what the answer is in his mind. Instead he’s just says let’s move on. No finish the conversation you give your opinion so that we know where you stand.

[@IESBiblia]

In Protestantism JUSTIFICATION is ALWAYS first. Sanctification follows. RCC is opposite.

[@LUMEStockTrading]

Inerracny defined correctly is not textual, but rather theological.

[@Amdgomer]

YOU ALMOST SAID "PETER PIPER PIZZA"!!! I worked there like a boss. Glory days.

[@hillcatrogers9086]

Catholicism and Islam overlap in their desire for empirical claims, such as apostolic succession, to prove their historical validity. St.Paul never cared about being a historical apostle, one of the twelve, for he ground his authority on the existential event of faith, viewing all objective evidence as an abuse of the cross. Cameron and Trent want empiricism to support their Christianity - a total undermining of the Kerygma.

[@rotm1313]

It sounds like “one of the biggest things that moved” Trent toward Catholicism was the teaching on salvation, “how do I get to heaven,” which all came from Scripture (~ 35:00 ff.). This sounds like Sola scriptura. So my question is, why does one need the Pope if Scripture is the source Trent used during his journey?

[@IESBiblia]

To affirm THE CANON as inspired, is to commit to Sola Scriptura... I know Trent says he responded to the typical protestant responses, but I just read the transcript on his page his responses like "so sola scriptura relies on scripture being perspicuous" are not valid at all. Anything that Scripture is NOT clear on, is exactly what Protestants say is NOT an essential for faith and growth. NO protestant claimed (at least not validly) that Scripture answers ALL questions. Just that it is clear on the Essentials, and other others, any beliefs are valid/acceptable (even if they are somewhat vague) so long as they dont contradict CLEAR teachings of the Scriptures.

[@ricobonifacio1095]

Glad he isnt wearing the sandals 😂

[@DavidGuess-uq1ue]

In Catholicism there's a higher Archie but the bible says we are all one in Christ not some people greater than other people Jesus says the greatest should be the least and the least are the greatest

[@IESBiblia]

Mormon.. .NO... Christian is Jesus is God eternally.

[@greenmonk]

40:00 wouldn't Lutherans fall into this categorization as well?

[@gabrielteo3636]

God must be really ok with many people having different beliefs of what God is, wants or even exists. If God didn't want the current multi-religion/atheistic world, God could easily change it a trillion ways with a passing thought. Everything is how it should be and you will burn in hell or not, because God wants you to burn in hell or not.

[@encounteringjack5699]

Lol yeah, first plan for CCv1 didn’t quite workout (for the debate). It was first Braxton Hunter vs Alex O’Connor, next was Trent Horn vs Alex O’Connor, then Trent Horn vs Ben Watkins.

[@gregkotoch2765]

Cameron, before you make any decisions, just ask yourself in what way has Christ not been sufficient for you already? What promises has he not kept? What have you lacked that he has not provided? How has he failed you?Switching to Catholicism because it is "the one true church" implies he is not all sufficient for you already. Just consider.

[@fabbeyonddadancer]

This is Protestant heretical reasoning

[@j.r.r5863]

No, it means that Jesus is all sufficient. If Jesus indeed founded the church and left her the full deposit of truth, protestantism is the one that offers a broken, half view of Jesus that allows us to pick and choose even the church that we want, not the one that He made, that He left. Jesus is all sufficient to me, which is why His church is the one I follow. His promises have indeed never failed, so I believe in my heart that the gates of he'll will not prevail against His church. Jesus is all sufficient so I don't need to go finding my own reasoning to follow Him. I follow Him as He wanted me to, under the authority He left with His apostles even when it's not what I would naturally lean towards because I trust Him, no myself

[@ST-ov8cm]

If Jesus is sufficient for you and He wants you in His Church, why would you not go?

[@frerfresh8373]

My reason for entering RCIA, if it helps, is that I love Jesus. And I want to keep His commands to the fullest and to experience His love and earthly graces to the fullest through what Scripture seems to teach He left us out of His love for us. I also felt called to humble myself regarding my own salvation, trading pride and the “assurance” of OSAS for the emphasis of His constant and unfailing mercy, which I felt gets diminished when you *only* consider His sacrifice on the cross as saving, instead of it being a routine display that makes us holier as we abide in Him. I’ve gotten accused of that view “limiting” His sacrifice or doubting its power. But in reality I feel the Protestant view is more doubtful in that it limits His forgiveness after we believe. They say, “really? that discounts you from salvation? you mess up and you’re damned again?” instead of “wow, God is just but also incredibly loving and merciful, his forgiveness has no bounds!” What is *forgiveness* after we have believed and sinned even for if not a continuous act of salvation and love?

[@Vereglez-d4z]

Wrong.

[@cyn2480]

Do you ever interview women as Christian leaders?

[@letscarryit]

I would love for you to get my bro Damon Richardson from Urban apologia

[@charbelbejjani5541]

24:45 that has been debunked by some people. The percentage of the population that could not read is probably lower 98%.

[@WhyCatholicdotCom]

The essentials of Protestantism are whatever you want them to be, then you go to the Bible and find a verse to support your position. They have been doing that since the time of Luther 40k denominations and growing, they must be doing something right

[@doctorscientist3991]

So is Islam. So is new age spiritually. So is Atheism. By your logic they must be doing something right then. I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive. Romans 16:17-18 I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. 1 Corinthians 1:10

[@WhyCatholicdotCom]

@@doctorscientist3991 so is Islam and new spirituality and atheism what?

[@anthonywhitney634]

The essentials of Roman Catholicism are whatever the Magisterium decree them to be. The Protestant essentials are well articulated and believed by all protestants. To not hold the essentials means one is outside of orthodoxy and not Protestant. See J.W.s, L.T.S. as examples. 40k Protestant denominations is a Catholic myth that has no grounding in reality.

[@WhyCatholicdotCom]

@@anthonywhitney634 "The Protestant essentials are well articulated and believed by all protestants." watch the video again LOL Your right though 40,000 might be a stretch according to the esteemed Protestant theologian John MacArthur there were over 28,000 at the time of this interview which was a while back so it is more but might not be 40,000 kzbin.info/www/bejne/rYWycn6gp5ykesk

[@anthonywhitney634]

@@WhyCatholicdotCom can you provide a source for your statement RE. John MacArthur? I think even 28k is hard to believe. I haven't watched the video yet, to be honest I'm a bit bored of the subject. My understanding of Prot. essentials wouldn't come from this video anyway. There are a few confessional statements out there, plus all the major denoms have statements of belief, on the essentials, they're all extremely similar. At the same time one shouldn't conflate secondary beliefs with essentials.

[@BraxtonHunter]

First!

[@doctorisout]

It is not "just the book Hebrews".

[@stevenwall1964]

Cameron you have never answered the question about Jesus who said that he would send the Spirit of Truth to guide the Church in all truth. He also said he would be with the Church until the end of the age. He said the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church. You have answered that "oh gee people are sinful so the Church could have made a mistake." But Cameron if you cannot trust Jesus' words about the Church? Then who will you trust? Why do you trust that the Church got the trinity right? Why do you trust the Church got the doctrine of the incarnation right? Is it not because Jesus said he would send "The Spirit of Truth" to guide Church in all truth? When you look at history there is only one Church back there. Jesus said that he was going start one Church. What Church do you think that it is, that Jesus said he would start? What can you say about Jesus if he set up a Church, promises to be with the Church, promises to send the Spirit of Truth to guide the Church in all truth ... and then the Church turns right around and fails?? Really? The Catholic Church determined the Bible had 73 books. If they were wrong then Jesus let his Church fail really quickly. If they were wrong about the Canon, then the Holy Spirit let the Church fail. And therefore Jesus words are meaningless. Protestants say that the 73 book Canon was wrong. So if the early Church failed; then who are you ever going to trust? Luther? Calvin? Cramner? Smyth? James White? Joseph Smith? Look what they are saying Jesus said he would start a Church; he promised to be with the Church. He promised to send the Church the Holy Spirit to guide it in all truth. And the Bible says that the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth. If Jesus cannot show us this Church that He talks about then why do you trust anything about Him? And if it was not the Catholic Church he was talking about then what church was it? We can only see one Church for 1,000 years. If that was not the church Christ was talking about then where is it? If we cannot trust the only Church we can see back there in the first thousand years after the New Testament period then who can you trust? If it is not the Catholic Church then Jesus let the Church fail and they waited 1500 years to allegedly restore it. Can that make any sense? But if that is true which of the many dozens of contradicting Protestant churches that sprung up do you think it is? Protestants not only protested the Catholic Church they fought each other. They protested each other. If the Catholic church really did fail then how could you pick one of the dozens of contradictory "churches" that sprung up 1500 years later. Come home Cameron. Jesus started one Church. Paul insisted that they agree on everything. Jesus said he wanted the Church to be "one" to be a unity so that it could be seen by the world. What Church is more recognized all over the world than the Catholic Church? Come home Cameron, I think you know what the one Church is that Jesus established. I love your channel. I love your humility. I love your apologetics. Thanks for all you have done, but come home for goodness sake; I think you know what the truth is and think of the many thousands of people that you will help to lead home right behind you. God bless you and all of your followers in the search for truth.

[@IESBiblia]

NT Wright Dunn and Sanders have been soundly refuted on the major aspects of their nuances.

[@IESBiblia]

They are popular but they are only "secondary reading" in almost all academia curriculum in protestantism.

[@Adam-ue2ig]

Trent calls it a hyper criticism of the Catholic authority yet the Catholic church is the ones making the exclusive claims to authority, to be the one true church, to have the fullness of the truth and faith etc. So yes it is an area that should be put under a microscope so to speak as they are the ones making the exclusive (some would say grandiose claims that are not justifiable by the earliest evidences.).

[@snokehusk223]

What is not justifiable. Till 1054 there was One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church and again it remained till reformation and after it again till today. Every true belief was given by it and no other Church.

[@Adam-ue2ig]

@@snokehusk223 that's precisely an area of dispute so saying it's not justifiable is premised on your faulty presupposition.

[@Adam-ue2ig]

@@snokehusk223 The fractionation in Rome favored a collegial presbyterial system of governance and prevented for a long time, until the second half of the second century, the development of a monarchical episcopacy in the city. Victor (c. 189-99) was the first who, after faint-hearted attempts by Eleutherus (c. 175-89), Soter (c. 166-75), and Anicetus (c. 155-66), energetically stepped forward as monarchical bishop and (at times, only because he was incited from the outside) attempted to place the different groups in the city under his supervision or, where that was not possible, to draw a line by means of excommunication. Before the second half of the second century there was in Rome no monarchical episcopacy for the circles mutually bound in fellowship. Peter Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries, trans. Michael Steinhauser (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003) p. 397.

[@Adam-ue2ig]

@@snokehusk223 historical research done by Roman Catholic Archbishop Peter Richard Kenrick regarding the early church’s view of Matthew 16:18. Archbishop Peter Kenrick prepared a paper on this subject, which was to be delivered to Vatican I (1870). However, it was never delivered, but it was published later, along with other insights.[5] He points out the 5 interpretations of Matt. 16:18, to which Fathers of antiquity held: All Christians were the living stones, held by very few Fathers-. Origen who is a common source of patristic exegetical tradition: states “‘If we also say “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,” then we also become Peter . . . for whoever assimilates to Christ, becomes rock. Does Christ give the keys of the kingdom to Peter alone, whereas other blessed people cannot receive them?’” (Origen, Commentary on Matthew). All the apostles, 8 Fathers (Cyprian et al). Christ as the Rock, 16 Fathers (Eusebius, early Augustine). Eusebius of Caesarea (D. 263-339), in his view (“rock” as Christ), He links this interpretation with the parallel rock and foundation statements of 1 Corinthians 3:11 and 10:4. Peter as the Rock, 17 Fathers. The Rock upon which the Church was built was the Faith that Peter confessed, 44 Fathers, including the most important Fathers (e.g., Basil of Seleucia [448]; Cyril of Alexandria; Chrysostom, Ambrose, Hilary,[6] Jerome, and Augustine again. Note, that Augustine (later in life) Augustine stated: Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer (Retractations).[7] Thus, only 20% of the Fathers held to Rome’s now canonized “infallible” “Petrine Rock” interpretation of Matthew 16:18. That is far from being the norm of the early church. Kendrick concluded: “If we are bound to follow the majority of the fathers in this thing, then we are bound to hold for certain that the “rock” should be understood the faith professed by Peter, not Peter professing the faith.”[8] As Roman Catholic apologist, H. Burn-Murdock actually admitted: “None of the writings of the first two centuries describe St. Peter as a bishop of Rome.”[9] In fact, no one before Callistus (c. A.D. 218-223) used Matthew 16:18 to support the primacy of the Roman bishop.

[@Adam-ue2ig]

@@snokehusk223 Cf. An Inside View at Vatican I, ed. Leonard Woolsey Bacon (New York: American Tract Society, 1871). [6] Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity (Book II): “Thus our one immovable foundation, our one blissful rock of faith, is the confession from Peter’s mouth, Thou art the Son of the living God” (On the Trinity). [7] Augustine wrote The Retractations late in his life to correct points expressed in his own writings. Here, Augustine corrects his earlier opinion that Peter was the rock of Matthew 16:18. According to Augustine the rock is Christ or Peter’s confession which pointed to the person of Christ [8] Speech of Archbishop Kenrick, 109, An inside view of the vatican council, edited by Leonard Woolsey Bacon. [9] H. Burn-Murdock, The Development of the Papacy (1954), 130f.

[@rolandovelasquez135]

Has anyone ever noticed that all these Protestant/Catholic debates, to a very great extent, leave Jesus and his Word off to one side? And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit... " Matthew 28:18‭-‬19 "Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God." 2 Corinthians 5:18‭-‬20 The Lord God Almighty wants us to preach salvation to a dying universe, Light into darkness, Life into death... and debate later.

[@MelaniesManicures]

They leave it alone because they agree on scripture. They debate and discuss differences.

[@rolandovelasquez135]

@@MelaniesManicures hello Melanie. What I mean is that so many of us spend 95% of our time discussing these differences when, it would seem, according to scripture, Jesus wants us to spend 95% of our time sharing the Good News with a lost and dying humanity. These are very good men that end up spending their entire lives discussing and arguing about doctrines and traditions when Jesus specifically commands us to be his ambassadors in sharing the Gospel, i.e, Himself. Here I repeat the scripture I shared before: "Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come. Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." 2 Corinthians 5:17‭-‬21

[@catkat740]

😂 The Pac-Man Bible is such a great analogy.

[@smashingartful]

good stuff

[@marvalice3455]

if you abandon biblical inherency from being foundational to Protestantism, than it kind becomes nothing

[@theknight8524]

Are you a Catholic?

[@marvalice3455]

@@theknight8524 I'm between denominations

[@myrddingwynedd2751]

To assert that the Catholic Church is an errant theological position is a claim to authority. Any theological, moral, interpretive or religious assertion of error can only come from a position of theological, moral, interpretive or religious authority. If you argue against this then you lose the right to claim that which you oppose is in error. Now you might claim that it is scripture that argues against Catholicism and not protestantism per se, but it isn't explicitly evident from scripture that Catholicism is wrong, since it comes down to interpretation, which again is an authoritative claim, I think what scripture is saying is this as opposed to what others are saying about scripture. So be it Catholicism or protestantism, it's based on an authoritative claim. If not, you have no legitimacy to claim anything.

[@IESBiblia]

it IS possible to say that one interpretation is MORE holistically consistent, internally consistent, and less problematic than another.

[@myrddingwynedd2751]

@@IESBiblia It is, but not without a position of authority. All such claims are authoritative, if you can't see that then you're blind.

[@myrddingwynedd2751]

@@IESBiblia One more point to drive home the point. Protestants have removed seven books from the old testament. That is a claim to authority. So Cameron (or any protestant for that matter) can slice it how he wants, there is an authoritative claim in asserting the seven books that the Catholic Church call inspired are not inspired.

[@_thomase]

I like Trent when he isn't getting so caught up in the pedantics of debating nonCatholics. Sometimes he forgets what he is fighting for, which is to bring people to God. God will bring them the rest of the way. This talk was pretty boring - where is the love the passion for Christ? It's not in the books, but in the heart. Remember the Way - academic scholarship just describes the detail of the Way, it isn't the goal, just the description of the path. Talking about God shouldn't be like watching paint dry.

[@doctorscientist3991]

Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 And a person's enemies will be those of his own household. Matthew 10:34-36

[@mugsofmirth8101]

Forgets he is fighting for bringing people to God? Maybe that's not what he's really fighting for.

[@_thomase]

@@mugsofmirth8101 Trent Horn is a good Christian. We all can get caught up in our processes when pursuing the Truth. He's brought many people into the faith. So I'm not sure why you would imply otherwise. I try to assume positive intent until I find out otherwise.

[@BackToOrthodoxy]

The protestant authority is the scriptures because it's inspired by the Holy Spirit of God.

[@bethr8756]

In a way your not capturing Christianity. First define what Christianity is. In a way your confusing things.

[@letscarryit]

Yes . This is very dangerous. Cam was suppose to be a apologist for Christianity but doesn’t know what Truth is .

[@dylanplaner2193]

If that makes sense

[@jonathanbohl]

Thanks!

[@seeker3599]

The biggest mistake in this discussion is treating "protestantism" as a major church like the Catholic or Orthodox Church. There isn't a protestant church. There is no such thing as protestantism. There are 30,000 churches who are neither Orthodox nor Roman Catholic, and between those 30,000 (baptists, lutherans, presbyterians, etc) there is no unity of belief or practice. The way they use protestantism in this conversation means christian agnostic. They believe Jesus is God and die for us, and everything else they are unsure of or don't know.

[@lyterman]

Trent has talked a lot about how the 30,000 number is misleading. Probably more like ~300.

[@seeker3599]

I could see making a case for 300 or 3 million. 300 decent sized groups that you could categorize any more groups as sub groups of, yes I agree. But also, my dad is a presbyterian minister. I don't think I could find any two members of his church that would agree on a common belief on all the subjects that Catholics or orthodox unanimously agree with each other on. For the entire collection of Christian beliefs you could legitimately argue that "protestantism" is an umbrella term for millions of different arrangements of views that each individual not in the Catholic or orthodox church holds. Using the term is fine, but using it as a comparable term to orthodox or catholic mucks up the conversation very quickly.

[@lyterman]

@@seeker3599 Comparing creed to creed is a more charitable way of doing it. Comparing laity isn't really fair. My parish probably has a good number of people who think homosexuality isn't sinful and the Eucharist is just a symbol, but they don't represent Catholicism. I know Protestantism is a lot more nebulous because they tend not to have councils and catechisms, but it's more charitable to do the best we can to understand them. The 30,000 number is clearly very bad, and I think the argument still stings just as much with 300. Even if it were 10, the argument works without needing a straw man.

[@seeker3599]

@@lyterman My comment wasn't so much about individuals or particular protestant churches. It was addressing how Trent and Cameron were using the word Protestantism. They are using it in a way totally out of sorts with an actually defined body of Christians with a particular creed. They seem to be using it as a catch all to anyone not Catholic or Orthodox.

[@lyterman]

@@tony1685 The canon is Scripture wasn't even close to established by the time those things were written.

[@marsherrmadd5380]

Why do I have to be a theologian and expert on the church fathers and church history to be a part of His body? Why can't I just love Him with all my heart, strength, and mind and trust that He is with me and will never forsake me?

[@doctorscientist3991]

Because to love him also means to follow him and his word, and his word can be interpreted and many, many ways. Hence denominations. Without interpretation you have no idea if you are even participating in his body. Not every claim to be a church and to follow Jesus results in the same thing, in fact sometimes it becomes outright dangerous.

[@Shelf_Improvement]

Because you need to know who you're loving. I totally understand what you're saying and often have the same frustration. But imagine you're someone living in 150 AD, who is illiterate, and way too poor to afford a scroll even if you weren't. Without the authority of His Church, left with scripture alone, Christianity just flat doesn't work. (I say this as a reluctant Catholic convert who still misses the fellowship of protestant churches.)

[@doctorscientist3991]

@@Shelf_Improvement Exactly why apostolic tradition was passed on by Jesus himself through Paul. Liturgy and apostolic teach was the way the church functioned for hundreds of years without a solid canon in place. Sola Scriptura was introduced more than a thousand years later and yet salvation was available instantly post resurrection. Via teaching, not via scripture.

[@DavidRodriguez-cm2qg]

You don't have to be a theologian, or thinker, to be a strong Catholic. You need to be a saint, a LOVER. Not all theologians are Saints, but all saints are good theologians.

[@alexjurado6029]

Cameron doesn’t know what Trent means when he says “Protestant authority,” because there’s no such thing as Protestant authority!

[@geomicpri]

Well, it’s Jesus & the Holy Ghost.

[@alexjurado6029]

@@geomicpri okay, good, I agree with you. Because, as a Catholic, God is my authority as well. So now let me ask you, how do we know the will of Jesus and the Holy Ghost for us?

[@whiterose41380]

@@tony1685 where does the bible claim it has to be an adult? It doesn’t. On what authority do you know that your denomination is the true one?

[@alexjurado6029]

@@tony1685 so you’re saying that the Holy Spirit is the authority for the Protestant. Okay. Help me understand this. Does the Holy Spirit speak to you directly, Tony?

[@MelaniesManicures]

Exactly.

[@mynameis......23]

Debunking catholicism I'm more blessed than mary Proof = Luke 11:27-28 27 And it happened, as He spoke these things, that a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed You!” 28 But He said, “More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!” AMEN and AMEN. _________________________ 1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach Paul allows bishops to get marry, but catholic church goes against paul. Now these catholic will give a Verses from 1 Corinthians7 to say that paul gave the advice to stay unmarried. But they will not tell you that the same chapter they quote says 1 Corinthians 7:28 "even if you do marry, you have not SINNED". The passage literally says "young women, young men" and a bishop is supposed to be a Church ELDER. Mic drop _________________________ Jesus said Matthew 23:9 9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. And also said Holy Father to Heavenly Father= John 17:11 11 Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are. Jesus said call no one Father but still catholics call *pope holy father. Sad _________________________ Whenever a catholic argue about mary being the mother of God Use this to defeat the argument. Luke 8:21 But He answered and said to them, “My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.” Matthew 12:46-50 46 While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. 47 Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.” 48 But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49 And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”. Mark 3:35 For whoever does the will of God is My brother and My sister and mother.” John 19:26-27 26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” 27 Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home. ( Jesus basically said John is the son of mary, and mary is the mother of John from that time onwards). By the way sarah is the mother of all proof=Galatians 4:21-26. _________________________ We should not pray to apostles Romans 1:25 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Acts 10:25-26 25 As Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. 26 But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I myself am also a man.” Acts 14:15 15 and saying, “Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you, and preach to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them, Revelation 19:10 10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, “See that you do not do that! I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren who have the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” Revelation 22:8-9 8 Now I, John, saw and heard these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel who showed me these things. 9 Then he said to me, “See that you do not do that. For I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren the prophets, and of those who keep the words of this book. Worship God." Colossians 2:18 18 Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, Holy Spirit intercedes for us=Romans 8:26 26 Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession [a]for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. And CHRIST as well=Romans 8:34 34 Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us. Hebrews 7:25 25 Therefore He is also able to save [a]to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. It's Christ and Holy Spirit who intercedes for us not apostles There is only one Mediator between God and men LORD Jesus Christ= 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus. _________________________ Apostles are allowed to marry, 1 Corinthians 9:1-5 1 Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? 2 If I am not an apostle to others, yet doubtless I am to you. For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord. 3 My defense to those who examine me is this: 4 Do we have no right to eat and drink? 5 Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas? If Peter (peter is cephas read John 1:42) the so called "first pope" was married, why does the catholic church doesn't allow "pope" to marry? _________________________ The so called vicar of christ/ pope/holy father Peter called himself a fellow elder in 1 Peter 5:1, and as per the qualifications of elder in Titus 1:5-9 the elder is allowed to get married; then why does the "pope" is required to be celibate and catholic? ( when Peter was neither celibate nor catholic). 1)Peter was not perfect human nor was he a perfect disciple 2)He sank down while walking on water 3)Our Lord said to peter get behind me satan 4)Peter reject our Lord 3 times 5)Our Lord rebuked Peter for calling fire from heaven 6)Our Lord rebuked Peter when he cut of the soilders ear 7)Paul rebuked Peter for being hypocrite because he was acting different in front of Jews and different in front of gentiles. 8) Moses messed up, and he was a important part of Bible ( that's why he never entered the promised land), 9)David messed up ( and he has the Holy Spirit), 10)King Soloman messed up, 11) Saul messed up and God regretted the decision (1 Samuel 15:10-11). Hatrick (Saul then David then Soloman back to back messed up) 12)The apostles run away a day before Lord Jesus got locked up. 13)The early church messed up Rev 2:18-20 If these great people could mess up, why do you think the catholic church wouldn't mess up. ____________________________________ Galatians 4:21-26 21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar- 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children- 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all. Sarah is mother of all, Not mary. ....

[@eb0632]

Go read articles on the points you raised on catholic answers, all your arguments have been throughly debunked a long time ago

[@eb0632]

@@tony1685 tony, we've talked about the Sabbath before, in the comments of the video "How protestants argue like muslims". The Catholic Church teaches the particular day we celebrate in keeping the Third Commandment to be ceremonial, or an accidental component of the law that is changeable. St. Paul tells us that the ceremonial aspect of the old law-the Sabbath day itself-is no longer binding for the Christian faithful (Col. 2:16-17). As the Catechism of the Catholic Church puts it "In Christ’s Passover, Sunday fulfills the spiritual truth of the Jewish Sabbath. Those who lived according to the old order of things have come to a new hope, no longer keeping the Sabbath, but the Lord’s Day". God bless you

[@NC-vz6ui]

Been a Christian all my life and I don't understand the obsession with authority. Jesus is the authority. I believe this obsession boils down to people needing rules to follow. The Bible must be interpreted and read through the lens of Jesus. Oral tradition passed down the experiences of Jesus and then people had an experience. People did not even have access to the Bible for centuries and many could not read. People act like you can not be a Christian or believe in Jesus and have a relationship with him without the Bible or the Pope. We have loads of evidence both biblical and secular, archeology, that all point to this man named Jesus and the claim of Christianity, plus the Bible. Our faith is not based or dependent upon a Pope, magisterium, council, or book. Apostolic succession is questionable and even so extends within Protestantism to which the Church of England, Methodism, and other denominations have a claim. I mean do we really believe that Jesus can not appear to people in jungles who may not know his name? My opinion is that both Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestants are all wrong and look nothing like the early Christ followers.

[@crossbearer6453]

Jesus ordained the 12 disciples to spread the word and they did to. Lack of an authority has brought about gross misinterpretations of the Bible and causing a whole lot of people to get hurt by the faith. And authority is needed. Jesus came to found a church and the church compiled the Bible Bible alone is not Biblical Word and tradition is Biblical Protestants have no claim to Apostolic succession as the one who first caused the Protestant reformation was freed of his ordination and no other Protestant church father was ordained by those who traced their ordination to the 12 disciples. This confusion must end I agree so let’s pray for the unification of the Church.

[@Kingdom_Piano]

The bible identifies sin. Frankly, to act like you don’t need scripture or anyone to guide you may be a symptom of pride (the same thing that caused Satan to be cast out).

[@NC-vz6ui]

@@Kingdom_Piano Only a narrow-minded indoctrinated mind-set would state what you just said ...you missed the whole point of the post. Jesus is the guide!!! I said nothing of sin. Sin is real. My point is that these understandings were handed down and people had an experience with Jesus long before a Pope or what we have as the Bible. Many couldn't not read or access the Bible. It is foolish to think otherwise.

[@Kingdom_Piano]

@@NC-vz6ui we agree Jesus is the guide, so listen to what he actually said when he was alive: “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” ‭‭Matthew‬ ‭16:18-19‬ ‭ The bible is for knowing what Jesus said.

[@NC-vz6ui]

@@Kingdom_Piano that scripture wasn't even written until 80 to 90 AD, with range possibility of 70 to 110 AD. It also means nothing to your point.

[@IESBiblia]

How about "Why Catholicism should be viewed as a Protestant Denomination?" I'd love to talk on this topic.

[@liraco_mx]

That would make no sense. If "Catholicism" we're contained in Protestantism, then who/what did they protest against?

[@BrianGondo]

Post your video on KZbin then

[@dennischanay7781]

I love both of these guys. But Trent, can you think of a different title for your book? Lol