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

@calebp6114

2 жыл бұрын

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

@astrol4b

2 жыл бұрын

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

@Jack-uo7gz

2 жыл бұрын

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

@sneakysnake2330

2 жыл бұрын

@@astrol4b He could also charter a boat

@halleylujah247

2 жыл бұрын

@@astrol4b 😁

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

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

@jesussotelo4775

2 жыл бұрын

@@tony1685 Catholics are Christians.

@DrownedinDesigner

2 жыл бұрын

@@tony1685 touch grass

@joeterp5615

2 жыл бұрын

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

@danharte6645

2 жыл бұрын

@@tony1685 a catholic is a Christian Toney

@DrownedinDesigner

2 жыл бұрын

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

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

@jesuspascual9080

2 жыл бұрын

@@tony1685 Care to distinguish the difference?

@nanagaga2001

2 жыл бұрын

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

@marvalice3455

2 жыл бұрын

@@tony1685 read the church fathers.

@marvalice3455

2 жыл бұрын

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

@clarekuehn4372

2 жыл бұрын

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

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

@t.d6379

9 ай бұрын

He did.

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

@dmd418

2 жыл бұрын

Just curious, what is keeping you from converting?

@TheOtherCaleb

2 жыл бұрын

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

@dmd418

2 жыл бұрын

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

@TheOtherCaleb

2 жыл бұрын

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

@justinharnett

2 жыл бұрын

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

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

@noahfletcher3019

Жыл бұрын

yawn.

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

@Roma-rusk

2 жыл бұрын

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

@Mrs_Homemaker

2 жыл бұрын

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

@Roma-rusk

2 жыл бұрын

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

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

@dmd418

2 жыл бұрын

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

@crobeastness

2 жыл бұрын

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

@crossbearer6453

2 жыл бұрын

@@tony1685 doing what Jesus said is pagan??

@dmd418

2 жыл бұрын

@@tony1685 what is a pagan?

@dmd418

2 жыл бұрын

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

Enjoyed the dialogue :)

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

@mugsofmirth8101

2 жыл бұрын

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

@sloanjackson8

2 жыл бұрын

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

@mugsofmirth8101

2 жыл бұрын

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

@sloanjackson8

2 жыл бұрын

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

@mugsofmirth8101

2 жыл бұрын

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

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

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

@noahfletcher3019

Жыл бұрын

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

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

@PeterTvonK

2 жыл бұрын

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

@PeterTvonK

2 жыл бұрын

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

@PeterTvonK

2 жыл бұрын

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

@zarganon9594

Жыл бұрын

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

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

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

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

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

God bless you brothers 🙏

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

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

@IESBiblia

2 жыл бұрын

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

@pbjpodcast9983

2 жыл бұрын

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

@repentantrevenant9776

2 жыл бұрын

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

@MrLeadman12

2 жыл бұрын

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

@faustinuskaryadi6610

Жыл бұрын

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

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

@idongesitx1873

2 жыл бұрын

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

@malachi487

2 жыл бұрын

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

@NaruIchiLuffy

2 жыл бұрын

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

@TonyKeeh

2 жыл бұрын

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

@australopithecusafarensis5386

2 жыл бұрын

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

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

@shlamallama6433

2 жыл бұрын

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

@jonathanstensberg

2 жыл бұрын

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

@MrLeadman12

2 жыл бұрын

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

@MrLeadman12

2 жыл бұрын

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

@jonathanstensberg

2 жыл бұрын

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

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

@ameebedford9555

2 жыл бұрын

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

@EpoRose1

2 жыл бұрын

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

@Katholikos78

2 жыл бұрын

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

@snokehusk223

Жыл бұрын

​@@Katholikos78 facts!

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

@snokehusk223

Жыл бұрын

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

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

@ismarril

2 жыл бұрын

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

@kyle7240

2 жыл бұрын

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

@snokehusk223

Жыл бұрын

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

@kyle7240

Жыл бұрын

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

@snokehusk223

Жыл бұрын

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

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

I swam the Tiber thanks to Suan being on CC.

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

Trent's counsel ;)

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

Where can we watch the debate between Alex and Trent?

Thanks!

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

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

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

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

Is it welcome to the Catholic Church Cameron?

good stuff

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

Cameron should really read a catholic catechism.

@DavidRodriguez-cm2qg

2 жыл бұрын

One of the wisest, most commonsensical comments in this thread

@AustralianChristianFascists

2 жыл бұрын

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

@AustralianChristianFascists

2 жыл бұрын

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

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

@NaruIchiLuffy

2 жыл бұрын

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

@chrisazure1624

2 жыл бұрын

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

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

@DavidRodriguez-cm2qg

2 жыл бұрын

Bien dicho

@javiermariscal5712

2 жыл бұрын

@@DavidRodriguez-cm2qg Gracias amigo!

@noahfletcher3019

Жыл бұрын

thanks but no thanks.

@77Friction

Жыл бұрын

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

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

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

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

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

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

@IESBiblia

2 жыл бұрын

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

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

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

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

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

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

Y’all should discuss Anglicanism. They have apostolic orders (even though most Catholics believe they are invalid, but Eastern Orthodoxy was about to have sacramental union with Anglicans until ordination of women). Anglicans have a strong view of church authority and believed that the reformation was a continuation of the Holy Spirit’s guidance of the church. They consider themselves in many rights “democratic Catholics” having a structure much more like Orthodoxy than the autocratic structure of Rome. Anglicanism as a third way between Catholicism and Protestantism is not brought into this debate nearly enough which is surprising since it’s one of the largest Christian traditions in the world

@cheechak481

2 жыл бұрын

Lutheranism would be a better alternative.....as the Anglican church is a bastion of liberal theology now.

@lizethcantu276

2 жыл бұрын

"The Anglican church originated when King Henry VII split from the Roman Catholic church in 1534, when the Pope refused to grant the king an annulment."🙄

@cheechak481

2 жыл бұрын

@@lizethcantu276 Yes....I know that...but are Anglicans not our brothers and sisters in Christ.....are they not Christians?..

@faustinuskaryadi6610

Жыл бұрын

@@cheechak481 she mean Anglicanism born by violated core Christian teaching about long life monogamous marriage.

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

Cameron...have you looked into Lutheranism?....they too have formal liturgy and sacraments including the Eucharist, their theology is not exactly the same as the RCC on these as can be expected. The Lutheran concept of apostolic succession differs in that their "succession" pertains more to "doctrinal succession" rather than succession through the "laying on of hands". When one attends a Lutheran liturgy it has many similarities to the Catholic mass, including participation in the Eucharist....they believe in consubstantiation rather than transubstantiation. Jordan Cooper would make a great guest for you to have on your show.....IMHO. kzread.info/dash/bejne/gnaij4-yfrPWlrA.html

If that makes sense

Do you ever interview women as Christian leaders?

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

Inerracny defined correctly is not textual, but rather theological.

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

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

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

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

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

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

@koppite9600

2 жыл бұрын

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

@PepeTheToad

2 жыл бұрын

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

@koppite9600

2 жыл бұрын

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

@PepeTheToad

2 жыл бұрын

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

@koppite9600

2 жыл бұрын

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

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

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

A question: Was the Sanhedrin ever divinely ordained (CC appears obligated to say yes since he has said before that the typographical argument is the most compelling). If so, then why do you not go to a synagogue? And if you think this is silly, then what argument is there against a Protestant who thinks the case for the early papacy is weak or unclear, but is certain that the later Catholic Church has fallen in the same corrupt ways that the Sanhedrin did?

@snokehusk223

Жыл бұрын

Jesus is present in the Catholic Church through miracles which indicates that is hasn't become corrupted. Also there isn't anything different in Catholic Church today then in the past when it comes to doctrine.

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

@NaruIchiLuffy

2 жыл бұрын

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

@itzhak6068

2 жыл бұрын

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

@extract8058

2 жыл бұрын

@@itzhak6068 liar

@itzhak6068

2 жыл бұрын

@@extract8058 In what regard?

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

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

@doctorscientist3991

2 жыл бұрын

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

@WhyCatholicdotCom

2 жыл бұрын

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

@anthonywhitney634

2 жыл бұрын

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

@WhyCatholicdotCom

2 жыл бұрын

@@anthonywhitney634 "The Protestant essentials are well articulated and believed by all protestants." watch the video again LOL Your right though 40,000 might be a stretch according to the esteemed Protestant theologian John MacArthur there were over 28,000 at the time of this interview which was a while back so it is more but might not be 40,000 kzread.info/dash/bejne/qYiDo62joprXdMo.html

@anthonywhitney634

2 жыл бұрын

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

It is not "just the book Hebrews".

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

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

@Tim097

2 ай бұрын

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

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

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

I don’t understand Trent’s argument where he seems to claim you need to be catholic if you accept the authority of the Bible? There’s evidence the NT canon was circulating among the 1st century congregation (and was taken to be authentic) + the authority of the writers themselves + the evidence of harmony among them. I’m not even sure what he means by “sola scriptura”.

Great interview! Still doesn’t convince me in the slightest lol. The baptism thing can also be said about circumcision, can it not?

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

This was very thought-provoking. Loved it. Thank you. Personally how I might address the protestant "gap" (i.e. that is the gap between mere Christianity and the protestant authority of sola Scriptura) is rooted in a broader study of church history and theology. As a protestant, I don't deny that the church gave us the Bible and the creeds. However, I don't think I'm alone in seeing that the Catholic church continued to add new novel doctrines as the years progressed. This observation does not move me toward viewing these differences as heresy but toward ecumicism. I have also observed how protestants have introduced some new teaching as well. And I don't feel the need for tribalism on the playground of Christianity.

@cmac369

2 жыл бұрын

But who's to say what "novel doctrines" are?

@jonnichols4663

2 жыл бұрын

@@cmac369 novel? meaning new... so you could look for a historical written precedent. Novel is not bad. Just a recognition that there has been change. Thus, to my point, observing the Catholic Churches' evolution gives me the space to accept the protestant reformation. I think previous when this question was heavy on my soul, I was of the mindset that I needed to find that which represented the pure/original "church" (like the church of Acts or the first few centries). What I found was that no church is this, and for good reason. I'm OK with one big messy project we call the Christian faith. I think that in the limited plurality of Christian teaching we see something of the wisdom and beauty of God.

@cmac369

2 жыл бұрын

@@jonnichols4663 Ok, but again who's says it's novel? Would Eucharist be novel? Or infant baptism? If you're comfortable with the original doctrines, then what are the original doctrines? I'm just pointing out the need for authority. Is the idea of one big messy project novel? Why is there a good reason that there's no original church?

@jonnichols4663

2 жыл бұрын

@@cmac369 I think you may be trying to overthink it. Novel as a the new doctrines introduced as years progressed. Atonement theories is a great example of the manifold changes the church has undergone concerning the meaning of Christ death. The Protestant tradition has introduced many new doctrines. It has also reinvigorated many old ones. There has always been a great diversity in a Christianity from the beginning. An appeal to authority is often nothing more than an appeal for control. But I don’t see a need to apostolic succession as an authority. Maybe to draw an analogy, in America our founders wrote wrote a document which was a unifying composition of those core ideas we call the constitution (and bill of rights). However, what we don’t believe is that only a select group, those ordained by the founders have the authority for interpretation and application. We all have the ability to engage in this project. (I see a way in which this illustration can apply to Catholic authority, but the fact that it can be imagined differently is point enough). Likewise, it appears much like the Jewish tradition that preceded it, we too are people of a book. The “founders” passed onto us a book as a guide as a way of inviting us all into the project of wresting with the faith. Tradition was more important before the book, and less important afterwards. This need to appeal to a greater authority, I think, actually has the unintended effect to undermine their work. I’ll try for another illustration. If you went through the effort of writing the safety guidelines for your work, yet people continually came to you asking question rather than referring to your document, one might conclude their is something wrong with your document. At this point I might also like to add that that I believe we have something greater than a dead words on a page, but the ability to be in a living relationship with God.

@cmac369

2 жыл бұрын

@@jonnichols4663 It just surprises me that protestants see authority so differently than catholics. I won’t argue with what you said just appreciate that people see differently. However, I will just point out the problems that catholics have with what you’re saying. But first give an illustration for yourself and for anyone else reading that I think cuts to the core of the sola scriptura problem. Imagine you have older mother who’s baking recipes you enjoy. She’s getting older and you tell your son to get the recipe and write it down. Your son goes with paper and pen and asks granny how she makes her famous cookies. She tells him the ingredients and he writes them down, but some of what she says he just decides to not write down as he knows he’ll remember it. For example, she might say she adds 1 cup of choc chips but that you can do half choc and half raisins. Your son just writes 1 cup of choc chips. And maybe she says cook at 350 degrees for 8 min, but she says if they come out to wet bake another 5 minutes. Your son decides not to write bake another 5 minutes if cookies are wet because he’ll remember it. When your son gets home he starts making the recipes she gave him. And when the cookies are done his brother says why did you make the cookies with raisins the recipe doesn’t say that. But your son responds he did what she told him to do. You can imagine a scenario where following the written recipe would actually get the recipe all wrong. Your son at this point is the steward of the recipe. He has the authority to tell everyone what grandmas recipe is. Similarly, we have no reason that we should only go by the bible, the written record of the apostles, but follow all we have been told. And when do try to go just by the bible all we do is come up with different interpretations. What’s at stake is the truth of Christianity. A person can’t go only by the bible because it doesn’t allow it. It must be interpreted by someone. But who? That’s the question. If we everyone can interpret it then Christianity is essentially subjective religion. If only a select group can interpret there will inevitably people who disagree but at least you have a single objective teaching and religion. Here are my problems with what you write: - I like your analogy about the constitution. However, I disagree with your analysis. WE DO have a select group of people ordained by the founders. It’s congress, the president, and the supreme court. They are elected and that’s exactly why the system works because someone is in charge, someone has authority. Otherwise you would have anarchy. That’s what I can’t understand about protestants. You say you cant’ “see the need for apostolic succession.” It’s like saying I can’t see the need for a judge in a court room as long as we have the constitution. The constitution has authority but the judge has authority too. How could it be functional any other way? -You said, “An appeal to authority is often nothing more than an appeal for control.” I would disagree again. It’s actually a lot more than an appeal to control. It’s an appeal that something actually is true. If you’re in a room and the teacher is testing you on catcher in the rye, she can’t test you unless there’s a definitive answer. IF she asks “what is the theme of the book”? You could write whatever you want and you’d be write. But that’s not how it works. She tells you the acceptable answers and you remember what they are. If we’re supposed to obey the church and the church is fundamentally subjective, and not everyone agrees which church or which doctrines, where does that leave us? Who are we supposed to obey? There’s no truth at that point. The fact that there’s diversity doesn’t mean there’s no true doctrines. Shouldn’t there be true doctrines, if the person founding the church is claiming to be Truth. What you’re doing is reading sola scriptura invented by martin luther into history. But I’ll leave you with this last question to think about or wrestle with. When Jesus looked out on his apostles as he ascended into heaven did he look out with the hope that Andrew would preach a type of Baptism that Philip would disagree with? Was Jesus’ plan that Simon would preach salvation that was different from John? If the answer is no, Jesus’ wanted one single doctrine, which denomination of Christianity teaches that?

Glad he isnt wearing the sandals 😂

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

First!

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

@Tim097

2 ай бұрын

Just tell us you didn’t watch the video

@cheerfulmouse

2 ай бұрын

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

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

@doctorscientist3991

2 жыл бұрын

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

@Shelf_improvement

2 жыл бұрын

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

@doctorscientist3991

2 жыл бұрын

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

@DavidRodriguez-cm2qg

2 жыл бұрын

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

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

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

@liraco_mx

2 жыл бұрын

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

@BrianGondo

2 жыл бұрын

Post your video on KZread then

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

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

@IESBiblia

2 жыл бұрын

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

@myrddingwynedd2751

2 жыл бұрын

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

@myrddingwynedd2751

2 жыл бұрын

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

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

@snokehusk223

Жыл бұрын

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

@Adam-ue2ig

Жыл бұрын

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

@Adam-ue2ig

Жыл бұрын

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

@Adam-ue2ig

Жыл бұрын

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

@Adam-ue2ig

Жыл бұрын

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

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

@fabbeyonddadancer

2 жыл бұрын

This is Protestant heretical reasoning

@j.r.r5863

2 жыл бұрын

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

@ST-ov8cm

2 жыл бұрын

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

@frerfresh8373

2 жыл бұрын

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

@verenice2656

2 жыл бұрын

Wrong.

Cameron you've gotta look into Orthodoxy, please. It has all the depth of tradition and sophisticated theology without all the papal innovations and historical anachronisms of catholicism.

@snokehusk223

Жыл бұрын

Papacy is in tradition and scripture. Orthodox are obsessed with power so they reject papcy although they know that it is right just like early Church believed.

@adrummingdog2782

Жыл бұрын

@@snokehusk223 Not the papacy as defined by Vatican I

@snokehusk223

Жыл бұрын

@@adrummingdog2782 in what aspect do you believe it is not

@adrummingdog2782

Жыл бұрын

@@snokehusk223 papal supremacy, that the pope can speak ex-cathedra/infallibly, that the pope appoints all bishops, that you have to be in communion with Rome to receive salvation, theres more but thats just off the top of my head. The first millenium church didn't function like the catholic church of today, it was conciliar. Rome did have primacy, but not supremacy like it claims, the papacy even used forged documents as evidence for increasing its own power in the middle ages. Your own saints like John Newman admit the development. This is why in my opinion the orthodox church is the rightful continuation of the church. Before vatican I it was better, and there could have been reunification, but V-I dogmatized papal supremacy and theres really no hope now.

@snokehusk223

Жыл бұрын

@@adrummingdog2782 What do ypu even mean by primacy? It is just a different word you use so you don't aknowledge supremacy. When there was some problem and it couldn't be sorted out normally bishop of Rome was always the one who cleared it out. So people knew he had the final say and that his word was the strongest and final one. And yes just like councils pope can speak infallibily when ex cathedra because the power of Holy Ghost suspends him from error when he is speaking ex Cathedra. But this was only used one time with Immaculate conception of Mary so there were no abuses as Orthodox would want to point out. As for appointing bishops it is not a doctrine but just a practice intended to suppress heresis. But this can be changed. For example Eastern Catholics chose their own bishops. Pope only rejects those among valid candidates who might be heretics. Same thing could be aplied to the whole church again. And yes you have to be in comunion with Catholic Church to receive salvation. But the Church also teachea that those who by no fault of their own didn't know this might be saved because God is merciful so he won't judge someone for what they didn't do unknowingly. I believe there is possibility od reunion but Catholic Church won't compromise. For example change certain doctrines or invalidate some councils just for this. I recommend you to research more so you realise that Catholoc Church is the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church which Jesus established and which existed from Apostoles and Peter as it's first leader till today.

I am surprised... Trent is so clear on just how Catholicism contradict scripture.. and still be a Catholic, it is very different to add wisdom or tradition to Christianity through the living church, with things aligned with the Bible... vs something that contradicts the foundation of Christianity. Love the discussion anyways!

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

@MelaniesManicures

2 жыл бұрын

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

@rolandovelasquez135

2 жыл бұрын

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

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

@Jerome616

5 ай бұрын

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

@jimmoore9490

5 ай бұрын

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

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

@TheNikolinho

2 жыл бұрын

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

@mugsofmirth8101

2 жыл бұрын

Maybe this isn't the channel for you.

@arkofthecovenant6235

2 жыл бұрын

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

@TheNikolinho

2 жыл бұрын

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

@mugsofmirth8101

2 жыл бұрын

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

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

@theknight8524

2 жыл бұрын

Are you a Catholic?

@marvalice3455

2 жыл бұрын

@@theknight8524 I'm between denominations

Christian here that doesn't affiliate with any denomination . I do have an interesting framework

Ex-catholic to Protestant here....But enjoyed the dialogue🔥🔥

@EpoRose1

2 жыл бұрын

What made you leave?

@johnritter9947

2 жыл бұрын

Come home bruh

@theknight8524

2 жыл бұрын

@@tony1685 Exactly incoherency with scripture.....

@kevinmc62

2 жыл бұрын

@@tony1685 is there any one single point of your present Protestant church where you disagree with their teaching? SDA right?