The Best Protestant Apologists Can't Answer This Argument

[@greenmonk]

the answer was 1. There, a protestant answered ;)

[@shamelesspopery]

(But it's 16.)

[@greenmonk]

@@shamelesspopery lol that left to right is important indeed. thanks for the video! I enjoy your content as I work my way through my own baptist upbringing.

[@cactoidjim1477]

It depends on whether you use PEMDAS or just go left-to-right

[@niftyspiffyguy]

Division is at the same level as Multiplication. This is why I hate that division symbol and unless I’m only talking about #➗#, I don’t use it. Even then, I generally opt for the fraction bar or (numerator)/(denominator). There is a super educational video called “The problem with PEMDAS: Why Calculators Disagree” by The How and Why of Mathematics talking about calculators getting different answers. Long story short: pemdas should be PEJMDAS where the j stands for juxtaposition which was a widely understood concept around the time textbook writers were coming up with the Pemdas acronym. 🤓 thank you for listening to me nerd out. Peace and blessings 🕊️

[@anthonyporpora4786]

@cactoidjim1477, of course, we need the key to this problem! And Our Lord give the keys to Peter! We have the keys, the Pope the magisterium, this is the only way to solution of scriptures!

[@harrygarris6921]

Gavin Ortlund and RZ have even had a conversation with each other about how important it is for Protestants to have essential doctrines that they all agree on and then how it’s ok to have still important but non essential lesser doctrines… And yet they each have a different list of what the actual essential doctrines are. You can’t make this stuff up.

[@enniomojica7812]

Really which denomination are they from?

[@Qwerty-jy9mj]

One is a baptist the other a presbyterian.

[@jeremias-serus]

@@enniomojica7812RZ is Presbyterian Ortlund is Baptist

[@Willflop]

In fairness to Ortlund, and he made this point to Joe several years, is that it's apples and oranges. Ortlund would argue that "protestant" is not a "church," so you'd have to compare the unity on essential doctrines between the Catholics (which era?) and, say, something like a confessional Dutch reformed church. Seats in pews would be a lot smaller than the CC, but the structure of the argument no longer works then.

[@harrygarris6921]

@@Willflop it’s not apples and oranges because Ortlund has appealed to Protestant unity on several occasions. One of his most popular videos is the one where he says the advantage of being Protestant is it’s a wider net so you can share in this general Christian unity with more parties. It still boils down to the question of what is it exactly that we’re unified on? Of course since Ortlund is loosely reformed but not confessional he has the easy cop out answer of the invisible communion of the elect. But again if that’s the answer then why do we care about essential doctrines? If essential doctrines are a tool you can use to identify the truly elect, then you have to disavow many Protestants. But if they’re not then you cannot visibly identify Christian unity. You have to either let go of the essentially of holding to certain doctrines or you have to let go of the claim that Protestants have a broad general sense of unity, you can’t hold onto both.

[@amnnn1991]

Pray for my wife and I, friends. We are lifelong Protestants who have been studying church history for over a year now and are considering Catholicism. Joe, your recent book ‘The Early Church was the Catholic Church’ was extremely helpful. Please pray for clarity.

[@jaycefields756]

May the Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, guide you and your wife into the fullness of truth. In the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Amen ✝️🙏🏻

[@shamelesspopery]

I promise to pray you this morning!

[@stefanielozinski]

Praying for you both ❤

[@miracles_metanoia]

Brent Pitre also has amazing books about the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist, Mary, etc

[@BensWorkshop]

May God bless you and Guide you.

[@TheNarrowGate101]

As usual ,Joe Heschmeyer boldly declaring the Truth in honesty, humility and charity. I’m an ex-Protestant and this simple realization brought me back to The Catholic Church.

[@BensWorkshop]

Welcome back home!

[@ThornyCrown-l5d]

Huh? Brought you back to the RCC? Where, within its ranks, are a whole BUNCH of different "denominations" all adhering to this that and the other thing????? The Catholicism of antiquity says you go to hell if you're not a member of the RCC, and TODAY, lo and behold, everyone goes to heaven, including Muslims and atheists as long as you're... SINCERE. Your testimony then, is rejected.

[@nedlandry7424]

So you say prayers to saints?

[@TheNarrowGate101]

@@BensWorkshop thank you!

[@TheNarrowGate101]

@@nedlandry7424 yes. Check out Joe’s videos on the topic. Excellent.

[@scottcowen4071]

He just proved your point by spending 3 hrs not answering the claim

[@helo6953]

I used to take you seriously and respect your charitable delivery and intellectual honesty, until I saw you wearing a Chiefs shirt in this video. Now I have to question everything I’ve heard from you… love the channel, you’re fantastic!!

[@kylewdufour]

😂

[@dyzmadamachus9842]

Man, genius, that was an intriguing read.

[@patrickdtx3638]

He lives in Kansas, so it's not that he's a Swifty. (This is not a political statement. Just thumbing my nose at the Swift-related fixation on the Chiefs.)

[@MeanBeanComedy]

If he's pulling for the team with the refs on payroll, how can we ever trust him?

[@justinbruck9602]

I love Joe Heschmeyer's style, presumably because his prior legal training appeals to the way my mind works. I must say I am also deriving some uncharitable pleasure watching someone attempt to attack a litigator with rhetoric while neglecting to make a logical argument. (Joe is also much kinder to his opponents than I would be in a similar circumstance)

[@jaytv4eva]

"You Protestants have schisms and can't agree on the essentials." "Define essentials." "Well, you don't all agree the Trinity exists!" "We believe that Jesus is fully God and man and is the Savior chosen to redeem the world from sin." "Heresy! Mankind isn't born with a tendency to do evil!" "Oh, so I'm a heretic for believing people can be evil but if I'm Orthodox and deny the filioque then...I'm committing a venial sin?" "B-b-but....that's off topic! STRAWMAN! I never s-s-said thaaaaat!" You can't make this up, folks

[@kyrptonite1825]

1. You do have schisms and can’t agree on the essentials. It’s a bad scandal in your church that there are so many different denominations, since Christ prayed for the Church to be one. As Flannery O’ Conner put it, if you ask a Catholic what they believe, you would expect every Catholic to say the same. So you don’t necessarily need to ask. However, you need to ask a Protestant what they believe, because, chances are, most will say something different from another. We have an infallible interpreter for an infallible book, so we know what the scriptures actually mean. Meanwhile, you rely on personal interpretation, and thousands of denominations and bible scholars with different opinions on major doctrines is the result (so don’t tell me you interpret the Bible with the Bible.) And these aren’t on “small issues” either. So don’t try to tell me anything about Scriptural perspicuity. A simple look at the differing denominations and their beliefs in Protestantism will show you the opposite. Plus, the Book of 2 Peter explicitly denied this doctrine of the Reformers.

[@kyrptonite1825]

2. Basically, there’s not a good way for you to even know what the Scriptures actually mean, which is damning for Protestantism. Also, while people have schismed from the Catholic Church, Catholics all agree on the same thing. Those who are in Communion with the Church of Rome, and the Pope, like the Apostolic Fathers, like Clement of Rome, said to do. That’s another thing that Joe Heschmeyer mentioned in the video. We’re talking about people who spawned from the 1500s religious moment known as Protestantism, and how it’s basically based on personal interpretation, and this leads to confusion and division. Meanwhile, you try to compare this to the Orthodox and Catholic schism, which just isn’t the same. That’s like trying to point to a Muslim and then to a Catholic, and saying: “See! You disagree.” Which doesn’t make sense. We’re talking about people within the confines of the Protestant umbrella.

[@kyrptonite1825]

3. Joe was actually making the point that you CAN’T define the essentials. If you ask a Protestant what you MUST believe for salvation; they can’t answer it, and all differ on what is essential. To be a Catholic, you simply must believe everything the Church teaches, or be a heretic. Now, to be a Christian in particular, what you must do is have a valid Trinitarian Baptism. And beleive in the saving power of Christ and the Cross, and His Ressurection, and Him being the God-Man. Technically though, if you have Invincible Ignirance, you can be saved through Christ without knowing of Christ. Just as a non-Catholic Christian, can be saved through the Catholic Church, by being unknowingly linked to the Church, despite not being a visible member. 4. You all don’t agree on the Trinity, which is a serious problem. 5. Some of you actually disagree with the Hypostatic Union. 6. We do believe that man has a tendency for evil, it’s called concupiscence. 7. Who said that it was a venial sin? Orthodox can be saved however, like Protestants can as well. Orthodox do have the privilege of having valid Sacraments, however. Since they have a valid Apostolic Succession, whereas Protestants do not. They would be in schism, whereas Orotestants would technically be under the label of heretics (however, we prefer the term “departed brethren”, after Vatican 2; since Protestants today can’t be blamed for their ancestors’ sins.) They would be in schism, since they have valid Apostolic Succession. However, some Fathers say that schism is actually a worse sin than manifest heresy. However, there is again that point I brought up. Now, there have been some attempts at ecumenism with the Orthodox, and recognizing of doctrinal similarities, but we’re not saying whatever your trying to make it out to be.

[@jaytv4eva]

@@kyrptonite1825 Your accusations regarding the so-called schism of Protestantism is nothing new. Every single person or religious order that attempted to take even a reasonable stance towards the papacy was more often than not beset before and behind by young, handsome papist intellectuals eager to please the holy father in exchange for temporal positions of power. The finest example of this being the mutually beneficial relationship between His Holiness Pope Leo the 10th and the very Reverend Thomas de Vio--Master of the Order of Preachers. This fine Catholic reverend was bestowed the office of Bishop, not because of his personal piety and devotion to holy scripture but rather his very papist position that due to the office of the Holy Father, that he needn't be held accountable to any judge or council despite the fact that the holy father had promised to come to an amicable compromise on that issue prior to being appointed to the noble papal office. Naturally, anyone merely even suggesting that the pope needed accountability were quite often labeled either heretics or schismatics. Apparently...even during the days of Pope Leo the 10th, not all of the shepherd's flock agreed with the shepherd. However, unlike the very Reverend Thomas de Vio and the Holy Father Pope Leo the 10th, our friend Joe would rather attempt to cast doubts upon the non-heterodoxical tradition of Protestantism, without really clarifying his own position on matters of very important Catholic significance, such as the infallibility of the pope and apostolic succession. I'm quite sure our Catholic friends would be quite eager to hear what his views are on that and whether Vatican II is of God or the devil. After all, don't these matters impact the "core essentials" of the Catholic faith? Or did they change? And if they changed, did the holy father change them or the college of cardinals? I freely confess that unity does not mean uniformity; consider the case of Leonardo Da Vinci and Michelangelo. Did they possess and utilize the same art style in decorating the chapels and basilicas with scenes from holy scripture OR did they use different artistic styles and expressions for the glory of God? You can't surely expect me to believe that the holy father would appoint someone that sought to glorify the name of Satan on the walls of the church do you? Of course not! Getting back to uniformity therefore, why should I assume that all monks have to belong to the same order and that all artists have to use the same art style for the glory of God? You and I don't assume that and neither do any good Catholics. Therefore, one tree [the church] can have many branches [off shoots, confessions] and if it doesn't, then it's a tree without fruit, fit for the fires of hell! Finally, I am a Christian with no pretense of representing the Protestant faith, however, it is very dishonest of Joe to expect Protestants to give him bare essentials when he tries hiding his. His video CLAIMS to be affiliated with Catholic Answers, his channel has a Catholic name, but is Joe himself actually a Catholic? And if so, is he a Sedavacantist, Roman, or Vatican 2 Catholic? If you want to know more, you know where to find my comment section.

[@1blueeye]

I'm not Catholic personally and even I know your argument simply can't be refuted by protestants for obvious reasons. Sola scriptura is untenable and the results speak for themselves... Great job Joe.

[@jeromepopiel388]

@@1blueeye Non Catholic friend, listen very carefully. God has blessed us with His truth in a written form. There is no other source of truth and without it you and I would be toast. Just because most protestants are messed up doesn't make it any less true. I think it was C.S. Lewis who said that it's not that Christianity is hard, but it's that It hasn't been tried. Look at the seven churches in Revelation. Did they all have it together? Did they all have the same doctrines? Did they have no idols? We need to give God's saving gospel some respect. Man's tradition will only lead to destruction. God bless.

[@avemariastella7869]

​@@jeromepopiel388 Sola Scriptura is a tradition of men

[@jeromepopiel388]

@@avemariastella7869 my friend, the tendency of men is to not follow the instructions of God but do it their own way. It began with Adam and continues to this day. God said not to make rulers of yourselves for ""one is your Father in heaven " yet that is the first thing they did. Rulership by a central committee is not of God. It is a socialist model which is evil. Socialism controls people's thought by such things as a "ministry of truth". The Roman church established their Majesterium as their ministry of truth. Then they created the Inquisition to enforce it. It is an evil system. 1 Peter 5:1-3 [1]The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: [2]Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; [3]Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. St. Peter is only a fellow elder. The elders are to rule by example, not by being lords over the flock.

[@AJ_Jingco]

​@@jeromepopiel388 Jesus Christ ✝️ and His Apostles NEVER practiced Sola Scriptura. But Sola Scriptura is a MAN made doctrine, invented by Martin Luther in the 1500s.

[@jeromepopiel388]

@AJ_Jingco No, I wouldn't believe it unless it was in the Bible. 2 Timothy 3:15 [15]And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. Note that the scriptures "are able" The scripture is also able to make one free. John 8:31-32 [31]Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; [32]And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. Scripture is the food for the spirit. Matthew 4:4 [4]But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. St. Peter placed the scripture over tradition. 2 Peter 1:19 [19]We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

[@Rue1008]

Joe, you are absolutely clear in your delivery - no obfuscation, and not deserving of the type of criticism you have received here. Your ministry has been invaluable to me and has been one of the greatest helpers on my path Home, in fact I am starting RCIA next week ! Thank you for your work 🙏

[@dennisboznango4942]

I'm already looking forward to the 7-hour rebuttal video

[@jenkoop]

😂

[@alelilaceda3539]

😂😂😂

[@timboslice980]

The protestant apologists think so many of us are converting to Catholicism because we like the smells, bells, and sounds. They dont realize its because the catholic church has good answers the other churches do not.

[@holdintheaces7468]

But also the smells and bells.

[@TheThreatenedSwan]

​@@holdintheaces7468 If you can even find them.

[@StanleyPinchak]

But mostly the Eucharist and Mysteries.

[@rushthezeppelin]

To be fair my conversion started with the smells and bells but quickly became rooted in the good doctrinal arguments.

[@BensWorkshop]

@@holdintheaces7468 Fair.

[@connermcdaniel3395]

Amazing that you’re accused of a gish gallop for one question when the rebuttal is 3.5 hours without a direct answer

[@ghostapostle7225]

And the fact it doesn't make sense to accuse him of that in this context. lol

[@silaila3115]

lol

[@KathleenHughes-gm3jx]

Doesn't he realize that he can pause your video? .. we're not talking Lincoln-Douglas debates here.

[@JohnP3369]

Who is it that made the 3 hour video?

[@cassidyanderson3722]

Javier simply doesn’t know what a gish gallop is.

[@Liam-mm2to]

All of prot KZbin vs Joe... and it's still not a fair fight.

[@niftyspiffyguy]

He’s not alone! That’s his secret: all the Saints are in his corner and the Blessed Mother on top of that. All glory to Jesus!

[@AveMaria.GratiaPlena]

I think the titles of these videos probably provoked these Protestant Apologists more than the content.

[@jenkoop]

Let's give it a Catholic "both/and."

[@jaytv4eva]

People love provoking Protestants all the time. Makes for lots of views

[@etackett415]

You are much more patient than I am, thanks for keeping after it!

[@ajb129]

You might be the first person in history to be accused of employing a Gish gallop…in a monologue.

[@benabaxter]

When the responses are hours long with no limit.

[@ReginaCæliLætare]

I genuinely believe Javier has a below average IQ. It's not possible to understand the literal opposite of everything you see or hear without an actual lower than normal mental capacity. That or he's a giant troll.

[@georgerafa5041]

What would prots have without baseless nonsense lol

[@DavGre]

A *recorded* monologue with unlimited time to respond to each and every potential "argument" being made, that's not a gish gallup in the slightest.

[@Silverhailo21]

Wild

[@manny75586]

What I love most about "perspicuity of scripture" is that the Scripture explicitly tells us it is not perspicuitous to just any average Joe. see Acts 8:26-40. 2 Peter 1:20 adds to this as well.

[@StanleyPinchak]

Exactly this. Add 2Peter 3:15-16 as well. We need a Magister and Paul is potentially a pitfall for the willfully headstrong.

[@gundog4273]

​@@StanleyPinchak how have I never seen this verse before??? I've made that argument many times that all heresies come from misinterpreting Pauline literature myself having never read this. Haha

[@RealSeanithan]

Fortunately, this is no average Joe: it's Joe Heschmeyer.

[@BernardinusDeMoor]

Well, it teaches both. Psalm 19:7 talks about it "making wise the simple." "Simple" sounds like "average Joe" to me! On the other hand 2 Peter 3 talks about Paul's letters having some things that are hard to understand. So you need a balanced take. Scripture is clear, but not equally so, and will sometimes require some diligent work and ample care to get at the meaning. This is what the Protestants taught, and it is plainly correct.

[@SneakyEmu]

John 20:30 seems to disagree with you though.

[@jaynesager3049]

A three-hour ad hominem is enough to show they got nothing. It’s desperation, and gave you a great opportunity to show that. So thank you for your gracious diligence.

[@andrewgunawan4502]

I can only imagine just how frustrated Joe must’ve been making this video. You can see him get a bit worked up over how his points failed to come across. You can hear the exasperation when he says, “once again, my argument is:…”

[@billcynic1815]

Regarding certain unitarians like Dale Tuggy, I like how Fr Stephen De Young put it: "You can argue about whether or not they're Christian, but they are definitely Protestant."

[@StanleyPinchak]

😂

[@JH_Phillips]

@@StanleyPinchakexcellent

[@VickersJon]

Nah

[@jaytv4eva]

Unitarians are heretics because they are outside of the Catholic church. Then again, so are the Orthodox. They're both still going to hell according to the Catholic Catechism so....

[@363catman]

If you believe that, then Hindus are Protestants. Best explanation of Unitarianisim i ever heard was "it's a church for atheists who want to have a church to go to".

[@MandiArt]

I’m a Protestant, I have no idea how I came across your videos like a week ago, but I seriously can’t stop watching them! God has humbled me, big time, and I’m here for it! I’m so very sorry for lies I have spoken about Catholics out of pure ignorance. I truly believed Catholics didn’t even read the Bible because that’s what I was told and whole host of other things that were wrong as well. As a Protestant the Bible is our ultimate authority, as you mention. And one thing that bothered me is the number of the books of the Bible. 66, the number that we are taught is the number of man in the Bible. A number that represents rebellion. Why would the word of God have the number of man and rebellion, if it came from God? It might seem odd to a Catholic but this has always sat uneasy with me. Then I learned that the Catholic Bible has more books, and what is that number? 73!!! Wow! Both 7 and 3 are numbers that Biblically represent God’s absolute perfection! Wholeness, and complete! I’m not quite ready to become Catholic, I just had a major shift unlearning Calvinism which was a huge for me . But I am so eager to learn more, and willing to submit to whatever the Lord wants me to submit to. I’m so thankful for His leading, correction and gentleness with me! I’m so thankful for these videos that are clear and well argued. I feel as though I’ve stumbled across missing pieces of a puzzle I’ve been trying to piece together for years now. And my mind is being blown with every video!

[@Chicken_of_Bristol]

It's great that you're looking into Catholicism. That being said, you should be very wary about the degree to which you can use that sort of numerology to come to biblical truths.

[@RegiPro]

It's a slow process. Just stay humble and willing to learn and follow where the Lord leads. It's a renewal of the mind again.

[@megred7364]

@@MandiArt been there! The Coming Home Network is a great resource!

[@1901elina]

Woah I just got chills. Never noticed that - 7 is the number of the covenant and 3 for the Trinity. I'm not into superstition but 66 vs 73 is quite the coincidence, or is it?

[@EC42904]

I don't put too much stock in the numerology stuff, but I have long thought the same thing you observed: how odd is it that the Protestant bible has an "imperfect" number of books in it, a number associated with the devil and with... a certain other group who rejected Christ (6 million, 6-pointed star, etc.) just like John 6:66 is the verse where many people no longer follow Jesus over the controversy of the Real Presence in the Bread of Life discourse. Obviously, those chapter and verse divisions came much later in history than the original text was written, but it's still curious, just like the number of Deuterocanonical books revered by Catholics happens to be 7, the number of perfection.

[@dameaswolf7804]

Still in OCIA, this channel has more wisdom than the reformers combined.

[@ReginaCæliLætare]

When you're off baby milk and ready to move onto spiritual meat (not belittling, this is biblical), you will graduate from "Catholic Answers" to "Scholastic Answers". God bless you on your journey, brother.

[@Ak_agent47]

Naww bud

[@jaytv4eva]

A Vatican 2 Catholic quoting from a Bible in English. I wonder who came up with the idea to translate the Bible into English in the first place....

[@ReginaCæliLætare]

@@jaytv4eva It by English you mean local vernacular, then that would be the Catholic Chuch through Saint Jerome, translating the entire Bible from Hebrew and Greek into Latin. We were indeed the first.

[@damnmexican90]

​@@jaytv4eva By your own standard Scholars admit that the Kjv outright copies the douay rhemis version. Lmao

[@ThouShouldst]

This is an awesome response. I unfortunately did watch the whole 3.5 hr video and kept thinking the whole time, “did he watch Joe’s full videos or does he just truly not understand the argument?”

[@guyguytchombi5425]

He was shook 😊

[@Littlelilis]

I understand why you made this video. Not because of that random guy, but because of so many people who watched his video believing he is making sense

[@ottoaero14]

So glad you took the time to respond Joe! I remember seeing this a few weeks ago and being taken aback by how Javier approached his “rebuttal”

[@DDickinson458]

You're a class act, Joe. You handled his frankly nasty attacks on you with grace and charity. I'm in OCIA now and I've learned so much from watching your videos! Please keep up the great work you do.

[@joserodriguez5211]

Thanks, Joe, for rebutting Javier’s “rebuttal.” It’s also disappointing to see Gavin Ortlund co-signing Javier’s long winded and tangential video. I tried to watch the video, but it’s really difficult to watch. It’s like taking a peek into an alternate universe. I appreciate your clarity and directness, Joe.

[@toddvoss52]

Yes disappointing that Gavin signed on to that video

[@StringofPearls55]

I learn so much with every one of your videos! Even reading through the comments I see 'false arguments' popping up. You helped me focus in on what I knew was there but just couldn't see. Thanks!

[@IsaiahINRI]

"I was gonna make an angle joke that I thought would be acute joke but I decided this is not the right time." This is why I'm subbed to you

[@CatholicCraig]

Joe, it’s like playing a pickup game with Protestants and you are up by like 10 points so they turn into the players who call FOUL every time they miss a shot so they can try to catch up on score. But then they miss the free throws too. You know what I’m talking about?!?!? 😂😂😂

[@Silverhailo21]

The hilarious thing about this guy is that the term Gish Gallup was popularized by Jimmy Akin When he pointed out that that's what James White does in a lot of his debates.

[@Ladya12345]

I think what’s important to remember here is that Joe isn’t making a positive case for Catholicism. Apologetics to Protestants is such a two sided coin. Because you can convince them of Catholicism (I was convinced and converted) but you often have to start by convincing them that Protestantism in whatever form is wrong. But if you do that, you risk them just losing faith entirely and becoming an atheist. Joe does a great job of both but every video doesn’t have to be both. If Protestants seeing this, get angry, they need to reevaluate their own positive case for the faith that they hold. Not mere Christianity or belief in a God, but the positive case for Protestantism itself.

[@Vaughndaleoulaw]

Once I acknowledged there was no good argument for a closed canon, outside of tradition, I was toast.

[@BensWorkshop]

Welcome home!

[@jaytv4eva]

Oh yeah, we know. "B-b-but! I didn't SAYYYY I believed in the primacy of Pope, the sacraments, or anything else the Catechism teaches. ...But I'll be more than happy to let CATHOLIC answers put their logo on my stuff and give my channel some sort of CATHOLIC name!" Welcome to Vatican II, folks. We got ourselves a nicer version of Sam Shamoun

[@BensWorkshop]

@@Ladya12345 I was struggling to work out his point.

[@maria22623]

I'm confused how Javier can call someone an "obstinate heretic" without acknowledging authority of the Church? Arent hereseys determined by synods and councils, bishops???

[@computationaltheist7267]

That's the interesting point and given how some Protestants are reversing some heresies such as denying Baptismal regeneration, defining doctrine becomes like playing a football game. An interesting question is why can't God also play with the inspiration of the Bible?

[@stefanielozinski]

I was honestly shocked Gavin Ortlund thought this was a good argument. Genuinely. I’m so glad Joe rebutted Javier Perdomo’s video much better than my attempt in the comments 😅

[@renjithjoseph7135]

Everyone harps on about irenic Ortlund but when you really analyse him, he's seriously, intellectually dishonest. Numerous times, he's been shown to dismiss or ignore context and evidence against his side or to deliberately misinterpret Scripture and the Church Fathers.

[@JohnAugustineCA]

I used to respect Ortlund as a serious intellectual, but with every passing day he reveals himself as a shallow emotionalist; a person guided more by Catholic derangement syndrome than by serious inquiry.

[@matthewoburke7202]

@@renjithjoseph7135 yep

[@garthferrell5723]

As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints, I find this video and the related videos and arguments and counter arguments all fascinating. I am not afraid to find truth, wherever it may be found.

[@user-ks3qr5fk6m]

May God bless you on your faith journey. You are blessed already in that your heart is open to following God wherever he may lead you. Christ founded the Catholic Church and he promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against it in Matthew 16.

[@borneandayak6725]

Hope you will come to the Church that Christ established, the Catholic Church.

[@bigtilla25]

Neither will I myself shrink from inquiry, if I am anywhere in doubt; nor be ashamed to learn, if I am anywhere in error. -St. Augustine

[@billcynic1815]

I know LDS get frustrated when they are called Protestants, and I see why. Another weakness Protestants have compared to the LDS is that the LDS can just wholeheartedly accept that they believe there was a Great Apostasy, while Protestant apologetics tries to have it both ways of claiming Great Apostasy kind of but not really and ends up in an incoherent position (except Progressive Protestants, but that's a whole different issue.) It's far less coherent than either fully embracing it like the LDS or fully rejecting it like Catholics and Orthodox.

[@doglover7749]

​@@billcynic1815, exactly! Thank you!

[@dameaswolf7804]

That protestant has got to be the weakest apologist I've heard. He would cry in a debate with Sam Shamoun, if he's already crying against Joe.

[@Ozcarz505]

lol 😂 for real

[@luisman007]

😅😅😅

[@clydepereira8025]

The mere sound of, " I was sailing along in a moonlight bay" will make some tear up 😂

[@ReginaCæliLætare]

FEED HIM TO THE SHAMOUNIAN!

[@patrickdtx3638]

The video I saw of Shamoun in action, the guy actually was badgering the person he was talking to.

[@dynamic9016]

His inability to do a detailed rebuttal of your argument is why he had to attack you personally n hence strawman arguments..He proved your point Joe..Really appreciate this video of yours...

[@MelissaCaskey-wm7zp]

I actually find it kind of shocking that someone could characterize you as some kind of blustering, bad faith, sneaky bloviator, just out to trick people. I don’t know what videos they are watching. You are always charitable and level headed in your responses and it just seems like something is very amiss with anyone who is responding to you in that way. Also I love the my cousin Vinny reference… one of my all time faves.

[@jenkoop]

Bearing false witness.

[@steadydividends571]

Former Protestant here although I crossed the Bosphorus instead of the Tiber but very much admire Joe and other RCs. For a small analogy that relates to this topic on the way to my house I pass 7 different Protestant churches on a 4 mile road. None of them in communion and all thought something about the other was “wrong”.Once I became disturbed by how out of hand Christianity was becoming in the US I dug deeper and realized sola scriptura not only isn’t working. It’s absolutely dangerous and should never be taught by any Christian. Yes I’ll go that far. It is the mother of all heresy and has caused us to be adrift at see for 500 years.

[@billcynic1815]

Similar boat to you. I fear though that Protestants are trying to solve the "7 Prot churches none in communion" by having lowest common denominator Protestantism, eventually becoming lowest common denominator Christianity. Responding to the problems of _sola scriptura_ by losing their saltiness. And the disintegration accelerates.

[@vinciblegaming6817]

@@billcynic1815yes! Absolutely this.

[@EC42904]

Not really relevant to the sola scriptura issue, but I was surprised Joe wasn't more familiar with the tactic of "poisoning the well," as I have noticed it's a preferred tactic of so-called "progressivism" for several years now. The most obvious example I can think of is the title of Robin DiAngelo's book "White Fragility," which, by its nature, ensures that *any* criticism of critical race theory from those most targeted by it (ethnic Europeans) is already framed as a subjective, emotional response that can be immediately discounted as "methinks [they] doth protest too much," no matter how objective or dispassionately presented the arguments against CRT are. Similarly, any critique of feminism gets preemptively hamstrung by priming the audience to view any and all resistance to the ideology as "toxic masculinity." It's funny that the rhetorical tactic came up here as I'm seeing chatter on X about the historic practice of poisoning literal wells (and in the current day, not just the water supply but the food logistics chain) by the aforementioned ideologies' biggest champions.

[@ghostapostle7225]

Why you think he wasn't familiar with it?

[@kyrptonite1825]

the funny thing is that i often see protestants doing something approximate to this, whether or not they actually mean too

[@crekow]

One of my favorite old sayings applies here. If you're taking lots of fire, chances are you're right over the target. I think that's what we're seeing here when so many Protestant You-tubers are responding to Joe's arguments.

[@alexandriagreen6846]

Having grown up in a non denominational/ Calvinistic church every frustration I have on a theological level is being told “the Bible says X” or “the Biblical view is X” ….some Catholic has said “appeals to Scripture are often appeals to a specific interpretation” which is the world I’m soooo weary of! I’m not persuaded! Sola scriptura is truly a dark dark Plato’s cave

[@jabelltulsa]

Well done on tapping on this nerve. It’s an important conversation and reality they need to face. Also, classy and mature response.

[@cheryl0327]

You made a great argument and they have no answer for it and it really peeves them. Love your content Joe, I watch every video from beginning to end! God Bless

[@thisis_chavez]

Lets all pray for the conversion of all Non-Christian Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us

[@barelyprotestant5365]

If you're claiming A is a problem for tradition X, and your argument would destroy your own tradition Y, then you are using a bad argument. If you are aware of the fact that claim A, consistently applied, would destroy BOTH of those traditions, yet remain in tradition Y, you're arguing in bad faith. This isn't difficult.

[@TheMeatyOne360]

He's special pleading that disagreement only invalidates Sola Scriptura. He'll handwave (as we have seen with his take on RC/EO disagreements) other examples where his argument is applicable. Obviously, this is dubious. Either disagreement proves a lack of clarity or it doesn't. He has yet to prove why the existence of disagreement makes the Bible uninterpretable, but leaves his magisterium in a state where it can be understood. If he actually wants to prove his case he'll have to show proof that the Bible uniquely can't be understood by reading it. He won't do this though, since that would require him going through say the Ten Commandments and then claim that we can't actually extract any objective conclusion on the moral law from them. At this point, I don't see how this isn't dishonest.

[@captaincampalot]

Hi Joe, I’m curious about your presenting style. How do you tease out these ideas? Are you writing a few thousand words each video and going off a teleprompter, or is it more like a speech with bullet points and you’re just drawing from vast amounts of information in your brain? You’re always so articulate and detailed, and I’m just curious about the process. 😊

[@shamelesspopery]

Thank you, that's so kind! My approach usually works something like this: 1. I figure out the major points I want to make. (This wasn't as much the case this time, as I was responding to a rebuttal, but if I'm presenting a case for a certain thing, I'll know which major points I want to make). 2. I then gather materials: relevant passages from books, clips I want to respond to, etc. I try to group these thematically (sometimes, I have to update my outline from #1). 3. Of late, I've started writing out the first few paragraphs of what I'm going to say as I lead in and outline the episode, but then I just trust that when I get to a quotation or a clip, I'll remember the point that I was trying to. make. Sometimes I totally forget what's coming next, or why a certain thing is in my slidedeck, and then I rerecord. That's what works best for me - I'm not great at going entirely scripted, since I always want to keep things lively by deviating from my own texts. But I know plenty of apologists who have great success carefully scripting, so it's a personal preference/style thing, I think.

[@vinciblegaming6817]

@@shamelesspoperyit’s more conversational and natural sounding. It helps with your warm personality.

[@vtaylor21]

With the perspicuity of Scripture, the oneness Pentecostals follow Sola Scriptura. Yet, they don’t believe in the Trinity, and that is an essential doctrine.

[@robertbutchko5066]

They're not Christian so they don't count for some reason and bringing it up is a bad faith rhetorical trick and Catholics don't all agree among themselves either ∴ therefore scripture is actually perfectly clear and needs no interpretation. ( I can't believe I need this /s)

[@francisconeto8260]

The only agreement among all prots is that catholicism is the only incorrect interpretation of the bible lol

[@billcynic1815]

Hey now, that's not fair. They also agree Orthodoxy is incorrect. See? They can have some agreement.

[@Fiddleslip]

@@billcynic1815 That's not entirely correct. Preacher Bob from KJV Only Church doesn't even know the EO exist, let alone the other apostolic churches

[@billcynic1815]

@@Fiddleslip Fair. And if he did know, he would probably think EO is just Catholic with better beard game.

[@tony1685]

well they do mandate sin, according to clear and undeniable Scripture.

[@ToeTag1968]

You don't have to be a professional singer to know when someone is singing off key. We know when a doctrine is false because it requires too much mental gymnastics and can't be backed up by scripture. As far as essential doctrines, I'd just point to Romans 10.

[@alpha4IV]

I watched the entire 3 hour hit piece, it was terribly biased and uncharitable. I could only guess he was trying to be ironic by holding the Catholic Church to the same standard he was claiming you were holding "protestantism" to. But Javier's approach came off as spiteful and at times hateful.

[@alpha4IV]

The most disappointing aspect of Javier's video is that Gavin endorsed and promoted it on his community tab. I'd never been this disappointed in Gavin.

[@ghostapostle7225]

@@alpha4IV He endorsed it because he uses the same kind of stupid arguments. And he's uncharitable by nature. People confuses soft talk with being charitable.

[@joshy3614]

@@alpha4IVI’m honestly somewhat convinced Gavin either didn’t watch it or skimmed it. Who would honestly want to watch a 3 hour rebuttal to a single question? When I watched Joe’s original video, I thought THAT was a little longwinded for one question!

[@ToddJambon]

That guy is in denial. Where does that come from? Grief. What could he be grieving? The death of his life-long worldview? I don't know.

[@49erfanaticfromnm30]

How dare you badger him......with one question he can't, or won't, answer. 😂 How sad.

[@shamelesspopery]

Look at 49ers fan and a Chiefs fan coming together in agreement! If that doesn't prove the miraculous nature of Catholicism....

[@49erfanaticfromnm30]

@@shamelesspopery God always comes first. Football will pass away and is always changing.

[@robertbutchko5066]

@@shamelesspopery See more differences between Catholics! Therefore scripture is perfectly clear by itself!

[@Phoenixmagnus]

😂😂😂 Yeah how dare he tell the truth. Your comment made me laugh really loud.

[@Phoenixmagnus]

Joe, why you wearing that chiefs shirt... It hurt my eyes for 50 minutes. 😂😂

[@christopherharrison2623]

Lord Jesus have mercy on us. Praying for peace and reconciliation

[@MitchArson-h2q]

Hi, Joe. Protestant here. Up front I'll just say that I appreciate your manner of engagement and general congeniality. You put forward this argument: 1. If the Protestant view of Scripture is correct, sincere believers will all agree on the essential doctrines. 2. Sincere believers do not agree on the essential doctrines. C. Therefore, the Protestant view of Scripture is not correct. I think what Javier should have said (and this is certainly in the same spirit) is that a generalization of your premise 1 is false; namely, that, if a source of doctrinal essentials is perspicuous and authoritative, then sincere believers will all agree on the essential doctrines insofar as they are outlines by that source. Since this generalization is clearly false (as you would presumably agree with Javier), premise 1 must be false. That's how I'm understanding one of Javier's basic arguments. Now, that very inference at the end there is invalid: the fact that the generalization of premise 1 that I mentioned is false doesn't mean that your premise 1 is false. That said, it does raise a question about your justification for premise 1. Why should anyone (protestant or not) accept premise 1 if the generalization of it is _obviously_ false? The worry, then, is that your argument rests on an unsupported premise that no protestant would accept. Or, if they do, then they probably weren't justified in believing in the protestant view of scripture to begin with... Better to engage with the best version of the protestant view of scripture, where perspicuity isn't tied to contingent facts about what honest interpreters would agree about.

[@matthewp3499]

That would be a fair line of engagement with Joe's argument and Javier did NONE of that.

[@canibezeroun1988]

I know many who call themselves Christian who think the Trinity, going to Church, male headship, the closing of revelation, and repentance are all optional.

[@lukeohanlon2960]

I've lived why this matters 😢 so much pain can be caused by interpreting scripture for yourself. I know some southern Baptists, once saved always saved, doesn't matter how you live as long as you say you believe. That is their only essential and it's caused to much pain and damage in our lives.

[@mikekayanderson408]

That concept of antinomianism is totally wrong and Paul discusses it - so am surprised that a Baptist church is allowing g that to be believed! I was in a Baptist church for years and we had sound teaching on Scripture - interpreted very clearly from the pulpit - and before you could join you had to convince them as much as you could that you actually had been saved - there was an interview to see what you actually believed! So the church you were in must have been very lax indeed! Or members of the congregation were not well taught for some reason! But I will say that as I listen to various Catholic apologists on KZbin and read the comments left - there is a huge disparity in what Catholics believe as well even though Joe is claiming they are all on the same page!

[@TheRealMagicBananaz]

I can relate to this. It's actually looked down upon to try and do any good works as being "boastful" (really they don't want to seem to Catholic), as if they think that by trying to act on their faith they invalidate it. My father still says to me "But look how the catholics always go to charities and community projects! You can't tell me they don't believe they're saved by their works!"

[@gnomeresearch1666]

​@@mikekayanderson408The idea of being saved once and for all and that's all that matters among Baptists I know here in the South is quite common. I know of some Baptist schools that require confirmations of 'faith' and interviews, but it is not hard to stumble on any myriad of Baptist or Baptist adjacent congregations here. They have perhaps the least commitment to any form of ecclesial structure and authority. Just my experience, but it has been consistent.

[@ekatrinya]

I don't know a single Christian who thinks they can live a life of sin and it doesn't matter. Once saved always saved doesn't mean you can do whatever you want. It means if truly saved you will persevere. The parable of the seeds explains this perfectly. There may be some fringe people who think they are saved because of a prayer, but by and large, no one honestly believes that. It's so lazy to say that Protestants all think this way. I was raised in Protestantism and the focus on abstaining from sin was so enormous that it constantly bordered legalism and I was scared to death to mess up. Heavens Gates and Hells Flames was a popular skit in Protestant circles when I was growing up. It's a skit they put on for the youth in churches and it's essentially about people getting dragged to hell after they die because of a life of sin that they didn't take seriously. So many of the people I grew up with (and myself included) walked away from the faith for many years because we didn't feel we could properly live a life without sin and we didn't truly understand the gospel unfortunately. We just knew legalism and rule keeping. Not the changed heart that comes after receiving the gospel which aids you in avoiding sin. Legalism comes too low a view of God's law. A low view of the law tricks us into thinking we can keep it. A very high view of God's law reveals that the only way is grace. We do not get to heaven by avoiding sin by our own strength. We will see the kingdom of God when we believe the gospel and avoiding sin will be the fruit, the evidence of our faith - not the evidence of our own strength lest we boast about it.

[@JérômeLaborde]

@@mikekayanderson408 I don't think that Joe is claiming that all catholics are on the same page, but that catholics have one interpretative authority, one official and clear teaching. Yes some who said they are catholics didn't agree with that teaching, but that is their own problem, they have no legitimacy or authority to affirm an other interpretation.

[@TheCatholicNerd]

I don't know how they can dispute your position Joe, you really only need one example. Does baptism regenerate? Lutherans and Presbyterians say yes, Baptists and evangelicals that are basically Baptist but don't like to label say no. Both claim to be sola scriptura. If your sole rule of Faith is the Bible, and you come to opposite conclusions on baptism, obviously the Bible alone is not sufficient to explain the context of baptism.

[@kyrptonite1825]

Here’s more: 1. Once Saved Always Saved 2. Are some sins worse than others 3. when and can I divorce? (i would count contraception, but virtually no protestants are now against it) 4. Baptismal Regeneration, Necessity, and Infant Baptism 5. The Trinity 6. The Hypostatic Union 7. sabbath worship etc.

[@TheLjdevlin86]

I love to hear the protestants rebuttal to this passage in Acts chapter 8, where the Ethiopian eunuch is having difficulty understanding a passage in Isaiah.

[@StanleyPinchak]

I might add Mt 23:1-3. At some point their forefathers in protest disobeyed Christ's command to remain subject to the religious authorities that God had placed above them.

[@TheLjdevlin86]

@@StanleyPinchak 🙏

[@alisterrebelo9013]

​@@TheLjdevlin86 You need to stress that the person educating the Eunuch is someone from the Apostolic Church, in this case, the Apostle Philip.

[@TheLjdevlin86]

@@alisterrebelo9013 amen! 🙏

[@jenkoop]

One of my favorite passages because I find it so relatable.

[@matthewbroderick6287]

The other Paul is so entertaining to watch! He isn't Biblical or historical, but entertaining! Gavin Ortlund disagrees even with Protestant reformers, as does Born Again RN and James White, etc. Keep up the GOD work Joe! You are an amazing Biblical apologist! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!

[@Ladya12345]

As someone who also studied law and graduated recently, it is so nice to see someone develop an actual argument and hold people to standards for what a rebuttal is . All of the Catholic Answers apologist do this incredibly well (especially Joe) and I feel like I get better at arguments by watching them and learning from them! ❤

[@jeneric]

Joe is a lawyer I guess

[@KnightFel]

I went to law school too - and their arguments are not good. Sorry.

[@philoalethia]

"it is so nice to see someone develop an actual argument and hold people to standards for what a rebuttal is " JH is a fallacy factory. He is impressive to those who know a LITTLE BIT of logic/philosophy. Those of us who have drunk deeply from that well, however, have a mixture of sadness and nausea in response to his claims and "arguments."

[@GastonLabonte]

@@KnightFel I guess you attended the wrong school! Just joking! May Jesus unite us

[@kevinmc62]

@@KnightFelif your Protestant glove fits you must _____. Let’s see if you can pass my low bar exam.

[@rossb267]

Thank you Brother Joe. While I was in college, and a protestant, I would debate atheists and learned many of my arguments from watching debates. Especially those of Dr. William Lane Craig. Now, as a Catholic, I'm finding debates between protestants and Catholics to study very few and far between. These talking points are essential for the Catholic evangelist. May God bless you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit!

[@SaltAndLight1027]

Hadn’t realized how much I’d need to rely on Joe’s shirts to tell where in time we are relative to the actual video

[@yellow1pl]

Yep, Joe color-coding himself to help our temporal understanding... This Catholic is good :)

[@fre7717]

hi @shamelesspopery, enjoy your very thoughtful arguments. They are flustered, precisely because your main point hits hard. Another argument, to which i have heard Protestants support the idea that the potpourri of denominations is a 'good thing'- it is like they are making some kind of diversity argument. they just don't see that the division, perhaps points to influences of the devil (means divider or shatterer?).

[@w.Raphael]

Hi Joe Don‘t let these videos discourage you. Your doing a great job Joe. I truly appreciate your work. Lets continue to pray our protestant brothers and sisters as we do for everybody else as well 🙏

[@thecatechumen]

Wonderful rebuttal

[@classicalteacher]

The essential doctrine of Protestantism is the theology and worldview of anti-Catholicism.

[@BrianGondo]

Exactly!

[@user-ks3qr5fk6m]

Protestant sects are religions of negatives and “we don’t believe in____(what the Catholic Church teaches)”. Why don’t they argue that they don’t believe in reincarnation, the universe or crystals? Their opposition is against the original form of Christianity (Catholicism).

[@KnightFel]

That’s just silly.

[@ghostapostle7225]

@@KnightFel Why? This is why protestantism exists in the first place.

[@Justas399]

True Christians reject these essential roman catholic doctrines such as the papacy, purgatory, the Marian dogmas, praying to the dead and indulgences.

[@michaelkokot6349]

I started watching Joe Heschmeyer's videos about 6 months ago because he takes the time to be kind and fair in his arguments, and he is not out there thumping his chest saying he has all the right answers just because he is Catholic. We need more love and kindness along with intellectual honesty if we are ever going to make any progress with unity in the Christian church.

[@damnedmadman]

Let's be clear, the Church is in unity. Those who left it obviously are not.

[@conovan5081]

Since I know you read some comments, Joe, I'd like to just thank you. Your work is great and I think I never miss a video, you strengthen my faith every time :)

[@Mkvine]

Zoomer retired from apologetics

[@billcynic1815]

Retired from anti-apostolic apologetics. Honestly I respect him for it. But he's shifting apologetic focus to atheists and liberal Protestants.

[@shamelesspopery]

@@billcynic1815 Yes, I respect the move, too!

[@audreymarsh5090]

This isn’t the first time I’ve heard Protestants (and some Orthodox, as well) accuse lots of apologists (Trent Horn and Joe Heschmeyer in particular) of “slimy tactics”. It’s nice to see you charitably answering back and defending yourself. Thank God for your great explanations. I always learn so much. Pax et bonum. 🩵

[@audreymarsh5090]

Also, I just relistened to all three of these episodes and, @shamelesspopery , your commitment to your “full-grown dad jokes” is as deep as Christ’s commitment to the Church 😅…. I catch more puns the more I listen to

[@manuelpompa-u5e]

it is more essential to pursue biblical truth, than it is to pursue unity

[@beaniehampton]

Javier's "rebuttal" makes my brain hurt. I'm glad I didn't have to listen to all 3 hours, 23 minutes, and 22 seconds of it.

[@JohnP3369]

Javier who? I would like to see this video

[@EmberBright2077]

​@@JohnP3369 It's the video being responded to in this video

[@KathleenHughes-gm3jx]

Bravo, Joe! You are clear as water -- he is clear as mud. I literally had no idea what he was talking about in any clip until you came back on and explained what he had said.

[@neilanadams5173]

Nothing complex about their sentiments. They know you are correct with your take downs but they can't deal with it.

[@harrygarris6921]

The only way to reconcile the disagreement on essential doctrines as a Protestant is to claim “my tradition gets the essentials right, and the other Protestant traditions are heretics”. They should do this, because it’s logical and intellectual consistent. But none of them are willing to say this because they want to preserve this sense of unity they’ve cultivated with one another in opposition to the apostolic churches. And because ecumenism feels nice, I guess…

[@mikekayanderson408]

Well really what pride! Joe spins webs of words to confuse people and never really proves anything biblically! He may prove the Catholic belief but not the truth! Catholics very adept at making points by using very odd mixtures of Scripture!

[@sentjojo]

@@harrygarris6921 Protestants lack the tools to arrive at objective truth of scripture. They _should_ be making the argument that their tradition is correct and the others are wrong, but they _can't_ make that argument. All they have is personal interpretations (opinions) of scripture. It's all that sola scriptura provides.

[@SeanusAurelius]

​@@harrygarris6921 Not so. As a Protestant, I affirm the 5 solas, as do all Protestants. Furthermore, the Catholic Church disagrees with itself on essential doctrines. What's an anathema? Look at how your 17th century theologians define it and look how you define it now, and it's a central word to probably hundreds of infallible canons.

[@harrygarris6921]

@@SeanusAurelius so if someone said they were Protestant but they disagreed with you on what the essential doctrines are you would say that they don’t count as a Protestant?

[@TheGenFem]

I love how he defines a word then lumps Mormons into the group he may have invented

[@jess96154]

Great video! I watched a good chunk of Javier's original video soon after it was released and I too found most of it irrelevant to your critique of protestantism. I'm glad you made an official response to Javier's video since it's been making the rounds.

[@billcynic1815]

When I first heard his definition of ecclesialism, my first thought was "that's a bad definition, because _reducto ad absurdim_ that would include Mormons." And then he does just that. The guys whose entire legitimacy is on a Great Apostasy and affirming a radical break in Church continuity (kind of similar to Protestants) are in the same category as the guys whose legitimacy rests on unbroken Church continuity. Here I thought he was making a good faith argument. Why not just define ecclesialist as "Everyone who's not a Protestant" and he can say non-Protestants have a huge range of disagreements?

[@M00Z1LLA]

That's exactly the point he's making. Ecclesialism is an absurdly broad and unhelpful way to categorize denominations just like Protestantism is an absurdly broad and unhelpful way to categorize. It's a parody of what Catholic apologists do.

[@joshy3614]

@@M00Z1LLAExcept that Joe groups together “Protestants” by their common belief in two important doctrines, both of which Joe believes are incorrect. Javier’s “Ecclesialists” don’t have a common belief which Javier argues to be incorrect. Using Joe’s syllogism, Javier forms an equivalent Premise #2, but there is no equivalent Premise #1 which leads to a coherent conclusion.

[@M00Z1LLA]

@@joshy3614 1) All claim to be the one true church. 2) All claim to have an infallibile authority other than holy scripture That's completely equivalent to Joe's criteria for Protestantism.

[@a.d1287]

​@M00Z1LLA ecclesialists don't share the same authority structure bro. EO reject the papacy and magisterium

[@M00Z1LLA]

@@a.d1287 So would you say lumping dissimilar things into one umbrella category for comparisons is unfair?

[@davivman6009]

To be clear, as a Catholic I want to agree with you on this argument and it sounds like a lot of rebuttals didn’t really engage with it at all. If I were to change it I would attack the first premise regarding the clarity of scripture. Historically Protestants may have made that claim (and maybe some still do), but there is nothing preventing a Protestant from believing that the Bible is infallible without having an infallible way of interpreting it. An analogy could be an authenticated video recording of deceased historical figure’s speech. We may know infallibility what was said in the speech without knowing infallibly what was meant by that which was said. So your argument may debunk the perspicuity of scripture, I just don’t think modern Protestants would agree that perspicuity of scripture is necessary for Sole Scriptura to be true.

[@hometownapologist7879]

Good points. The only thing I would say, though, is that “sure” a Protestant could decide he/she doesn’t accept perpiscuity. But at the very very least. that would signal a clean break in the tradition of their forefathers (Reformers). So that person would essentially now be boxed in a corner as a progressive, no? And then no serious scholar is going to give them the time of the day if they are just moving the goalposts and making it up as they go along, right?

[@davivman6009]

I’m not sure most modern Protestants would see this as moving the goalposts. I don’t hear Protestant apologists really arguing for perspicuity and they all seem pretty comfortable with the wide range of interpretations. Modern Evangelical Protestants are hard to pin down in terms of definitive interpretations of scripture and I’m not sure they resemble Protestants from 400/500 years ago that much.

[@hometownapologist7879]

@@davivman6009 You are absolutely correct. Which is undoubtedly a big reason why many of their apologists (i.e. Pedermo, TOP) bolt on their evangelical heritage, seeking more creedal/confessional organizations. The very impetus of their exodus is the break with the traditions of historical Protestantism, which is indendensible to anyone who’s not a relativist/indifferentist/modernist. Once they come to the realization that modern evangelicalism is an entirely different religion than that of the Reformers and is indefensible in that sense, they leave for greener pastures.

[@MackBŗislawn]

Suppose Sola Scriptura is true, and that Scripture is infallible and inerrant. But good does that do us if our understanding of it is not infallible? If we can be mistaken? None. Jesus said, You will know the Truth. But Jesus was wrong--all we really have is fallible human opinion!

[@marteld2108]

“Redeemed Zoomer” is the worst. In a debate with Leighton Flowers he said that like Calvinism “Unconditional Election” is taught by the Catholic Church. I messaged him and politely told him he was wrong and referenced CCC 1037. He kept telling me I was incorrect (???).

[@heinrich3088]

"God predestines no one to go to hell;618 for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want "any to perish, but all to come to repentance. ( CCC 1037)" - Truly, but God does predestine persons to Heaven before the consideration of their merits. So, the decree of negative reprobation is logically contained in the decree of election.

[@John_Six]

Their "rebuttal" is proof that they have no answer to the question. It should be an easy answer right? Why can't they just make a list? Protestants please get a piece of paper, draw a line down the middle, label one side *Primary* and the other *Secondary* then give me the authoritative list when you're done with it.

[@silaila3115]

You and Christian Wagner are my favorite Catholic apologists on KZbin!

[@powerlessburger]

Proud of you Joe

[@Keep.It.Simple-23]

2nd Comment! You bring up this great point with Ortland and his “why be Prot” video, and if I recall his recent book was about defending or why be a Prot, but Gavin rarely, from at least what I’ve watched so maybe I missed it, doesn’t defend his brand of being Protestant, but almost exclusively “don’t be these other things at the very least” aka EO or Catholic.Well Dr Ortland, or all his followers, convince me why all the other denominations are wrong but not Ortland’s denomination, because if your best statement is “well don’t be those other things” it barely narrows your other options

[@chrisalan11rus]

🎉 yay a Joe response !!

[@guyguytchombi5425]

I love the joyful warriors of Catholic Apologetics. Keep up the good work Joe. No need to work yourself up if your arguments are solid. Peace.

[@chrissiah999]

Thanks for a great video Joe. Your arguments are very sound. I think people can choose to disagree but will find it difficult to rebut the argument. What a weird analogy "the damsel and 2 suitors".

[@HellenicPapist]

Perdomo seems like such a dishonest actor. I watched his “rebuttal” and it made me ill listening to his blatant dishonesty and/or ignorance. He’s leading the Protestant masses further in the dark. I don’t know the state of Protestant teacher’s souls when they should seemingly know better than the sheep(or goats). Lord have mercy on his soul.

[@susanlitton9963]

Joe’s argument is key in defending and promoting the the truth of the Catholic faith.

[@gameologian7365]

Protestants ability to do Mental gymnastics on sola scriptura is quite an Olympic feat

[@gameologian7365]

Also it’s telling they will just have a 3 hour strawman video instead of wanting to try and take you on directly. Could’ve been a 3v1 and I’m sure they would still be sweating.

[@The_Surge8760]

Thank you thank you being mentally capable is not for the mentally lazy catholics lol

[@sergiolopez-s6s]

​@@gameologian7365 Go watch it, the angle taken is addressed. Joe clearly didn't watch the video

[@sneakysnake2330]

I watched the video and I think that Joe’s response is on point. Perdomo doesn’t even respond to Joe’s point, he responds to a strawman.

[@sergiolopez-s6s]

​@@sneakysnake2330 So did you miss the part where he says his angle and how he was going to address it by not addressing it lol. He did it for this response. That's why he refers to Catholics under the umbrella term ecclesialist.

[@seanneal9406]

It never dawns of the ones who say "let's go by Scripture" to ask: whose interpretation? It does no good to say that Scripture is infallible (and it is) unless you also have an infallible interpretation. And that is not found in Protestantism as they themselves assure us.

[@GilGaidola]

Good work Joe..your opponent here is not intellectually strong enough to answer your questions..The end

[@xbox360hurley4]

22:40 Whoa a Mentiwave appearance in a Joe video blew my mind, crossover of the freaking century lol.

[@MrDarthtelos]

Exactly my thoughts.

[@Nomorehero07]

Same here dude.

[@FightIdiocracy]

Exactly what I thought

[@mikekayanderson408]

If you are Catholic and you use that word that really only supplants or means the other f word - then you should think of cleaning up your language. !

[@xbox360hurley4]

​@@mikekayanderson408I'll try 🙌🏻

[@lttsurumistopguy9858]

Imagine one group of men saying “swimming is quite hard and men might drown, so we ought to have access to life jackets” and another group who says “swimming is so easy and simple and no good man could ever even possibly drown, so life jackets are essentially illegitimate” and then one member from the first group points out to the second group that many of his members are drowning and their rebuttal is “well your side can drown too so we’re both equally wrong”. Clearly not, clearly the side who predicted men might drown and might be in need of life jackets hasn’t made the same error that the side who said drowning was impossible had made.

[@billcynic1815]

"Ok, some of our guys are drowning, but some of your guys are too, and you said no good man could possibly drown." "Well they were never really good men."

[@humbirdms2784]

That's a really good metaphor that perfectly describes protestants and their refusal to accept that christ intended there to only be one holy apostolic church and all other churches, pastors, laymen outside of the catholic church are self appointed and invalid teachers who were set into authority by men instead of following God

[@humbirdms2784]

​@billcynic1815 "they told us they knew how to swim so it's not our fault they drowned." Imagine that buts it's eternal salvation on the line, that is a insane gamble to make for oneself

[@guns4786]

@@billcynic1815right, which is the Protestants way of saying “all those who don’t agree with our interpretation is evil”. Because while they may seek God, they are not saved, and a Protestant knows that they are not saved because they do not come to the same conclusion when reading the scripture. Which begs the question, which denomination is the true church?

[@MichaelAChristian1]

​@@humbirdms2784What must you do to be saved?

[@Phoenixmagnus]

Great Job thank you for what you do.

[@enniomojica7812]

Notice how Javier gets Angry while Joe giggles and is calm. Often when the truth is not on our side yet we are passionate we get angry. When the truth is on our side there is no need for strong negative emotion in a debate.

[@eliasrodriguez2650]

Great video Joe 👍

[@bigdog1106]

If the Truth is on your side then pound the Truth. If the Law is on your side then pound the Law. If you have neither then pound the table.

[@Spiritof76Catholic]

Great video again Joe. You proved your point. This is totally off subject but I heard Gavin Ortland snidely remark in a debate with Trent Horn once that he never saw Sacred Tradition written down anywhere. My answer is of course you have OT it’s called the 27 books of the New Testament.

[@pianoatthirty]

The real issue is that “Sola Scriptura” doesn’t even exist! *No one reads the Bible in a vacuum*. To use a study Bible or the ‘got questions’ website or ANY extra-biblical writings in understanding implies a “tradition plus scripture”. I honestly wonder why this argument is never brought up. Each person eventually chooses a tradition (whether they like it or not), because again, NO ONE reads the Bible in a vacuum. It’s always scripture + implied tradition.

[@MackBŗislawn]

Right on!

[@vickibroyles3871]

Well said Joe. Clear and true. Keep fighting the good fight!