I was a reformed baptist for over 20 years, but after studying scripture more closely, I couldn't keep believing in OSAS. I was confirmed in the Catholic Church yesterday! Any doubt or fear over the decision (as my family and in-laws are both very anti-catholic and my husband did not convert with me) dissolved away once I received Our Lord in the Eucharist. I felt such peace. It was incredible. Thank you Trent, for allowing God to use you in helping lead others to the whole truth!

Grew up Baptist, and eternal security never made sense to me. So we believed in free will, until we said a prayer and God would no longer respect his creations' decisions? My mother was/is a strong proponent of no matter what sins you commit after being saved you'll go to heaven. Learning about the Methodist view from my paternal extended family made much more sense. Regardless the damage had been done for my teenage self and eternal security and the rejection of Baptismal regeneration led me to agnosticism. Thankfully Our Lord called me to his Church at 19.

I’m slowly coming out of Protestantism. At the moment I’m leaning more towards Orthodox but at the least they have a lot more in common with Catholics than Protestants. Please pray that the Holy Spirit will guide me to the truth and open up my eyes to the blind spots I have in my spiritual life. God bless you all and thank you sincerely 🙏

The prodigal son was still his father’s child but confession and turning from his rebellion restored his relationship with his father.

See, this is why once I looked into the depth of how Catholicism explains salvation I saw that I always believed it. Of course all sins are sin, but not all sins are equally grave. Of course we have to continue to confess, especially “mortal” sin. Any pastor worth his salt I ever listened to would acknowledge this. Without even knowing that’s Catholic “mortal” sin teachings. Of course our walking with Christ in our life after salvation matters. I just do that now with sacraments. 😊

Hey [ greetings from Kenya]Trent, thank you for your videos they have been extremely helpful. I was raised in a Catholic family and after completing highschool I abandoned the Church for protestantism and in particular reformed theology but after discovering your videos especially the one on Sola scripura I realized that this in particular was completely wrong. Now I have returned to the Church and your videos have been helpful in explaining the teachings of the Church. May God bless you and your family Sir for all the good work you are doing.

I'm a Protestant. Catholics got this one right. Thanks Trent.

Have to tell you, Trent...I just went to confession for the first time a few weeks ago (in preparation for confirmation). It was absolutely wonderful! When I was a Baptist early in life, I was taught the doctrine of eternal security. When I studied Scripture for myself, I stopped believing that (and left the Baptist Church). It's just not Scriptural. Then I went through a period of over-scrupulosity as a young adult. I was terrified that I was sinning almost all the time, and that I was going to hell. Again, I found comfort in the Scriptures and learned to rely on the Holy Spirit to keep me in Christ. Phil. 2:13 is a favorite promise that I rely on for God's ongoing work of sanctification in me. Do I fail sometimes? Yes. But I turn to God in faith and in godly sorrow. I KNOW when I've messed up, because the Holy Spirit gives me "godly sorrow that leads to repentance". (2 Cor. 7:8-10) I have also been bigtime to God's woodshed (you call it "temporal punishment", I call it a "whoopin'")...but He disciplines those whom He loves, as the child in whom He delights.

Wow this answered EVERY SINGLE RESERVATION I had. I am a cradle Catholic who left the Catholic Church for Protestantism. I definitely had wrong information about what the Catholic Church believed about purgatory but your point at 34:55 made perfect sense and arrested the argument in my mind.

"Theological gerrymandering" That is a fabulous phrase.

I like what Father Vincent Lampert says about Confession and Reconciliation: It's like throwing up. You don't want to but you feel so much better after you do.

After being Southern Baptist and Pentecostal, I came home to the Catholic Church, but I was definitely brainwashed with these ideas, and thinking for yourself was not promoted. You had to believe what you were told.

Nate Pickowicz’ book was my first exposure to real anti-Catholicism and the thing that drove me to learn why we believe what we do (thanks, Nate!). A debate between the two of you would be incredibly satisfying.

Wow! Thank you for this Trent.

Trent, this was awesome. You took what the others said and showed how it leads to Catholic teaching. So helpful. Great job!

"For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you don't forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses." Notice Jesus is talking to his disciples here. Forgiveness for them is ongoing and conditional.

I have read a few of your books, you are one of the best catholic apologetics out there

First, love you Trent!

Thank you for this clarifying video! 👌🏻

I learn so much from you, Trent. God bless you!

The space between righteous and unrighteous- what is this?! 😂

"... he who handed me over to you has the greater sin" John 19:11 That seems to be the most clear to show different sins have different gravity

Absolute banger of a video!

I love this channel! So many gems ^_^❤

Spent 8 years as a calvinist and never really understood the eternal security. Basically i thought it protected you from venial sin but if you committed something more mortal then you just never were christian to start with. Trents debate with James White really put me over the fence for catholicism.

I heard a southern Baptist pastor say it’s not the day you were saved, it’s the day you started being saved… hmmm 🤔 but he also is once saved always saved…

My feelings towards Catholic understanding of sin growing up Pentacostal was always the opposite in that I always thought it was too easy to go to Heaven because of purgatory and distinction between mortal and venial sin. After learning about the distinction and what qualifies it almost feels like a certain weight has been lifted from my chest. I've always been so terrified I'm going to go to Hell for doing something that seems minor to man but not to God. But all this shows me is that God really is a loving and merciful Father. I don't want to commit venial sins under the idea that I'll just make up for it in Purgatory, but I now know I don't have to be so terrified if I do those sins.

Thank you Trent!

We protestants talk a big game about sola scriptura and then adopt doctrines that not only aren't taught in scripture, but where the opposite is taught. Once saved always saved, and limited atonement, being fairly obvious ones imo.

My issue is the things that the Catholic church considers to be mortal sins. If you skip mass one Sunday you lose your salvation?

Thanks much for this video.

This episode was great

Actually, many Evangelical pastors are now teaching that God forgives Christian's sins "past, present, and future" when receiving Christ. Therefore, all one needs to do is "accept" God's forgiveness and one is "good t go." They usually do not even teach that there is a need to repent (either initially or throughout the Christian life) or to confess one's sins. In other words, the Christian just thanks God for His complete forgiveness (past, present, future) and goes on their way. This, of course, is strongly opposed by many Protestants and labeled as "Easy Believism." More rigorist Evangelicals and Protestants believe this "acceptance" theory leads to great moral laxity amongst Christians. Which seems to be the case. However, the theory seems to be consistent with the notion of Eternal Security.

@13:50 Their view of original sin seems faulty. Original sin is not a removal of a stain but the restoration of the supernatural gifts of faith, hope, and charity.

This example of the chocolate almond seems pretty specific. Someone check the cameras at Trent’s local grocery.

As a Wesleyan I wish Trent could interact with Wesleyan's conception of sin. We are not OSAS or POTS and while we reject the dichotomy of venial vs. mortal sins we have a very similar view of it. Not all sins are equal and the Bible is super clear on that.

While all mortal sins must be confessed, the Church preconises the confession of venial sins too since they predispose us to mortal sins. In other words don't wait till you've committed a mortal sin to avail yourself of the grace of confession. Go to confession.

The "it's about what Christ did on the cross not about anything you do" is asinine. If Christ tells you to do something, it matters if _you_ do it. You could play this same game around their view of sola fide, "oh so you believe you coming to the right views on faith matters, you think your actions matter and not Christ's actions on the cross"

@ The Counsel of Trent @ Trent thanks again for another great video. Would like to ask to see if you would be willing to host Myles Christian from his channel Answering Adventism he's very knowledgeable and charitable especially in SDA false doctrines he reminds me of Cameron Bertuzzi and his journey I feel GOD is bringing him home to the Catholic Church in a matter of time thanks and GOD Bless your family and you. Robert from Puerto Rico 🇵🇷

13:51 That is one excited baby! 🤦‍♂️😂

I took a really nice shower last year, that was enough for me because I am clean. I don't need clean myself because I was cleaned from that shower last year. No matter how dirty I am I took one shower last year so I am clean today. Hmm the people in the elevator fainted yesterday 🤔, someone must have farted or something, couldn't be me cause I showered last year 😂.

This shows the limits of Protestant theologies.

BRO THE NEW LOOK. Let's gooooooo

Thanks trent

I think most of the protestant churches I've been in have held this as a part of their doctrine even though, because they didn't often talk about it, I assumed we were on the same page in rejecting such a doctrine because how could someone who is joined to the true vine then be cut off if once saved always saved?

I think you should follow the principal of God search my heart. Then confess the ones that He brings to mind. Generally, I confess “little” sins like unkind words, jealous, yelling at my children. Of course, I can’t remember every bad thought and word, but I can definitely remember “bigger” sins.

Thank you.

Can anyone tell me if the Catechism touches on any of these items in Scripture related to salvation? 1. The difference between salvation and exaltation (they are often conflated in Scripture but refer to different things) 2. Peter referring to our "calling and election being made sure" in 2 Peter. One of the last things he wrote. 3. Paul's explanation regarding the different glories that will be present in the resurrection (1 Cor.)

I see you are an early riser!

Hi Trent! As a protestant (was raised Catholic) I appreciate this video a lot, thank you! It sure allowed me to clarify some things that were hard to pinpoint before. Can I ask you, or perhaps someone from your audience a few questions that I have now? I also think I may be able to elaborate on some of the questions for protestants that you've presented in your video. First of all though, thank you for maintaining such a friendly and irenic tone throughout your video and being charitable to protestant positions. It sure made me listen to you a lot more attentively from the get go, thanks! So let me get this straight. You believe Protestant position on the how do we deal with sin in a believer's life during his sanctification process makes little sense. If you look at the Reformed position, I agree it is a little bit tricky to understand (I'm Arminian myself) but in the end, we're still talking about technicalities. In other words, I really think we're dealing with HOW questions, and not WHAT questions. We all agree WHAT Christians must do. We all agree everybody is saved first by the act of Faith, Repentance and Baptism (I know Protestants would say Baptism should be done out of obediance and not necessity and that it's just a sign of what already happened through faith and Catholics would say it's a vital part of the whole process but let's leave out the details since we all agree we should do it). We also all agree that afterwards what saves you is still the grace of God. Catholics would say that in order to maintain the status of grace, you need continuous repentance, but likewise Protestants would agree, that a Christian who lives in grace will ask God for repentance after sinning. We all agree WHAT you need to do once again. The differences remain in the realm of HOW does the process actually work in their entirety. Catholics would say that every time you repent from daily sins your relationship is restored from being damaged on a different level. Protestants would say there is no damage in the salvific sense, but that Christians still need to repent out of obediance. In both cases, lack of continuous repentance means that we're dealing with a person who is not saved. Again, WHAT we're dealing with we all agree on. The technicalities is where we differ. Protestants would say, at least on the Reformed end of the spectrum, that it simply shows that said Christian was never truly saved, while Catholics and Arminians like myself would say that if a Christian commits an act of apostasy via grave sin said person WAS indeed saved, then unsaved, then saved once again by an act of repentance. I don't think there is anything meaningful here to struggle with for any of us. We all have the same basic practice. Baptism, Faith and Repentance, and then continuous repentance, is the way for all of us to heaven, and we all agree that those who fail to go through this exact tunnel of events most likely will end up in hell. As for your question - How does that make any sense to say that our Dad has to pay for our bills over and over when he said before they're all paid in advance? Though I'm not Reformed, I think the difficulties in understanding their train of thought lie within the image you chose for this comparison. A different image might help. If your kids break something around the house, you, as a Dad, would approach them and say - that was careless and I'm angry with you. You should apologize. And you expect the apology. Even though they are your kids - they can't pay for that broken vase, they can't repair it, it won't help in any way that they apologize - you know it's the right thing to do, so you demand this of them. Every time they break something, you want them to come to you and apologize without you having to tell them they should. That's how Calvinists see the act of repentance. Sinning is not breaking their relationship with God. He is their Father no matter what they break around the house, and he will never cast them out because of it. But he also wants to discipline them and teach them throughout their journey as children, and he demands those apologies. And children who love their Father and want to show Him their obediance and be thankful for being able to live around his house, will come and apologize every time. But those who won't will still be loved by their Dad. As long as they were adopted by him and invited into his house in the first place, nothing is gonna change that. That's their perspective. Even though we both do not agree with HOW it works, they end up doing the exact same things in order to get to heaven, so I still think it's just a technicality. And finally, I'd have some questions for you and your audience - mr Trent, even though I was raised Catholic and received Catholic education, I never understood. Please tell me how does the grave/venial sin distinction makes better sense here? The principles you proposed for them are very, VERY vague to me. Let me elaborate: 1. In grave matter. What does that mean? There is no list of grave matters, is there? You mention a playful lie is an example of a sin that's not grave. But how so? Didn't Revelation 21:8 say that the pit of fire is destined to, among other sinners ALL LIARS? Isn't prohibition against (Thou shalt not bear false witness), isn't it one of the lying one of the ten commandments? Didn't Jesus say that Satan is first and foremost a liar, and that he is the Father of all lies? Didn't the Lord God himself say in Psalm 101 verse 7 that no liar will ever live in his house? I can't understand how can you recommend a lie of any kind as an example of a sin that's without major meaning in God's eyes with those kinds of warnings all over Scripture. Overall though, I think making a clear distiction between venial and grave sins just isn't possible her on the basis of this alone. How can anyone know with any meaningful certainty, which grave is serious enough and which one is not? We're talking about salvation here, it's not like you can just guess and that should suffice. This DEMANDS clarity that Catholics theology just can't give you and this is what worries me and is a big question of mine. 2. With full knowledge. Here, once again I just think it's way too vague to allow anybody to assess any sin. When Jesus talks to Pilate he tells him that Jews who crucify him have a greater sin than he does. I think it would be hard to argue there is any bigger sin than crucifying Jesus at all! And yet, Pilate is a lot more conscious about the whole situation then the jewish crowd, and that's very obvious to me. Jews were CERTAIN they are crucifying a traitor and a fake prophet, while Pilate was scared to his death because of his wife's dream and because of Jesus's weird attitude, he was pretty much convinced he is doing an evil deed and a possible blasphemy by making his decision. And yet it is HIS sin that is minor, and the sin of the ignorant jews acting fully in their emotions is the one with grave sin. And in either case of course, we can't talk about anything that comes even close to "full knowledge" because none of them knew who Jesus really was. It's just one example, but I just don't think this works biblically at all. We have many examples of people acting with only partial knowledge and being condemned by God very harshly, even in the New Testament, so what exactly does it mean to have, or not have "full knowledge"? It's another vague term that makes it impossible for us to be accurate judges of our own sins. 3. Full consent. Just like with full knowledge, "full" is a vague term that can't possibly mean actual, dictonary definition of the word full. St Paul says there is a struggle of flesh and spirit in all of us. There is never full consent of either side, I think, when it comes to any sin. Every time a Christian is about the engage in a sin, there is a struggle, a fight that one of the fighting sides - flesh or the spirit, wins in the end. "For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out." So again, full consent is never actually a full consent. Not for a person that has a Holy Spirit in their heart. How come they still commit grave sins though? In any way, I struggle to understnad how is that helpful. I think Protestant perspective, especially Arminian theology that talks about Christians having to daily repent out of obediance AND suggests that if we don't we may fall away via grave sin that leads to apostasy, is a lot easier to understand and put into practice than Catholic theology, that puts on every single member of the Church a duty of properly assessing something that, in my honest opinion, is impossible to assess for anyone but God. Maybe some further commentary would help? Thanks - this is a sincere question.

Hi Trent. Would really like your thoughts on the Protestant version of “revival” like the ongoing one at Asbury university that has been going on for a few days. Thanks!

In my experience when I was a protestant, most people wouldn’t even ask their pastor about their own sin. They would simply feel sorry about it “in their heart” and call it repentance. This is genuinely my experience. In several types of protestant groups.

common sense tells us that there's levels of sin as in all other aspect of life. The problem here is what "saved" and salvation means. My nephew married Baptist woman where her family supposedly practices their faith. I remember at their wedding they did not have wine, due to their prohibition on alcohol. However, after being married for 10 years, the have no children, and may never have children, and it doesn't sound like they desire children. Once saved, sin no longer exists, and I don't have to focus on my salvation, since I have a friend in Jesus, and now I can concentrate on converting others, through my own interpretation, which is also the benefit of "once saved always saved". The only difference between "once saved always saved" and atheists, is atheists have the humility to dispel a false claim. A larger problem with their philosophy, is that it puts our salvation in mere illusion than fact. If there is no distinction in sin, and atheism is a sin, then not believing in god cannot change my relationship with god. There are other problems with that as well, as Jesus in Matthew 5, Jesus uses 2 example where your whole body will be cast in hell. In Matthew 7, "not everyone who says "lord, lord" will enter the kingdom of heaven, but those who does my will of my father in heaven." However, since I have been saved, that as well can be dismissed. "good works, and fathers will", aren't applied towards me, since I have a friend in Jesus, and thus good works don't apply to me, since I am already saved. These philosophies seem to originate in those who want a quick easy fix on salvation, and unlike the saints, don't desire to grow in virtue or holiness.

These guys are so ignorant of the Catholic Church, it’s this level of evil, spewing false doctrine, that hurts Gods Church!!! THEY ARE DANGEROUS!!!

LCMS, and loved this video.

Assurance is the happy medium. It's not the Catholic "You skipped mass, therefore you don't know what your eternal fate is", but nor is it, "I could never ever lose my faith even if I tried".

There are a number of Protestants who believe in the Catholic doctrines concerning sin. However, my question to the more accomplished Catholic apologist is this: Catholics believe that mortal sins can only be forgiven in the confessional or by a perfect act of contrition. What becomes of the Protestant who continually commits mortal sins but who asks God for forgiveness of said mortal sins on the regular? Is that a perfect act of contrition? What constitutes a perfect act of contrition?

This once saved always saved invention is nothing less than blasphemy and metaphysically impossible because it denies God's omnipotence by implying a random person can bind God's grace arbitrarily, even against God's will, which is a nonsensical proposition

Trent could you do a video on the various claims that Jesus was a failed eschatological prophet ? I have seen some pretty good arguments made by skeptics who propose this theory (Barth Ehrman for example). Thank you, love your videos

I’d really love a video on how we can have reasonable assurance of salvation if that is indeed something we can have. Even before this Catholic journey, I had this fear that I was one unrepented sin away from hell, and now with the official mortal sin teaching, that fear has only intensified. I know it’s incorrect and unhealthy, that Christians are supposed to be joyful in Christ. But I can’t make that connection over the obstacle that I’m one slip into habitual mortal sin away from hell if I’m unlucky about when I die.

I have a question and any advice would be appreciated. I am a senior in high school. I have a gf and I would like to marry her one day. I know chances of that are low but i have hope. Anyway she isnt catholic and she seems to have rejected the idea of even giving catholicism a chance. Any ideas on how I could maybe one day convince her to at least give it a shot? Also prayers for her and me would be appreciated. Thank you

Are there any places where I can find a free copy of the catechism? I keep hearing it referenced and I would like to be able to verify the legitimacy of those references.

As a Protestant I always wondered about this

The reformation was in 1517. I still want to hear what Protestants think about the idea that if they are right, then God must have allowed His Church to be a false church for almost 1500 years before the real Church was established. God would NEVER have allowed that. God would NOT have allowed the number of books in the Bible to be wrong; He never would have allowed Confession to happen; if Catholics are wrong, then taking the Eucharist is actually paganism and God would never have allowed that. That sounds like a dangerous, irresponsible thing for God to do.

This is one of the things that has Made me realize reformed protestantism is messy. Its all illogical, but we get around it by appealing to God's mysteriousness. It is contrary to Scripture and logic to interpret every passage about losing salvation as hypothetical or "never saved to begin with". It is against reason. This is why if I remain Protestant, I will be a Lutheran. They are the most consistent when it comes to doctrines like this. Still, non reformed ideas of election confuse me. Are there some elected to temporal salvation? Is it possible for the elect to lose salvation?

Trent, correct me if I am wrong, but don't priests in training need to confess every sin as part of their training and spiritual formation? If not, is it only a Jesuit practice? I recall something like this back in middle school 11 or so years ago when Jesuits from the college next door would visit us.

What's the name the documentary?

Martin Luther actually told his friend Philip to go sin boldly, commit adultery, murder… It doesn’t matter because you are already saved. Now that’s paraphrasing, but does that make any sense to you?

It really drives me up a wall how lazy people are in their vilification of the Catholic church. If you're using embellishment to describe one of our doctrines, you haven't done your homework and therefore are speaking from a place of ignorance.

As a protestant evangelical. The difference between struggling and living in sin is desire.

14:23 Venial sin does not take us from a state of justification to a state of un-justification but rather we are in a state of complete justification (alive) in need of cleansing from wounds (justified/cleansed/sanctified from wounds). Again, this is going back to how we use terminology. Yes, I know it is beyond terminology but it is the terminology that is also causing the confusion. The protestant is going to say, why not call the cleansing from sin just sanctification?

13:47 - I've been to a few baptisms as a Catholic (received into the Church 10 years ago), and at every one I was struck by how the infant was completely at peace. There wasn't any crying, contrary to how they depicted it in their example here. This is anecdotal o/c - it's not like I think no baby cried ever, but still, it's pretty powerful when you personally witness the real thing vs how people might presume.

Yeh I'm a protestant and I don't believe in eternal security. There's nothing inherent to protestantism that says one must believe in eternal security to be protestant.

Please explain Reconciliation and temporal punishment please sir

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 🎥 This video discusses a Catholic understanding of mortal sin and its relevance to Protestants. 00:14 🧐 Mortal sin destroys charity and relationship with God, while venial sins damage but don't destroy this relationship. 01:11 📖 Catholic Doctrine: Mortal and venial sin distinction is found in Scripture, tradition, and human experience. 02:04 🛡️ Not all Protestants share the same view on salvation: some believe in losing salvation due to grave sins. 03:13 🧪 Some Protestants believe you can't lose salvation regardless of your actions, but this view is less common. 03:56 🤔 Questions arise: Which sins should be confessed? Major vs. minor sins in relation to salvation? 07:23 🧾 Protestants who believe in eternal security need to address: Which sins to confess? Any or all? 08:57 🤝 Do repentance and confession indicate being saved or just actions for maintaining salvation? 11:15 🙏 The documentary "American Gospel" misconstrues Catholic beliefs on salvation and confession. 13:30 🚫 Misrepresentation: Catholics don't believe in "ups and downs" of salvation based on works. 18:08 ✝️ Catholics emphasize a cooperation with God's grace for salvation through faith and works. 19:00 🕊️ Protestants stress assurance through faith in Christ's completed work, but questions about repentance and sin arise. 21:04 🔄 The debate revolves around whether repentance is necessary for restoration after sin or if it's merely a way to demonstrate one's salvation. 23:09 👶 Justification is distinct from sanctification. The analogy of confessing sins and reconciling with parents illustrates the Catholic view of reconciling with God through confession. 24:18 🚪 A child can be a biological child but still be disinherited; similarly, Christians can be God's children but risk losing their inheritance through unrepentant sin. 26:12 🕰️ The debate between God's timeless forgiveness and temporal interaction highlights inconsistencies in Protestant views regarding God's response to sin. 28:41 💔 Struggling with sin is acknowledged, but living in sin by planning or persisting in sin contradicts the idea of genuine salvation. 32:13 🤥 Distinguishing between venial (minor) and mortal (grave) sins matters. Minor sins are not mortal and don't cut off grace, but major sins can endanger one's salvation. 35:28 ⚖️ The consequences of sin are recognized, introducing the concept of temporal punishment, which aligns with Catholic teachings on Purgatory. 38:44 📚 The Catholic perspective on sin and salvation, considering both major and minor sins, offers a more comprehensive explanation for the complexities of human behavior and repentance.

The argument from experience is not a good one: 1. Many times, humans feel horrible guilt without having done anything evil (ex: people with OCD feel guilt for not doing certain insignificant things. Are they correct in their guilt?) 2. In experience, the "feeling of being farther away from God" is not a matter of Salvation; rather, this is often a matter of sanctification and one's experienced fellowship with God. We shouldn't conflate salvation/justification with sanctification. 3. Many Protestants would agree with the Doctrine of "Eternal Security of the BELIEVER." If you have a true faith in the Lord, then you are secure in God. 4. You presented a false dichotomy about the "asking for forgiveness of sins" by saying it is either "Ask forgiveness for every single one" or "you just have to confess generally." #1: Confessing your sins is not exactly asking for forgiveness. Confessing is admitting to the truth that what I did was wrong (it's legal language). This is equivocacion. #2: The Holy Spirit convicts us of sin. You fail to see that we simply confess our sins to God and ask for His cleansing/sanctifying grace over us such that we may EXPERIENCE right fellowship with God. We confess our sins of which we are aware and of which we feel conviction, but we also confess our sins more generally (Psalm 139:23-24). 5. When speaking of Romans 1, I think you don't understand repentance. Repentance means to "turn away from the way you were going/ the thing you were doing." Also, why did you bring up 1 John "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness" but then say "this isn't about confessing our sin to God. It is about confessing to man"? But that isn't what that passage says. I am confused about this point, here; not sure what Trent meant on this point.

Trent really snitched on himself about sneaking those chocolate almonds.

I think confessing sin has more to do with the psychological effects sin has on the body and mind. In James it says, "Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed." If you don't confess you sins you will be weighed down in shame and guilt rendering you ineffective of preaching the gospel to others. I want to emphasize that I mean confessing to another person and not just to God.

"Theological gerrymandering" killed me

Can someone ask god to forgive them of a mortal sin or have to go to confession.?

Why are we still trying to earn our righteousness? Why are we still trying to earn our salvation? Why do we say we believe, yet deny His power to save? Common sense is no longer common, and pride is what kills mankind. If we are saved by the Truth, let us also walk in the Truth, my brethren.

At 32:00 A good way to show the difference between a sin being grave or not would be: Stealing one dollar from Bill Gates would not be grave, but stealing 1 dollar form a very poor person would be grave. Bill Gates would not even notice 1 missing dollar, whereas 1 dollar could make the difference between a poor person feeding or not feeding their child. Another case might be cheating in a friendly board game versus cheating in a real life matter that involved real money, or a school scholarship or a job promotion, etc. The gravity of a sin is determined by the objective type of sin and the damage it will cause. This applies to sins of omission as well. If one neglects to take out the trash at home, it might make some unpleasant smell and irritate family members, but if one neglects to properly discard bio-waste as part of their job at the hospital, people could get sick and die.

Trent please do Mike Gendron’s talk with revolve Bible church. It is the 20th century rabidly anti catholic summary and has like 500k views.

Thanks for the giggle at 3.46 (although sadly, these types do exist). I agree with you Trent, why do Protestants say that all past, present and future sins are forgiven when the apostle Paul clearly outlines in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 how mortal sins will affect one's going to heaven and not just lose rewards?

Sincere question from a Protestant who’s learning. If I commit a mortal sin as a Protestant and believe you can lose your salvation, how can I be forgiven again? Again still learning, thank you.

Exactly the point I've made. There is obviously a difference between pocketing the pen used at the bank, and pulling out a gin and robbing the bank and perhaps shooting someone in the process. To say otherwise is just insane

Trent, I would argue that your analogy about the meal plan is using a necessary good (meal) whereas the object is an unnecessary bad (sin) A better analogy would be a parking or speeding ticket; once you receive it, that ticket, you ask Christ to “forgive” your debt and he replies “it’s already been paid for” (sorry for the bad use of grammar and ending on a proposition)

I honestly feel that going to God always and confessing shows that we love him enough to realize our wrongs. Yes he knows that we will fall into multiple sins in the course of our lives because he is timeless and all knowing. It is a convenant between us and God that Jesus christ died for our sins. Even if we are saved through faith, we always have to remind God of the convenant. Reminding God shows that we love him to remember the love he showed us trough Jesus Christ. I believe by faith that Jesus Christ will save each and everyone of us. When the disciples asked Jesus that how then can we be saved mat19:25, Jesus answers that with people, it is impossible but with God, all things are possible

“Get hit by a bus on the way to confession.” lol

THE COUNCIL OF TRENT even has a caveat/admits by "special revelation " one can have assurance and know they are elect and will persevere.

How much do you have to hate the gospel to deny eternal life?

I think the problem lies in failing to make distinctions. There is justification to a new creation (adoption) that cant be lost (the indelible mark of baptism) but there is justification to relationship which can be damaged (venial sin) or lost (mortal sin). As Catholics we would say both the event of justification and the growing in justification involves sanctification. If you die in a relationship with Christ you would be both new creation-ly justified/ creation-ly sanctified (which cant be lost) and relationally justified which can be damaged (so final sanctification from the wounds of sin is needed) but you would not be relationally unjustified unless you committed mortal sin. It seems that protestants only speak of justification in a legal declarative sense but not in a moral ontological sense and an ongoing relational sense. They would call the cleansing of sin strictly sanctification and not use the term justification. But, again as Catholics, it seems we are using the term justification in three different senses (the new creation, remaining in a justified relationship, and being justified from sin.) The justified from the effects of sin and the sins committed is the justification that is the process. I need to continue to confess my sins and be forgiven. When it comes to venial sins this would involve sanctification and when it comes to mortal sins this would involve a sanctification as well as a re-reconciling to relationship.

Doesn't their "re-application of what God has done for us" argument in favor their confession/repentence but only one justification completely undermine their argument against re-presenting the sacrifce of the mass?

I think there is conflation of "have to" and "should," here.

What was the first sin ever recorded? Where would that fall? I’m mean they just ate fruit. Where does that fall on the severity of sin? Didn’t they get kicked out of the garden for that.

1. "Experience refutes" a lot of Catholic dogma as well - so that objection is not a good one for a Catholic to make. 2. "Eternal security" has nothing to do with experience in this world - therefore, experience in this world cannot refute it. 3. The truth of the doctrine of eternal security is proven by the fact that some people attain final salvation and are not damned. Even if they were not aware of it, their final salvation shows that they were eternally secure.

Why is it that protestants like Mike Gendron intentionally misrepresent Catholicism? I would put James White and Mike Winger in this group? I am okay with some out rightly disagreeing with a doctrine that we actually do state but to misrepresent it intentionally is incredibly deceptive and un-Christian.

Is there any hope for a soul that dies in a state of Mortal sin according to Catholics? I would say that is something of a difference. If a person who "was never truly saved" dies but still had a little faith maybe in their heart of hearts, if left to their own devices a little longer might have returned to the faith but tragedy strikes first, or maybe their faith flares in their final moments in all these situations there is hope to me to see them in Heaven. But is there for you? It is a genuine question not a rhetorical attack, if it displays my ignorance of Catholic dogma then fine I should be ignorant, I'm not Catholic, but I am curious.

18:34 He has redeemed you totally, completely, perfectly but the application (salvation) is continual. 18:41 Nate's understanding would lead to universalism sense Christ died for all sins 2,000 years ago or it would lead to limited atonement which implies eternal forgiveness.

Abraham and Moses were both told by God to circumcise their sons on the 8th day. Jesus was also circumcised on the 8th day. Is there a relationship between the 8th day circumcision and infant baptism?