What he Wrote on a Denny's Napkin Led to a Conversion w/ Patrick Madrid

[@colmwhateveryoulike3240]

Thanks. I will read the early church fathers and pray for the continued guidance of the Holy Spirit.

[@biblecatholic7494]

So glad I came across this channel...

[@carlosd4881]

You’ll love it! God bless you!

[@charsarsis]

Oh my gosh. I heard that example a few years ago, and I couldn't place from where, or remember the full story. Thank you!

[@Lerian_V]

He told the story in this talk: kzbin.info/www/bejne/m52sf3qLpbSWitE

[@chance9460]

Thank you Christ Jesus for the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Nearing our 2,000-year-old Birthday!

[@francishaight2062]

Good discussion! Here's my humble prescription for any discussion which reaches the point where somebody says, "where does it say that in the Bible?" My response is simply "who told you that everything a Christian needs to know about the faith and how to live it must be found explicitly in the Bible?" I might follow this up with the question "do you believe in the Trinity?" If they say yes, then I can ask where that's found in the Bible, explicitly. But the point is to encourage them to take a step back and analyze the premise of sola scriptura itself because that's where the rubber hits the road, because the people who dreamt it up, Luther et al, never demonstrated it as being so from any kind of a logical Thomistic standpoint but, as Dr. David Anders has put it, simply asserted it. And why? It sounds good and seems to make a great excuse to reject the authority of Christ's one true Church.

[@davidscript]

As a non Catholic believer I have been enjoying your channel. While I do agree that we should read many of the early leaders I don't think that is always best in understanding the new testament. Study of the old testament is absolutely essential to understanding Christ and the Church. The eucharist for example cannot be understood apart from Passover. The last supper was the passover seder. Without understanding the symbolism and message of that feast we miss a huge amount of understanding of communion. I would highly suggest studying the old testament before the early church leaders as all scripture points to Christ.

[@JimCvit]

Matt, thanks for sharing this clip. I’ve been looking for this particular bit from this interview.

[@bouseuxlatache4140]

this was a great encounter. thanks Matt.

[@utamihalliday2995]

Great one.....!!! I love Patrick Madrid

[@505Lucky7]

I used to work at Denny’s! Used to have bible studies there too. 😂

[@TuoiTreVaooi]

Patrick look so much different now... If not his voice, I would not know it's him..

[@MissTEO1]

MeKong Nguyen It must be all the tacos! ;)

[@1960taylor]

Patrick is a breath of fresh air....

[@SharonCullenArt]

I love it!

[@JoKe27]

I wish i would be so creative when talking about faith to other people..

[@JerichoLeon]

WOW. Mind blown by what he did there. Praise God!

[@megaloschemos9113]

Wow....excellent. Love this, what a wise and insightful example to use 👍🏼

[@sam.mead__]

It's so sad that it can be even harder to convince a fellow Christian about the catholic Church as it is to convince an atheist or agnostic.

[@glory1ministries734]

Let me share a dream I dreamed many years ago about the Roman Catholic Church. In my dream, I saw a Parish Church building of medium size where mass service was being held. The church building was almost full of people on its sitting capacity. The mass attendees were all sitting and the service was going on. What was shocking was that the one who was performing the service on the altar who was supposed to be the priest was completely naked from head to feet. He was not standing, but lying, facing upward and floating on the air, just one or two feet above the altar table. All people could see him completely naked. Yet, it seemed that they did not mind it, and even enjoyed the sight as if nothing abominable was going on at the altar. I sensed an atmosphere of quietness and loneliness inside the church building. The people were in slumber and seemed to be hypnotized. When I woke up in the morning, I was somewhat troubled in my thoughts as I recalled the dream. Yet, immediately I received the light of its meaning. The message is clear that it is about the spiritual condition and state of the "Roman Catholic Church", its leaders and members. God revealed to me how abominable is the Roman Catholic Church before Him. She is naked, blind and deceived. ( Revelation 4:14-20 - The church of Laodiceans; 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12; Romans 10:1-3; 11:8-10; Matthew 15:14 ) Since my birth, I grew up following the Roman Catholic doctrine, belief and practices until the day I got born again in my spirit when I prayed the prayer of justification in the Name of the Lord and Savior Christ Jesus. On that day of my new birth, instantly I stopped drinking alcoholic drinks and smoking at the same time, for THE LORD had removed from within me the desire of it. Then it was followed by many biblical spiritual experiences and one of these was to dream dreams. ( Acts 2:17 ) May the followers of the Roman Catholic Church be awakened and know the Truth that will set them free, which is in Christ Jesus alone and the Word of God, the Holy Bible. They have the zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. ( John 8:32; Romans 10:2 ) I am sharing this dream in obedience to the Word of The LORD in Jeremiah 23:28, that says, 'The prophet that hath a dream, let him tell of a dream..' Amos 3:4 - 'Will a lion roar in the forest, when he hath no prey?..' Amos 3:5 - 'Can a bird fall in a snare upon the earth, where no gin is for him?..' Amos 3:6 - 'Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not afraid?..' Amos 3:7 - 'Surely the LORD GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.' God bless and graces to all.

[@CristianaCatólica]

ARE YOU LISTENING, MR. CAMERON?! HAHA GOD BLESS HIS ONE AND ONLY CATHOLIC CHURCH :)

[@shelion77]

@Neena Ralson That would be of course interesting - depends on the Catholics. Would they know the Church Fathers and particularly Apostolic Fathers? That's really something powerful to rely on - the earliest Christians who listened to saint John and then his disciples and they left tons of writings. We have the Magisterium, the Calvinists don't. Should we have? Yes, it's the most logical thing to do/have when millions of people on their own interpret stuff anyway they please you get a thing like 40 000 Protestant denominations, which so sadly against the Christian unity that Jesus prayed for.

[@shelion77]

@Neena Ralson sure, but they are within one church, we don't form new churches like our Ptotestant brethren :) still, it's painful for the Body of Christ and I pray for unity, but doctrinally and with one Pope we are one. Not many. Don't listen to individual opinions of Catholics if you want to know what the Church teaches. Read the Cathehism. God bless you!

[@shelion77]

@Neena Ralson Most ex-Catholics haven't read the ccc, really, so I am really surprised. BUT, you must have skipped some parts :) Anyway, I could easily answer all of your questions, if that's what you want from ME, no problem, it'll just take a lot of time. However, I can also do a better thing: if you not anti-Catholic particularly, just loving Jesus with all your heart like I do, loving Truth, like I do, willing to do die for Jesus (also in the Eucharist) - then prayerfully, keep asking questions and here are the best sources to answer all of them, and more besides :) First you can go to www.catholic.com/ and they have a YT channel, really great called catholic answers; then read/watch/listen to the conversion of the ex-Calvinist, that was anti-Catholic at first, now Catholic, apologist, Bible scholar etc- name SCOT HAHN; thirdly, CCC again, but prayerfully, without animosity towards Catholicism; then there's that great show Journey Home, part of EWTN, when there are stories of converts mostly ex-Protestants of all denominations, but also agnostics, New Age, Jews and atheists converts to Catholicism (often via Protestantism). That's a lot of sources :) Then, if you admit to yourself (you don't have to to me, cause I don't say either) that you are a bit anti-Catholic, why don't you start with C.S. Lewis - and he was not a Catholic (though his believes all were) and he beautifully explains things you talked about. But so does Scot Hahn, Tim Staples etc. On my part - I've been a Catholic (before atheist of many long years) just about 7 years, and it's going stronger :) I read saints' works, the Bible too and see no contradiction in anything. Besides, I know - and all the sources I mentioned will explain it more fully - that all those things you mentioned ARE in the Bible, some are part of the Tradition - that some people rejected and followed humans. Jesus founded one Church, based on Peter as its head. It lasted 15 hundred years, then some apostates founded their own religions… So the question is always in whose church do you want to be? About Tradition - Even Protestants now have their own tradition, the way to look at things and interpret the Bible as their forefathers; but with Catholicism it's been uninterrupted since the Apostles... And if you read the LETTERS of Saint Paul and the rest, you'll see they are - yes - letters... they were not Gospel, though now they are part of the Bible. Meaning they were teaching by way of letters, sermons etc, Gospels were not in existence immediately. And the Bible - that was put together by the Catholic Bishops a couple of centuries after Jesus died... I think at Nicea Council, but you'd better check, cause I'm always more interested in spiritual life and my personal relationship in Jesus and imitating Him like the saints, not so much in Church history ;) And yes, things like Purgatory, Judgement, intercession - all that is also in the Bible, plus Tradition - I trust the Saints, the Church, the Early Church Fathers, Saint Paul - and it's all there. God said nothing unclean can enter Heaven - it's obvious that in His mercy there is sth on the way up to Heaven when you die that cleans you up totally, and only the saints enter immediately. Particular Judgement is individual - the Last Judgement is public - that's when we get to know all... That sentence that the dead know no love or hatred - that's so weird - I mean, perhaps you mean dead bodies, but the saints are alive. Quoting JESUS: "The God is the God of the living, not dead" - look at the Gospels and the transformation on Mount Tabor - they seem dead to you? And you don't understand the definition of the idols - they are the "gods" with small g. The pictures of your loved ones in your wallet - are they your idols? OR just to remind you of them, look at them, that's all? As for the Eucharist - not an idol, it's Jesus - read John chapter 6. With prayer and search for Truth. Just pray for the Truth - I wish nothing else for you. :) And keep searching. I'm here if you need more answers, I wrote so much already! Gosh. But I gave your reliable sources, and there are more. So you can check them out if you truly want to know what is the Truth/truth and where to find it. Wishing you all the best, I'll keep you in my prayers from now on, Neena. Anna

[@shelion77]

@Neena Ralson I keep thinking about that very sad interpretation of yours about the dead... First of all - how do you keep that valid when Jesus Himself said that "The God is the God of the Living"? And did Moses and Elias on Mount Tabor seem dead to you? Moreover, what is your idea of Heaven? Because if you don't have/know love when you're dead then you can't be in Heaven - God is LOVE, you can't be in His presence without loving. Love is the most important thing of all, as st Paul said, as Jesus said most of all. And should the departed/not dead but living souls be disconnected from the loved ones on Earth? Not able to help them? Why limit God so much? The countless miracles based on intercession of Saints, or Mary, the apparitions, like Fatima or in Guadalupe - if you look closely at the circumstances, it's obviously supernatural, and absolutely not demonic in nature. People convert, get healed and there are things like pictures on the rock that are a feet or more deep not made with any known pigments... And Jesus said (and I trust His words always more than any theologian, particularly the rebellious ones like Luther or Calvin - God doesn't like rebels, He likes obedience) in John 6 that whoever shall eat His body will live - why don't you read that literally instead? Why do pick and choose? The reaction of the disciples that left is clear - they knew He meant it literally and they were scandalized. So are the Protestants now or those who left the Church. In early church history Catholics were considered cannibals by same, so great was their belief in the Eucharist :) And we're talking early Christianity. They hadn't had their Bible yet, as it was canonized later. And the point of the resurrection - that's explained by Saint Paul... we'll get glorious bodies simply. That is actually well explained in the Letter of Saint Paul... "Accepting that we're purified only in purgatory or "through" purgatory (as some people say it's a process that takes place after we die) is basically rejeing Jesus." - I don't understand the last part here. No we are not ONLY purified in purgatory - some people grow in holiness in here. If somebody rejects Jesus at the last breath, they have no second chance... But we're definitely not perfect, most of us. And we need purification. Otherwise a sad number of people would be saved. You mean that Jesus' death cleans a person from all the stains of his or hers sins - that a person becomes holy the moment we convert? I don't know how many holy, perfect, sinless people you meet on a daily basis- I don't know any... We are all sinners, and so said Saint James in his Letter - that if anybody says they are without sin, they lie. But a human can get really close with great love and devotion, martyr's death etc. We are weak, our natures are corrupt by original sin. But Jesus also gave His Apostles the power to bind and lose and forgive sins - that's in the Gospels. And it is Jesus through them, and now priests, that forgive sins - not the priest himself. Purification is a process, conversion is a process. You don't get perfect after confessing for the first time in your life that you believe in Jesus. For those who love God - that love grows daily. I see that around, in people, in myself in the stories of saints and personal stories of converts (also those to Christianity in general, from atheists). So yes, purgatory makes a lot of sense. But - listen to Catholic Answers, read C S Lewis on that. They give more answers, Bible based, and more details. :) Sorry for writing so much!

[@shelion77]

@Neena Ralson I need to go to the garden in a sec, so will answer more later - but in short first, and forgive me my English, as I'm not a native. So - first, absolutely disagree about statues - I don't know any faithful Catholic who treats them on Par with God, saints etc. No - it's more like photos and anything that reminds you of the loved ones. Like the cross in Protestant churches! We have a crucifx, to remember Jesus's death among other things. So do you worship an idol? No. You wear around your neck - I know some protestants do - isn't it like that as well? No. Because a statue is still just a statue - but if it's a Mary or Jesus or a Saint, we cherish it, perhaps, but we don't ever worship them. If anybody does that - that's idolatry. Besides - I heard that said about Protestants once - that some of them worship... the Bible. The Bible is Holy, but it is not God in 3 persons... Death - sleep - Jesus calls it so, when He resurrects the girl and then Lasarus... So? Makes perfect sense to me. And I see no contradiction at all in what you said up there about that crown etc. Really - God is outside time, try not to view things in too human a way. Hard as it is for all of us. :) It's totally irrelevant for my and your, my kids' etc salvation when exactly a crown is given to people in Heaven. I see it - after the Last Judgement, not after the particular one, but I DON"T CARE! All I want is to get to Heaven because God is there, be with Him forever and take with my everybody, if possible :) I'm very simple, in many ways. I try to live by God's Word, not dissect it! I need to it interpret my life - not to interpret the Bible - the countless scholars before me did that, Apostles did that, Jesus also; and then the Church Fathers as well. King David is just like Moses and Elias in Heaven - alive. Didn't you get that part I wrote? YT is tricky sometimes. God is the God of the living, and so the sleeping are the bodies, the souls of the saved are alive. The saints - there's nothing stupid there, it's beautiful. Not to mentions - if you believe in Angels, I can't see what Saints are any obstacle to you. They can easily move between Heaven and Earth, as easy as the Angels. And One thing I can tell you - once I get there, I'll start begging Jesus to let me help any Christians and non-Christians on Earth. You simply have a different perspective. But I prefer to stick to the one 1500 years of one church produced, not the last couple of centuries. I'm longish again :/ ;) Anyway. First of all, I'm sorry, but the question about the bits of Jesus' body was irreverent... You seem to know the Bible a bit. Well read closely John 6 and then the Last Supper. And what Jesus does there is still done in all Catholic Churches BECAUSE HE TOLD US TO DO SO! Of course one sacrifice is enough! This not additional sacrifice is the memorial, the celebration, the coming to senses, the memory venerated, the consecration and the Transubstantiation - that's why it's the whole thing. We only follow Jesus' commandment here, nothing else or different - would you be angry/worried that the Apostles did that too? Wouldn't that be a bit silly? And we know they did - there are countless records of that - one at least in the Bible - I'm sure more in The Acts. The one is when the two disciples were walking to Emaus - on the road they met Jesus - please read what followed... The last question is like from a non-Christian. Atheist usually say things like that I'm afraid. First of, there's the mystery of the evil, secondly it's actually answered in the Bible... Mainly about us being tried (many trials and tribulations) like you try gold in fire etc. And if God wanted to destroy evil, that would mean ridding us of our free will. Would you like that? We need to have free will, because God doesn't want slaves. He wants us to actually really choose Him, choose Good, the Truth etc. And God never limited Himself in this way - He has absolute power over them, or anything. He's reign is supreme. I meant you limit Him in some of your views - like "oh, that's silly, God wouldn't do this or that" just because for you they are hard to accept. I understand, I was atheist once for a long time, so. :) There are miracles, the personal little ones I observed in my life as well. There the temptations, and demonic activities - and anytime we win, I glorify God - every person does that when winning the spiritual battle - it glorifies God and humiliates the devil. Sounds logical to me. :)

[@rae-michellel6878]

That’s cool

[@professorcomics2736]

I'm glad Catholic Apologetics has been learning how to engage in real discourse with people of other viewpoints. It's not as much about winning arguments as it is winning back souls.

[@decluesviews2740]

Great story!

[@elicenteno6751]

What a friggin blessing it is to be in The One and Only Church with so much heritage, I can go to The Basilica de La Virgen to Guadalupe, or How about the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception in Russia. The rich history, the martyrs, shoot even the movie Braveheart the Scott's were catholic, or the Cristeros... never a doubt I am blessed my ancestors followed and believed in Christ.

[@theunknownpreacher9833]

Wonderful example why context is so important. This also shows why so many different religions. Each one has their own perspective with which they view the scriptures and although they all seem right from their personal perspectives, including these two gentlemen here, they are all wrong as there is only one perspective through which the scriptures must be viewed. John 14:6. Once you view the scriptures through the lens which is Jesus the scriptures make perfect sense and you will no longer deped on any man or woman's view but rather on His view to reveal what the scriptures truly say. It will free you from indoctrination and institutionalism in which a healthy relationship with the Father will form through His Son. The secret of the cross will become plain to you as well.

[@daniels5511]

Wow. I've never seen this example of how scripture imisenterpreted.

[@nicholasscott3524]

You could tell what someone meant by, “I never said you stole money” by reading context. Read the context of the passage, book, and Bible. You should never form a doctrine around a one liner. You can even appeal to tradition, which is something Catholics often mischaracterize Protestants as not being able to do. The difference is that protests view scripture alone as the final authority. It’s also worth noting that what a Catholic individual considers “Church” history may differ from that of a Protestant. Depends on if you consider the Catholic Church “Church.” Respectfully, thanks.

[@jimmysheehan5496]

Yeah, hate to say it, but the "I never said you stole money" example is just a clever trick at best, sophistry at worst.

[@jeffm3003]

Exactly! This was such an obvious fallacy I was really embarrassed for the guy. The first rule of interpretation is context, context context! He gave an isolated sentence with no context. No one could have discerned the intended meaning that sentence - including a Pope or a church council ! If that sentence was part of a paragraph or narrative it would have been easy to determine its meaning. The Bible is not a collection of isolated sentences.

[@figuenew]

But even with a context you can have different interpretations. Just look at the thousands of 'Bible alone' denominations disagreeing on important doctrines, all reading the same Bible. The Bible is infallible but people's interpretation is not.

[@chance9460]

The point isn't if context leads to a correct interpretation, we already know the Bible does not interpret itself if it did then everyone would hold the same beliefs. This is the point of Mr. Madrid's question to the fellows - whom do we give authority to? Do we give authority to our individual interpretation? I would think not unless you believe you have the authority or you believe God to be subjective/relative. As Catholics, we give authority to the Church which was founded by Christ, who already had a living Tradition and active Faithful apostolate before the Bible was compiled in the 4th century by the Holy Catholic Church. We (Catholics) believe God to be Eternal Truth, the Bible then can not be relative for dogmatic, moral, doctrinal teachings if it were then that would make God relative which would imply He is not Eternal Truth. So if He is Eternal Truth whom do you go to that has authority, the only one who was giving that authority The Seat of Saint Peter, which is the Holy Catholic Church.

[@nicholasscott3524]

Chance , We are all going to give an account for what we believe. It’s a very serious thing- a matter of heaven and hell. I would not be so bold, or perhaps foolish, to put my belief in the hands of another. Yes, there are many denominations. Not all are legitimate. Most are probably illegitimate. Christ has given us a lot of freedom in how we worship him. (Romans 14) One of the examples given in Romans 14 is the matter of whether or not a believer eats meat. We are free to practice a litany of things so long as they bring glory to God. Many “Bible Alone” denominations, as figuenew put it, are different denominations on the basis of these “doubtful things” Paul talked about. Should there be different denominations? Maybe? Different groups different walks. What matters is whether or not that denomination remains orthodox. The biggest denominations, I’m thinking Baptists and Methodists (those are most common where I’m from), are for the most part orthodox. I know that within the Methodist church there is a big threat due to the issue of homosexuality. One group looks at how the church has historically interpreted the scripture, the context of the scripture, the meaning of the original languages, etc to form their interpretation, and the other does that whole “subjective truth” thing you were talking about. What many Catholics are scared about, the whole “everyone is a pope” thing, is for the most part unfounded. “The Bible is infallible but people’s interpretation is not.” Yes. Some interpretations are better than others. They are better because they are more grounded in scripture, more consistent within scripture, don’t contradict scripture, and are commonly held throughout church history. Much of the pope’s interpretation is not grounded in scripture, it’s not consistent within scripture, and it does contradict scripture. Including any justification for the papacy. I’m not going to comment on church history because that’ll be a can of worms. Scripture can not be argued with. It’s the end all be all. Catholic Church tradition is not in accordance with the Bible.

[@jacowoest2523]

I understand what he was getting at with his example of the sentence being interpreted differently based on emphasizing different words. But surely it does not follow that written language works in the same way. We read books all the time and are able to understand what the author is saying. Surely the biblical authors, inspired by the Holy Spirit, wrote in understandable ways.

[@figuenew]

But Peter says that Paul wrote in his epistles things difficult to understand (2 Peter 3:15-17).

[@jacowoest2523]

@@figuenew Difficult due to their complexity, not due to ambiguity in the language he uses. I agree there are difficult verses in the Bible that have been intetpreted in different ways. But the differences in catholic and protestant theology are not based on such verses.

[@jackdaw6359]

@@jacowoest2523 yet, ask questions about important issues and get hundreds of different answers.

[@jacowoest2523]

@@jackdaw6359 I believe the Bible is clear on issues of salvation. Many differences between denominations revolve around secondary issues. These create unnecessary divisions among us. When the differences do relate to important doctrines however, the believer needs to be sensitive to the Holy Spirit's guidance.

[@jackdaw6359]

@@jacowoest2523 The Holy Spirit never contradicts Himself. So if you and another sincere Protestant disagree, who is right... Say about Baptism and communion?

[@edweber9847]

It seems apologetics boils down to who's biblical interpretation is authoritative. I wonder if the Calvinists Mr. Madrid talked to could prove the bible is the word of God. I also wonder if they could show, from the bible, they have authority to interpret the bible.

[@cademiclips]

Because writings that pose different theological views can't be burnt by Theodosius I, thereby removing opposing theological positions from the theological record...

[@bham7bh]

Church history matters, theology matters. 😁TULIP.

[@bham7bh]

@@rohan7224 of course it's not. It's just a means in which to make sense of, understand, and convey to others and ourselves the nature of Gods relationship with his creation.

[@Adam-ue2ig]

Lampe, Peter. From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries Trans., Michael Steinhauser Ed., Marshall G. Johnson (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003).

[@JohnR.T.B.]

The Bible itself is written in the Holy Tradition of the faith in God, the Word of God is Jesus Himself, what book can contain the whole Truth of the Lord? Protrestants have faith but also grave misunderstandings.

[@Adam-ue2ig]

This “fractionation” that Lampe argues for is that through the end of the second century Roman Christianity was divided between many small cells that lacked central coordination.[1]

[@fndrr42]

I get the argument but it’s pretty lucky we have more context than a single six word vague sentence.

[@PaulDo22]

Yes, that's why we have the One True Church Christ established to provide guidance on the meaning of Scripture. Certainly you can't do it.

[@fndrr42]

@@PaulDo22 - no issues with Catholic believers - my issues are the "One True Church" claims. Maybe it's just that the Mormons stole the claim but just seams to go against what the "Church" actually is.

[@PaulDo22]

@@fndrr42 What do you mean by that? What is the Church if not the Apostles and their successors?

[@fndrr42]

@@PaulDo22 - The church would be believers as opposed to a particular "denomination" or governing body. Assuming we will have to agree to disagree on that one, not trying to troll. I really enjoy the channel, just found the "I never said you stole money" to be a pretty shaky argument considering we have a good bit more context and the continuity of the entire scripture.

[@PaulDo22]

@@fndrr42 Remember there were no denominations until man-made denominations appeared 1500 years after the Apostles. So since those can all be thrown out, then the idea that your version of understanding Scripture is better than anybody else's can be thrown out too. Wouldn't it be better to stick with Christ and His Apostles rather than reinventing the Church into your own image?

[@Adam-ue2ig]

Just as Newman wrote book on doctrinal development...it's very obvious that papacy and much of the doctrine of the RCC does not originate in the first century

[@TheDjcarter1966]

But that is the ultimate end of protestantism each man is his own church

[@lucillebonds4332]

I think a good Catechism book and the correct Holy Bible help a lot: The CATECHISM EXPLAINED An Exhaustive Explanation of the Catholic Religion. Spirago-Clarke. Douay-Rheims Holy Bible.

[@zen-sufi]

I have been having such a hard time finding a DR bible! I'm hoping the one I want will come in stock soon. It's nuts.

[@dontpooponmeplease]

Watched this a week or so ago and it's been in the back of my head; specifically the napkin analog. It certainly has a big punch as it exposes the possibility of multiple interpretations of any text, but I think it's a poor representation of how Scriptural analysis (or literary analysis of ANY sort) is properly done. No verse is ever given in such a 6 word isolation like the vague phrase used here. For each verse we have the context of the preceding verses along with at least basic information on who the author is and who is being written to. On top of that, we have all 66 books of the Bible which helps us in our understanding (for Scripture interprets Scripture). By this analogy, it's impossible to know the meaning of any text unless we both know the author and have occasion to ask him what it means. Yet, most literature (that is at least moderately well-written), is written in a way that will be understandable on its face. And how much more so the Holy Scripture that God has given us as the means to draw us to Himself? Additionally, He doesn't just give us His Word, but also His Spirit for illumination. If we want to ask the author what they meant, let us not go to man, but to the true author: God. I'm not saying that there will be no passages that will be difficult to understand, but we should at least give a little more literary credit to the Holy Spirit who has given us "all we need for life and godliness". I agree that we MUST be a part of a church, that the fellow believers are almost always instrumental in helping us grow into more Christlikeness, and that we should always be humble when approaching the divine Word of God. But, again, God has given us a clear Word and even His own self, that He may "Open [our] eyes, that [we] may behold wondrous things in your law". (PS The whole stereotypical Calvinist thing. I get it. Calvinists like to tell people how they're wrong in a very arrogant way. But please don't let that be your impression; I'm a "Calvinist", or rather just someone who believes in the doctrines of grace, and I believe that the true Calvinist will be humble and trembling before the Mighty hand of God)

[@theravenswritingdesk]

Hi There Matt, hope you're doing well. I'm really sorry but I fail to see how this is possibly a good argument to make, is certainly not a profound one. I heard you mention it in a clip a couple of days ago and I honestly charitably assumed you'd misremembered it because it simply didn't work. If, for example, we looked at the scriptures like a set of individual sayings which have no bearing on one another, potantially this would make sense, but even then the bible would have to be a pretty small book. If, maybe, we didn't understand the context into which cetain writings were being spoken, then again, maybe the arguement would make sense. The Napkin creates the idea of a world in which that is the only info we have, that we read a bible verse, do no cross examination with other passages or study of patristics or theology and just believe what we can best understand. Even in most of the versions of "I never said you stole money" the implication was that the hearer was coming to the conversation having been previously been informed that the speaker had said something Ill of them in some way, meaning that in each case with the set parameters of the excercise there is more information which would be avaliable in order to ascertain the veracity of the claim that the speaker never told anyone you'd stolen money. I'm sorry but this at the very least needs work, but as is it defeats it's own premise. God Bless, A.T. Ravenhill

[@GerardNCasey]

I may be wrong (or just plain misunderstand you) but doesn't what you've written make more or less the same point that the Madrid does, which is that context matters. In the particular case in point, one important context is the interpretation of Scripture expressed by the most eminent Christian thinkers of the early centuries in the Church.

[@Adam-ue2ig]

the fact is that we have no reliable accounts either of Peter’s later life or of the manner or place of his death. Neither Peter nor Paul founded the Church at Rome, for there were Christians in the city before either of the Apostles set foot there. Nor can we assume, as Irenaeus did, that the Apostles established there a succession of bishops to carry on their work in the city, for all the indications are that there was no single bishop at Rome for almost a century after the deaths of the Apostles.In fact, wherever we turn, the solid outlines of the Petrine succession at Rome seem to dissolve. Eamon Duffy Saints and Sinners Ch. 1

[@thoughtfulpilgrim1521]

Unfortunately, saying the LDS or JWs have scriptures is a little more than a tad disingenuous there fellas as they intenionally modified scripture away from original text and hold heretical views regarding the Trinity and person of Jesus Christ. Cameron OTOH is willing to use original scripture as it was recorded in actual manuscripts....hopefully the same as you. So that's a bit of a strawman against Cameron's position. Nevertheless, the point about interpreting scripture and going back to how it was originally understood is a good one.

[@josueinhan8436]

Guys, I think you better read a Nathan Busenitz's book: Long Before Luther. It'll be really profitable for those who want to discover how the theme of "justification by faith alone" is possible to be found in the Early Church, by the hands from the Early Church Fathers. Warm regards.

[@Justas399]

There were at least 4 different views on the nature of the supper in the early church. Not just one. No apostle taught the immaculate conception of Mary not that she was without sin. Not one.

[@Justas399]

@Charles “There were four views of the Eucharist in the early church. In his magnum opus, History of the Christian Church, historian Philip Schaff (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume 2, [Hendrickson Publishers, 2010], pp. 241-245; Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume 3, [Hendrickson Publishers, 2010], pp. 494-500) documents the four views the early church held in regards to the way in which Christ was associated with the bread and wine. You had the (1) mystical view of Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Cyril of Jerusalem which said the body and blood of Jesus are mystically in union with the elements leading to a sort of repetition of the incarnation, though no change in substance actually takes place as in later Romanism; (2) the symbolic view of Tertullian, Cyprian, Eusebius, Gregory Nazianzen, Macarius the Elder, Theodoret, Augustine and Gelasius which said the Eucharist symbolizes the body and blood of Jesus and is a commemoration, not Rome’s literalistic transubstantiation; (3) the allegorical or spiritual view of Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Athanasius which said the believer receives the spiritual but not physical blood and life of Jesus at Mass; and (4) the literalistic view of Hilary, Ambrose and Gaudentius which affirmed the bread and wine as being the literal transformed body and blood of Jesus which is basically in line with the modern Roman Catholic system. The Roman view is in the minority, while the symbolic and mystical views seem to be the most primitive and popular.”

[@DennyBlessedDCT]

The napkin analogy is interesting but without context it is useless. If you make a statement without context, it is been left open to interpretation. Context is key to anything being said. God's Word must be interpreted in context. If you gave me that argument, I would simply turn it back on you and we would be at zero. Scripture must be taken in context and scripture must be used to interpret scripture. I could point to dozens of things that the Catholic church has taught over the centuries that are not scriptural at all. One of the most recent was a couple of years ago when the Pope said there was no hell. When I was told about this I did not believe it and actually went to the video and watched for myself to see if the pope actually said this. As it turns out he did. This declaration by the infallible Pope was 100% against the scripture. What that means is either God lied when he gave us the scripture (and the Bible is clear, God cannot lie) or the Pope is not infallible and speaking for God! I have no problem with someone being Catholic as long as the scripture is their guide and not the church! One more caution I would give you is the fact that the Catholic church has changed positions on issues in the past. So if you are putting so much emphasis on tradition and early teachings, how is it that the church can so easily switch positions on issues? My mother gave me some advice when I was young that I always held on to, "If our church ever stops teaching the word of God faithfully, leave and find a new church!" By the way, I have left that church as it has started to delve into false teachings and New age dogma! If you are a devout Catholic and Trust everything the Catholic Church teaches, you are in danger of losing your soul. You must be faithful to God first and foremost and HIS word above any teachings of the church. That goes for everyone, Protestants as well as Catholics.

[@DennyBlessedDCT]

@Matt Blaise I guess it depends on if you believe that the Bible is the word of God.🤔

[@DennyBlessedDCT]

@Matt Blaise God's context. If God's word is not enough, then God would be incredibly small and weak. Fortunately the God of the Bible is all knowing. HIS ways are higher than our ways, HIS thoughts are higher than our thoughts. GOD is so far beyond our finite understanding, and yet HE desires for us to know HIM and have a personal relationship with HIM. 😇

[@DennyBlessedDCT]

@Matt Blaise True, the Holy Spirit is also our guide. But I differ in opinion as to the place of the historical church versus the Bible. The historical church is just that, but the Bible is the very word of God. Differing opinions on certain scriptures is in fact a rather regular occurrence, but the Holy Spirit is to be our guide in "disputable" issues. Romans 14:5b "let each man be fully convinced in his own mind" is our guide on the non-essential teachings. That is on subjects of conscience, not the "essential doctrines" of the scripture, ie the virgin birth, the incarnation, the resurrection, etc. These are not non-essentials but are rather foundational and not open to interpretation. The historical church does have value, but that value is limited to its understanding and teaching of the essentials of Christian doctrine put forth in the scriptures by God, the creator, the author and perfecter of faith. Without faith, no one can know God.

[@PaulDo22]

@@DennyBlessedDCT In the example from the video he wrote it down and the Calvinists were unable to interpret what he wrote down. Now when Scripture was written down it was inspired by God Who gave His authorization to One Church and One Church only to interpret it. It's not a free-for-all where anyone can have a go at it. Your local pastor nor has no authority to interpret Scripture and defiles God and His Church by teaching you that he does. If you think you are guided by the Holy Spirit you are full of pride and have bought into the lies of Satan.

[@DennyBlessedDCT]

@@PaulDo22 That is an interesting thought. Where in the scriptures can I find this church and the authorization for this church? I'm not being funny, if I have somehow missed something from the Bible where there's an authorization of a "One church only" please let me know. Thanks.😇✝️

[@tony9382]

After viewing this clip, I find it puzzling how Matt Frad sees Madrid’s “napkin” analysis as “very powerful”. Madrid’s encounter and his handling of the two Calvinists inquiry doesn’t even begin to cast doubt on the self-sufficiency and perspicuity of scripture. While it can be shown that words, phrases, and sentences can render various meanings, Madrid’s example still leaves a whopper of a head-scratcher as to how scripture carries similar crucial ambiguity. Does Madrid exegete a passage, and then demonstrate a multiplicity of meanings? No. Does he even begin to demonstrate that all exegetical methodologies will wind up at a dead end with respect to ascertaining the text’s original intention? Not at all. Where scripture carries apparent (but not real) ambiguity, Madrid would have show that exegetical tools such as synthetic, genre, and canonical approaches, along with recourse to linguistic, philology, lexical, and semantic domains to pericopes are all a bust before a need to an external non-inspired authority. In short, an appeal to local and distant contextual features will provide the exegete with good reasons to defend one interpretation over another. Consider divine omniscience. If God inspires the apostle in the production of scripture in such a way where the divine intent is to have Paul’s correspondences to be an example for all subsequent generations across time, Madrid would have to demonstrate divine inability in this endeavor, or provide good reasons why such goal is unfeasible even via divine omniscience. Second, Madrid would have to demonstrate that ancient language(s) and Roman-era social strata is too sui generes to communicate propositional content with objectivity - transcending cultural relativity. To be sure, Madrid’s goal is to show *why* an external non-inspired source (i.e., the magisterium) is necessary for the production of divine meaning from scripture. Madrid fails to achieve this, and Matt Frad is unable to press him because he seems unaware of the strongest arguments of the view they seek to undermine. I find it amazing how running into two weak Calvinists can yield such an impoverished argument against the perspicuity of scripture. And we are supposed to believe that Madrid’s analysis is “very powerful”.

[@PaulDo22]

Scripture was written down it was inspired by God who gave His authorization to One Church and One Church only to interpret it. It's not a free-for-all where anyone can have a go at it. Neither your local-yocal pastor, nor you, have any authority to interpret Scripture and you defile God and His Church by assuming in your sinful pride that your understanding of God's Word is God's Own understanding.

[@bad_covfefe]

Except the analogy IS powerful, and the context in practice doesn't help one iota, because context does not clue us in to certain meaning, and because educated people study context and still disagree.

[@tony9382]

@@bad_covfefe Is your statement *itself* supposed to get across some “meaning” apart from contextual background! Incoherence, all the way down.

[@bad_covfefe]

@tony9382 you seem to be misunderstanding the claim. The claim is not that it is impossible to understand the meaning of a text. It is that it is impossiblr to distinguish between multiple valid interpretations within a text. If people looked at my comment and derived mamy possibke interpretations of it, then yes, the argument would apply, and I could clarify. Until someone does that, you can safely assume that you have the correct interpretation of my words. If someone else had a different interpretation of what I said, you would have to re examine your understanding of my words. You are butting your head against the sheer reality thay educated people have studied scripture for decades and still ended up on all sides of every theological position. Your viewpoint is falsified by the reality of the situation.

[@tony9382]

@@bad_covfefe I’m granting you the video’s point, which still undercuts your own comments. If it’s “impossible to distinguish between ultimate valid interpolations with a text,” how is its “meaning” not “impossible” to ascertain? An “interpretation,” by definition, is to assert a meaningful proposition. Still more incoherence. This is true, even if educated people arrive at different conclusions - that’s a ruse de guerre. Patrick’s point is a text book case of a non sequitur. Even if meaning is incorrigibly difficult to ascertain it dos not follow some sort of religious elitism is necessary.

[@suforalone4572]

3=1 hence Trinity proved

[@Adam-ue2ig]

The state of affairs in what you claim to be the one true church...Francis Church is horrid.

[@richardsegura8117]

Somebody tell me how Catholics think/believe Peter was the first pope?.....also, I was told by a catholic priest that if I married my wife(43yrs now married) if I married her I would be sending her to hell along with myself......I have been serving our Lord Jesus for almost fifty years now and according to the Word of God I’m going to heaven along with my precious wife😎✝️

[@faithwisdom788]

Why did he say that If you married her you would be sending her to hell along with yourself?

[@faithwisdom788]

www.catholic.com/tract/origins-of-peter-as-pope www.catholic.com/qa/was-peter-really-the-first-pope

[@elliestretchprays7851]

richard segura was your wife divorced? Then yes it’s adultery and a mortal sin

[@elliestretchprays7851]

Read the a Holy Bible and you will see that Peter was the Pope. The term may not have been used yet but he was given the authority by Jesus

[@richardsegura8117]

FaithWisdom because she was catholic and I was not, although my father was catholic .....I came to Christ at 24yrs. of age, now in my seventies, been serving the Lord for close to 50yrs.😎✝️