Whenever somebody asks about the bad popes, I always respond with "Yeah, our first pope denied Christ publicly three times and was called Satan by Jesus once or twice. We can really only go uphill from there."

Oh my gosh! I am old enough to recall the 80’s ChickTracks at the Baptists churches floating around. Lol.. I came into RCC Easter Vigil 2021. Mother Mary pray for us. St. Brendan Pray for us.

"In egypt the people worshiped the sun, and called it the great god osiris" oh. oh no. that feeling when you can't go a single sententce without being wrong.

Another similarity is non Catholic responses to Fatima are a lot like atheist responses to the Resurrection.

Trent - Just a thank you. I am now in the process of becoming catholic and you were instrumental in my journey.

Much love from your Eastern Orthodox Brother-Photios! I love your videos bro! Please, keep them coming! ☦️☦️

In regards to bad popes, Jesus didn`t say that the gates of hell wouldn`t come against the church, only that it wouldn`t prevail. What greater proof that the papacy is divinely ordained than to allow Satan to attack it ferociously and for it to still prevail to this day.

"Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, 'The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.'" Matthew 23:1-3 If Christ wanted His disciples to respect the seat of Moses even if the people on it were morally corrupt, why should I not respect the seat of Peter?

Mr. Horn, I'm a reformed presbyterian (BTW, I haven't even watched this video yet- but your last video in this topic I had a few disagreements with but I thought it also had some true and challenging, and worthy points). But I just want to give you my sincere gratitude for being a such a genuine, kind, and brotherly fellow, for being thorough, detailed, and gracious, for giving such an organized effort rather than glossing over things superficially or merely opining. For showing an earnest desire to edify others, and for working to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. I (obviously) disagree with you/on a number if very important doctrines, but I've been greatly edified both by the substance of your work as well as example of your demeanor. Thanks, brother, the Lord Bless you and keep you.

_The Death Cookie_ happens to be my "favorite" Chick Comic, which is like a Jew saying he has a "favorite" anti-Semitic cartoon. _Cookie_ is so over the top bad in both its lies and horrible derogatory propaganda, that it has its own basilisk like horrifying fascination.

"IHS" is sometimes interpreted as meaning "ΙΗΣΟΥΣ ΗΜΕΤΕΡΟΣ ΣΩΤΗΡ" (Iēsous Hēmeteros Sōtēr, "Jesus our Saviour") or in Latin "Jesus Hominum (or Hierosolymae) Salvator", ("Jesus, Saviour of men [or: of Jerusalem]" in Latin)[13] or connected with In Hoc Signo. English-language interpretations of "IHS" have included "In His Service".[14] Such interpretations are known as backformed acronyms.

Pro tip for Protestants don’t get your theology from a comic book 😆

I don't like it when they say 'you just have to have faith' and ignore actions.

My husband collect ls those Chick tracks. He reads them when he needs a good laugh. His favorite is the Death Cookie.

"The Death Cookie" is a classic 😅 So much wrong in such a small comic.

Can we get a whole episode on Chick tracts? I have found them fascinatingly bizarre ever since I watched JonTron review the movie "Darkest Dungeon" which was based on a Chick tract decrying tabletop roleplaying games.

First! Listening to this after a long day at work. Great work Trent

Hey Trent, can you please refute MYTH VISION PODCAST's video on The Dead Scrolls and the Bible?

The Protestant "Reformation" spawned atheism, in a nutshell.

I want to add on the first point that Osiris was the Egyptian god of the underworld and not the sun god... That was Ra. So Jack also has that wrong.

I haven't watched this whole video, but I have met a few atheists in my life, and the ones I have met, after scratching the surface with questions, somehow believe in something greater than themselves. They cannot and will not acknowledge a singular all-powerful being or multiple beings. Thank you for your great work, Trent.

I keep Chick Tracts in the restroom at all times. Read comedy while I do my business, and it also helps if I run out of toilet paper!

Excellent talk..you know I had a friend many years ago who was Protestant who loved pulling apart Catholics but I noticed he also did this to his fellow protestants and just about any one else in society. I wasn't a Catholic at that stage. The true a Christians I met never did this. A really good Christian friend of mine a Sikh Convert to the Weslian Christian Church talked to me about his experiences of the Holy Spirit in his life, this along with my wife brought me into the Catholic faith from my weak high Anglican background. I always believe in personal dicernment. I believe the Holy Spirit with guide us.

Thanks. I enjoy your stuff.

Can you do a video on some of Jack Chick's more...out there conspiracies?

I call protestants the atheists of the religious world.

That's actually something very uplifting: Pre-20th century, not even the popes with the worst private or public lives ever publicly proclaimed a heresy nor even hinted at it.

Good video. 🥰❤

Chick tracts are so terrible.

Here's why I experience such frustration trying to counsel protestant Christians. Any discussion on Predestination must account for the existence or denial of FREEWILL. Here is what I strongly believe why an all loving God must be totally supportive of our freewill. "It will determine a man’s position in regard to the most momentous issues that present themselves to the human 💖 and mind. On the one hand, does man possess genuine moral freedom, power of real choice, ability to love unconditionally, the true ability to determine the course of his thoughts and volitions, to decide which motives shall prevail within his mind, to modify and mould his own character? Or, on the other, are our thoughts and volitions, our character and external actions, all merely the inevitable outcome of circumstances beyond his control? Are they all inexorably predetermined in every detail along rigid lines by events of the past, over which he himself is nothing more than a random puppet of evolution or some capricious god ? This is the real import of the free-will problem. Atheist like Sam Harris believe there is no such thing as free will, it's just an illusion. We are just the end product of an endless series of causes and effects over which we have no control. Some protestants from what I gather, believe much the same, i.e in that God micro-manages every nano-cosmic event of our lives, and thus has predetermined our eternal fate from the beginning. Ergo, there is absolutely nothing we can do to change His WILL and thus our eternal fate. I believe as the catechism teaches, we have divine authority, if not a command to follow our conscience, having rightly formed it through careful study and self examination. To me the Protestant idea of Predestination or is it just Calvinism, that is an abomination to think that our individual fate was determined by some orchestrated script of a psychopathic god. There are just far too many verses throughout the Bible to indicate that God so loves the WHOLE world, (NOT JUST a SELECT FEW) that WHOSOEVER believes and returns that love to him, will be rewarded with eternal life. Now where did I read that?

Hi Trent, I really would enjoy to see you in a debate with Frank Turek . He is a very learned apologist , I think He could be a good match .

3:30 where can we see these courses?

Trent, you mentioned Jephthah, I just read judges 11 and it did shake my faith a little bit, would you mind to explain this passage? Because it did mentions that the Spirit of the Lord was with him before he made the promise

Tim Gordon’s Catholic Republic talks about this in great detail, Prot-Enlight !

Funny thing: if Chick's information about ancient Egyptian religion had actually been correct, I (a Protestant) would have actually found that quite compelling evidence for the bread-and-wine-actually-become-flesh-and-blood doctrine. (Is there a simple term for that doctrine? It isn't transubstantiation, since that's also giving the mechanism by which it happens, and e.g. Lutherans believe the doctrine I'm talking about without accepting transubstantiation.) I know enough history to see it's ridiculous to suggest a connection in the normal sense, so if they *had* so accurately predicted the...um, traditional interpretation of mass/communion, then that would strongly suggest that the connection was through supernatural means. From which it would follow that it was probably revealed to them by God in some way, and therefore that the doctrine was correct after all. C.S.Lewis talks about this: having studied various Pagan religions academically, he saw many "pictures" in their myths of the reported historical events of Christianity, even though the historical sources couldn't possibly have known about those myths. That was a key element in his conversion from atheism, IIRC.

thanks a lot

I have a question about the IHS thing. Why isn't it ΙΗΣ? When the s (σ) is capitalized, it is not S but Σ. Jesus = Ιησους JES = ΙΗΣ ≠ IHS Why would the Eta be from the Greek alphabet and the Sigma be from the Latin?

Is the debate with Jay Dyer happening, Trent?

It would be great if Trent did a "when Orthodox argue like Protestants" video.

I'm a bit confused by this trans-world depravity idea: you described it as "It's not feasible for God to make a world that's free from evil and also having a guy *like Bob* in it". But the quote from Mackie (sp?) at 27:30 seems to be rejecting the idea that *every possible* creature (or "creaturely essence") is like Bob in that way. Could you explain this in more detail?

Hi Trent--I agree that argument 1 and 3 are bad, but I think you're not grasping the significance of argument 2. An argument from silence is when you argue a conclusion from the *mere* fact that some event isn't mentioned. Hence, we don't say "Nazareth didn't exist" because there is no contemporary reference, because we wouldn't expect to have a contemporary reference to a backwater hick town. But we *would* expect the papacy to have a mention by Ignatius or Clement. Now, no doubt, the *episcopate* is present in the second century; obviously, as an Anglican, I'd deny that this is sufficient for your case. We affirm the episcopate, and so do many Lutherans. But the silence is glaring. You wouldn't expect the East-West split to have been a plausible historical happening if the papacy were as prominent/prime as Roman Catholics thought it was; clearly by 1054, the whole Eastern church thought Papal claims were overblown--and that rejection didn't happen in a historical vacuum. Now, with respect to the claim we see evidence for the "primacy of the bishop of Rome", we just don't. We see evidence for the *respected place* and the *place of honor* of the Roman church--that it was seen as a model. But we *don't* see evidence for the idea that the Bishop of Rome was the bishop to whom all other bishops ought to submit. And that's glaring. Together with the fact that the whole Eastern church thought the Roman bishop arrogated himself beyond a place of honor to a place of authoritative primacy, confirms that the Roman episcopate let the honor and virtuousness of the church go to its head.

Ive noticed that Calvinist are the worst for this. I'm on the fence between Catholic and protestant (I've been protestant my whole life) and there has been quite discouraged times while listening to reformed people like White or Mcarthur. They spend their whole time telling people in the faith they are wrong and don't know their bible.

3:05 "Catholics that attack caricatures of Protestantism" Guilty! And I just found this out about, of all things, the Westboro Baptist Church. Check it out: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/rbylbKuUq9PPc2Q.html I'd love to hear Trent's reaction to it.

For me not dehumanizing Protestants it's about i find Protestantism too dysfunctional and being intellectually Honest

9:49 I’ll tell you why Mary is crying: because Jack Chick wrote a nonsensical bullcrap tract about her called “Why is Mary Crying?”

Wasn't the Egyptian sun god called Ra?

At 8:50 - God chose king saul too 👍

Question: Can prodastants go to heavin?

(Context: I'm an evangelical protestant.) I see the parallel you're pointing to at 24:00 (if moral failings of Christians aren't proof that Christianity isn't true then why would moral failings of popes be proof that the papacy isn't right?) But respectfully, I don't think that parallel quite works. There are two common answers to the question "Why does that Christian do those terrible things?" and neither of them seem to apply to the question of the pope, at least as far as I can see. 1) The "Christian" might not actually be known by God or have the Holy Spirit in them at all. We know such people will exist (from e.g. Matthew 7:21) and that not doing God's will is at least a sign of being one of them (same verse). An atheist might accuse you of the no true Scotsman fallacy if you used it in every case, but it's a valid explanation. This is pretty obviously not applicable to the choice of pope, since it's kind of essential to the papacy that yes, the Holy Spirit is always involved in the choice. You can't just say "Well, that was an atrocious choice so perhaps the Holy Spirit wasn't acting through the cardinals when they chose that pope". Right? I don't want to tell Catholics what your own doctrine is, but that seems pretty clear cut. 2) God might still be working on the Christian in that area. Sanctification is an ongoing process, and we never claimed that God puts a stop to all your sinful patterns the moment you become a Christian. It might take an entire lifetime (or more, if you believe in purgatory) for them to be purified of those particular sins. But again, it doesn't seem like this applies to the choice of a pope. It's consistent that God would make even a terrible sinner into a true Christian through the Holy Spirit, because saving sinners is the whole point of both Christ's coming, and of Christianity. But a forgiven sinner won't become more saved because they're the Pope. Indeed, would it be unreasonable to suggest that some of the bad popes moved further away from God personally as a result of becoming Pope and struggling with the corrupting earthly power that came with it? Some of the popes' appointments don't seem to have served either their own spiritual needs, or the needs of the Church, or anything except their own sinful desires for power, wealth, etc. I mean the Church has been tragically divided for the last five hundred years, and I doubt that would have been the case if better people had been appointed in place of those bad popes. So it seems hard to say that they were good for the church, all things considered. Which leads to the question: Why would God appoint them/allow them to become Pope, when there were so many other options who would have been better both for the Church, and for the individuals themselves? The issue boils down to this: When we're talking about someone becoming a Christian we're dealing with the eternal destiny of a single human being loved by God. But when we're talking about someone becoming a pope, we're merely talking about a (very important) job appointment. The situations are completely different. There *are* valid answers to the "bad popes" question, of course; you give some of them in the video. But those aren't answers that we Protestants will have used in answering the atheists. So as long as we're willing to hear you out and consider your answers seriously, it seems to me quite fair to ask you the "bad popes" question while answering the "bad Christians" question from atheists.

We did get a good pope John - the XXIII was quite good as Johns go.

My mother, a very religious Catholic always admired Protestants for their political activism, when Catholics tent to avoid politics so not to offend anyone.

I want to see a video on all pagan practices

Trent, the Lord chose Saul and Saul did not redeem himself! It is kind of naive to expect that a human being God chooses does not still have free will.

Man when I was IFB I used carry chick tracts all the time, this takes me back. I use to go into Catholic Churches and stick them in the pew bibles and roll them up in the toilet paper in the bathrooms and put red Gatorade in the Holy water near the door. Bruh I had no chill!🤣

also not everyone uses unleavened bread

Quick skeptical question: how can God allowing evil have an effect for greater good, if him only creating no evil creatures would be by definition PURE good! How can there be something greater than just pure good? Even if you raise free will, the middle knowledge defense can still get God out of the trap here, so really unless God wants evil for his own desire for it, there is no need to allow it. or, there is no God(as defined as all good and all powerful and all knowing)

I am a Christian, because I was taught morals by people who used the Bible as their guide. But I am also an Atheist, because even though I accept those morals, I don't believe in the supernatural stories that are used to present them. Take the Golden Rule for example. It's true that you should treat others the way you want them to treat you. In fact, that moral is also taught in Aesop's Fable called "The Fox And The Stork". But if you think I can't learn the moral lesson, unless I "FULLY ACCEPT AS FACT" that a fox invited a stork to his house for dinner, then laughed because the stork couldn't eat from the fox's dishes, then you don't grasp the meaning of "parables". So I don't have to believe that Jesus was born of a virgin to "get" the Golden Rule. Furthermore, when Jesus was brought before King Herod, Herod began to exaggerate stories about Jesus, just to discredit him. "So, you're the leader of the people now? Are you their king? Are you their God? Can you perform miracles, like walking on water or raise the dead? If not, then you are NOT their leader!" I don't need miracles or fairy tales to learn moral lessons. At least I know they're only stories meant to present them. But the catalyst doesn't have to be real. Just sayin'

Do you think it's wrong that people deemed heretics used to be burnt to death?

I have seen people call Mary the "Queen of Heaven," what's up with that?

Osiris isn't even the sun god- it was Ra

Here's a better question that probably hits home better: Why wouldn't you have titled your video something like "3 way Christians act like atheists." Then you would have all of Christendom covered. Not just half of it. Here's another thing for other people to consider that identify as Catholic or Baptist or whatever: There are other churches out there that are neither Protestant or Catholic which are commonly called Non-Denominational churches. They often spring up because they can't swallow man-made doctrines that creep into every church of any substantial size. Often these types of churches are centered on the Word of God, commonly known as the Bible. And then you have divisions of the Catholic church where the One True and Only Christian Church (as a couple people responded in so many words) didn't do it for many Catholics so they started their own brand of Catholicism with the doctrines they think are true.

Id rather be an atheist than a catholic who says Jesus sacrifice wasnt enough to get rid of all sin. CC says men can pay for their own sins in some pergatory somewhere. God says he would you rather be cold or hot, but if you are luke warn(like catholics) he will spew you out of his mouth.

How about when Catholics read too much into typology and do the same arguments Islamists make to justify a parallelism (such as Muhammad is a type of Moses)

And Zoroaster.

This is like listening to someone explicating the details; the minutia of Natal vs Horary astrology. Like it matters.

If think you're unfair, Trent. Catholic also sound like atheists when asking questions that really seem to me to be meta-questions, like "Where in the Bible is sola scriptura?"

Friendly advice* if you want to get more attention from youtube and young people you should make your videos much shorter and put the information in a more compact way. That’s just my oppinion about what I think would help.

Gettem

Im not a fan of the protestants at all tbh 😭 especially the Baptists and Pentacostal

If I have to hear pagan copy cat one more time 😂

When I was non-denom I just figured we were baptists without the label. Since then I think it's more accurate to say non-denoms are atheists with bibles. It seems like the hyper relativism , cessationism, rejection of most saints, history, and things like that. the real separation between non-denoms and atheists is one rejects 7 books of the bible while the other rejects 73 books. Often, even baptism isn't something that separates them. I would also say Mormons are mystical non-denoms and low church baptists are rationalist non-denoms but that's another story.

Dude, Unless you're either Socrates or Cicero - and believe me, YOU AIN'T EITHER - the more you talk, the more dead ends you're going to lead yourself into.

Hello, friendly atheist here to engage: Point #1 isn't really a way that Protestants are similar to Atheists, but rather, similar to Mythicists. Not all atheists are mythicists. I am an atheist (or an agnostic if you want to be particular about your definition) but I am not a mythicist. Point #2 (conspiracy theory) is again a comparison against mythicists. Now, I will go ahead and steelman your argument to say: "Protestant's are similar to atheists because both use arguments from silence". And while I agree that both atheists and protestants use arguments from silence, so does everybody. I assume that you do not believe in many things, due to a lack of evidence. One example could be Russell's Teapot. Although you cannot prove that Russell's Teapot doesn't exist, you have good reason to withhold belief - namely, there isn't sufficient evidence to believe that Russell's teapot does exist. So, if the argument is that Protestants are similar to Atheists because they both don't believe in things for which they don't see sufficient evidence, I would agree but also add every other type of person to that list: Catholics, Muslims, Hindus, etc Point #3 (meager moral fruit) - I am not positive about Draper himself, but anecdotally, in my experience, most atheists don't employ this argument as a knock-down 100% proof that Catholicism is false, but rather, they use that data point in a Bayesian argument that only suggests that Catholicism is less likely than it otherwise would be if this weren't the case.

3 Ways Catholics act like atheists They reject their own councils and magisterium with regards to Genesis 1-3 that taught uncomfortable truths de fide. As well as the unanimous consent of the fathers. Pride of life means more to them than faith, many would rather believe the church changed the view at the highest levels of magisterium than being seen as dumb. They reject the churches official stances on moral issues. They reject miracles and the literal interpretation of what was taught de fide to be taken as literal. Pride of scholarship over faith. I am Catholic

I don't like this "transworld" idea at all, the way i interpret it, the Spirit acts through the Church as a whole, and the Church has to fight with human works against evil. If God miraculously shielded the head of the Church from attacks of the Evil One, then He would have shielded the head of His Son from the beatings of the roman soldiers, but that's not how the divine operates among men. The Spirit gives every member of the church the capability of acting for the well being of the Church at all times, but the Evil One generally attacks the weak link of the chain, which explains why the church had different issues at different periods of the past, most 20th century popes were great but the christian community was the most lukewarm it has ever been in that same period. God entrusts us through the spirit to choose the successor of Peter, which he'll bless. God won't allow his church to die, He won't let for all of its parts perish to the attacks, because he promised us he wouldn't, that doesn't mean he frees its member from falling into heavy sin.

The funniest critique of Jesus I have seen is from an atheist would said that if Jesus was a real miracle worker, then the Romans would have used him to perform miracles for them once they had him in their custody

All Protestants or only the ones that are not followers of Christ? Could you please be a bit more specific?

Argument from omission: Just went to Trent's website. He writes about Jesus and Christianity, however he has never written an account of Jesus life. Clearly Trent doesn't know about those mythological aspects. He just focuses on the Church Christ founded. Therefore Trent doesn't know about the Gospels. Yay logic. ha.

I'll say one more thing. You should change your title. I say this as a Christian. It is divisive within Christendom.

Thumbs down from a non-protestant. 1. Jesus clearly gave bread and wine to His apostles. Jesus never taught any thing similar to Transubstantiation. That means it makes sense for that idea to come from another place. Treating Mary as the Catholics do has no scriptural support. It makes sense to wonder if it came from... maybe... paganism. 2. We don't ever see a congregation having authority over another congregation in The Bible. After The Great Apostacy, maybe, but that doesn't matter. Peter's primacy has nothing to do with The Papacy. It disproves the protestantistic belief is God causing confusion anc chaos by not having an organization. 3. What did Abraham and Moses do that was bad? Jephthah??!! What does a successful military general have to do with a spiritual leader? Nothing. King David was a king, which doesn't mean a spiritual leader. I see a big difference between all christians having some sins and, the one person who is supposed to be the best to lead all christians at the time being a real stinker. 23:00 That atheist is wrong. If christianity is true then there is an enemy of God tempting us. The enemy would try hard to tempt people who believe in God so God would get bad PR. The enemy might also not tempt people who refuse to accept his reality because they are doing what the enemy of God wants. Christians sinning makes sense because of that.

A few ways many Roman Catholics act like Pharisees: 1. Saying our traditions go back to the Apostles so we have it all figured out (Pharisees claiming they are disciples of Moses). 2. Very knowledgeable but puffed up in pride and lacking the love of God and the fullness of his holy spirit. 3. If you're not part of our traditions you aren't in the fullness of the faith (The Pharisees looked down on Jesus and thought of him as less). 4. You must follow the rules according to our traditions or your communion is not valid ( Pharisees would claim Jesus was not following the Sabbath and he therefore was not in the fullness). . . Etc...

1:40 almost as if the atheists have the most well thought out position (aka the consensus in most fields of study) while protestants and by extension Catholics have very poor inconsistent standards for evidence.

How about titling these talks, "How Protestants and Roman Catholics look like Atheists. And... citing "Chick Tracts" is not useful at all because that's way out there on the fringe. Not main line or even close. Most Protestants don't even know about these tracts.

You don't have to be a Catholic to be a Christian. You don't have to be a follower of a Pope to be a Christian, or a follower of Cephas or a follower of Paul. The One you should follow as a Christian is Christ. All men are fallible, none are righteous, that's riddled throughout the Bible, the Word of God. You don't get into Heaven because you are a member of the Catholic church no more than you would in any other church that is a Christian church.

This is a hilariously misguided attack on protestantism.

Catholic Church, look at the mote in your own eye before trying to remove splinters from others. Pretty sad. I don't know what this video says and I'm not going there in the first place. A title like this is like a NEON sign - All Those Desiring to Divide and Conquer Christians Enter Here! Or maybe this guy is just trying to drum up volume to get more money from his KZfaq channel? Hmmmm?

Very bad argumentation. The gates of hell have prevailed against the Roman Catholic church.

No doubt some of catholic doctrines are influenced by paganism. Mary as queen and praying to the dead are a couple of examples.

You’re right the Protestants and Catholics need a savior. And the Lord Jesus Christ is the only savior. Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ will be forgiven. 95% of Protestants and Catholics are really not believers. No church or denomination saves but the Lord Jesus alone saves. Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ will be forgiven forevermore and have eternal life with Jesus forevermore ❤