Anyone: “Are Catholics Christians?” Me 10 years ago: “definitely not” Me 7 years ago: “yeah, they are our brothers and sisters in Christ” Me now: “yes, and I am a Catholic Christian”, after being confirmed in November 2019, thanks be to God!

Romans 8:14, “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God”. In the end with God, there won’t be Catholics, Protestants, Christians etc, there will just be “sons of God”.

I am a former Methodist and baptist. Recently I felt something pulling me toward Catholic Church out of nowhere. I began to pray the way Catholics say to pray. And now, I am ready to convert but I live in a sea of Protestants who will scorch me and my family. I began to believe we should move, and now we’re moving to Florida, again, out of nowhere. The prayers are what showed me I’ve been wrong. Protestantism is false and I know that now. I studied the theology with an unbiased look, and again, it appeared to me that I’ve been wrong. Thank you for the video. The part about “then you weren’t saved anyway” is spot on. I never knew how illogical Protestants were until I looked objectively and prayed the way Catholics say. It’s amazing what has happened, and I still don’t know what to do or where this all came from.

Excellent listening! Thanks Trent Horn!

The disagreement over "once saved, always saved" seems like a pretty big deal to me. I've read some intense protestant arguments on both sides of that issue, yet both sides still claimed sola scriptura and accused the other of being "false teachers" and not Christian. Seems like Jesus should have left an authority to help the Church interpret Scripture...

The more I learn, the more Catholicism seems compelling.

I went from being a non-practicing Christian to now I'm Catholic, and one of the problems I immediately ran into with the Protestant understanding of Christianity was: if Sola Scriptura is true, how did they ever come to conclude that as an authoritative doctrine? Because no where in the Bible does it say or imply that the Bible is the only source of divine revelation there is. Same with Sola Fide, by who's authoritative interpretation did we conclude that we only need faith to be justified? If that's the case, then why is there even a Bible? Authority. This is what Protestants do not have, and this is why they are so confused and divided even with each other.

Thank you for the video!

In a way, Sola Scriptura is actually giving primacy to one’s own opinion. It’s one’s own opinion about how they interpret the Bible. It makes everyone the final authority.

I have had moments in my walk with Christ in the last couple of years where I had come to one particular conclusion and upon reading church councils I have overturned some of those beliefs because I am willing to accept them my personal interpretation does not outweigh tradition. I’m saying this as a protestant that has been investigating in Catholicism and being drawn more toward it. Please pray for me!

Thank you Trent. I will keep watching. You are a clear communicator. I appreciate it.

As a Protestant, though I don’t agree with everything you believe, obviously, I applaud you and appreciate that you did seem to outline the various Protestant beliefs accurately, and pretty fairly. Keep up the good work. You got my subscription 😎👍🏼

The lack of authority regarding what is/isn’t Christianity is what drove me into the arms of the Catholic Church. It all depends on someone’s narrow or wide interpretation of the Bible.

I have always thought there was a very easy Biblical answer to the question of the essentials: "Confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, and you will be saved." If a person has done these things then they are a fellow Christian. I know that there will be questions about what the phrases within the statement mean, but that is where we begin. In regards to the place of scripture: The Bereans were praised when they checked with scripture to confirm that what Paul was preaching to them was accurate. If the teaching of tradition conflicts with the teaching of scripture, which should you follow? The answer to that question seems obvious to me. I do not think protestants dismiss tradition entirely. We can learn from what has been handed down to us. But we need to be careful with tradition or else we become like the pharisees who taught the traditions of men as the commandments of God. This problem is universal and can happen in protestant churches as easily as Roman Catholic or Orthodox. Finally, certain doctrines can be very important and yet not be essential. The security of the believer is a doctrine that protestants do not agree upon, and yet we still acknowledge that those on both sides of the doctrine are still Christian. There is more that can be said, but this is getting too long. I appreciate your perspective and consider you a brother in Christ.

My problem with this argument is that Protestantism isn’t a thing. It’s a term that refers to anyone (except Orthodox) who isn’t catholic. The issue is you’re looking at Protestants as a group. This is a very Catholic centric pov as Protestants do not see ourselves as a group, but a group of different groups. As individual denominations each as separate from each other as they are from Catholics or the Orthodox Church. Any debate on what Protestants believe or can’t answer is flawed from the start by the failure to understand this important point.

I would consider myself a Protestant but recently I've been feeling this huge conviction about the understanding of my faith. I've been trying to research more and have stumbled upon many Catholic videos and literature, and although I currently still feel disagreement with regards to certain doctrine and dogma I still can't help the overwhelming feeling of needing to understand more. To deepen my faith. I've been reading about church history and then going to study the church fathers. I really wish I knew a Catholic priest or someone well rounded in their Catholic knowledge that could help me with these questions I have. If anybody has any book recommendations I will gladly take any advice! Thank you!

I'm protestant and as I listened to you, I realized how I have never heard pushback on many of my protestant beliefs. I've learned so much from you so thanks for your content.

Thanks for this video Trent! What started me off in the pursuit of “the Church God wants me in” was the disunity within Protestantism, when Scripture calls us to be one

There is a difference between a main doctrine and an important one. Whether baptism saves infants or not is certainly important, but not essential. A main doctrine is something that determines whether you're a Christian or not. These are the ones that I think make you a Christian(as a Protestant): 1. You believe the Trinity 2. You believe the resurrection 3. You have faith in Jesus as God the Son It might be an incomplete list if I think about it more, but I think that's it. I'm still not entirely sure whether Roman Catholics(ones that follow all the doctrines) are saved, but I'm leaning towards yes at the moment(I'd have to change my list if it's a no). My main problems with Roman Catholicism are these: 1. The gospel of it. Romans 11:6 is a pretty clear refutation of it, and Ephesians 2:8-10 shows that salvation is by grace through faith, which results in works. 2. The doctrines about Mary that the Roman Catholic church says are required for salvation. They are not supported by scripture. I'm not going to pretend I'm an expert on this, but I know that 3 of them are the bodily assumption, the perpetual virginity, and the immaculate conception. There is nothing in scripture that supports any of these, and certainly nothing clear. If you believe these three, fine; while I think you're wrong, it's not heretical(but saying you must believe them to be saved is nonsense), though praying to Mary is. It's idolatry. 3. Giving the Roman Catholic church the authority to interpret scripture. Not just to interpret it, but to tell you how you have to interpret it. "But it's tradition" is not an argument. If tradition said that you have to accept whatever the government says, obviously that's wrong, because scripture does not support it. The government frequently says wrong things. If a teaching is wrong, don't accept it. We are supposed to do good, and accepting wrong teachings is bad. 4. Placing tradition over scripture. Kind of the same thing as number 3. If scripture is against tradition, then tradition is wrong. I would cite the verse about how all scripture is profitable for teaching, correction, reproof, etc., but I don't remember what it was and I can't look it up because KZfaq might delete my comment. I think that's pretty much all I have to say.

Thank you for this. 🙏

My fiancé and I are on the path to discovering and possibly uniting to one of the apostolic faiths. Re-examining our faith and delving deeper. Great video 👍🏾

I read a good chapter a bit on that topic in the book 'Against the Protestant Gnostics' (By a Presbytarian, its a good read). It basically says that the lack of essential doctrines in modern day evangelicalism is not a sign of its ecumenism but rather growing liberalism as the set of distinctives and important doctrines dwindles. There was also a description of sacramental theology had become a 'dormant volcano'. Where once Calvin led a crusade against Rome for withholding wine from the people, now modern Calvinists view the sacrament as a mere token and offer naught but grapejuice.

Episcopalian here... The Nicene Creed is a good summary of essential doctrines.

Thank you for this content

I find that the question that really stumps Protestants who believe the Bible is the ultimate explicit authority that must be accepted literally is John 6.

Such a short, simple and helpful video.

Lumping all types of Protestants together would be like lumping Rostacrucians, Gnostics, and Opus Dei with Catholics.

I'm so glad the Thief on the Cross had all these answers before He died on the Cross with Jesus

Your way of speaking is rational, logical and compassionate.

“Seek the truth even if it’s inconvenient.”This is an advised from an atheist converted to Catholicism.

John Locke addressed the issue of who is a Christian in a famous work written in about 1690. His exegetical work was entitled 'The Reasonableness of Christianity'. In this work he argued persuasively that a Christian is one who believes that Jesus, the builder from Nazareth, is the Messiah of Jewish expectation. This is a very simple way of understanding Christianity which immediately gets past all secondary theological issues.

This shows Protestants have their own traditions

Love Ready to Harvest! I’ve learned so much on his channel, and he always presents it in such a fair manner.

for me here is root of every thing to be a Christian, 1) you believe in the trinity and they are one 2) you believe in Jesus Christ as our Lord and savoir 3) and you try to do the will of God the Father, this are the things you need to believe and do to be save because only Christians are allowed to go to heaven

"What are the essential doctrines of Christianity?" Roman Catholics can't answer this question any better than the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Church of the East, Lutherans, Calvinists, Anglicans, Baptists, Methodists, Pentecostals, or literally any Christian. That question is only answered by division, not dogma. Protestants appeal to Scripture, so they can answer that question. They just won't answer it the way you want them to. But instead of acknowledging that answer, you play philosopher and pretend that your answers are not just as subjective as everyone elses.

One thing that is absolutely certain is that if you don’t believe that Jesus is the Christ and that he is (minimally) the Son of God, that he died and that he resurrected, you arent a Christian (1 Corinthians 15:14)

I believe it was Chesterton who used the example of surgeons debating over nuances in their trade. The nuance is detrimental he argued, as in this example of surgeons disagree on even a “small” matter then the treatment could be ineffective. Similarly for theology if there is dispute about nuances that’s an important matter to solve because it affects our salvation.

As one who grew up Protestant, and now find myself in between "denominations" (just left Calvinism last year and been searching Scripture) I found the eternal security question a little bit of a moot point which seems to be clearly lined throughout Scripture. Those who endure to the end will be saved. Those who do the will of the Father are the true believers. Those whose actions match their statements of faith. Those who do not walk away but keep the faith will be saved. We look forward to the adoption to become sons of God. It really is clear to me now that I left my interpretive goggles behind and just read. Faith, repentance and obedience is the path to salvation. It is not done by works because we can merit nothing but judgement or reward based upon our works, but salvation itself is faith and trust in God alone, and keeping that faith to the end of our life. As it is said in Matthew 25 when the Son of Man comes in his glory that all the nations will be gathered and He will separate the sheep from the goats. Who are the sheep and the goats? The sheep are the ones who obeyed and had love and mercy for others (good works) and the goats were those who did not have love and mercy for others (no good works/works of unrighteousness). God's grace is offered freely to us, and accepted by faith, and lived out in the good works laid out beforehand for us since the beginning of the world, to work in accordance with the law of Faith, which is in Christ Jesus. Nothing can separate us form the love of God? Of course! But one thing is missing there in that verse. Us. We can walk away and turn our backs on Him and not endure to the end, thus, not being saved. It is that continued faith and trust and walking according to faith to the end which Scripture has plainly told us will let us see salvation which is the resurrection. So eternal security? Sure! So long as you are being obedient to Christ and living according to His statutes. When we abide in Christ, and He in us, and find our all in all in Him, do we find our rest. Abide not, and he will cast us into the furnace. As Hebrews 6 says "For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt. For land that has drunk the rain that often falls on it, and produces a crop useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed, and its end is to be burned" Once we have the Truth and are set free, if we turn again to our flesh and sin and turn away from God, how can there be any hope for us? Continued obedience, continued trusting loyalty to the end is the path we must take, trusting, putting our faith in Him and obeying Him in that trust. When we sin, we repent and get back up onto the path, not wander down the path of unrighteousness. So can we lose salvation? It is not really ours to have or lose yet as we only have a down payment of the Holy Spirit as a promise, if we endure to the end, then the promise will be filled sine we fulfilled our end of that covenant as best we could, and Christ fills in the rest for us and perfects us. All that is required is that faith, and that faith should lead to obedience shown through works. That is what I found in my plain reading. And I find myself more aligning with the Catholic church on many points, but hold in balance the interpretive authority versus the clear reading of the passages. Sola Scriptura for what is plain (Christ alone through faith by God's grace, to the end to be saved). In other matters, we can discuss, but to be dogmatic about anything aside from Christ, in my view, is just contentious. Sure, they can lead to differing viewpoints and we should explore those views and see their ultimate conclusions as to whether they are truly in line with Scripture in its plain teaching, and if they ultimately end up against Christ, then we can dismiss them. Hence, why I left Calvinism. It made God into a puppet master, denying His mercy, love and justice, making Him into a self-glorifying God with no regard for His creation which as "very good" in the beginning, and Has shown abundant mercy throughout history. It all ended up being about "what brings God the most glory" instead of what God has revealed to us as His love and mercy so we would not perish, but could be with Him. On baptism saving us, the passages tell us repentance AND baptism. Baptism as a sign of a pledge of a clear conscience. Washing of regeneration, which could be argued, but it is almost always seen hand in hand with repentance. And the only questions i posit are these: Can an infant repent? What does an infant only a few days old repent of? Does an infant have the capacity to understand what it is to repent? and of course it goes back to original sin, but I find the passage in Ezekiel must be taken into account that each one is responsible and held account for their own sins, not the sins of the father, so Adam's sin broke creation and brought death, but we are only affected by the curse, and are PRONE to sinning, not guilty of Adam's sin. "through the Law comes the knowledge of sin." and "for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law." "For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them," "So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin." All point to knowledge and understanding, conscience bearing witness for or against, all requiring knowledge. Infants have no knowledge yet, especially of moral choices, so how can they be held accountable for sin? What sin CAN be committed without knowledge of right or wrong? Especially at that young age. My view on it is children are born in what I would call a "neutral but decaying state" where they cannot be held guilty for any sin, but as they grow and their hearts are taught by experience, morals, or the Word of God, they begin to form morality. Once they begin understanding morality and what constitutes a right vs wrong action, not based on God's word but just in general the rules presented them, whether they obey or not will shape their next actions. When they intentionally do evil, they are sinning. When the do good, they are obedient. When they come to the knowledge of God and salvation through faith in Christ alone, their rejection condemns them and their acceptance saves them, provided their continued obedience and faith to the end as discussed above. My main points for fellowship and what I consider a Christian as these: 1) Is Jesus Christ God in Flesh? 2) Is salvation found in Christ alone? 3) Is believing in the heart and confessing with the mouth, Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, enough to be saved if you were to die in the next 5 minutes? If all three yes, then I can have fellowship. We may discuss and disagree on a myriad of other things, but those three I consider the litmus test of Christianity. Anyhow, I've droned on long enough and given my points. Good video though.

Good video Trent and God bless.

You always amazed me with your responses. Thank you Trent 🤗

Ready to Harvest!! It is such an amazing channel, thanks for mentioning it

I’m an evangelical Christian - and I’m so glad I found your channel. Whilst I do believe Sola Scriptura and sola Fide, I believe that is that we are saved by the grace of God if we put faith in him…… works are important, but not what earns us salvation. I think anyone who believes in Jesus as Lord and as the son of God - it would be strange for them to make a blanket statement saying catholics are not Christian. It is not biblically accurate for those saying scripture and faith alone can rule out Roman Catholics from the faith. Just my thoughts. I’m going to find more of your videos - this was a good watch! Thank you x

Just looking in the Bible where do I find sinful nature chapter and verse please

I recently watched your video "Why this thoughtful Protestant isn't Catholic (yet)" (which was an eloquent and hearty discussion, btw) and this nagging question in my head, "if no official authority, then what is the authority?" got a whole lot louder. To phrase it differently, an atheist coworker opened a comment with the words "You Christians all believe...". I don't even recall what it was we were all supposed to believe because all I could think was, "I wish! I wish we could all believe with one understanding." Thank you for your exposition on this essential topic of essentials that essentially falls into as many pieces as there are leaders claiming an authoritative voice. To your note about having further dialog on this, I'd love to hear you discuss this and related matters with Douglas Wilson. (Just my two cents.) [Present position: I'm a Protestant and active in my local church who I love. I'm not unhappy as a Protestant. Strangely, though, it's our evangelical mission that found me learning more about Catholicism since there are a lot of Catholics in the Philly area where I live. Besides the fact that there are also evangelical Catholics, I'm moved by the depth of faith I'm finding in some Catholics which, in turn, has opened my mind to step back and let Catholicism speak for itself. I still have a lot of questions, but they're getting answered by the likes of you, Tim Staples, Jimmy Akin, and Matt Fradd and his guests on Pints with Aquinas (as well as a few books).]

Luther, realizing getting rid of the one Pope made everyone his own pope, said "Now there are as many popes as there are heads!"

Trent, you and Dr. Craig should do a podcast episode together in which you two discuss these topics.

One question is: if the One True Church is mired in sinful corruption from the top down, can she still be the One True Church? Was she ever the One True Church?

Great video, Trent! Such an interesting topic!!!

Also -- I have heard more than one Protestant, kind and educated individuals, say there is no physical Resurrection at the end of time; they struggled to believe we would have bodies, because of old age, infirmity, etc... and instead believed we would have 'spirit bodies' -- but that WE would not come OUT of the ground on judgement day... How could the Resurrection from the Dead not be essential?

Trent, I am a Protestant but I deeply appreciate your willingness and ability to come on here and say what you do. I can tell that you have a lot of knowledge, and I thank you for sharing it. I went and studied 1st Peter 3:21. I’ll put the whole verse here: 1 Peter 3:21 [21] “Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,” (ESV) It indeed does say baptism “saves” you. It also says, “not as removal of dirt from the body…” which literally means that water passing over you (baptism) does not cleanse anything or anyone. Rather it is instead an outward expression of inward faith. These were not my words but almost word for word from my ESV study Bible.

I appreciate the video, if I could offer my views to the heart of your points you’re bringing up. You’re looking for a uniform view from Protestants.. to use secular terms (for an easier read between a diverse audience) I would say Protestants as a whole would lean more towards the anarchy side of the scale and Catholic’s would lean more towards the authoritarian end of the scale. Obviously I don’t mean this politically, or literally, but as an analogy. You’re never going to get uniformity out of a more inherently individualistic side of religion. The questions are being framed from a more ‘authoritarian’ side of the scale. I think there is value in both. For example, having extremely detailed and nuisanced writings and council in a more uniformed fashion certainly has value. I think the answer for me on this topic comes in on Hebrews 10:16 “ this is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them;” So this would indicate that the Father will reveal the laws to each individual..

I think this is why Catholicism has a depth and guidance that other denominations don't have. Catholic theologians aren't still debating the essential dogmas, which means they have a freedom to go deeper into doctrinal matters and offer more reasonable guidance on modern issues, ranging from IVF to the free market to freedom of the press. Just in the last five years, I've gone so much deeper into the encyclicals of the last century and into Catholic Social Teaching. Libertas and Centesimus Annus and Caritas in Veritate and so many others that speak so forcefully and biblically and reasonably (!) and coherently to our generation. In my opinion, Catholic belief and understanding is *the* formidable force against relativism and non-rationality today. Catholicism doesn't merely preserve the truths of faith, it incorporates reason as well.

The 10-years ago version of Mark Shea was really influential for me. His book, "By What Authority" hits this point - and it hit me hard.

I will say, I honestly just wish (as a Protestant myself) wish that the church from the very beginning never broke up and just stuck with scripture and we wouldn’t be battling all the time. I think if we founded everything on that, by technicality, I would be catholic myself. The only thing holding me back from Catholicism has been the papacy and a a few other dogmas. But I think both sides should always be open to hearing each other out

Correct doctrine cannot save anyone, nor can incorrect doctrine damn someone. As a Christian of 49 years, my hope of eternal life is in the One who died for me, nothing else. Not the church, not scripture, good works, etc. nada, zip, zilch. I look to Him, trusting in His finished work, and that God will complete His work in me (see Heb 10:14 for example). The statement "You have to get your Christology correct." ~892 seconds in is such a dangerous notion. At its base is the idea that correct statements are salvific in themselves. Bosh! That sounds like the JWs who IIRC translate Jn 17:3 as "This is eternal life that they have *correct knowledge* of thee..." The two things I never grok: 1) counsels deciding and decreeing what is "truth", and 2) missing the point that Jesus *is* the point. Yeah, we like to complicate things instead of believing the good news of the story of God's love, like little children.

Timestamp 21:15 We all know we want Trent to sit down with Mike Winger and dialogue about this. I'd pay money to get Mike to agree to this. I'm pretty sure Pints with Aquinas paid good money for William Lane Craig to debate with Jimmy Akin a while back.

I am a Protestant myself (a settled Protestant as Gavin would state), but you get a like from me still, as I can always appreciate a well articulated point that makes me think about things more deeply. It is clear to me that a lot of time and research went into this video, and that is always worth noting. You and "How to be Christian" are pretty much the only Catholic channels I can bear to watch, as you two are the only Catholics I've found thus far who try to debate at an intellectually honest level and I can respect that.

Can anyone guide me to any video / source that shows the historical belief of pedo-baptism within the earliest church? Thanks in advance!

As a Protestant I found your video to be quite interesting. Personally, I believe there are Protestants who are saved, and Protestants who are not saved. Conversely, I believe there are Catholics who are saved, and Catholics who are not saved. I couldn't hope to pick which ones are and which ones are not, outside of inspecting their Fruits, and I personally draw comfort from 2 Timothy 2:19 on this topic: " Nevertheless, God’s solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this inscription: “The Lord knows those who are his,” and, “Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness.” I am more than willing to stand beside a Catholic who is my brother/sister in the Lord and I hope both groups are able to do that more and more the closer we get to Christ's return. P.S. I like your channel's name Trent. It's clever and made me chuckle. Take care and God bless!

I really enjoy discussions of Catholicism/Protestantism that can be had without an excess of emotion or overly defensive posture. It’s very interesting to learn about these differences and become more knowledgeable without having the baggage of what so often disintegrates into argument or, sometimes, hatred between Christians.

The grace of god is a free gift, we cannot earn it,that’s why catholic’s baptise children, the child cannot earn the grace of god but it is given freely by God. Through baptism we become new creations, we enter into the life,death and resurrection of Jesus, and become part of the Catholic Church. Through good works we draw closer to Jesus and further away from sin, we must become lesser and he must become greater. God bless 🙏

What would make this argument between Catholicism vs Protestantism easier to weigh would be if the protestant denominations had a unified authority to debate against Catholics with. The point of this video is obviously to show the confusion and disorganization that has come about due to the litany of differences between protestant and other sects emerging with their own unique theologies over time. This is just one of the reasons why I love the Catholic church so much, because I don't have to wonder, as a Catholic there is no struggle between small theological differences because the Catholic church is unified under one authority. It will be impossible for the protestants to ever surpass the Catholic church in influence because they embrace the falsehood that their personal interpretation of the gospel is more important than the one that the authority above them that has laid out. Thus, they will never unify and will continue to splinter.

I’m an Independent Fundamental Baptist and I’ll answer. The authority on what is and isn’t essential and what must be believed comes from the mouth of Jesus Christ. Anything he said I believe anything else may be Interesting but isn’t important. Saving my eternal soul is important nothing else really is. Eternity is a long time, it’s well….eternal, I can ask him more once I’m in his presence. The words of Jesus are like the answer key that you need to pass the math test coming up that you’ll flunk out of Harvard if you don’t pass. Does Harvard have other programs not necessary for you degree? Yes. Does it have an interesting sports program? Yes? Is there a pool and fraternities? Yes but NONE OF THAT MATTERS unless you pass the math test. Blessings and peace be with you through our Lord Jesus Christ. Great video.

You should do a video/series on debunking Martin Luther’s 95 theses

What really got me to convert from Protestantism is the weakness of Sola Scriptura. Here's a deductive argument which concludes that Sola Scripture is false: 1. If a doctrine cannot be proved from Scripture alone but is necessary for knowing the plan of salvation, then Sola Scriptura is false 2. The canon of Scripture is necessary for knowing the plan of salvation 3. The canon of Scripture cannot be proved from Scripture alone (C) Therefore, Sola Scriptura is false Premise 1 is simply part of the essential definition of Sola Scriptura, so there's really no argument to be made there. Premise 2 is more controversial, so I would support Premise 2 using the following reasoning: ***Christians accept the plan of salvation in the Christian Bible but reject the plan of salvation in the Quran, Book of Mormon, the Gnostic gospels, the Watchtower Literature, etc. ***The Christian Bible takes precedent because is inspired by God ***The canon of Scripture outlines for Christians which books are inspired by God (and also tells us which books aren't inspired by God) ***Therefore, if you don’t know the canon (which books God inspired), you don’t know the proper plan of salvation ***Therefore, the canon is essential for knowing the plan of salvation Now my reasoning for Premise 3: I honestly feel like this one is self explanatory. There is no inspired table of contents in the Bible. The best you can get as a protestant is to appeal to the witness of the holy spirit when you read certain books, the consensus of Christian tradition, or testing well attested books' doctrines against the doctrines of contested books. The first option fails, because subjective feelings while reading a sacred text are used as confirmation of divine authority for heretical religions like Islam or Mormonism; this would place the Bible no higher than those writings - something Christians would prefer to avoid. The second option fails, because then the Protestant would be using human tradition alone to establish a doctrine which is essential for salvation. This option is an affirmation of Premise 3 and my conclusion, since you are conceding the canon isn't found within Scripture so you must refer to oral tradition. This would mean oral tradition is required for salvation, putting oral tradition at the same level as Scripture, defeating Sola Scriptura. The third option fails for similar reasons. To establish "well attested" books of the canon, you must affirm tradition which would contradict Sola Scriptura. Even if the well attested books were granted at no charge, the Protestant's still in a bind. They must now compare the doctrine of contested books to well attested books. Since Protestants don't believe anyone can infallibly interpret Scripture, than there will be as many Biblical canons as there are possible interpretations of Scriptural passages. Hopefully this argument made sense. If anyone would like to interact with it, go for it! Perhaps I made a huge blunder!

As for stating that the New Testament does not give a list of required beliefs to be saved, I must disagree with Trent whole-heartedly. One must believe in the deity of Christ (John 8:34); one must believe that Jesus died for ones sins - atonement - and is risen from the dead (1Corinthians 15:1-4); one must repent of sin (1Corinthians 6:9-10); one must embrace the Father and the Son (1John 1:1-4 with 2:22-23; eternal Sonship is certainly in view); one must believe that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh (1John 4:1-3); one must practice righteousness and love of the brethren (1John 3:3-10); and so on. There are many things beyond these non-negotiable saving requirements that Christians can be confused about and therefore disagree on - monotheletism vs dyothelitism being one of them. True Christians can be justified by faith alone and yet be confused about articulating the topic; true Christians can misplace faith in Mary and "saints" and still be saved as long as they are ultimately placing their faith in Jesus Christ; and so on. I am not saying these and like issues are not important or significant or even strategic; I am simply saying that one can be confused about them and still be saved. On the flip side, one could be totally biblical on every point and miss salvation. One must truly from the heart believe on the risen Jesus Christ as God the Son, Savior and Lord and on that basis be born of God the Holy Spirit - that is the non-negotiable thing. Nothing else can save - neither Sola-Scripture-theological-correctness nor supposed sacraments.

From Colombia: thank u very much for your teaching.

The process or procedure for the "coming to Christ" experience is well defined in Acts 18:8. In examining each of the conversions in the book of Acts which give examples, they all follow this process (hearing, believing and being baptized). Look them up and see. Acts chapters, 2; 8; 9/22; 10/11; 16; 18; 19. What you will never find is a substitution for baptism with any sort of "sinner's prayer," it just simply is not found in any passage. We indeed are saved by faith (Ephesians 2:8), but Acts 18:8 gives the explanation of how. Those same Ephesians in ch. 2:8 are those that Paul questioned regarding their baptism in Acts 19:1-5.

This was very useful and informative

That reading from the Second Vatican Counsel was very good. Very clear. Thank you.

As a Christian raised in the Protestant Methodist tradition, baptized in water, I felt called to become a member of a Quaker meeting when I moved to anew city. I have been a member of an underground church in China, and I have a deep love for the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Chruch. I so hope that we can heal all schisms one day. But as long as we clamor for positions of power over one another, that will never happen. Catholics and Orthodox are responsible for the breakdown in the unity of the Church, it is in the great schism that the seeds for a protestant revolution was sewed. The Chair of St Peter became arrogant, unwilling to share authority with the Eastern Churches. Language and culture played a part here too. The Eastern Churches, only saw the Chair of St Peter as first among equals. Today with our moder understanding of how language and culture can muddle understanding, we must at times rely of the Spirit to bridge the gap between our own fallibility, and our traditions which can get in the way of our fellowship with one another. I pray that I would certainly have the courage to give my life to save an non believer, let alone my catholic brothers and sisters whose faith and ministry I draw so much strength from. The reason I sit with the Quakers in silence, is because I ache at the arrogance of all churches, the way we have split from or excommunicated one another. It is truly sad, but I must believe that God has allowed it to teach his people and He will one day bring us all together again. I long for the simplest form of Faith. No Church in my opinion can offer that, only relationship with God the Father, through Christ Jesus, and baptism in the Holy Spirit. However, I love the Catholic and Orthodox Mass. I am thankful for the traditions of the Eastern and Latin Church. I respect the Pope, both the Chair of St Peter and the Orthodox Leaders, but also the great protestant teachers, many of whom have live a life that is proof of the saving love of Jesus. I mean what do we say about Messianic Jews who feel called to keep Kosher but also believe in Jesus? Are they not closer to the original approach to faith of the Jewish followers of Jesus in Jerusalem than any of us could ever be? Maybe I am wrong but to me the emergence of messianic Jewish congregations might be the thing that draws the churches closer together one day. Who knows. Of course, we have differences, but we need to always approach each other with humility, because it is our Pride and our abuse of authority which has led to division in the Church, yet even these things God uses for His glory. The salvation and life that is in Christ is present in many Churches, in the Orthodox believers, the Coptic faithful and Protestant believers, and in Catholic life. I imagine if Jesus walked into the Vatican today, he would have a few tables to overturn. He would do the same to Protestants as well. We have all fallen short, the divisions in the Church are also a result of time, language and culture, but the Holy Spirit is still evident in the lives of Christians regardless of denomination. What if one day, all Churches are destroyed, all worship is banned, all believers in Christ hunted, will not these divisions fall away as the faithful are left no Choice but to love one another? One thing a Protestant does not normally claim is that the movement is The Only Church. It is a movement, it is flawed. But a mature protestant can at least see how the Orthodox and Catholic views are flawed. What traditions do we have that distract us from Jesus? Has the meaning of veneration of Mary been distorted by time and practice in such a way that she is but an idol replacing Isis to some, but Theotokos to others? I see no evidence in first and second century Church tradition for Mary remaining a virgin or being immaculately conceived herself, or acending to heaven, yet I do not have a problem with her veneration if she assists us in feeling closer to God, just as with the life on any saint, although she is special. However, the veneration of Mary the Theotokos is not, I think, vital for Christian faith. I can even be a distraction if done improperly. Can we not find a middle ground on the issues that are not central to Christian life first? For me the Church is made up of those who have a relationship with Christ, who have been baptized in the Holy Spirit, the denomination is irrelevant because God is bigger than our silly denominations. Yet at the same time, I hope that one day we could all celebrate the eucharist together. I have no problem believing that the eucharist is the blood and body of Christ, but I think it can be made available to us in a Catholic mass, an orthodox mass, a methodist communion and even through silent contemplation without any physical elements. That must be the Quaker/Methodist talking, but what i want to say is I love you my fellow Catholic brothers and sisters and I wish to learn from you.

Luke 23:42-43 NASB And he was saying, "Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom!" [43] And He said to him, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise." Acts 16:29-31 NASB And he called for lights and rushed in, and trembling with fear he fell down before Paul and Silas, [30] and after he brought them out, he said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" [31] They said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household." 1 John 2:19 NASB They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.

I baptized my baby when she was 5 months old. She died when she was 8 months old. I remember being so thankful to God that she was baptized. At the same time, I had a firm belief that she would still have entered heaven without it. I guess I feel like I would have been the one to bear the sin since I was the one responsible. But I also know that truth does not depend on my feelings.

I am so glad that I am Catholic! Like another viewer commented one time, if we have over 30,000 Protestant denominations that have formed in the last 500 years, how many more will be formed in the next 500 years? God bless! 🙏

Interesting information. Thanks

Ephesians says we should be one, then work on our disagreements, not be one because we agree. But the important point to me is that Catholic theology is so problematic, yet because they have this belief in their own authority they can't admit error to the point of beginning to sort it out. If they had better theology and epistemology then there would be more agreement between Protestants and Catholics.

I think the “once saved always saved “ notion Is bizarre

What the Bible says about Christian essentials: "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved..." Mark 16

I'm a protestant, the regulation of what is required to be a Christian is set forth by the scriptures, and not handed to any man made authority authority. Gal 1:8-12

At the end of the day -- whether Catholic, Protestant, or something else -- we are all in the same boat. Each of us must give an account to God for how we responded to and interpreted His own revelation of Himself. Whether we end up trusting in the magisterium or in our own "personal interpretation", we still have to weigh the evidence and make the "wager" on the fate of our eternal souls. I personally believe God's revelation of Himself is clear enough that the average person -- illuminated by the supernatural working of the Holy Spirit -- can understand what is required of him or her.

Perfect video 👍🙏❤️ .... btw, there's also a really good explanation on the topic in the video: "Questions for Protestants (with former baptist Steve Ray)" or something like that

Thinking about these big questions of Christianity is making me realize that there are no easy answers here. Your claim that Protestants lack authority to teach is very well supported and reasoned. You make it easy to see why many Catholics assert that the Catholic Church is needed to interpret Scripture and settle these disputes. I'm not ready to concede the necessity of a centralized teaching authority, but you are definitely making a very good case for one. If we take the "sola scriptura" idea to the extreme, then we can't really have any fixed beliefs because everything is open to interpretation. That being said, I think if a bunch of Christians believe something, but the Holy Spirit is pushing you to believe something else, it's important to resist the peer pressure. Of course, it's entirely possible that what we think is the prompting of the Spirit is really just our own desire. The important thing is to go on loving people who have different beliefs from us, something that Christians in the Middle Ages weren't very good at. I've felt God prompting me to love Catholics instead of looking down my nose at you folks. You are our brothers and sisters even if we don't agree on a lot of theological issues.

As a Baptist Pastor and Army Chaplain, I was always torn regarding infant baptism. New parents, looking to the church/chapel to recognize and appreciate this new life brought by God into their family. They deeply desired a ritual that wedded their child to the faith/church/chapel. We reconciled this by developing a child dedication service whereby the infant was blessed with oil in the Name the of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The parents were required to raise their child in the faith and the church/chapel were required to provide the context for faith/service/obedience. As I engaged my Catholic Priest chaplains they seemed to think this was very similar to the Catholic understanding of baptism without the term. What say you? BTW: I enjoy the program/and the insight.

I have been watching a lot of content from both protestant and catholic perspectives. I do not really consider myself a Protestant simply because I am not a Catholic. I just say I am a Christian. Also, modern-day Catholicism is not the same as the original early church.

This is a really good episode.

Just because "protestants" disagree on something does not validate or invalidate that something.

there is literally not a single doctrine of any kind, that the protestant realm agrees on totally. it's total chaos and confusion (coming from an about to be former protestant)

How did they decide the days of holidays like Christmas and Easter?

That’s funny. Dr Craig thinks 680 AD is WAY late in the game to disavow monothelitism. I wonder if he would also think 1520 AD is WAY late for all the absolute novums of Protestant theology he DOES accept.

I think there’s more “unity” among Protestants today in the sense that many, even most, have eliminated most doctrinal considerations altogether. Of course, that’s not “unity” so much as indifference. I really started seeing that in the “seeker-friendly” movement. Today, you could visit a wide variety of Protestant denominations and not even realize which denomination you’re currently attending, except for seeing a logo somewhere.

Great conversation. I am a confessional Lutheran and do not consider myself a “Protestant.” I know that there are some disagreements with the Roman church that clearly were contested in the early days of Luther and others who would settle in the Confessional Lutheran tradition. Unfortunately we are lumped in with the “Protestants” and somewhat left out in the discussion these days. Reformed and Armenian theology seems to hold court in the debates and we are left out waving our hands to get some recognition but ignored it seems. I understand your questions and appreciate your way of looking at these important doctrines that should be agreed upon in Christianity. God bless you.

Do you have a video about why youre not orthodox or the difference between them and Catholics?

What I see is that for most Protestants, the essential doctrine of Protestantism is Sola Scriptura, not Sola Fide. As long as you agree that the Bible is your highest authority, what is actually is truth takes the back burner. In other words, Protestants are free to disagree with each other, even on what is "essential", as long as they don't claim the mantle of authority on interpreting the Bible. There is no human authority over anyone in interpreting scriptures.

First, I have the highest respect for the Catholic Church and agree with it the vast majority of the time. I love shows like yours and listen often, and I consider yourself and Catholics in general my brothers and sisters in Christ. A few things, though, kept me from joining. 1)Though I agree that having an authoritative body for scripture interpretation and church governance creates more unity, it doesn't assure accurate interpretation. Of course, letting everyone interpret for themselves doesn't either. But at least it avoids the scenario of being duty-bound to accept a false interpretation (which can happen when any men interpret scripture) lest I be faulted for being at odds with the Church. This can create a horrible dilemma of feeling caught between two divine authorities, scripture and the teaching office of the church. And if you genuinely feel in your conscience that the church's interpretation of scripture is wrong, you are compelled as a Catholic to accept that you must be wrong and the magesterium correct. In that case, isn't the magesterium the highest authority in the church? I can accept prima scriptura over sola scripture. But I can't accept prima ecclesia over prima scriptura. I'm not implying that my interpretation is more likely to be correct. I'm saying that Truth is separate from anyone's reading of scripture. I may be wrong about many things, and I pray God corrects me. But I don't believe any man is necessarily less prone to the same degree of error. 2) This is a lesser point but one that bugs me. Why does the Church find it necessary to split hairs over various doctrines? For example, transubstantiation. Why is it necessary to be so specific on exactly how Christ is present in the Eucharist? Can't it just be a mystery? Why must people accept a highly specific description of how it occurs as apposed to all others? It just seems like over kill to me. My gut reaction to such a high level of specificity is to question. Do we really know that? How? It seems made up to settle an argument. 3) The Marian dogmas. I actually don't have anything against them as they are articulated. I agree that we protestants should give Mary much more honor than we do. But in practice, it strikes me as idolatrous. If there is one prayer every Catholic knows, it's the Hail Mary, a beautiful prayer. But I hear of it much more than any other from Catholics. It just seems wrong to elevate a prayer to Mary over prayers directly to God. Also, aren't half the Holy Days of obligation about Mary? Same problem. How is it not wrong to emphasize Mary more than Christ? It seems that Catholics have a view of divinity that is something of a continuum from man to God, while protestants see a chasm between man and God that is only bridged by Christ. I've heard Catholics say that God isn't in competition with his creation. Therefore to honor Mary is ultimately to honor God. But if that's the case, shouldn't paganism be valid?

Only the blood of the lamb saves us

The Counsel of Trent..nice introduction!! Stay strong, praying for you!!🙏

I’m hoping this video will lead to a future debate or dialogue. Trent, what are the best Protestant rebuttals to these arguments?

I am a non-Catholic however I'd admire Trent's (and many other Catholics) knowledge of Scripture, debate skills, intellect etc. Question, at 19:15 Trent quotes the second Vatican Council ~ stating all Christians are brethren. So is the following true? 1) All Magisterium, Popes, and past Councils are equal in authority? 2) Is what they declare and write, to be taken with equal authority to the Bible? 3) Is what they declare and write to be taken with equal authority of each other, past and present? Here is why my above questions matter and why I take issue with Trent's singular quote. Pope Innocent 3rd - "Only Holy Roman Church can save" Pope Pius 9, Vatican 1 - "Outside of the Roman Catholic Church no one can be saved" Pope Paul 6th - "Muslims, Buddhists, Hindu's all worship the one true God" If the Papacy is divine and objectively true how can we have evolving stances such as the above. Surely Trent knows his quote is somewhat cherry picked from history or I have this wrong. Please someone let me know if I am mistaking the Catholic doctrine here and provide correction. Thanks

Have you read John 3:16?

What was the question?