The One Question that Unravels Protestantism

[@ADDM1531]

Joe's shirt is essential.

[@joshie3336]

You're not wrong

[@josiahalexander5697]

Hahah! Man my eyes kept going to that like glue and I didn't even think about it til I saw your comment at the top here

[@Mari_Oh]

I was unconvinced by the intellectual claims of Rome, but won over by the extrabiblical yet undeniable eternal truth of Joe's shirt.

[@notatall8722]

Funny you should say that. I was about to post, "Yes, but what question will unravel the mystery of that shirt?" ...but I thought I should scroll down first to make sure nobody else had made the same joke. 😂

[@notatall8722]

@@Mari_Oh: Re: "...extrabiblical yet undeniable eternal truth of Joe's shirt." Extrabiblical, surely, or at least Post-Biblical, because (just like Intercession of the Saints and a knowable NT canon), it would be anachronistic to expect: - You can't expect a examples of Christians asking for the Intercession of the Saints, from texts written when barely anyone has yet died; - You can't expect details of the Canon, or the Canonizing Process, when the books being canonized aren't finished being written; and, - You can't expect a Circuit Diagram wiring Resistors and Antenna-Coils up to Art-Deco Stylized Fish, in texts written before the advent of electronics (let alone the advent of late 1960's Bowling-Alley-Fashion-Forward). 😁 // love ya' Joe! ...all in good fun!

[@wes4736]

My fellow Catholics, please, could you pray for my family? My mother's beyond conversion, at least by my persuasion. See, we were originally LDS, and when we left, she's completely foregone the idea of a singular unified Church with Eclesial authority. Even though I've managed to convince her that I don't worship Mary, that my prayers to the saints are requests and honor to God, and that I don't believe the Pope is literally talking to God or always infallible like the LDS prophet, she won't even say the "I believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church" portion of the Niscene creed because of the word. She's an independent evangelical now. She's also married to a man who isn't my father, but because my parents were married by a secular woman judge in her backyard at a Halloween party, and my step father by a minister, I pray that she's only had a single legitimate marriage. If anyone can provide me some more clarity about this, it would truly soothe my conscious. My father's a nominal, non practicing Christian. He taught me the "now I lay me down to sleep" prayer. He takes God seriously, and I remember his baptism in the Shenandoah River. But he doesn't go to Church and spends little time reading the Bible. I have two younger sisters, the youngest was baptized with my mother last year, not much for practicing but too young to remember being LDS outside of recognizing a Moroni statue once on a car trip. The middle hasn't been baptized since we left yet, but she's adiment about her belief in Jesus Christ and the Bible. She has nothing against Catholicism because I'm a Catholic, and says she wants to be ready for her baptism. I entirely understand, even I took a few years of practicing before I was baptized. She's going to graduate Highschool soon (so not ready 😢) and she was open and firm enough with her boyfriend who is atheist, but she loves very much, to not disrespect her faith and even soften his views, though he still doesn't believe. She's a perfect reflection of beautiful grace, even if the goth makeup doesn't look like it. I know they all love Jesus. I know they're also flawed sinners just like me. I can't help but be terrified while having faith in their faith and in our common god. Please, pray for them. And please pray for my remaining LDS family, my Aunt, her daughter, and my grandmother. My grandmother isn't particularly old but has never been in peak health. I fear she may only have a few years left to live and she's just moved away to Utah with her scummy money grubbing boyfriend. Please pray for them. I beseech you, I fear my prayers are not enough.

[@Jalapeño123]

Praying for you

[@snoopy3587]

May God help you and your family, all that soraunded you, and you still stay Catholic. God is with you 🙏 and my family, and I will pray for you and your family tonight. Mother Mary help this family.

[@markpeter1968]

From experience, I wouldn't push the Catholic church on them, only if they ask. Let your life be a witness to them. Hopefully your faith will inspire your family.

[@VICTORCHIRWA]

Your mom is right you just haven't realised yet that you are fighting for a lost battle. Give your mom break and listen to her . Give yourself a chance to learn more and to start digging the truth.

[@francismarion6400]

@@wes4736 Jesus's unified Church is in Heaven.

[@daviddabrowski01]

I don’t know which is more 🔥, the arguments Joe proposes or the shirt. Let’s👏🏻go👏🏻

[@johnnyosprey6056]

The correct answer is the Catholic both/and

[@roman727]

The answer is Yes

[@JUNationFishing]

Love the shirt! 😅😂🤣

[@aaronlee891]

But can we agree to disagree about which is more fire, his arguments or his shirt? Is this essential or not? Chapter and verse please!!!

[@daviddabrowski01]

@@aaronlee891 😅

[@thecuriouschristiangal]

I have listened to this twice through today and plan to give it another round tomorrow. As a life long protestant, who has been learning about catholicism for approximately a year now, this video has almost sealed the deal. I've been praying and searching and really think the Lord is showing me the way. I never would have imagined!

[@HAL9000-su1mz]

“IF” you have not already, please consider going to Adoration of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament (also known as “Holy Hour”). Call your local parish and find out when they offer it. Then, just go and sit in silence in Christ’s Presence. Take your bible. Read scripture, pray, contemplate. Tell the Lord of your search for truth, of your doubts, worries, even fears. Then, be as patient with Him as He has been with you. When you receive the grace to know that HE IS THERE, you will be forever changed. Miracles occur in Christ’s presence - of that I can personally attest.

[@elizabethking5523]

Right??? 😀 I would have NEVER imagined that The Catholic Church could be true!!! I believed all the lies!! I entered the Catholic Church Easter 2024!❤️🙏🏻 The Eucharist isTrue! This video is excellent in lovingly showing the confusion that I had been swimming in for 20+ years. Keep studying. I pray you don’t take seven years to figure it out like I did. 😂Blessings to your friend.! The Catholic Church is waiting for you!❤️🙏🏻 🙏🏻🙏🏻

[@wm6134]

As a Calvinist Reformed Presbyterian for a long time, I can assure you that I never would have imagined I would end up in Holy Mother Church. Yet, here I am. Praise God! It came down to humility. Once I totally humbled myself, it all became quite clear. Good luck to you on your journey! Pax.

[@HAL9000-su1mz]

@@wm6134 Amen!

[@HAL9000-su1mz]

@@elizabethking5523 Amen!

[@jpb9198]

Sadly, the most unity among the Protestants that I’ve witnessed is their opposition to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

[@macbride33]

💯

[@gk3292]

..💯🎯

[@Catholic_Rock]

Facts

[@christopherponsford8385]

It is ironic that the principle of unity for Protestantism is the Catholic Church.

[@frisco61]

💯

[@CatholicSaintslayIncorrupt]

My Conversion to Catholicism was totally based upon hearing that Jesus Christ, true God true Man , is Truly Really Present within the Host consecrated upon that heavenly alter! That was it for me! Thankyou Jesus for bringing me Home! ❤

[@danib712]

Sacrificing Christ every mass to constantly give you salvation.

[@CatholicSaintslayIncorrupt]

@@danib712 Correct. The Summit of our Christian Life. ✝️ We pray and fast for those particular priests Jesus consecrated for Himself....

[@eddardgreybeard]

​@@danib712 Remembering the sacrifice and having it made present and praying for the consecration of the host by the holy spirit. Your "understanding" is fundamentally flawed

[@mathgod]

Just hearing that made you convert? Hmm.

[@CatholicSaintslayIncorrupt]

@mathgod Yes! But with it flowed an understanding of immense beauty of Truth. I read it in a book called " True Life In God-Volume One" Jesus Christ Our Saviour comes to remind us to remind us of His Word the Holy Scriptures & that we should all be one now! He speaks in these revelations, put into books to a Greek Orthodox woman. The private revelations has now the full church approval after 40years of investigation of theology & fruits. Nothing is contrary to Our Faith...ect..inside & many people are experiencing healings of conversion's to Christ.

[@Joker22593]

WLC's standard is circular! "If it would affect Christianity too much to remove it, then it's essential". That's exactly what we're trying to determine! He basically just said "If it's essential, it's essential!" How does a man with as much philosophy knowledge as him not see that?

[@jacobzanardi1930]

Yeah, and his example proves that it’s circular. Or at least that it’s subjective to the person. A liberal-Christian who rejects the literal crucifixion could say “well, removing the crucifixion doesn’t disrupt my Christianity, because it’s more about allegory and loving everyone :)”.

[@greggingell5786]

Not every argument from even smart people is a good one

[@davido3026]

Where in the bible says what is essential and what's not?

[@catholic_zoomer_bro]

​@@davido3026That's the entire point of this video

[@marjoriemiranda-diaz1484]

What he is saying at the end is that in order to truly understand Scriptures properly you need a trustworthy authority, from where derives a unity of understanding the essentials, the relevance of the teachings, and how we live accordingly. The (Catholic) Church has that clarity because it has the authority that comes from Christ, passed from the apostles. That is the whole purpose of the Magisterium of the Church (as a unity): to protect the Truth about the teachings of Christ. And so neither "the modern times", nor the unfaithful Catholics, have distorted the true meaning of Scripture... Going for over two thousand years.

[@lightbread201]

Joe you are such a gift to Catholics and to Protestants who are seeking the truth. You are the reason I was able to work through all my Protestant hangups and come into the Catholic Church and bring my family into the Church as well

[@elizabethking5523]

Praise be to God! You are truely blessed!❤️🙏🏻

[@susand3668]

Thank you for your faithfulness to our Lord's call!!

[@Tobeouy]

Praises! What one thing brought you home? 🙏

[@statutesofthelord]

Why did you come into an organization that has burned more Bibles and Bible translators than any other organization in history?

[@MathAdam]

It’s fascinating to listen to these guys confidently and authoritatively contradict each other.

[@revelation12_1]

It’s the blinding sin of pride

[@augustvonmacksen2526]

Protestantism.Exe.

[@maryrupe5983]

Except I noticed that Joe pulled out the most bizarre and ridiculous to make the basis of essentials. Does it really matter to eternal salvation if Christmas or Easter are celebrated? Does it nullify salvation? Did the thief on the cross articulate his belief in Jesus’ birth? Only that He was the Son of God and had the power to grant him eternal life not conditionally but Today you will be with Me in paradise. I have that assurance nothing no one can snatch me from Jesus hand, do you?

[@gregorybarrett4998]

@@maryrupe5983 Hi, Mary. Joe did that intentionally. His purpose was to show to the vast majority of Protestants that literally every question will have some Protestants insisting that a doctrine which is rejected by the vast majority of Protestants is not only a true but an essential doctrine. In this way Joe hopes to provide for Protestants to recognise that there is not and cannot be a Protestant answer to the question of which doctrines are essential. The underlying question is what it has always been. Scripture is not and was not intended to be either exhaustive or systematic. Instead, Scripture is received because it is a relic, an artifact, of the Apostles' ministry. It is the Apostles who delivered to the Church the meaning, power, and holiness of Jesus' work, having been commissioned by Him with His own power to bring salvation by doing what He did. He loved; they loved. He taught; they taught. He travelled; they travelled. He laid down His life; they laid down their lives. He celebrated the transformed Passover; they celebrated the transformed Passover. The Scriptures enjoy the accompaniment of the Holy Spirit, both in their composition and in their reception because they are a part of the Apostles' fulfilling the mission Jesus gave them with the power Jesus gave them. But it is important to recognise that their composition and reception were only a part of such fulfillment. Their role, meaning, significance, and import have to be applied as they were always applied: in the context of a Church ruled by those who have received the mission and power of God to apply those Scriptures correctly to build up the faithful who have not received this mission and power.

[@rouxmain934]

@@maryrupe5983 you got it backwards : THOSE PASTORS say you can't celerate Easter nor Chrismas as a Christian. Joe is just pulling up these reputable guys that are blatantly wrong

[@stooch66]

I do appreciate Mike Winger’s intellectual humility about what is essential to him. It is funny, however, how little intellectual humility he and other protestants have when telling us exactly where the Catholic Church is wrong. They have 100% certainty on that.

[@wes4736]

A funny quirk, but how different are we? We make blanket statements about Protestantism all the time, sometimes even accidentally saying false things to distance our beliefs from theirs. As someone who leans traditionally but now steers away from the label of "traditionalist" because of political implications, I've had to catch myself about some things other members of the Church say, and remember that we should be humble in correcting our brothers and sisters, both in and out of communion.

[@stephenjohnson7915]

That’s actually the only essential.

[@stooch66]

@@wes4736 I get what you are saying. And, I am frustrated by those who speak so certainly on their own arguments on Protestantism. However, for faithful Catholics, it is all about humility. We turn ourselves over to the authority of the teaching magisterium, not because we are blind or unthinking, but because it is what Christ commands. And, while I might agree politically with some of those people you speak of (but not on all things), I absolutely disagree on their own “Protestant” approach to ecclesiology. For they are abandoning obedience to Mother Church in the name of their own interpretation of tradition being superior. But, their biggest problem is that their politics guid them more than their faith in Christ and His Church. It needs to be the other way around for ALL who profess faith in Christ and His Church. It is not unlike the Protestant who comes to scripture with preconceived beliefs and therefore finds only support for them in God’s Word. They cannot see the opposite because their personal belief system controls. I guess my point is that: those of us who submit to the magisterium are not guilty of the same approach as Mike Winger and other Protestants. We are guilty of many other sins, but that is not one. Anyway, appreciate the point of clarification. God bless you.

[@danvankouwenberg7234]

Being non-catholic is his first essential.

[@wes4736]

@@stooch66 Thank you, and God bless you as well. If I could borrow from my own testimony, it can be very difficult for some individuals to accept that there's a magisterium to be humble before to begin with. My family used to be LDS, and my mother and I reacted very differently. While I searched for the authority Mormons falsely claimed to have, she rejected the idea that authority was held on Earth along with the Mormons. That's what I think is happening with the likes of Winger, though without the background experience. Sure, it's presumptuous to reject it out of pocket, but many protestant denominations have their own soft magisterium that they humble themselves before depending on their intellectual tradition following the reformation. While many, particularly evangelicals, simply use their own interpretation of the Bible as the basis to measure others against, many more Protestants still look outside themselves to humbly preach what they believe the gospel to be. I think that's an aspect of our worldviews we should respect amongst one another to help fight off the intellectual blight of material atheism.

[@andreasalbers6198]

As a confessional Lutheran, I absolutely share your positions against WLC. The Sacraments of Baptism and the true Body and Blood of Christ in Holy Communion are absolutely essential!

[@davido3026]

Whi says that in the bible and minimizes the rest?

[@Christ__is__King]

Why is WLC wrong and you right?

[@MikeEShea]

⁠Watch the video.

[@ChristoverMarxfortheWin]

While Peter Kreeft is the equal of William Craig, in Christian apologetics, it is Craig that is far more the modern voice of Christianity than anyone trotting around in Roman Catholic garb.

[@christopherpowell1950]

Do Lutherans believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary? I know there's alot of overlap that's why I'm asking. Most protestants try to tell me that Mary and Joseph practiced abstinence in their marriage in the beginning, but after Mary became pregnant and then gave birth, they no longer remained abstinent. Others even go as far as to say they we're only "engaged" even though in ancient Jewish culture, they were considered 100% married and even LIVED together.. which shows that they clearly were practicing abstinence even before they knew about The Lord's plan for them

[@RuslanKD]

Me being in this thumbnail is essential 😂😂😂 In all serious, I have this conversation all the time. Trent horn actually gave me great language: “the main things are the plain things and the plain things are the main things” there I fixed it for you 😂😂😂

[@stephenmaddox1]

😂😂😂😂

[@shamelesspopery]

😅! Ruslan, you live in San Diego, right? The Catholic Answers Conference is in La Jolla from September 26-29. Would be awesome to meet you in person!

[@stephenmaddox1]

@@shamelesspopery make it happen!!! @ruslankd is cool dude!

[@RuslanKD]

@@shamelesspoperylets grab Lunch if you have time. Are u on IG?

[@blakekatchem1664]

Right! I was like he’s using my boys Ruslan and Mike in the thumb. I guess I’ll listen 🤷🏼‍♂️

[@emilyzlockard]

Excellent as always. I remember a piece you had on your old website (for Reformation day?) about how Luther and Calvin corresponded and immediately got into a huge fight, thereby essentially disproving Luther’s theory within a few scant years of the beginning of the reformation. I think that would make an excellent short episode idea! That has always stuck with me - the failure, coming so quickly. Actually ALL of the old October 31 pieces you did back then would make an excellent series!! I’d also love a deep dive on Augustine, since there have been commenters here who make the claim that Luther was an Augustinian monk and Augustine was basically a Protestant. You touched on it in the past but a deep dive (“Augustine was NOT a Protestant” etc) would be great.

[@elizabethking5523]

Right! 😂 I just laugh and laugh to myself when protestants say that Augustine was protestant and not Catholic!! 😂😂😂

[@elizabethking5523]

But, truely it isn’t really funny. It’s the arrogance! They will read 3 sentences he wrote and move on! If they even read the rest of the paragraph.. they would run into the Catholic faith!!!❤🙏🏻

[@creategreatness8823]

I have been Non-Denominational for basically my whole life. In the last 5 years I only started to even take my faith seriously in a more than superficial way. I simply devoted to reading a copy of the Bible gifted to me from a good family friend. From there...I wanted to simply buy a really nice, hardcover, premium edition of the Bible for myself...as my sort of "official" one to keep in my home. So of course...the next step was "Well, which translation of The Bible is best, which should I get?" And that ended up dovetailing into research on various denominations, and I found that rabbit hole to be maddening. There was NO WAY the Christian faith had SO MANY versions and variants all based around the "same"(Or not so same depending on the translation) Bible. Catholicism sits at the end of that Maze as a very solid pillar...with the longest history and at least a consistency. I know there is also orthodox and things like that. But it feels like the options are "The most established Church which is the Catholic Church which is generally very consistent or a TON of Protestant off-shoots that are wildly inconsistent" I have yet to attend my first Catholic Mass and am not at a point of officially converting...but more and more it feels like this represents the next step of my walk. Videos like these are very insightful and encouraging with the direction I am heading.

[@danielletracyann]

Leaving this here to let you know that you are an excellent teacher and very charitable where Protestants are concerned.

[@shamelesspopery]

Thank you!

[@samuelotache9239]

Shame Popery you are a false Apostle. Apostle Paul warned about people like you .

[@victorjvanderwoude3102]

That’s a matter of opinion. Protestants may not agree with your assessment.

[@MoliFrancis]

Thank you for making this video. The work you put in to make these is appreciated . I’ve been Catholic all my life and like many ,I wasn’t taught the Bible at home . Only in school in the 70’s . As a teenager all the way to my early 50’s , I hardly spent time studying the Bible , but my faith in Christ was so strong and solid. I went to Mass , prayed morning and evening , said my rosary . My heart was filled with love for Jesus and I always felt HE was present by helping me through my difficult upbringing and the struggles it brought on in my adult life. Now, I do study the Bible and learn a lot on Catholic content on KZbin. I don’t believe one minute the authority is scripture alone.

[@davido3026]

The Holy spirit dwells in the Catholic Church since 33AD. He led her to make the bible in 382AD! The church was then 350 years old!

[@francismarion6400]

@davido3026 What is the original translation of the word Catholic from 33AD?

[@pmlm1571]

I am approaching 70 years as a cradle Catholic, and I was taught bible from the beginning: the Mass is now and has always been just huge chunks of the bible? If you're Catholic, the week revolved around Mass on Sunday. With Bible not just the readings, but also the long eucharistic prayer, the greetings and acclamations. Even "peace be with you", etc., all quotes from the bible. Also we had fun illustrated bible story books as kids, and parents and grandparents who were all over us kids with the faith which is of course biblical. my two cents. Keep the Faith!

[@MoliFrancis]

@@francismarion6400 the word Catholic means Universal.

[@philblagden]

Your Facebook friend does not represent most Bible believing Protestants who would overwhelmingly agree that both the Trinity and Justification by faith alone are both essential. William Lane Craig, while a renowned apologist and Christian philosopher is not a theologian and many Protestants including myself do not hold him in high regard when it comes to his theology. As a Baptist I regard Baptism as an essential command and a blessing to be undertaken by anyone who shows evidence of having understood the gospel and has made a saving confession of faith. Baptism is an outward sign of an inward change. The Baptism that saves the believer is their having been united spiritually with Christ in his death and resurrection which happens to the true believer when they believe in Christ as saviour and Lord. The verse says it's not the water itself that is salvific, "not the removal of dirt from the body" but the appeal of genuine God given faith. There is a spiritual cleansing which the water represents. Further evidence that water Baptism is not required for salvation to be completed is that people who had believed in Acts showed evidence of having already received the Holy Spirit. Baptism is a covenant sign that someone has become a believer, it is a powerful reminder to the person that their old life is dead and buried and that they have been raised to new spiritual life by their union with Christ in his death and resurrection, and it is a powerful testimony to the world of their profession of faith. Baptising babies and declaring them regenerated does not regenerate them. God regenerates souls through the preaching of the gospel. "Of His own will begat he us through the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures." James 1:18. Neither the Roman Catholic Church or any Protestant Church today is doing what the early church did with regards baptism, which is baptising believers immediately after their public profession of faith. This emphasis (in Catholic teaching) shows how the modern Roman Catholic church makes salvation a box checking exercise, otherwise called sacramentalism. "Do this list of things and you will surely be saved." Anyone without a shred of true faith can be baptised as an infant, make their first communion, be confirmed, confess their sins to a priest, partake of mass and have no shred of true spiritual life. They are still in their sins and this is shown in their lives. You've told people "check off this list and you're a Christian." That's not how it works. Salvation and conversion should be life changing. "If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature. Old things are passed away. Behold all things are become new." 2 Corinthians 5:17.

[@joeleach5089]

well said, brother!

[@Rhall6451]

Jesus is saves not our works. ❤

[@realree8888]

Amen

[@treydean7997]

Joe: You Protestants don’t know what the essentials are and can’t agree on them. Joe’s Pope: All religions are a different path to God 😂😂😂

[@spencerd8504]

you think pope is spouting 'doctrines' every time he open his mouth?

[@seviam]

Pearls before swine, I see..

[@matty6247]

100%

[@efs797]

=/= all religions will save you. He def knew he was not saying that. I think you underestimate his care in word choice. What he said resembles what can be found in the catechism. But 1. once you arrive at God you still have to accept him as he is in order to receive His saving grace. 2. Jesus is God the Son. You still have to accept him to go to the father. The statement is nothing new. A lot of you are reading into it much more than is there. When one considers all that the pope did not say, it loses much of its salt. This is a rad trad tempest in a teapot

[@joecastillo8798]

@treydean7997 Trey, It would help you reading the Bible a bit more often. Regarding those who are on a different path, searching for God and trying to do His Will, Scripture tells you: ▪︎John 10:16 16. And I have other sheep that are not of this fold, and I must lead them. They shall hear my voice, and there shall be one sheepfold and one shepherd. As you can confirm, Pope Francis is following our Lord's lead in being charitable to those who are not part of the one true Church, who are following a different path in Christianity but who share a common belief in God, even though their knowledge of Him is not complete. The hope and prayer for these children of God, is for them to open their hearts and minds to the guidance of The Holy Spirit who leads them to the truth of the Catholic Church. May God bless your discernment.

[@BoksCar29]

Listened to this video and being a re-turning Catholic from forty years in the Protestantism world it would seem to me that Protestants view that Jesus founded a Luby's cafeteria rather than a Church. In a cafeteria a person would go down the line choosing what they prefer and at the end of the line they would call it, my church. The person behind them would have different items on their tray and call it , my church resulting in a finger f pointing exercise as to who has the best tray of choices. While in the protestant world my wife and I did a lot of church hoping looking for the next best preacher, or latest teaching. We wandered thru the prosperity gospel, which was and still is a disaster financially. With various preachers warning us not to listen brother so-n-so because he or she wasn't preaching the truth. I found Protestantism very confusing which explains the church hoping exercise we practiced for many years. Said all this to say I made it back home and come to two conclusions, I will NEVER venture off to the protestant world again, nor will I EVER leave the Catholic Church again.

[@pmlm1571]

Welcome Home, BoksCar. Glad you made it back. Our ship is steered by drunken crew right now, but there is no other ship, this is the one. I love you in our Eucharistic Lord. Keep the Faith!

[@BensWorkshop]

@@pmlm1571 I'm not sure their drunk so much as failing to ask directions.

[@BensWorkshop]

Welcome back home!

[@jbm0745]

Love the cafeteria analogy!

[@BensWorkshop]

@@jbm0745 It is a good one.

[@therobotFrom94]

I was brought up Baptist, and I've been listening to a lot of your content recently, as well as diving into the Church fathers. I've realised so much of what I was taught about Catholicism was either incorrect or misunderstood

[@elizabethking5523]

@@therobotFrom94 , Bless you friend on your journey. ❤️🙏🏻 I , too, was told all these things that were So NOT true about the Catholic Faith all my life. I studied for 7yrs. It took, for me, that long to sort thru all the lies. ❤️ reading the Church Fathers blew me away !! I was confirmed this past Easter. Just know that you are so not alone! When you seek God with all your heart , you will find Him. He led me to His Eucharist.❤️🙏🏻 God bless. Maybe take an RCIA class if possible? You can contact a Catholic Church and ask them about it. His will guide you❤️🙏🏻

[@elizabethking5523]

@@therobotFrom94 , oh, and gosh, I shouldn’t have assumed that you were remotely interested enough to take a class. 😂 but, just wanted you to know, that you are not pushed at all in that class. You could take the whole class and decide not to become Catholic. There is no pressure at all and that surprised me too.😂 (now, I knew I was going to come in bc the Lord had already revealed to my heart- the Eucharist.❤️) And I know that I will be learning and growing for the rest of my life by the Grace(s).

[@therobotFrom94]

@@elizabethking5523 no assumption was felt don't worry! I appreciate the input. I'm still figuring things about but it's clear to me that baptist theology is missing a lot

[@joeleach5089]

Please don’t become Catholic. You are a Protestant, so I assume you have confessed that you are a sinner, that you have relied on Jesus alone for your salvation, that you have been born again of the Holy Spirit, and that you read your Bible on a regular basis. Is the Holy Spirit really urging you to think about Mary a lot? Is He causing you to place more emphasis on the church fathers than on the Apostles? Is He causing you to believe that Christ is sacrificed at the mass by a Priest’s miracle? Is he inclining you to believe that an institutional church is more significant than the priesthood of all believers? I am skeptical.

[@EmberBright2077]

​@@joeleach5089 Catholics don't believe Jesus is re-sacrificed at mass.

[@jdotoz]

Even if you do think it's just a symbol, I don't see how the real presence (or not) can't be an absolutely essential question. Being wrong one way means you spurn your best opportunity for intimacy with Jesus in this life and defy a direct command of Jesus. Being wrong the other way means you're worshipping bread.

[@alisterrebelo9013]

Wholeheartedly agree. One addition for clarity, "Being wrong the other way means you're worshipping something that is both by appearance (Aquinas accident-ally) and substantially bread."

[@jdotoz]

@@alisterrebelo9013 That's fair. I guess I'd just say that if we're wrong, the distinction isn't even worth making.

[@taylorbarrett384]

You can't be Catholic and think it's absolutely essential, since the Catholic Church teaches that Protestants who lack the Real Presence and deny it, are nevertheless brothers in Christ, justified, sharing in the life of grace

[@alisterrebelo9013]

@@taylorbarrett384 Sources please, specifically for this part, "Catholic Church teaches that Protestants who lack the Real Presence and deny it, are nevertheless brothers in Christ, justified sharing in the life of grace."

[@jdotoz]

@@taylorbarrett384 No, that's not correct.

[@patrickbrinkman3717]

Me: This shouldn’t take long, it’s only one question! Video: Bahahha, I’m over an hour!

[@silveriorebelo2920]

hoping that you understand the question though

[@Sevenspent]

Could have been longer he only picked a handful of Protestant pastors.

[@brendansheehan6180]

*The* Joe Heschmeyer just dropped a new episode. Awesome Thursday yall

[@johnbrion4565]

I don’t think the church would have survived without the Eucharist. Protestantism came out of the Catholic Church. Without it you now have rock n roll churches and who knows how long they’d survive. How someone as smart as Craig can’t see the importance of the Eucharist to the church is beyond me.

[@BryceCarmony]

Cool shirt Joe looks good. Thanks for the great video

[@OzCrusader]

Never a wrinkle to be seen 👍

[@dyzmadamachus9842]

Just wanted to say that of all apologist podcasts/channels, you are my favourite one, because you allways prepare with great care, and I can always learn something about ecclesiology or history or theology or apologetics. In fact I don't start an episode if I'm not sure that I can concentrate, basically they are lectures to me. Thank you (and it's for free. How is it free!?) and greetings from Germania

[@jacobhilderman]

I knew I had to become Catholic when I was only 40% sure it was true. I came from a charismatic background but I was baptized Lutheran. I once saw John MacArthur say blasphemy of the Holy Spirit changed, it is no longer attributing to Satan the works of God, it is attributing to God the works of Satan. In my opinion, he was attributing to Satan the works of God because he was attributing the miracles in charismatic churches to Satan. My Lutheran family believed baptism saves you, whereas some protestants were saying that if you think baptism saves you, you are not saved. I found if Protestant was true, there was approximately a 25% chance that I could go to heaven in an ordinary way. I did not want to judge what the essentials of the Christian faith were to myself, so I was drawn to Catholicism and I was received at Easter vigil this year. Thanks for this video 😊

[@alisterrebelo9013]

Unsure how you calculated those percentages, but welcome home!🎉

[@jacobhilderman]

@@alisterrebelo9013 haha I realized I did not make that very clear. If some Protestants say you have to be baptized to be saved and some say you have to believe baptism does not save you to be saved, that’s one split. And you split it in half again with whether or not miracles can still happen. If some attribute miracles to the devil and it’s blasphemy against the Holy Spirit to believe in miracles, and the other side says those people are blaspheming the Holy Spirit, you are now divided into 4 groups and they can’t really say the other 3 groups are saved. Maybe that makes sense.

[@alisterrebelo9013]

@@jacobhilderman Yes thats makes sense actually! Very interesting way of thinking about it.

[@elizabethking5523]

Praise be to God!! You had great faith to do it at around 40%! It took me seven years! I wish I would have joined sooner!❤️🙏🏻Blessings to you! I too came in Easter 2024!❤️🙏🏻🤗

[@Charity-vm4bt]

​​​​@jacobhilderman Catholics keep it simple. They bask in the Real Presence of the Eucharist and Adoration. The Books of Galatians and Philipians advise us to dwell on Whatever is loving. Agape love is a chacteristic of the Catholic faith. Because of Our Lord, we see every life as sacred, every infant as a Person.

[@thenazarenecatholic]

What I’ve gathered so far (and from my experience as an evangelical pastor)… Protestants: what’s essential is believing certain things. Also Protestants: it doesn’t really matter what you believe about [current topic].

[@francismarion6400]

@thenazarenecatholic Who declared you a pastor or did you declare yourself that? lol

[@thenazarenecatholic]

@@francismarion6400 lol, exactly one of the things I wrestled with (apostolic succession). But, fr, I was ordained by my former denomination, and earlier appointed as a pastor by denominational leadership (they have a fairly extensive process, under normal circumstances).

[@francismarion6400]

@@thenazarenecatholic But it didn't really matter what you believe, is what you were teaching people? My friend, you are still as Spiritually blind as you were before. Pray for God to open your eyes and ears!

[@thenazarenecatholic]

@@francismarion6400 Lol, that’s not at all what I said. What I meant was that I realized what is considered “essential” within Protestantism is completely subjective. even though I really tried to justify what I was convinced were “essential,” I couldn’t establish/find solid ground given the Protestant theological framework. That, in part, is what led me to Catholicism.

[@estebanblanco2001]

If you want to be sure you are going to Heaven, please watch "The Bible way to Heaven" by Steven Anderson.

[@charlotteanneaton1143]

Actually, I encounter Judaizers online ALL THE TIME. It's almost starting to feel like low church prots who desire tradition but lack education are sliding into it right and left these days

[@geraldhill7547]

That was the standard accusation against Christians during the inquisitions to murder them. 😳

[@dungeoneering1974]

I'd pay to see a sit down discussion with Joe Heschmeyer and John McArthur.

[@alisterrebelo9013]

John McArthur ego is not going to let his reputation take a demolition at the sunset of his career.

[@Charity-vm4bt]

​@@alisterrebelo9013Well said. We would need an exorcism after inviting John Mac, the FM, into our presence.

[@gc3563]

🔥🔥🔥 Joe, brother 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 This video should be essential for every protestant Christian to watch and really think about the items discussed. I bet 99% of Protestants have never thought about 99% of what’s discussed here. I’m talking about your every day joes who profess to be a Christian. It’s not a dig, it’s just my experience in my own life. I’d love to send this to every one of my protestant family members and friends and just be like really sit down and think and pray on these topics, they are THAT ESSENTIAL! Glory to Jesus Christ ❤️‍🔥

[@neilericksson6989]

Interesting tactic of highlighting the differences between Protestant’s and passively emphasising the “rightness” of Catholicism. To be fair, you now need a session on the differences within Catholicism.

[@radekofficial2919]

There are none. If you don’t agree with the Roman Catholic dogmas you are not even a Catholic but a schismatic.

[@geremiasneto5642]

I get your point, but there is a big difference that makes it not relevant in catholicism: as the catholic church has a clear reference, it doesn't matter if there are many catholics saying different things, we can just look at the doctrine and say without doubt who is right and who is wrong on the essential stuff. And for everything that is not defined by the authority of the church, catholics are free to disagree.

[@Anthony-fk2zu]

The inability to point out essential doctrines and agree on them despite many Protestants using Sola Scriptura was part of my conversion from Protestantism.

[@EmilTennis00]

what are the essential doctrines of roman catholicism?

[@davido3026]

​​@@EmilTennis00 The Lord Jesus Christ founded the Catholic church in Jerusalem, year 33AD, Pentecost day! 3000 were baptized then. The Holy Spirit dwells in the church since that day! He leads her to all truth!!! Deal with bit! " it is written!"

[@peterzinya1]

@@EmilTennis00 1. That you obey and are subject to a man in a pope costume. 2. That you believe without question anything the CC says. 3. That you believe men in priest costumes are to be obeyed. 4. That you believe in a virgin queen of heaven that you must go thru to get to Jesus. 5. Graven images are good things and have power to help you worship better. 5. Only catholics go to heaven. 6. Jesus sacrifice wasnt enough to get rid of all sin.

[@EmilTennis00]

@@davido3026 interesting list of essential doctrines. would all Catholics agree on that?

[@bguman]

@@peterzinya1troll comment. If you have nothing to provide besides misinformation, why post?

[@doranthe3rd]

I would say this an essential podcast

[@BensWorkshop]

Fact Check: True.

[@elizabethking5523]

😀

[@carolzappa1804]

FANTASTIC JOB! You covered so many "essentials", and the difference between the belief systems of the numerous protestant congregations! I Loved your video; it was extremely helpful! Thank you for sharing all of your research and knowledge with us ! So proud of you! I'm sharing! 🙏🕊❤✝️👑⛪🙏

[@tonyl3762]

Such an important video! Pretty much every Catholic-Protestant dialogue/debate inexorably comes into this area of essential vs non-essential, and rhetorically it often comes even before the fundamental discussion of authority because there is a need to show some Protestants the need for authority to achieve unity. There are still some Protestants who are mind-bogglingly and blithely unaware or dismissive of just how divided Protestantism is and the great significant consequences of it (at least when talking to Catholics). And this video masterfully highlights many of the significant doctrinal divisions. Typically, I point out Protestants are divided on baptism, the Eucharist, governance, salvation, etc., but you found some other interesting divisions.

[@celestineschneider9313]

IMHO, your best podcast yet. No apologies necessary for the length. I intend to relisten immediately. Thank you and God Bless!

[@peterzinya1]

Good catholic podcast that has nothing to do with calling out to Jesus for salvation. Nothing but hollow doctrine.

[@essafats5728]

​@@peterzinya1hey don't 4get to add ur fav saying "bowing and kneeling to statues..."

[@peterzinya1]

@@essafats5728 That is not needed here. But thanks for reminding me. (;-D

[@essafats5728]

@@peterzinya1 God bless. i do enjoy your irritating ProtVomit though. Peace Be With You.

[@peterzinya1]

@@essafats5728 Thanks friend. You consider me a prot but im not a member of the prot community. I have no sympathy for Protestantism either.

[@maryfield2493]

Where did you find a George Jetson shirt? Love it.

[@PadraigTomas]

I will make you fishers of men... In a hover craft.

[@gospideygo6061]

This is absolutely one of the best KZbin videos I have ever watched. I am not being hyperbolic here one bit. Incredible points. Love your simple logic approach

[@josephc9963]

Well-reasoned as usual. And thanks for showing me even more verses from Scripture that relate to these topics!

[@alexdaniel8842]

Thank God that your “one holy church” isn’t selling indulgences anymore, oh wait they still do! Or beheading or burning at the stake those who oppose it (like born again believers). Or changing the second commandment to make room for idol worship, oh wait, they still have it changed! Your one true church says that baptism alone saves you (cathicism #1257) which Paul says “If I or an angel from heaven comes preaching another gospel, let him be anathema”. WAKE UP AND READ YOUR BIBLE

[@andip.9808]

As a revert Catholic, learning about the teachings of the Church really for the first time in my 40’s, the idea that the Church Jesus began was real … it blew me away. This Church not only existed but grew and thrived for 300 years before the New Testament was decided upon was mind blowing. How did it not collapse? What did this early Church believe? What did they do? What did the leaders of this early Church teach? There is the answer. It all confirms that the Catholic Church we have today is indeed the Church that Jesus declared in Matthew 16:18. Thank you Jesus. Thank you for loving us so much to protect this Church for over 2000 years. Please purify, strengthen and renew the fire of the Holy Spirit within her (us). In your holy name, I ask. Amen. 🙏🏼❤️

[@rmlrobl]

@@andip.9808 it was in Jerusalem, not Rome

[@andip.9808]

@@rmlrobl Exactly! 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼 That is the beauty of studying the lives of the first apostles… where they each traveled to and what their students wrote. The writings of the apostles who were selected and ordained to serve in place of the first apostles who died. Though I never mentioned Rome, thank you for taking the time to comment. 🤗 May the unity and truth Jesus prayed for before his death be something we as Christians (2000 years later) deem worthy enough to strive for.

[@johnsayre2038]

" He would not add that crucial word 'alone' ". Correct, Pope Benedict 16 believed the apostolic faith. Thanks, Joe. Solid video.

[@AllanKoayTC]

sorry, couldn't pay attention to a single word you said in the video. the shirt is too awesome!

[@gregwhisenhunt1279]

Joe is such a baller. I’m going to be him when I grow up.

[@connermcdaniel3395]

Please do we need a lot more Joes

[@georgefuentes4112]

😂😂😂

[@MeanBeanComedy]

Start studying scripture and shopping for shirts while you're young to prepare for the big leagues.

[@tonysaid6184]

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 3), June 29, 1896: “For this reason the Church is so often called in Holy Writ a body, and even the body of Christ… From this it follows that those who arbitrarily conjure up and picture to themselves a hidden and invisible Church are in grievous and pernicious error... It is assuredly impossible that the Church of Jesus Christ can be the one or the other, as that man should be a body alone or a soul alone. The connection and union of both elements is as absolutely necessary to the true Church as the intimate union of the soul and body is to human nature. The Church is not something dead: it is the body of Christ endowed with supernatural life.”[5]

[@AdriannieBio]

The mental gymnastics required to scream sola scriptoria and then deny the necessity of baptism is mind blowing to me….

[@taylorbarrett384]

For thousands of years of salvation history people died and were right with God through repentance apart from baptism. The idea that God is now sending all such people to Hell, despite sincere repentance, which is all God ever required before, because they haven't for some reason been baptized, is absolute lunacy

[@AdriannieBio]

@@taylorbarrett384 The New Testament is pretty clear on the necessity of baptism for those pursuing Christ?

[@eddardgreybeard]

​​@@taylorbarrett384 Baptismal regeneration has been taught from the first century throughout all of Christendom across schisms. You couldn't enter a single Church that didn't teach the necessity of baptism. You're objectively incorrect, Christian life begann with baptism

[@taylorbarrett384]

@@eddardgreybeard I didn't deny baptismal regeneration. 🙂

[@taylorbarrett384]

@@AdriannieBio the new testament is filled with people who are justified, saved, indwelt by the Spirit, before and without baptism.

[@shamelesspopery]

Three unrelated thoughts: 1. Special thanks to Thomas for doing the edits on this. I'm sure it was a beast to put together, what with all of the clips, and I thought he did a great job! 2. Y'all are hilarious. Laughing at the shirt comments. Apparently, instead of inviting people to comment, I should just start(?) wearing outrageous shirts. 3. For those Protestants commenting that Catholics have the same problem, I think that's pretty obviously untrue. Iis a Catholic rejecting an essential doctrine clearly taught by the Church really the same thing as two Protestants unable to agree on which doctrines are essential, or what the Bible says on those doctrine? But even if it WERE true; that's still not a response. It's a logical fallacy, called the tu quoque fallacy. And it would still mean that distinctively-Protestant doctrines like perspicuity are false. You can't get out of the problem by saying other people have the same problem.

[@Justas399]

Do you consider being in subjection to the pope for your salvation to be an essential doctrine?

[@alisterrebelo9013]

The shirt is reminiscent of the Chosen series opening video.😂

[@nisonatic]

I often have all kinds of profound thoughts while watching the video, get to the comments and completely blank. Something silly can get the wheels turning.

[@alisterrebelo9013]

​@@Justas399 Yes it is essential. Why? Because the Bible records how all the bishops have been put in charge of looking after the souls of the flock, Hebrews 13:17, these bishops are the shepherds of the sheep working for the ultimate shepherd, Jesus. However, Jesus put St. Peter as ultimately responsible for the spiritual care of the flock, John 21:15-17. Disobedience to the Apostles, and their successors the Bishops including the Pope, Hebrews 13:17, and 1 Peter 5:5 is a grave sin.

[@Justas399]

@@alisterrebelo9013 Are in obeying the command -“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)? Are you in subjection to pope Francis for your salvation? Have you believed on him?

[@ill_steal_your_pbj7363]

Everybody disagreeing about what’s right and wrong, claiming that their interpretation of Scripture is the most right while arguing someone else who is saying the same thing about their interpretive power. It sure would’ve been nice if we were left a divinely inspired institution which could unify everyone in their worship of Christ and put these conflicts to rest through the wisdom of God…

[@peterzinya1]

An institution?

[@Gunfighter95]

You mean like the eastern orthodox church?

[@peterzinya1]

@@Gunfighter95 I think he means the the church of the pedophile costume holyman catholic church.

[@frettychervil]

Yes ! The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. just kidding

[@edalbanese6310]

Wise words but Catholics don’t get it.

[@steadydividends571]

One thing you hit on that I’ve realized is there seems to be this totally false unity amongst Protestants. They seem to totally overlook their differences as long as they’re nominally under the Protestant umbrella but if you’re not under the Protestant umbrella all of the sudden you’re preaching a different gospel and not saved. I could 100% envision a scenario where a Protestant church forms which venerates icons but holds the 5 solas and the Protestants would still think they’re saved even though every Protestant will tell you not to become orthodox or Catholic because they worship idols.

[@pete3397]

Depending on what you mean by veneration, you've almost described Lutherans. Icons and imagery are fine as long as you are not praying to them or holding that the icons or images have their own spiritual power or are conduits for same.

[@alisterrebelo9013]

​@@pete3397 In the Catholic and Orthodox framework, "veneration" is linked to intercession of saints. And since Lutherans do not affirm the doctrine of intercession of saints, then the word means two very different things for a Lutheran and a Catholic. Also "praying" is not equal to worship in the context of veneration, but I'm sure you know that distinction and have in a moment of oversight used the term "praying" without clarification.

[@pete3397]

@@alisterrebelo9013 We honor the saints, but we will not pray to them or offer up the lame excuses of "asking" as that violates numerous articles put forward in Scripture and is a truly hellish practice. The word "prayer" was used deliberately and accurately regarding the practice of "veneration" as normally practiced. So, yes, icons are fine. Worshiping them or "venerating" them is anti-Christ idolatry without excuse. Everywhere and always. A practice not recommended for the surety of one's salvation.

[@alisterrebelo9013]

​@@pete3397 I appreciate your willingness to be forthright about what you meant, please continue to do so. In the absence of clarification, I of course, have to assume the best intent and that is usually ignorance not malice. What does the word "pray" mean in the context of the Bible?

[@pete3397]

@@alisterrebelo9013 Prayer is communication with God. It is the orientation of our words and thoughts towards God the Father through the Son. It is not properly oriented to or through and icon or saint. For example, St. Elizabeth of Hungary is a favorite of mine, but I would not properly pray to her, but rather I would pray to God thanking Him for the example of the holy life and actions of St. Elizabeth and that I might in some manner believe and act with her same faith and devotion in relation to Him and to the world.

[@MikePasqqsaPekiM]

Should’ve led with the 66-book Bible being the authority, since that belief kind of nullifies Christianity if it’s true…since basically all 1st century-15th century western Christians, all Coptics, and all Eastern Christians, got/have this wrong… I was a Protestant until 2017 and didn’t hear arguments like these until 2016…be merciful to our separated brethren. Most are very sincere.

[@alisterrebelo9013]

I've been laying this out online for the last few months in my discussions with Protestants. Unfortunately no Protestant (several dozen) have stopped to deeply consider the argument.

[@MikePasqqsaPekiM]

@@alisterrebelo9013 That’s not surprising, “…we wage war not against flesh and blood…” … We like to pretend that we are all rational and logical creatures but the reality is that it is extremely difficult to admit that we are completely wrong on a topic as important as which church is the true church. Pray for them, as I’m sure you are 👍👍

[@alisterrebelo9013]

@@MikePasqqsaPekiM Indeed, I do pray everyday that God strengthens me to do His will, and for all those I encounter in the sharing of the truth, that their spiritual blindness is lifted. Thank you for your comment, may God bless, in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, amen.

[@MikePasqqsaPekiM]

@@alisterrebelo9013 amen

[@AndrewofVirginia]

This is not an argument for Catholicism. This is actually reason for people to be more open-minded about their confidence for what should be considered "Scripture" or not. You would need to posit reasons for trusting in the authority of the Church's eventual decision on canonicity. Arguing from necessity is like a JW demanding assent to the authority of the watchtower organization since otherwise people might disagree on "essentials".

[@francisconeto8260]

As usual Joe lecturing with the tongue of fire of the Holy Spirit resting on him! 🔥🔥🔥🔥

[@duedilligence5463]

William Lane Craig’s two examples of nonessential doctrines are literally sacraments that’s wild

[@ChristoverMarxfortheWin]

Were they written about as "sacraments" in some group to come as "Roman Catholics"? Were the followers of Christ in the first century called "Roman Catholics"? NO! No, Roman Catholics in Antioch.

[@Essex626]

He's basically approaching from a Baptist viewpoint, it seems to me. So he assumes those things are symbolic, and allows that people hold them as more. They're terrible examples for anyone outside of that sort of American Evangelical/Baptist worldview, but if you're inside it they make sense.

[@duedilligence5463]

@@ChristoverMarxfortheWin yeah Tertullian in the 3rd century referenced baptism and the Eucharist as sacraments

[@pmlm1571]

@@ChristoverMarxfortheWin There weren't "Roman" Catholics until protestants invented the term to help themselves pretend their local startups were equal to some city's church in Italy. hahahaha

[@RenegadeCatholic]

​@@ChristoverMarxfortheWin"Roman Catholic" is a misnomer, as "Roman" is just another way of saying "western rite Catholic". The church has only ever officially referred to itself as "Catholic", and there are several rites within that church who are all yoked to the Bishop of Rome. And yes, there were people alive in the first century who believed this, such as Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna, both students of the apostle John.

[@mathewmartin4917]

Very well put together. I’ve listened to a bunch of discussions and read a couple books on different sides. I came to the faith only 3 years ago through a pretty tough battle discerning where the truth is. This is the best I’ve heard so far. Neat little bow.

[@jeanpommes]

On the one hand, I think the Catholic response to this problem is the most compelling. On the other hand, it seems that Protestants would have a clearer response if they actually stuck to what they say they believe, and let scripture dictate “essential” doctrines. By such a standard, if a “doctrine” is not explicitly described as essential (i.e. causal), it couldn’t be considered essential. I understand why Protestants don’t do this consistently: Adhering to this standard would likely require them to redefine or even abandon long-held doctrines that have been assumed to be essential or have been made essential through (largely Catholic) tradition. E.g. I would argue that they would have to accept baptism and presence as essential, yet by the same standard they would have to accept that the Trinity is non-essential.

[@EpoRose1]

26:24- “I don’t know how many immersion only Protestants are going to say that it’s literally essential, since most of the immersion only Protestants think it’s just a symbol…” …. what? So, it doesn’t do anything, but if you *want* to do it, it *has* to be full immersion… or it doesn’t count… as a symbol… what?

[@NJWEBER18]

I think, excluding Quakers, all Christians say you should be Baptized and it is a sin not to, but that does not equate to being salvific in effect. Thus they are more particular about this work of the law...

[@davido3026]

Protestantism is immersed in a big pandemonium of confusing sectarianism!!!

[@iggyantioch]

@@EpoRose1 The church of Christ is staunch Baptism saves an full immersion

[@RestingJudge]

​@@NJWEBER18entirety of Baptists, and most nondenoms (who are somehow even more individualist Baptists) hold that it isn't necessary.

[@puritanbob]

Yes, it’s quite a crazy position, and some of them are VERY hardline about it. If your weren’t immersed after making a credible profession of faith you aren’t saved, but then out of the other side of their mouth they will say how baptism doesn’t do anything and that we are saved by faith alone! The schizophrenic nature of this is completely lost on them. Baptists aren’t exactly known for being intellectual heavyweights.

[@canibezeroun1988]

I don't think we appreciate how brutal this takedown is. It's the nicest way to say Protestantism is chaos. As we were leaving our previous church (pray for my wife) our pastor was sick (might have been a spiritual attack) amd went on sabbatical just to recuperate. Made it a reference to Jesus in the desert (sigh). Over the next six weeks we have guest pastors come in, and every single Sunday was a different spin on Christianity and it was still all Charismatic. That confirmed everything I was reading about the Catholic Church.

[@jonathanw1106]

It's not a brutal takedown or even a take down. All he's demonstrating is that people following their conscience can reach different points of views on doctrine. This includes RC, as you have followed your conscience in submitting to the magisterium to tell you what the bible says

[@omadas]

Amen. Pray for all us to unite as a Church (the Catholic Church). Pray not to be "right" out of pride. Love all my protestant brothers and sisters, even the ones that speak viciously about Catholics. They've often been lied to their whole lives about it. Pray for them to find the truth through the Holy Spirit, and as a matter of the heart, versus head.

[@jdotoz]

You need to be aware that you could have a similar thing happen in a Catholic parish. The potential difference is that in the Catholic Church, there is a higher visible authority to sort out the differences.

[@omadas]

@@jdotoz yes, you're not wrong. I've been pondering 1 Corinthians 12, 12-31 lately. I think all who call upon the name of the Lord are saved and serve a part in emphasizing certain aspects of the Word. I don't think any earthly church gets all the worship preferences of God perfectly right, and we could all learn from each other despite our differences. We're all serving a divinely set purpose in the world, the Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant churches. Long way of saying we need each other! One is the ear, one is the eye, one is the hand, to use the scripture analogy

[@AndrewDolder]

@@jonathanw1106 So which doctrines are essential to the point that one is damned for disbelieving intentionally? Tell me, because you personally know what I need to be saved. Right?

[@vinciblegaming6817]

I think ultimately answering the “faith in what?” Question can lay out the fundamentals, and the essentials derive from the fundamentals. Basically, I’m using fundamental as foundational essentials. For Paul, THE fundamental is the resurrection - because it bears witness to WHO Christ is… otherwise, he’d just be a man who died a criminal death.

[@feeble_stirrings]

Orthodox Christian here. Just wanted to say I appreciate your content and irenic manner. Keep up the good work.

[@FromAcrossTheDesert]

you can find the Lord everywhere, even in the darkest corner of our fallen world. The entire Gospel is the story of God reaching into our broken lives and saving us. Salvation is found in Faith alone? Scripture alone? Jesus alone? the Church alone? There is nothing alone about following Christ Jesus. Faith yes, but with scripture. Scripture yes, but with the Church the Church yes, but with Jesus Jesus yes, but with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Pray for our Protestant brothers. They built their home on sand and now everything is coming down around them in front of their eyes. Ask a protestant to pray the our Father with you.

[@bambie1830]

The only time sola Fede appears in the scripture is James where it says not by sola Fede

[@geoffjs]

Protestants can’t read!

[@WeakestAvenger]

WLC had a profound impact on me getting into Christian apologetics and philosophy. But oh, boy, have I realized he has some problematic (and some heretical?) views. As a Protestant who has been investigating the apostolic Churches, I have noticed this tendency that WLC shows here regarding the Eucharist. He presupposes his own view to evaluate its importance. I have heard multiple people say to me, "It doesnt matter what church we belong to. We all have faith in Christ." But what does that entail? And the answer to that will include some really important things. WLC's other example, baptism, is similar. When people say that one's view of baptism doesn't matter, they have to presuppose their own non-sacramental view to say that. Because if baptism is for the forgiveness of sins, and if baptismal regeneration is true, then one's view of baptism absolutely is important!

[@shamelesspopery]

He had a profound impact on me, as well! But unfortunately, he is a heretic by any traditional Christian stand. He explicitly denies that Christ has a human will (a heresy called "monothelitism" which was condemned by the Sixth Ecumenical Council, the Third Council of Constantinople).

[@WeakestAvenger]

​@@shamelesspoperyHe also espouses a sort of neo-Apollinarianism in which the Logos replaces the human mind in Christ, but it still counts as human because humans are made in the image of God and so the Logos is the archetypal human. Something like that. And he prefers to avoid the Nicene formulation of the Trinity, because he apparently doesn't believe in the eternal generation of the Son. He teaches that Christ being the Son of God (at least in Luke) refers only to the virginal conception by the power of the Holy Spirit and not to the Son being eternally begotten of the Father. WLC rejects the Father being the fountainhead of the Trinity. He views all three Persons as equally "a se" and simply existing eternally with a shared nature without the Son or the Spirit having their source in the Father. And if I have misrepresented his views at any point, I truly apologize.

[@sivad1025]

In fairness to WLC, he's an honest Protestant. I would not give Protestants who are right on monothelitism and kudos over Craig because almost all of them presupposed church tradition when reading it into the Bible. At least Craig is honest enough to read the Bible and come to his own conclusion

[@joeleach5089]

Please don’t become Catholic. You are a Protestant, so I assume you have confessed that you are a sinner, that you have relied on Jesus alone for your salvation, that you have been born again of the Holy Spirit, and that you read your Bible on a regular basis. Is the Holy Spirit really urging you to think about Mary a lot? Is He causing you to place more emphasis on the church fathers than on the Apostles? Is He causing you to believe that Christ is sacrificed at the mass by a Priest’s miracle? Is he inclining you to believe that an institutional church is more significant than the priesthood of all believers? I am skeptical.

[@WeakestAvenger]

@@joeleach5089 No, I believe that the Holy Spirit has led me to believe that Christ's promise that the Holy Spirit would "guide you into all truth" did not fail, that his presence and power have been present in and preserving the Church since Pentecost. When Peter wrote of the Church as a "royal priesthood," he was using the same language as Exodus, which called Israel a "kingdom of priests." But that didn't preclude Israel from having an intra-assembly priesthood. Israel being a "kingdom of priests" was for the sake of the world. Similarly, the priesthood of all believers says nothing about the structure and the validity of an intra-assembly priesthood. We are a royal priesthood to bring the world into relationship with and worship of the true God. By the way, I'm generally more interested in Orthodoxy than Catholicism. I have been wrestling with this for more than a year and a half, so I'm not rushing into anything.

[@sdboyd]

You are completely out of control with that shirt. Something James White would be honored to wear.

[@SamHollidayV]

Hey in non-essentials liberty! Now, if he comes in the next video with a giant silver turquoise bolo tie with feathers and dream catcher flying off of it, then we’ll have words.

[@alisterrebelo9013]

Whites calvinist diety has not predestined him to share in such an honour.

[@nisonatic]

The essential doctrine of James White is he'd be wearing a sweater.

[@benjaminshirley]

Establishing a list of essential vs non-essential doctrines in a Protestant community. The main issue is the community has separated itself from a living tradition (magisterium). At this point, it is forced into the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy, when it wants to arrive at any list of essential doctrines. Depending on who you ask, they will draw the bulls-eye differently...

[@jammin4372]

Finally!!! Someone referencing Acts 15. To me, one of the great arguments against what I call "the protestant model". They wanted to reform the church but instead they splinter because they can't submit to the biblical model of councilor decisions.

[@logofreetv]

Acts is way more about history and narrative than doctrine. AND in any case, it repeatedly references the written word as the basis for any decisions. AND it still promoted the gospel despite individual disagreements. I don't think it's as "great" an argument as you think. There's nothing in it that makes a strong case for the RC church as it is today - for example James makes the final decision of the council, NOT Peter. AND Peter in v8, 9 & 11 appears to shun any idea he (or anyone else) is the receiver of anything other than the same gifts and status before God compared to the Gentiles.

[@vtaylor21]

8:15 William Lane Craig said an essential doctrine depends on something engrained into one’s belief. He made doctrine subjective based on that statement. Craig believes some doctrines that are essential that Progressive Christians don't. Would he say progressives are not Christian if they don't hold to a belief he thinks is essential like penal substitution?

[@iwansaputra1890]

subjectivism lead to relativism relativism lead to syncretism good job protestantism

[@John_Six]

Sounds like what I've been told by some atheists about morals.

[@curiousbrunette2677]

This is why I always go back to the early church fathers and The Catechism of The Catholic Church

[@TheThreatenedSwan]

You see how people like Ortlund rely so much on contemporary protestant indifferentism when for historic protestants these were important issues to divide over. It's also incredible how they will us totally different justifications for their views and have totally different views on what is essential from their own forebears, yet they just double down on their man made tradition. How can you think sola scriptura is true if you don't agree on the essentials and don't use the same reasoning as your own sects predecessors?

[@chrisshanahan8113]

Acts 15 is an example of Matthew 18:15-18 in action. When the Judaizers refuse to listen to the evidence of two witnesses (Paul and Barnabas), they take the matter to the Church. Not just their local Church in Antioch, but to *the* Church, which, guided bybthe Holy Spirit, makes a binding determination.

[@lukeohanlon2960]

👋 Hey Joe, Fantastic video! It really got me thinking about something deeper. You spoke about the essentials that Christians must believe for salvation or to be considered Christians, which led me to this question: when did the Catholic Church become so lax about who it considers Christians? Nowadays, many Protestants deny essential dogmas that the Catholic Church has defined, yet we still often regard them as Christians. For example, Ignatius of Antioch said in the early Church: “They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ... Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God incur death" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 6). Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (Book 3, Ch. 3), also said that it is necessary to be in communion with the Church and to hold to the apostolic tradition to be truly Christian: "Where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God, and where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church and every kind of grace; but the Spirit is truth, and therefore he who does not partake of it does not nourish his soul unto life." If today’s evangelical Christians were to be transported back to the time of the apostles or early Church, they probably wouldn’t even be recognized as Christians-many would be seen as heretics. So why does the Catholic Church seem to so easily affirm them as Christians now, when the early Church was so clear about defining the boundaries of faith? In your video, you quoted St. Paul’s warning against creating sects or divisions: "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" (Romans 16:17). If this was such a serious issue in the early Church, why do we seem to tolerate it so much today? Do you think the more lax position leads Protestants to believe that it doesn’t really matter what they believe, as long as they “believe in Jesus”? And doesn’t this hurt their chances of salvation, since sacramental confession is the ordinary way of being forgiven for mortal sin? I get that invincible ignorance can be a factor, but it often seems like evangelicals are just sticking their fingers in their ears, not wanting to hear the truth because, in their eyes, it simply doesn’t matter. I’d love to hear your thoughts on this! Thanks for all you do! Keep up the great work!! 🥳🥳

[@arestedescoyoca]

As I concluded, everything that the protestant movements were actually dealing with (are so called all other) not even the non-essentials so to say, so its fair to say we will give them the charity due to their cause and may God save their souls.

[@sentjojo]

My understanding of Catholic theology is that baptism is what makes someone a Christian. If you are validly baptized, then you are a part of the mystical body of Christ (thus a part of the Church even if you are not an active participant of the Church). This contrast with Protestant theology that belief itself is what makes you a Christian. So someone with a valid baptism is a Christian regardless of whether they believe in Christ. And someone who professes belief in Christ but does not get baptized is therefore not a Christian. Being a Christian does not entail being saved or being a practicing member of the Catholic Church. I looked up a reference in the Catechism so I don't sound like I'm making this up. CCC 1289 says "Christian" refers to the anointing from chrismation as Christ means anointed one. Eastern practice is to anoint at baptism. Western practice still has an anointment at baptism, but a separate anointment for confirmation into the Church. But confirmation is so called because it confirms the anointment of the Holy Sprit received in baptism.

[@lukeohanlon2960]

@sentjojo Thanks for the reference. I think that’s actually part of my concern-there seems to be a tendency to act as though Protestants are automatically saved or that their way of practicing Christianity is salvific, even when they deny key essentials of the faith. By that logic, would an atheist who was baptized as an infant still be considered a Christian? Clearly, we know that someone who denies God wouldn’t be saved based on baptism alone. As the Catechism says, “Faith without works is dead” (CCC 1815), and we can’t ignore that rejecting core truths of the faith has real consequences. It feels like the Church would be quicker to call out an atheist for rejecting God than a Protestant who rejects essential doctrines like the Eucharist or the authority of the Church. For example, Lumen Gentium (14) says that those who know the Church is necessary for salvation but refuse to enter or remain in it "cannot be saved." Protestants who consciously reject these truths-like the Eucharist, which the Church Fathers were clear about-are in a very similar position, aren’t they? As St. Cyprian of Carthage said, “He can no longer have God for his Father who has not the Church for his mother” (On the Unity of the Church, 6). And St. Augustine warned, “Outside the Church, there is no salvation" (Sermo ad Caesariensis Ecclesia plebem, Chapter 6). These early Christians were clear that rejecting the Church’s essential teachings could jeopardize salvation. So, if someone who was baptized but later becomes an atheist isn’t considered to be on the path to salvation, why would someone who rejects fundamental teachings of the faith (like Protestants rejecting the Eucharist or the necessity of confession) be viewed differently? Shouldn’t we be more vocal about these issues? I think this laxity can lead Protestants to believe that their views on essentials don’t really matter or have no bearing on their salvation, when in reality, those views may be leading them away from the fullness of the truth.

[@sentjojo]

@@lukeohanlon2960 I think I completely agree with you. My take on Church teaching is it's informed by the sacramental worldview. Our salvation isn't something we do for God, it's something God does to us. Baptism ontologically changes us, we are born again. But we don't lose our freedom. We can reject Christ and reject his body (the Church). So in a sense we do work by obeying God. Belief being part of obeying, but belief itself is insufficient. There's a tendency in me that wishes the Church would make things easier and ask less of me. And there's an opposing tendency in me that the Church would be more strict against non-believers, Protestants, and lax Catholics. Those are contradictory feelings and make me a hypocrite, but I think my experience is a typical experience of being in the Church. I'm not a shepherd though so it's not my job to walk the line between binding and loosing the faithful. There is a pragmatism to telling at least certain Protestants that they valid Christians. Being a Christian alone isn't enough though. The individualistic experience sold to Protestants is not biblical. It's not even enough for them to just correct their doctrines, they need to come home. I think the prodigal son parable speaks to this most clearly.

[@Hilaire_Balrog]

My takeaway….While there are many good people in the various Protestant communities, it’s just a sad land of contradiction and confusion.

[@geoffjs]

Together with the scandal of 000’s of sects which is not of God who willed unity Jn 17:11-23

[@bgorg1]

If you group them together it is. But if you look at them distinctly they are not. This is a grouping issue. Don’t lump the Anglican in with the Pentecostal. They are far more distinct and their commonality is that the Catholic groups them as “not us”

[@jacobfischer8385]

​@@bgorg1they are all a part of the same lineage just practice it in different ways. So, while some may have more merit than ithers, it is totally acceptable to lump them into the same family. Them breaking away and all of the differences amonf themselves is what ties them all together.

[@Hilaire_Balrog]

@@bgorg1 Sorry, but no. Look how confused the Anglicans are within themselves. So much so that their “communion” is falling apart.

[@notatall8722]

@@bgorg1: I think I get what you are saying, but I think that @Hilaire_Balrog's critique is still meaningful, because all those widely-differing groups are operating from the same (broken) _epistemic principle._ What I mean is: They all operate from an Epistemology of Faith which makes TWO moves: 1. It needs to _exclude_ the idea that the Catholic Magisterium _really did_ render judgment infallibly at, say, the Council of Florence, or Trent, or Vatican I; or that Christians are supposed to submit to the authority of the Apostolic Successors who remain in communion with the Petrine Successor. 2. In order to exclude that idea, their Epistemology of Faith replaces it with the assertion that Scripture is the sole infallible source of information by which humans can come to know, with principled confidence, the required content of the Christian religion. (By "Epistemology of Faith" I mean merely, "The practical methods a group uses in order that they can come to know, with strong confidence, what the required content of the Christian religion is.") Now, I recognize that there are a few different versions of _Sola Scriptura_ out there. I recognize that an Anglican is apt to turn his nose up, a bit, when encountering the kind of "Solo Scriptura" or "Nuda Scriptura" one finds in a backwoods "Independent Bible Church." Indeed, your well-informed Anglican, Lutheran, or Presbyterian is apt to borrow a few quotes from the Church Fathers, and a lot from St. Augustine vs. Pelagius, and claim that _this_ provides the epistemic advantage which differentiates him from the "Jus' Me An' My Bible" crowd. But, given time and a hearer, I'd argue, (a.) Those two extremes aren't as far apart as it looks at first glance; indeed, while they are theoretically dissimilar, they are _functionally_ indistinguishable; and, (b.) The claim that there is no binding/infallible Magisterium, that only Scripture can provide _inerrant_ direction towards Christian Truth, has a COST: The lack of authoritative binding-and-loosing, coupled to the impossibility of denying dissenters the _entrepreneurial_ option of starting their own separate communions, _logically entails_ that Jesus' Church-Discipline commands in Matthew 18 are just a dead-letter proceeding from the mouth of a man who must've been _too ignorant about human nature_ to predict the toothless outcome of his words. And such a man could not possibly be God Incarnate. Now, of course, Jesus rose from the grave, and He knew "men, and what is in the heart of a man, and did not entrust Himself to them." Jesus _is_ God. But, in that case, He did not issue a toothless and silly system of Church Discipline. And that means the Church _really does_ retain, in spite of the sometimes-abhominal sins, and silliness, and neglectfulness of her clergy, an authority which _today_ can bind or loose on earth, and know that their decisions have already been bound or loosed in Heaven. That Church Discipline, then, _must_ be included in the consideration of any Epistemology of Faith. I think that @Hilaire_Balrog is grouping together all the Christian groups which... - DON'T lean on the binding-and-loosing authority of the bishops in Apostolic Succession as having a _real place_ in how we come to know the content of the faith correctly; and, - DO try to make up for this gap by leaning on the Scriptures as the sole _inerrant_ source for Christian doctrine, with or without a Fig Leaf of Patristic quotes. In _that_ sense, I think @Hilaire's grouping makes decent sense. And if everybody describable by those two attributes happens to have wildly differing doctrines? Well, surely, that's an indictment of their shared Epistemology of Faith, isn't it? Respectfully, N

[@dwpjoyce]

Hits the nail on the head really - if faith alone saves, then what exactly constitutes "faith", and how can we be sure?

[@nibs1989]

That's simple: Romans 4 explains the kind of faith. Paul explains what the faith is in in 1 Corinthians 15 - the Gospel that he preached. Essentially, for one to be a Christian, one must believe in the death, burial, and resurrection. They must believe that Christ's death was for their sins, they must believe the deity of Christ, and they must believe that Christ arose physically, I'd alive today, and had the power to save anyone if they will trust in Him. Faith, in essence is being convinced of what God said, believing His promise is true, and that He will keep His word, and then in repentance, one turns to God by the heart, believing the truth of who God is, and submits themselves to Him in trust that results in obedience. In essence, that is faith, as was demonstrated by Abraham in his trust in God's promise and subsequent offering of Isaac, which was also by faith according to Hebrews 11. That is the essence of Christianity. It begins with God, His Promise, and His Power. Anyone who believes God - the truth of what God has said and done and will do - will be regenerated by the Holy Spirit and will be gifted with eternal life, a life begun in faith and lived by faith.

[@dyzmadamachus9842]

Well, non-trinitarian 'christians' reject the divinity of Christ claim. And now what.

[@nibs1989]

@@dyzmadamachus9842 non-trinitarian "Christians," exactly

[@christopherponsford8385]

@@nibs1989You’ve essentially described *fides formata*, or “formed faith”, which Catholics define as the faith that saves you.

[@nibs1989]

@christopherponsford8385 and it is only that faith that saves. Hence, Sola Fide. As defined, faith itself has a beginning in the word of God "faith comes by hearing, hearing by the word of God." Faith is a product of the seed planted by the Spirit in someone's heart. It has a yield. People respond differently to the proclaimed word, as seen in the soil types. Without faith, there is no salvation. Therefore, seeing as it is the only element without which a person cannot be saved, salvation is by faith alone - the true faith as described in Romans 4.

[@ryderisboss]

So I converted to Christianity at 26 after being non religious and basically uneducated about Christianity my whole life. I started asking about Christianity and doing research online. Going on the internet to ask Protestants about what is essential to Christianity is total anarchy. Just trying to get a general understanding of what happens when a Christian commits a serious sin was a complete gong show. "Don't worry about it bro, if you've accepted Jesus then all sins are nailed to the cross. Just do you but consider not doing that" "You're still saved but only if you stop doing that" "You are currently not saved and need to repent and say the sinners prayer and then you'll be saved and you'll never lose your salvation" "What the last guy said except you definitely can lose your salvation" "You've done that? You won't be saved" "You're probably predestined to not be saved and it doesn't really matter what you do" what a total mess. As a guy with no dog in the race just looking at Christianity from the outside without anyone tugging at me to join their faction, Catholicism was easily the most logical. Got a question about essentials? Look it up in the Catechism and see what the Saints taught. Done

[@Dienekes678]

Very interesting. And also correct.

[@susand3668]

Welcome home!!

[@Halloweendm]

Getting advice on religion from the internet is about the dumbest thing imaginable! Even more so if your soul and eternal destiny are at stake! If you genuinely wanted to understand religions, you’d have gone to churches of varied denominations and spoken to the pastors and preachers that work there! Not the internet! And definitely not a college classroom! Ridiculous!

[@Dienekes678]

@Halloweendm erm, not really. You are getting information/advice from people, whether that's in a classroom, church or online. This information is either correct or incorrect. That's the important part! God bless.

[@Halloweendm]

@@Dienekes678 You don’t know who you are getting advice from online! When you walk into a church and speak with a pastor, you know for frickin sure who you are talking to!

[@tonysaid6184]

".....seems incredibly important." No; doesn't "seem". It is much MORE than "incredibly important": it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature; And Baptism, my dear Proty friends is a WORK - a work which "saves you". The Council of Trent clearly defines in Canon 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism: "Whoever say that Baptism is optional, that is NOT necessary for salvation: let him be anathema." And there is more: "Go ye into the whole world and preach the gospel o every creature..;teaching them to observe (that is, DO) all things that I have commanded you (to DO).." But, what is meant by "the whole world"? Clearly the whole world must mean: all of history - the whole history of the world - from the moment He commissioned them to go forth and preach and baptize till the consummation of the world - its end. And that is why Jesus said: "And behold, I AM (God) with you always, even to the consummation of the world." But with whom? Merely the twelve Apostles He was commissioning to carry out this work? But the Apostles would all soon die and go to heaven .This therefore can only mean in the context of preaching the gospel to all men on earth, (for of course He would be with them always - eternally - in Heaven), that they would be preaching the gospel under His protection in the persons of their ordained, legitimate successors with a successor also of Peter at their head , whom he had exclusively endowed with "the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven", to the end of the world..We see how un-biblical Protestantism is; Everything the Church is and teaches is right in front of their eyes; but they do not, can not see it. Why? Because "they have not (willingly) received the love of the Truth. Therefore God sends the operation of error to believe lying", "wresting the Scriptures to their own destruction", "they bring in SECTS of perdition...."

[@michaeljefferies2444]

Great episode! There is a tradition of Protestantism that will say that baptism by immersion as a believer is essential for people above the age of reason. It’s the Campbellite tradition. The survivors of it are the independent “Christian churches”, the “Christian Church”, the “church of Christ” and the “disciples of Christ”. Most people in these today wouldn’t affirm this, but would affirm something like our stance that it’s essential, but God can work outside of their version of a “true” baptism

[@geoffjs]

Well done Joe! I continue to be surprised when so called bible believers claim that baptism is optional & deny His Real True Presence in the Eucharist. Jesus Jn 3:5 & Jn 6:53 says that both are necessary for salvation!

[@Cato_the_Christian]

@PeppyJiseppyWhy should anyone debate your interpretation when the Fathers condemn it?

[@HannahClapham]

@geoffjs. Except that Catholics say that neither baptism nor the real presence (nor even the Eucharist) is essential. The Trinity is not essential. The divinity of Christ is not essential. Heck, the Catholic Church is not essential. Not if we’re just talking about getting into heaven!!! Joe is getting confused between what is THEOLOGICALLY essential and what is SOTERIOLOGICALLY essential. Here’s a snippet from a dialogue between Ben Shapiro-a devout Orthodox Jew-and Fr. Robert Barron-a well-known Catholic apologist-on what Barron believes Shapiro must do in order to be saved: ********** No. The Catholic view-go back to the Second Vatican Council -says it very clearly. I mean Christ is the privileged route to salvation. "God so loved the world he gave his only Son that we might find eternal life." So that’s the privileged route. However, Vatican II clearly teaches that someone outside the explicit Christian faith can be saved. Now, they’re saved through the grace of Christ, indirectly received. So the grace is coming from Christ. But it might be received according to your conscience. So if you’re following your conscience sincerely-in your case you’re following the commandments of the law sincerely-yeah, you can be saved. Now, that doesn’t conduce to a complete relativism. We still would say the privileged route-the route that God has offered to humanity-is the route of his Son. But, no, you can be saved. Even Vatican II says an atheist of good will can be saved, because in following his conscience, if he does-John Henry Newman said the conscience is "the aboriginal vicar of Christ in the soul" (it's a very interesting characterization)-it is, in fact, the voice of Christ if he is the Logos made flesh, right? He's the divine mind or reason made flesh. So when I'm following my conscience I'm following Him, whether I know it explicitly or not. So even the atheist, Vatican II teaches, "of good will,” can be saved. ********** One should be able to see that Catholics should not be lecturing Evangelicals on what is and is not essential. For when it comes to a soteriological view of “essential,” for a Catholic, virtually NOTHING is essential. A belief in Christ is not essential. Even a belief in the existence of God is not essential. All that is necessary is for one to believe and to practice with a good conscience what one believes. Whatever that might be. As long as you’re not a hypocrite, you’re good to go. Now, I’m sure that there must be SOME limitations. For example, I’m guessing that sincere Satanists…or worshipers of Molech, with the sacrifice of young children as one of its “essentials,” will not be welcomed into Catholic heaven. But Joe should go into all that.

[@geoffjs]

@@HannahClapham You obviously don’t know Catholicism as Jesus says Jn 6:53 that His Real Presence in the Eucharist is necessary for eternal life. The Holy Mass is the source & summit of Christianity! Baptism is also necessary Jn 3:5 which is one of the reasons why we baptise infants. Protestantism can’t even agree on the need for baptism! If one denys His divinity that is heretical & confirms why Mary is the mother of God. One has to believe in the Trinity to be Christian

[@maryrupe5983]

@PeppyJiseppyactually you need to read what the church fathers say as this is where Catholicism takes all its dogma from screw the Scriptures to say what fits your favorite church father

[@maryrupe5983]

@@geoffjsnot so or the assurance Jesus gave to the the thief on the cross was a lie so what assurance do you put your eternal salvation in? If you’re counting in baptism as an infant incapable of repentance of sin then you’re counting on a false promise made by those who don’t have authority

[@cristinamz2137]

Yup. I'm starting to prepare a week long lesson on the Protestant "Reformation", in honor of the Protestant Revolution, on the anniversary of it here at the end of October. I'm a high school history teacher. I will of course cover the dogmas of faith alone and bible alone.

[@georgepierson4920]

Will you be including how Adolf Hitler was a fan of Luther and modeled his hatred of the Jews on Luther's beliefs?

[@georgeel-vp7sk]

And how they're not scriptural

[@tony1685]

thank our Creator for the Reformation! it amazes me how many fulfill Amos 8:11 still today.

[@marlena.]

H. was born and raised catholic, baptised and did first communion. H. had a few pro christian standings but he later abandoned. There are also other claims, like him being a neo-pagan that wanted to revive polytheism but modernised. Overall H. was a totalitarian that abused anything he picked and chose to gain more power. @@georgepierson4920

[@StringofPearls55]

I see what you did there! 😊

[@mikeyangel1067]

Joes shirt is authoritative 😅

[@alisterrebelo9013]

Chosen series opening video.

[@puritanbob]

Spot on. Your teachings on these matters have been really helpful for me in my journey into the Catholic church. I listened to this while working on a home repair project today and I was like, “Yeah this is why I am becoming Catholic.” Protestantism ultimately breaks down into subjective individualism. So you never really can know if you or your neighbors really are part of the body of Christ because the true church is invisible. The best you can do is form confessions like the WCF but most modern protestants don’t hold to any robust confession, they have a Burger King approach to theology, “Have it your way” That was a very astute observation regarding the breakdown of American Presbyterianism. Where the basically said, “We may agree that these things are essential but you can’t force us to agree with that.” That’s the problem, the core of Protestantism is a rejection of the authority of the Church. If that rejection works against the authority of the Catholic magisterium it also logically has to work against the Protestant confessions, rulings and right down to the pastor on Sunday morning.

[@ChuckyLarms]

This video won’t get the credit it deserves. Made me consider so many perspectives that I overlooked or discounted without considering (right or wrong).

[@stephensuttles6913]

Guys, the current Pope just said that all faiths lead to salvation. So because Catholics don't agree does that mean Catholicism is false? Suggesting because Protestants disagree on doctrine means Sole Fide is wrong is silly. The early church fathers had nothing in common with today's Catholics. Just read the words and let the Holy Spirit guide you.

[@SilentKnightErik]

So you think that everything you do or you don't is guided by the Holy Spirit, right? There are many reasons why Catholics know that there is only one true Church, having a solid united interpretation of the Bible is only one of them. There is only one Truth, the other versions of the truth are mistruths. I pray for all Protestants to come to reason one day 🙏🏼. God bless you

[@EmberBright2077]

No he didn't

[@PSUIVERSON]

"All religions are paths to reach God. They are-to make a comparison-like different languages, different dialects, to get there. But God is God for everyone. If you start to fight saying 'my religion is more important than yours, mine is true and yours isn't', where will this lead us? There is only one God, and each of us has a language to arrive at God. Some are Sheik, Muslim, Hindu, Christians; they are different ways to God." - Pope Francis, September 13th, 2024 Good luck with that.

[@annalynn9325]

So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter. 2 Th 2:15

[@ModernEphemera]

This may be the most devastating critique of Protestantism I’ve seen. I’m familiar with many of the individual points but the way you’ve woven them all together is amazing.

[@TheCatholicNerd]

7:21 this always confused me about the Baptists. For people so obsessed with making sure you're older before you're baptized and name their entire denomination after baptism, it seems like what they think baptism is isn't really important. It's more like the baptism of John the Baptist like you described, a symbolic gesture. If it's symbolic why does it matter if you do it to a baby? Moreover, if it's symbolic then why do it at all? Edited because my speech to text for some reason spazzes out on KZbin

[@BG2024-truth]

Catholics believe baptism is necessary for salvation, while Protestants believe baptism should only be given to professing believers. Protestants argument is baby’s can’t profess belief.

[@Wightwizard]

Because it’s a profession of faith. Like would you let just anyone take communion? To a baby it’s just water on the head like to an unbeliever it’s just bread and wine. Thus is has no meaning.

[@ryderisboss]

Acts 2:37-39 RSV [37] Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?” [38] And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. [39] For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.” What protestants read - Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?” [38] And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you (except the babies) in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins (except it doesn't cleans your sins) ; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (except the Holy Spirit comes when you're 13 at bible camp or whatever). [39] For the promise is to you and to your children (except the babies) and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.”

[@EmberBright2077]

​@@ryderisboss I recently sat through a sermon by my old Baptist pastor, and he read this passage and actually reworded it to "be baptized *and* forgiven of your sins".

[@tylergermanowicz5756]

I dig that shirt!!

[@alisterrebelo9013]

Chosen series opening video.

[@FromAcrossTheDesert]

45:48 There only 2 places in ancient literature where we find the term "works of the law". This is one of them, and the other is in the dead sea scrolls. 4QMMT "On the works of the Law" and this speaks only about ritual purity. So, the Catholic understanding (St Aquinas included) is therefore vindicated, and the reform view is thereby negated. Now let's move on and bring Jesus and his salvation to the world!

[@davido3026]

You find the Lord in his catholic church!

[@FromAcrossTheDesert]

@@davido3026 I know you did not mean this below, but your words started me contemplating. So bear with me brother... Yes, and you can find the Lord everywhere, even in the darkest corner of our fallen world. The entire Gospel is the story of God reaching into our broken lives and saving us. Salvation is found in Faith alone? Scripture alone? Jesus alone? the Church alone? There is nothing alone about following Christ Jesus. Faith yes, but with scripture. Scripture yes, but with the Church the Church yes, but with Jesus Jesus yes, but with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Pray for our Protestant brothers. They built their home on sand and now everything is coming down around them in front of their eyes. Ask a protestant to pray the our Father with you.

[@SevenfoldFilmsFree]

To my Catholic friends: Before you mock us, please understand that your mistake is in not reading and studying Paul's 13 letters to the churches. He makes it crystal clear that we are no longer under the law but under grace. He even says he's thankful that he didn't baptize any of the readers of his letter so that they wouldn't put stock in baptism as a mechanism for salvation. He goes out of his way in Galatians, Ephesians and Romans to outline the distinction God is now making with gentiles - which is that we are currently in an age of grace. Failure to understand this will lead you to read scripture that is written to Jews either before or after this age of grace and applying it to yourself. For example - Jesus says you must strive to enter in, cut off your hand that causes you to sin, persevere to the end, endure, etc., to be saved. Paul says that you are saved and sealed the moment you believe in Christ and that you can lose reward but not your salvation. So how can they both being saying two different things? Answer: Jesus was speaking to Jews before/after the age of grace. Paul is speaking to those within this age of grace. Read Galatians specifically to hear his open rebuke to all of those who do anything other then believe in salvation by grace through faith.

[@dherpin4874]

He is only referring to the old law

[@SevenfoldFilmsFree]

@@dherpin4874 He's referring to the law in general. You're clearly making statements without even going back to study his 13 epistles.

[@dherpin4874]

@@SevenfoldFilmsFree in context he is referring to the old law in every one of them. I may have missed one where he is not, so please feel free to correct me by pointing to the verses that are speaking to any law.

[@edweber9847]

Craig violated his first “standard” on determining doctrinal essentiality (the emphasis in the Bible) when using the Eucharist as an example for his second “standard.” All three synoptic Gospels mention the Last Supper and the Bread of Life” discourse is a very powerful proclamation on it - “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” Surely, if Jesus emphasizes something it carries more importance then how many times it’s mentioned.

[@danielletracyann]

So what exactly do Protestants think is heresy? Do they not believe in heresy? What is heresy to them?

[@geoffjs]

Anyone who disagrees with them!

[@davido3026]

Protestants do not know what the word heresy means!!! They never use it

[@davido3026]

​@@geoffjsthey disagree amongst themselves and call themselves brothers to charge against the church of Christ!

[@sentjojo]

The etymology of heresy from Greek is "choice". It was used by Christians to contrast orthodox beliefs from non-orthodox sects. The word "orthodox" means "right opinion", as in the correct opinion as derived from authority. Well scripture can't have an "opinion" since opinions do not come from inanimate objects, only from people. If scripture is the only authority, then there is no authoritative opinion. Which means there is no orthodoxy, which means "heresy" becomes a meaningless term.

[@SeanusAurelius]

We say that heresy is denying the truth of the Nicene, Apostles' or Athanasian Creeds, or a denial of the gospel, with boundaries laid out by the 5 solas.

[@JamesBarber-cu5dz]

Prior to medieval Christian claims in regards to the Apostles, the Pharisees had already set an example of developing doctrine based on an authoritative oral tradition allegedly having been passed down alongside Scripture from Moses himself. Moreover, despite the fact that the Pharisees were responsible for establishing the proper Old Testament canon for Israel (included in Christian Bibles), much as later Catholics claim for themselves, their assertions of tradition's authority was roundly condemned by none other than Jesus Himself: "You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition!" In all of Biblical history, not one mention is made about authoritative oral tradition as a compliment to Scripture. During the Apostolic Age, both Christ and the Apostles always appealed to Scripture as the final authority for any claims or practices under consideration. This is logical since only the Apostles and Prophets were understood as authoring Scripture and therefore having such authority. Priests, though appointed by God, were always commanded to follow Scripture rather than extraneous customs. Prominent early Church Fathers recognized and honored these principles, asserting that the true Catholic Church must always act in harmony with Scripture whenever "small matters" of tradition, as St. Basil the Great (d. 379) identified such issues, aren't specifically addressed. Thus, anything truly alien to Scripture or its theological principles must be abandoned. For example, here is St. Basil describing such considerations as he experienced them in the 4th-century: "For instance, to take the first and most general example, who is there who has taught us in writing to sign with the sign of the cross those who have trusted in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ? What writing has taught us to turn to the East at the prayer? Which of the saints has left us in writing the words of the invocation at the displaying of the bread of the Eucharist and the cup of blessing? For we are not, as is well known, content with what the apostle or the Gospel has recorded, but both in preface and conclusion we add other words as being of great importance to the validity of the ministry, and these we derive from unwritten teaching. Moreover we bless the water of baptism and the oil of the chrism, and besides this the catechumen who is being baptized. On what written authority do we do this? Is not our authority silent and mystical tradition? Nay, by what written word is the anointing of oil itself taught? And whence comes the custom of baptizing thrice? And as to the other customs of baptism from what Scripture do we derive the renunciation of Satan and his angels? Does not this come from that unpublished and secret teaching which our fathers guarded in a silence out of the reach of curious meddling and inquisitive investigation? Well had they learnt the lesson that the awful dignity of the mysteries is best preserved by silence. What the uninitiated are not even allowed to look at was hardly likely to be publicly paraded about in written documents" (The Holy Spirit, 27:66). Obviously, it makes good sense that such "small matters" of tradition can be legitimately supported since Scripture and its clear principles are not violated. However, St. Basil also has this to say about Scripture and Church doctrine: "Enjoying as you do the consolation of the Holy Scriptures, you stand in need neither of my assistance nor of that of anybody else to help you to comprehend your duty. You have the all-sufficient counsel and guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead you to what is right" (Letter 283). St. Jerome (d. 420), writing in the 5th-century, likewise describes acceptable traditions as being very harmonious with Scripture: "Don't you know that the laying on of hands after baptism and then the invocation of the Holy Spirit is a custom of the Churches? Do you demand Scripture proof? (Note that what he refers to here as a custom is actually described multiple times in the Book of Acts!). And even if it did not rest on the authority of Scripture the consensus of the whole world in this respect would have the force of a command (Obviously because of very clear consistency since he used a Scriptural example of what a legitimate Church custom looks like). For many other observances of the Churches, which are due to tradition, have acquired the authority of the written law, as for instance the practice of dipping the head three times in the layer, (A neutral practice implied by Jesus's "Great Commission" formula and later found in the Didache) and then, after leaving the water, of tasting mingled milk and honey in representation of infancy (Old Testament symbols); and, again, the practices of standing up in worship on the Lord's day (Standing is in the Book of Ezra), and ceasing from fasting every Pentecost; and there are many other unwritten practices which have won their place through reason and custom. So you see we follow the practice of the Church, although it may be clear that a person was baptized before the Spirit was invoked" (Jerome, Dialogue Against the Luciferians, 8). Keeping these principles of maintaining traditions that merely illuminate explicit Scriptural doctrines in view, we can now make sense of what other early Fathers write about Scripture's unique authority.... Clement of Alexandria (d. ca. 216) said, “But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits, will not desist from the search after truth, till they get the information from the Scriptures themselves” (Stromata 7:16). Hippolytus of Rome (d. 235) said, “There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures and no other source” (Against the Heresy of One Noetus 9). Hilary of Poitiers (d. 367): “Everything that we ought to say and do, all that we need, is taught us by the Holy Scriptures ” (On the Trinity, 7:16). St. Athanasius (d. 375) said, “The Holy Scriptures, given by inspiration of God, are of themselves sufficient toward the discovery of truth. (Orat. adv. Gent., ad cap.) “The holy Scripture is of all things most sufficient for us” (To the Bishops of Egypt 1:4)." "The Catholic Christians will neither speak nor endure to hear anything in religion that is a stranger to Scripture; it being an evil heart of immodesty to speak those things which are not written,” (Exhort. ad Monachas). “Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith’s sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture.” (De Synodis, 6). St. Basil of the Great (d. 379) said, “Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on which side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favour of that side will be cast the vote of truth” (Letter 189:3). St. Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 386) said, "We ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures...Let us then speak nothing concerning the Holy Ghost but what is written; and if anything be not written, let us not busy ourselves about it. The Holy Ghost Himself spoke the Scriptures; He has also spoken concerning Himself as much as He pleased, or as much as we could receive. Be those things therefore spoken, which He has said; for whatsoever He has not said, we dare not say" (Catechetical Lectures, 4.17ff). St. Gregory of Nyssa (d. 394) said, "What then is our reply? We do not think that it is right to make their prevailing custom the law and rule of sound doctrine. For if custom is to avail for proof of soundness, we too, surely, may advance our prevailing custom; and if they reject this, we are surely not bound to follow theirs. Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words (Dogmatic Treatises, Book 12. On the Trinity, To Eustathius). St. Ambrose (d. 396) said, “How can we use those things which we do not find in the Holy Scriptures?” (Ambr. Offic., 1:23). St. Augustine (d. 430) said, "For the reasonings of any men whatsoever, even though they be [true Christians], and of high reputation, are not to be treated by us in the same way as the canonical Scriptures are treated. We are at liberty, without doing any violence to the respect which these men deserve, to condemn and reject anything in their writings, if perchance we shall find that they have entertained opinions differing from that which others or we ourselves have, by the divine help, discovered to be the truth. I deal thus with the writings of others, and I wish my intelligent readers to deal thus with mine (Letters, 148.15). “For in regard to the divine and holy mysteries of the faith, not the least part may be handed on without the Holy Scriptures. Do not be led astray by winning words and clever arguments. Do not even listen to me if I tell you anything that is not supported by or found in the Scriptures” (Exposition on Psalm 119). John Cassian (d. 435): “We ought not to believe in and to admit anything whatsoever which is not in the canon of Scripture or which is found to be contrary to it” (Conferences, 14.8).

[@josephvictory9536]

Not sure what the point of this. If this is a defense of sola fide it is pretty clearly not. If it's not a defense but early christian context, for the importance of scripture it's pretty thorough. (And a nice read) The catholic church has this standard regarding moral theology. It must not contradict scripture. And in theology in the church it's typically required to have at minimum 3 biblical references read in context for any theological extension. However, even in the Bible it's written that it only covers some small part of Jesus life, the *necessary part* for salvation. And in both the old and new testament there is the clear establishment of authority. Like with Moses, Elijah, Job, David, Solomon, and later, John the baptist, Jesus and Simon Peter. Jesus also says of the pharisees, "do as they say, not as they do." And to Peter "what you bind in heaven is bound" giving special authority to the church through the first pope. Meanwhile Jesus, Mary and Joseph obeyed the church authorities. Mary getting married to Joseph despite remaining a virgin through life. Also both the council of nicea and the early church fathers supported the apostolic tradition specifically. And I personally think most importantly the works of the antichrist were specifically geared towards the clergy and apostles. And almost no effort was spared. Yet christians who denied church membership or avoided mass were ignored. For me this is the most persuasive. Then last is the evidence by miracle. Jesus used miracles to show people that God was with him. As Moses and Elijah did as well. Obviously Jesus is God so the sign of miracles originates from him unlike the others. But it is gods own custom to support his saints with miracles, including and especially when it comes to righting the church. In fact much of the reason anything enters the sacred scripture is because men saw the work of God and chose to record and remember it that way. Before any written word comes gods acts with his saints. Be it the father with Moses or Jesus with the apostles or St Theresa of avilla. But we do not call the latter scripture, instead the body of the work of saints and the deposit of faith. Because God hasn't stopped talking with us. And we haven't stopped recording. Looking over the body of miracles of the saints is hard. But there are so many miracles attributed to them and their life is guided towards specific holy objectives. The establishment of the rosary, scapular, miraculous medals along with the introduction of many prayers. If the only way to validate that something is from God is the scriptures, sure there is a lot of room to disagree with authority or tradition. But when God establishes the practice through good fruits and miracles these become another kind of support. In particular because he gave us this method in scripture.

[@chadphillips8875]

@@JamesBarber-cu5dz well said James

[@zacmurdaugh]

The argument seems to boil down to "We need an 'infallible' authority to tell us what is and isn't necessary" but the issue is that there is NO infallible authority outside of the Bible on this earthly plane. There is no avoiding that for any of the 3 main lines of Christianity. This all goes back to working out our salvation with fear and trembling. This is why our faith is what saves us. If we need perfect theology to go to heaven we are all damned because no one will get it ALL right this side of the Second Coming.

[@dongchanlee9190]

You say that there is no infallible authority outside of the Bible, but if you actually open up your Bible and start pondering about who determined which books belong in the Bible and which books don’t (remember, for instance, there were far more writings than the 27 books of the New Testament in the early days of Christianity), you’ll soon realize that you are actually implicitly relying on the infallible authority of the church that made that determination under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. And also try to guess what church that is.

[@CanuckGod]

@@dongchanlee9190 You're making a couple rather large assumptions: 1) that the church that you refer that made that determination is the Roman Catholic church in its current form and that there is some direct historical between their doctrines and the doctrine of the church from its inception, forgetting that even in the times of the apostle John in the first century(as evidenced in Revelation) there were churches that had strayed from the inspired Scripture that had already been penned by the other apostles and that Christ (through John) had to correct them about a great number of things that were going on at even that early date. 2) You're also assuming that no one had any real idea about which books were truly Scripture or not until instance the Council of Nicea, and while this may be true in the most official sense, there was already solid consensus on the current 27 books of the NT as early as the mid to later 2nd century, with the other (non-Gnostic) books at best thought of as supplementary instruction material but in no way inspired; I'd argue that the Council of Nicea did not determine the canon at that point, but made official what had already been recognized as true. In the second book of Peter, the apostle points out that people are trying to distort Paul's writings as they do the other Scriptures (i.e. the Tanakh or Old Testament) and he clearly equates Paul's letters to being divine Scripture, so there was some level of mutual corroboration even then. I do personally identify in the most general sense with the theology of the Protestant Reformation, and we do believe that those teachings do in fact go back to the thought of the earliest Church, but you also have to remember that 'sola scriptura' doesn't mean that Scripture is the only authority that we have, only that is the only *infallible* authority that the Church universal has, and that all other teachings and doctrine are subservient to it and any that conflict with Scripture should be rejected (and this would be true for all churches, whether Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox). In the end, I believe our difference of opinion is that you believe the Church in the corporate sense gave birth to the canon of Scripture where we believe that the canon of Scripture shows us what the Church is and should strive to be.

[@bernardwalsh9587]

Baptism being both matter & Spirit ( Water & Spiritual grace) is another example of the Catholic and biblical view that God recognizes humanity in both our flesh & Spiritual forms and we cannot be split from our fleshy part. Salvation must include both our body & Soul. As compared to the Gnostic and Protestant view that we are simply Spirit is good and the body and all Physical things are evil.

[@sayhello5377]

You make a good point because it is this mindset that has caused so many Church splits over the centuries, and therefore so many different denominations with wildly varying beliefs. Who gets to decide what is essential versus non-essential? Who gets to decide a scripture is being interpreted correctly? Surely, we can’t just leave it up to every single person to make of it. Whatever they may. Then literally everyone on earth would be believing something different. And all of these different things cannot all be true at the same time.

[@Ashton_Speaks]

Bro you’re awesome

[@Racingbro1986]

That’s not a fair assessment of dr. Whites view on the trinity. He was basically saying that we can’t fully comprehend the details of the trinity, not that you can deny the trinity. We’re not all scholars , most just have child like faith.

[@ToddJambon]

In John 6, we literally have the text below. And then many people left Jesus because they couldn't believe this teaching. The only ones who continued following were the ones who did believe it. So if people who don't believe are literally excusing themselves from Jesus, after seeing him do miracles, how on Earth can anyone say that this belief is not essential? Jesus had every chance to say, "Of course you're not going to eat my body; it's a symbol." But he didn't. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died; 50 this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.” 52 The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat?” 53 Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. 54 Whoever eats* my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.b 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”

[@Wightwizard]

Do this in remembrance. Meaning it’s symbolic.

[@ToddJambon]

@Wightwizard that's your interpretation, but not that of the early church. If it's a symbol, why is Paul concerned about people receiving unworthily? Why does he say it's a participation in Christ's Sacrifice? Why did the entire Church see it as real until the Reformation?

[@Wightwizard]

@@ToddJambon Being symbolic doesn’t mean that it isn’t a holy thing. The meaning is still there. Just that I’m not literally eating and drinking Jesus physically.

[@ToddJambon]

@Wightwizard well I suppose it's up to your interpretation then. I go by the authority of the Church with 2000 years of teaching and scholarship.

[@ryderisboss]

Please show me in scripture where it's explained to be not literal and only symbolic. If the bible is the sole authority, go show John 6 to a random person who's never read the gospels and ask them what they think Jesus was trying to say. The answer you will get will surprise you. The fact that we celebrate the Eucharist in remembrance has nothing to do with whether or not it's his literal flesh and blood. Why would his disciples walk away from a symbolic gesture? Why would Peter tell Jesus a symbolic gesture is a hard saying? Show me a reputable source in the first 500 years of Christianity that spoke of the Eucharist as a mere symbol.

[@reeseleau63729]

Your videos are always so insightful. Thank you and God bless you 😊

[@igoraguiar]

Probably your best video yet. Thank you.

[@andreeattieh2963]

Protestantism is more about division than salvation

[@SeanusAurelius]

Absolutely not, we like the Gospel so much we'd rather discard anything else if it gets in the way, rightly or wrongly.

[@andreeattieh2963]

@SeanusAurelius the people who wrote the new testament were catholic

[@hanssvineklev648]

@andreeattieh2963. Well, yeah. But the people who correctly interpret the NT are Protestant.

[@andreeattieh2963]

@@hanssvineklev648 Protestantism can't read the bible in context

[@andreeattieh2963]

@@hanssvineklev648 Protestantism can't read the bible in context