When making a video on a false claim, put the claim in quotations so that people will listen to you. I loved this video btw.

Glad you loved it!

Pity your church has produced so much scandal and clergy child abuse, eh?

Jesus promised to send the Paraclete to guide His Church in all truth. He never said that he would write and send a book from heaven. The NT books were written to be read to the laity on the Lord's Day during Mass or the "Breaking of Bread". This was the practice in the early Patristic period, and has been ever since. The Bible is like a loaded gun. It can be dangerous and even fatal if put in the wrong hands.

@@alexchristopher221 Amen! Brother

@@alexchristopher221 I agree, so the Bible should be in hands of all, so that they check if what is taught is actually what Jesus commanded.

@@johnzuma4688 The power to bind and loose was given to Peter and the apostles and their valid successors through the sacrament of Holy Orders (Apostolic Succession). The reason why Protestantism comprises tens of thousands of denominations of disparate persuasions is because a loaded gun has been placed in too many wrong hands of people who solely rely on the fallible principle of private judgment. John Salza explains what the terms binding and loosing mean in a Jewish context. “’Binding and loosing’ (Heb. asar ve-hittar) were common rabbinical terms used by the Jewish religious authorities of the day. These terms described their legislative and judicial authority to ‘forbid’ or ‘permit.’ This included rules of conduct (halakah) for God’s people, as well as issuing definitive interpretations of Scripture, oral tradition, and the whole of the Mosaic law. In short, the terms described the Pharisees’ authority over doctrinal and disciplinary matters.” I can assure you that Jesus, Mary, and Joseph didn't keep a copy of the Torah on their kitchen table. They had to go to their local synagogue to hear the written word of God by His appointed teaching authority.

And reason which is the application of both to the current age. The Anglican 3 legged stool.

I am cautious on tradition. While it can give an explanation to scripture, it may not be the correct one. The pharisees taught traditions of men, and interpreted scripture through that lense.

@@truthtransistorradio6716 Tradition in this context is doctrine and the great creeds which alongside scripture shape our faith.

@@truthtransistorradio6716 Jesus established His church through tradition, which his disciples carried throughout the world. In the fourth century, the construction of the Bible as we know it today (ot and nt) was finalized and joined church tradition. Christian tradition was not established by anyone other than Jesus Christ.

@@patriciagouveia2616 The bible is my foundation for truth. When you talk about tradition, which one? Jesus rebuked the pharisees for teaching the traditions of men. I believe some things have crept in over the years that have become traditions. Even by the 3rd and 4th centuries, some Greek philosophy and Gnostic doctrines had come in.

Thank you.

And the faith alone fallacy.

Our Lord says (from 9/4/2007 message in 'god speaks will you listen'): "At Baptism (the Sacrament of Baptism), you receive My Divine Life (Sanctifying Grace) in your soul. The Holy Eucharist (the Sacrament Holy Eucharist) continues to nurture My Divine Life in your soul and promotes spiritual growth. Without My Presence in your life, your soul can die. How many plants survive without continual water? Does an infant survive without its mother’s food? Thus, your soul is no different. When you seek other means to satisfy your soul, you are telling Me in your pride, you know better than God. If you seek Myself in other religions or denominations who deny My Eucharistic Presence, you will not find Me and you will deny the food for your soul. For truly, Satan will do everything to distract and prevent you from participating in the Holy Mass, because he knows the Truth. If you eat My Flesh and drink My Blood worthily, you shall have everlasting life (John 6:54). For I prophecy to you, when you deny My Eucharistic Presence, you are contributing to the abomination of desolation foretold by the prophet Daniel (Matt 24:15, Dan 12:11) in bringing about the reign of the man of sin (2 Thes 2:3-4). For the abomination of desolation, is a belief in the protestant doctrine of the Mass, as My Blessed Mother has explained through many messengers. You are either with Me or against Me (Matt 12:30, Luke 11:23). You either have faith in All My Words, or you have no faith at all."

I appreciate this video. It was explained very well. I also agree with the comments here about "bible alone" and "faith alone." The bible never said that "the bible alone" is the source of all truth. In fact, St. Paul says on 2 Thessalonians that the early Christians should hold the traditions that they have learned, whether by word or by epistle. If a tradition was taught by word, it likely would not have been written in the bible (epistle). Otherwise, there is no need to mention both "word" and "epistle." The bible also never said that "faith alone" is necessary for salvation. Faith is necessary for salvation. But is not the only requirement. Our Lord Jesus said in Matthew 25 that those who will be saved are the ones who gave our Lord food when He was hungry, drink when He was thirsty, and so on. Our Lord also told the parable of the Good Samaritan to explain His response to the question regarding what must be done to have eternal life. That parable is not about faith but about loving our neighbor.

Yup!

Historians demonstrante that it was not until at least the second century that babies were baptized. Inferring that "household" means that they baptized babies is an argument from silence. Silence which lasted for centuries

Love to see support for this claim. @@ike991963

@@ike991963second century begins in year 100, so silence lasted 1 century, but more accurate to say roughly 70 years since the church doesn’t start until 33-34 AD.

I'm not trying to be overly picky, but the description of Lydia's conversion that you mention is Acts 16:14

Welcome!

LOL! You know, the thought occurred to me - but I figure any church that would do that is already so messed up it probably won't matter. :)

Many thanks!

Glad you watched it! :)

Thanks for sharing, sorry about the EX!

You are so welcome!

Viva Cristo Rey!

Thanks!

You got it!

Lidia and all her household were baptized.

Right, that's a different argument that requires a different response.

1 Corinthians 7:14

Well said!

Knowing Jesus and knowing everything about following Jesus are not the same. Likewise, Abraham believed God and "went" but it was decades later that God asked him to sacrifice his son. One need not be a biblical scholar to know Jesus and to start to trust Him.

There are good reasons as to why infant baptism became an accepted practice. Up until the second half of the last century infant mortality was high and babies were baptised at the first opportunity to ensure their salvation should they die in childhood. Not to do so could have serious consequences for the child after death. Those who reject infant baptism are looking at it and interpreting scripture through 21st century eyes and ignoring the historical background to the practice. Many parents want their child doing and a naming or dedication ceremony is just seen as their child missing out on something important.

@@philipdouglas5911 Why would a child who dies without being baptized face serious consequences? What kind of God do you serve?

@@jeffreypaulross9767 You have to understand the doctrine of original sin to see why this is the case. We all bear the guilt of Adam and are undeserving of God's love and his salvation. This fuelled the teachings of the ancient and medieval about sin and judgement where an unbaptised baby did not go to heaven and did not receive the benefits of the resurrection. Because infant mortality was high in the ancient and medieval world there was some urgency to baptise babies so that they received the Holy Spirit and were given a new beginning. Part of the ceremony is exorcism to cast out sin which is not so easy to see but in the ancient rites was more prominent and salt was used. You have to put aside your 21st century eyes and look at God as taught in the Middle Ages who was seen as a judge rather than someone who loves. Most could not read so had to accept what the church taught. It was common in many churches to have a large wall painting of the last judgement to keep them in line.

Glad you think so!

Thank you. :)

Well the easiest route is to follow the Church's Tradition - but if it came to argument, I would say that because women are included in the New Covenant, they therefore should receive communion.

Also because Paul affirmed women as part of the covenant in Galatians 3:28 There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.

@@xaosgeist No, for Catholics authority relies on Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, & the Magisterium, or teaching authority of the Church. What is considered Sacred Scripture was listed by several writers throughout the 1st 300+ years, it was in the 1st Council of Constantinople in 381, & in several councils afterwards, that an authoritative list was officially made. The Sacred Scriptures were dogmatically closed at the Council of Trent 1545-1563 after Luther removed 7 books from his Bible, though the 7 were still kept within his version. It wasn’t until the 1800’s when a Bible Society, to lower the cost of printing, removed the so-called “Apocrypha” from the Protestant Bible altogether. So as you can see even the Sacred Scripture, the Bible, depended ultimately on Sacred Tradition(the multiple centuries of books/letters listed as belonging to Sacred Scripture) & the teaching authority to come into being in the form in which the majority of Christendom has it. Sadly, Protestants have a corrupted version of the Bible & miss many profound prophecies of Jesus & teachings in Judaism.

@@DouglasBeaumont So your principle is the same one that you reduced to absurdity. Women are only allowed to receive communion because it says so in the Bible.

Can you explain what you mean here please? The stance he critiques in this video is that if something isn't affirmed in scripture, it isn't allowed. In his response to your comment he doesn't use this principle. @@xaosgeist

In the New Testament, the word "brethren" describes a community of men and women who chose another way of living: the way of Jesus.

Yes it is - in fact in the Greek, "brother" can mean practically any kind of familial (or even non-familial) relationship. The point of my using that as an argument was to show how bad of an argument it is. ;)

The point of this video is to show what happens when the flawed principle behind an argument against infant baptism is applied to women's communion. Yes, women were included in communion even though the Bible doesn't specifically mention them - as is also the case with children and baptism. :)

@@DouglasBeaumont I do understand that, though I think you understand that if you make a remotely convincing argument for what the Bible sees as the orthodox position, people will earnestly take that up. There are plenty of modern dude-bro Christians who say women shouldn't be allowed to be ordained or speak in church or be leaders, based on only a verse or two. I think you're responding to that mentality, but inadvertently fueling it.

Yes, but that would weaken my awesome-and-completely-legitimate argument - so let's keep it our little secret. ;)

@@DouglasBeaumont haha, you got it.

Very good.

All that and not one word that actually demonstrates a non-believing individual was baptized. If anything, bringing up circumcision is evidence that it is not necessary to baptize children. Girls aren't circumcised, their entrance to the covenant comes through who? 1 Corinthians 7:14 - because of a believing spouse "they are holy"

Sure, but I'm just dealing with the simple fact that no woman is said to receive communion in scripture. If they can then it must be argued on a different principle, which is fine.

Infant baptism is wrong

Wouldn't proof texting also be unbiblical?

It's easy for people to shift semantics to make the words say what they want often if all else fails

Well said!

So do you think the Catholic Church is authorized to instruct using words and ideas not explicitly mentioned in the Bible? Or, whose liturgy do you trust?

Right! The goal of this video was to show what happens when the flawed principle behind an argument against infant baptism is applied to women's communion. Yes, women were included in communion even though the Bible doesn't specifically mention them - as is also the case with children and baptism. :)

I did that in my book, not to show off but to make the point you make. It is SO easy to miss stuff like that when you're in it. May your journey continue! God bless.

If possible please try to read, its available in the net: 1 - The Abomination Of Desolation Spoken Of By Daniel Will Soon Be Implemented By Islam’s Antichrist And This Caused Me (Walid Shoebat) To Become CATHOLIC 2 - The Keys to Unlock the Signs of the End - Walid Shoebat (Very lengthy articles, took me 6 months to read)

So you're talking about Protestants accepting things that aren't in the Bible, and your solution is to gravitate towards Roman Catholicism? I'm sorry, but the fact is, you're going to find at least as many non-Biblical and even anti-Biblical tenets and practices in the Roman church as where you came from.

​@EyeLean5280 I think what he's saying is the non-biblical stuff accepted by Protestants made him realize that Christianity is not solo scriptura. And, realizing this, he came to Catholicism. Which is perfectly reasonable.

@@EyeLean5280 hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions, of highly intellectual and deeply prayerful people have devoted their entire lifetimes over 2,000 years to making certain that Catholic theology and doctrine is aligned with Holy Scripture as perfectly as humanly possible. If there are errors, it would be helpful if you could be more specific.

Hee hee! Thanks!

Mission accomplished. :)

Luke 18:15-16 15 People *were also bringing **_babies_** to Jesus* for him to place his hands on them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. 16 But Jesus called the children to him and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. *“Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."* Also: Acts 2:38-39 38 Peter replied, “Repent and *be baptized, **_every one of you,_* in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is *for you and **_your children_* and for all who are far off-for all whom the Lord our God will call. Take note: be baptized EVERY ONE... ...for you AND YOUR CHILDREN! Amen and God bless

@@c.Ichthys Who got baptized?

@@kazager11 You know the answer. I provided the scripture verses.

@@c.IchthysJesus didn't baptize them

Hate the game not the playa. :)

What does verse 32 say?

I see you got the point! :)

That is correct - just like in English. But that's not REALLY the point of the video. ;)

I doubt that would work since St. Paul was writing to Gentiles in 1 Corinthians. :)

Yup. :)

And "household" until 1960s 😂 and even until today always refers all people in a family included children and babies (Acts 16,15 / 1 Cor 1,16) 😅😅

^^ Gets it.^^

Hey if you want to trade what the Bible says for manmade traditions.... ;)

Same with the ambiguous "he did x" could mean a woman did it.

Well it would be John who lied, but your point is made. :)

Yup!

Noted.

Thanks and you bet!

Exodus 12 and 13. Where it speaks of consecration of the firstborn and then explaining the faith later when they ask. Seems like infants didn't have a choice in the old covenant. My question to protestants is if God wanted infants in His old covenant and Paul said the new covenant is built on better promises than the old then why does God not want infants in His new covenant now?

Throw in some Colossians 2:11-12 and it's a pretty solid case!

No, *I* am not saying that - but I did imply that in the video because that is the anti-infant-baptism position (which I am debunking). :)

I understand what you are saying, but would you agree or disagree that infants were probably baptized along with the family?@@DouglasBeaumont

I am not aware of anything illogical in any divine act.

@@DouglasBeaumont You don't think the divine transcends logic? Even miracles defy logic. There's a fine line in trying to use logic alone to prove the divine or determining what is salivic by the fragmentary record that is known as the New Testament.

Well, we read in John 1 about how in the beginning was the Word (Logos in Greek), etc, as if to say the divine and logic are one in the same. Faith should not contradict reason, rather they both assist each other in the assent to truth. I’ve heard that when it comes to miracles, it’s not that they defy logic or violate the laws of the universe (which God wrote himself), but that they reveal something new about it, or those laws are suspended in some way. Due to the Fall, creation has been corrupted and disordered; perhaps miracles are God’s way of restoring the proper order in the world, because people were never meant to be blind, deaf, paralyzed, etc, but ultimately never meant to die, and this is the whole point of the resurrection from the dead.

Of course a Protestant has to argue FOR illogical ideas because Protestantism IS illogical. If it’s not in the Bible it’s not true. Bible does not list books that belong in Bible. Therefore the Bible must by definition be not true Prots go by Bible alone. They have no Bible. How do prots go by a collection of books that by their first principles CAN NOT be determined? Ergo: they have zero claim to Truth.

Scripture as understood by Church tradition.

@@DouglasBeaumont So as church traditions change the understanding of scripture changes? Should scripture not lead to church traditions and not the other way round?

Any more than 1 is a problem, but that number is highly inaccurate. Unfortunately, this urban legend continues to be cited even by Catholic apologists. The source is the World Chris­t­ian Ency­clo­pe­dia which says, "World Chris­tian­ity con­sists of 6 major ecclesiastico-​cultural blocs, divided into 300 major eccle­si­as­ti­cal tra­di­tions, com­posed of over 33,000 dis­tinct denom­i­na­tions." So first, this huge number does not just include Protestants. Second, to get to this number, the Catholic Church is said to have 242 "denominations"!

@@DouglasBeaumont sounds good but no true. The one true Catholic apostolic Church has not changed in 2000 years

@@paulcapaccio9905 Sure it has - a lot. but the question is not about change, it is about legitimate development vs. illegitimate distortion. Read Newman.

@@DouglasBeaumont the core dogmas have never changed.

First, the video is showing the illogic of a fundamentalist anti-infant baptism argument, so it doesn't really need to be answered on those grounds. But, second, I don't get how this story relates - but I'd like to!

@@DouglasBeaumont This is a response to the argument at around the 4:40 mark about women receiving communion not mentioned in the scripture.

To be fair it's mostly Fundamentalists making this kind of argument but yeah.... :)

@henrybayard6574 Another example of your argument is the Church of Christ. This church sings praises to God as do practically all churches. But according to this particular church, “…The New Testament does not instruct us to use mechanical instruments in worship and there are no examples in the New Testament of Christians using them in worship.” * So, no. It wasn’t in the Bible. Therefore, “we” don’t do that. My question is, isn’t this like any other extreme of the cherry-picking of scripture? * from the website of the Timberland Church of Christ, in an article posted by Harold Hancock.

Haha, right!

Correct. The goal of this video was to show what happens when the flawed principle behind an argument against infant baptism is applied to women's communion. Yes, women were included in communion even though the Bible doesn't specifically mention them outside of the generic "anthropos" - as is also the case with children and baptism. :)

Good questions and yes, Protestantism is very confusing.

I'm a lutheran and have recently been looking into some of the differences, especially Eucharist. I have never reflected upon the literal meaning of the bread and whine until recently. I did not even know that it was so much more "symbolical" in some forms of protestantism, it has never been merely symbolical to me. When I receive the Eucharist, I'm receiving Jesus as literal, divine food for my soul, that is the best way I can describe it. Luther writes in the Small Catechism: "How can bodily eating and drinking do such great things? Answer: It is not the eating and drinking, indeed, that does them, but the words which stand here, namely: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins. Which words are, beside the bodily eating and drinking, as the chief thing in the Sacrament; and he that believes these words has what they say and express, namely, the forgiveness of sins." The meaning I get out of this is that eating and drinking alone is not enough. You also have to believe in what you are receiving. If you rely solely on the ritual alone, but do not truly believe in the sacrament you are not prepared, as Luther points out: "Who, then, receives such Sacrament worthily? Answer: Fasting and bodily preparation is, indeed, a fine outward training; but he is truly worthy and well prepared who has faith in these words: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins. But he that does not believe these words, or doubts, is unworthy and unfit; for the words For you require altogether believing hearts." People who say is is just a symbol is implying that it is not necessarily needed, it's just a nice thing to do. But Jesus says he is the bread of life, and I believe it in that literal sense. Our body needs bread, and our soul needs Jesus.

@@DouglasBeaumont One difference between lutherans and catholicism is the bread. In Svenska Kyrkan, the bread is gluten free so that everyone can receive it. From my understanding, it must contain gluten in catholicism because of tradition and transubstantiation. What do you think about this?

Yes but that proves my point. ;)

Yes but since the principle works for both they lose if they win. ;)

OK

Also doesn't threaten my argument even if true. ;)

The context and "therefore" makes it clear that "whoever" refers to the men....? ;) (Watch the whole video and see if we really disagree. )

To be clear, the point of this video is to show what happens when the flawed principle behind an argument against infant baptism is applied to women's communion. Yes, women were included in communion even though the Bible doesn't specifically mention them - as is also the case with children and baptism. :)

The real question is how much LESS did you weight with part of your thigh missing.

Lol!

That's better but I think a strong argument can be made from Acts where whole families were baptized because of one person's faith, St. Paul's connection of circumcision with baptism in Colossians, and the entirety of Church history up until the Anabaptist cult arose that infant baptism is valid.

@@DouglasBeaumont Regarding the families in Acts, I think that is more an indication that the whole household came to faith, not just the one person. Paul's connection to circumcision in Colossians is interesting, but consider that he is drawing parallels between the two Covenants. Jews entered into the covenant by virtue of the first birth, and infant circumcision was part of that. Those under the New Covenant enter into this Covenant at the moment of faith, at which point we are reborn. As with circumcision, baptism comes at the time of birth as a sign of the Covenant, but for the Christian this is the second birth of the Spirit, not the first birth of the flesh. From my understanding, the first clear evidence of infant baptism being commonplace is the third century. This is significant evidence in favor of infant baptism, but it's still over a century removed from the Apostles, allowing for many unbiblical practices to have crept in.

@@StageWatcherAre you familiar with the Catholic Sacrament of Confirmation? It solves the question.

@@RumorHazi I looked it up just now, and from what I see the Sacrament of Confirmation has the following requirements: must have reached the age of discretion, which is defined as about the age of seven; profess the Catholic faith and desire to receive the sacrament; be in a state of grace; be ready to live as a witness to Jesus Christ. How does this apply to infant baptism?

@@StageWatcher It is the bridge to connect the two sides of the argument. Baptize the infants to wash them of original sin and Confirmation to allow them to affirm their individual faith once the age of reason has been reached. Quite brilliant really. But then, there’s lots of brilliance in Catholicism.

Once it's rocketing views slow down I'll consider it. :) Unfortunately it is thr nature of KZfaq that videos that do not get clicked do not get watched, and seeming clickbait like this gets clicked. After over 100 comments no ladies seem to have missed the point. :)

@@DouglasBeaumont Well since it has already passed by the scrutiny of 100 Ladies. I'll retract the request.

That would work as a counter-example if women never sinnned in the Bible. ;)

Maybe watch the video. :)

The goal of this video was to show what happens when the flawed principle behind an argument against infant baptism is applied to women's communion. Yes, women were included in communion even though the Bible doesn't specifically mention them - as is also the case with children and baptism. :)

@@DouglasBeaumont 💡 Oops how embarrassing! I had no idea. I’ll watch out for you next time.

@@po18guy 😂 Well...I didn’t watch all of it!

I'm sure it falls short of doing most of the things it wasn't meant to do. :)

Um.... First, John 6 isn't the Lord's Supper. Second read one more verse: "66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. 67 Then said Jesus unto the TWELVE..." This isn't false interpretation - it isn't even interpretation. It's just reading.

@@DouglasBeaumont So what you are saying only the twelve are allowed to receive Jesus. Acts 2:41-42 King James Version 41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. 42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. ( Notice there is no support for “ Transubstantiation “ Hmm. ) “No interpretation required, Just reading the scriptures” Read John 20:23 Remit and Retain sins to the twelve Luke 24:33 ( Same event) Remit and Retain sins to the twelve and vs33 plus them that were with them. 2Cor. 2:6-10 Paul was not there when Jesus Breathes the Holy Ghost on them and he was also able to forgive Retain and Remit sins. ( There is no support that only the Catholic Pope , Priests are allowed to Retain and Remit sins)

@@johnp.6043 No that is not what I am saying as was clear in the video when I brought other passages into the discussion.

It's linguistically possible but there are other ways to understand the verse you're probably referring to. In any case, she is never said to receive communion so it poses no problem for my argument.

It seems like people didn't understand his message. This is targeting fundamentalists.

Maybe watch the whole video.

Why do *I*???

TBH that's part of the fun. ;)

I am not sure you're following the thought here. To be clear, the point of this video is to show what happens when the flawed principle behind an argument against infant baptism is applied to women's communion. Yes, women were included in communion even though the Bible doesn't specifically mention them - as is also the case with children and baptism. :)

Getting and keeping are not the same thing.

@@DouglasBeaumont Are you aware that God's FREE GIFT is ETERNAL life which is SEALED by God. The ONLY thing you need to DO to KEEP your ETERNAL life, is to REST in it. Nobody can break God's SEAL, but you. This is why we have FREE WILL. Lord God is NOT holding us by force. You have to be DECEIVED in order for you to OPEN God's SEAL which is given to you. If Lord God is always FIRST in your life than who can overpower him? Obeing God starts with the FIRST commandment: "you shall have no other gods before my face" says Lord God. If you are married to Lord God than be FAITHFUL and you shall have an amazing RELATIONSHIP with him. Ephesians 5:32 32This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Much love and blessings.

@@springflowerblosomnorris9721 "All you have to do is rest." JESUS: Mt. 5:20 "unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." Mt. 7:21 "“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." Mt. 25: 41-43 "Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me." Lk. 3:8 "Produce fruit in keeping with repentance." Lk. 9:23 “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me. Luke 13:3 “unless you repent you will all likewise perish” Jn. 6:53-54 "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life" Jn. 14:15 "If you love me, keep my commandments."

@@DouglasBeaumont Eternal life is a FREE gift. This accomplishment is already accomplished by Jesus. If you learn how to put your FAITH in practice, you will KEEP your Eternal life spotless. Salvation is like a marriage RELATIONSHIP with Lord Jesus. HE is your head and HE will guide you HOW to do God's WILL. Are you like a FAITHFUL wife?, ..... or, are you more like a harlot sleeping around and doing HER OWN WILL? And if you PRAY to Lord Jesus to help you support and comfort someone in need, do you think Lord Jesus is NOT going to give you the opportunity to help the RIGHT PERSON in need? How about if Lord Jesus is delaying his help for a certain person, for good reasons, than what? Are you going to help that person AGAINST Jesus' will? Who is in charge of doing God's WILL? You or Jesus? Who is in charge of producing Fruit? You or Jesus? If you are so devoted to Jesus and put in PRACTICE Luke 14:33 than where do you have the things to share from? Luke 14:33 33So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple. Are you a harlot stealing from her own house? I hope you understand how we can do the wrong thing, despite our best intentions. Lord Jesus can help us solve this problem if we behave like an obedient FAITHFUL married wife. Put on his NAME with confidence: TRUST IN THE NAME OF THE LORD: Isaiah 50:10 KJV - Who is among you that feareth the LORD, that obeyeth the VOICE of his SERVANT, that walketh in darkness, and hath no light? let him TRUST in the NAME of the LORD, and stay upon his God. Zephaniah 3:12 KJV - I will also leave in the midst of thee an afflicted and poor people, and they shall TRUST in the NAME of the LORD. ALL glory to Lord God Almighty and Jesus Christ my savior, blessed be his NAME forever and ever.

Then you missed the point.

@@DouglasBeaumont: No I didn’t. I heard what *you’re* saying, but I don’t agree with you. Considering how Christianity is, what you put across as a ridiculous argument actually brings me to the conclusion that it should be more male-oriented.

That's unfortunate. @@TheTrueOnyxRose

If only there was a table of contents and a note in the description about sections...

I understand that not all Protestants argue this way and I was going after one particular argument. Further I did not attribute this argument to Protestants in general. My response was not illogical because that one argument was shown to be faulty because regardless of who else can be assumed to have been included in St. Paul's statement. That, in fact, is the Catholic argument. :)

@@DouglasBeaumont I agree that you did not address Protestants at all in your video. I apologize. I will admit to taking it personally based on other viewer comments. Comments like, how this shows stupid Prots how Sola Scriptura doesn't work. But it does work, and the early church fathers like Clement, Tertullian, and others adhered to it. Perhaps it is important to say at this point that a common understanding of Sola Scriptura reads more like Prima Scriptura. The bible is the primary authority. Bishops and elders may have words of wisdom and doctrine to share, but that point of view must align with the authority of scripture. At this point, some might say, "Well, who gave the bible the authority it has? The Roman Catholic church of course!" But that only rings true on the surface. The writings are authoritative because the books have provenance through history, the words, and authorship. Anyway, sorry for jumping in on your video. It just seemed an odd premise because I don't know of a denomination that doesn't allow women to take communion. So the argument seemed like a straw man that Catholics created to show how the Protestant view of Sola Scriptura doesn't work. God bless.

@@ToeTag1968 Thank you for the retraction. You are correct that this is not a video about sola scriptura per se, rather what it does is show that the Fundamentalist view (at least) of infant baptism doesn't work whether one holds to sola scriptura or not. As to your explanation of sola scriptura and the Church fathers, you might be interested in this: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/mq2HndSpqZvIZ3U.html

@@DouglasBeaumont Thanks for the video link. I think we can agree that the holy scriptures are the primary authority when it comes to teaching and truth. I also think we can agree that some denominations can read scriptures in different ways based either on ignorance or their own agendas. This is where I think going back to the beginning can be extremely important. I believe you talked about, and I've read verses in the bible about accepting scriptures, letters, and tradition as truth and valuable for doctrine. I would agree with that - up to a point. That point being, those first century Christians had their letters published. The oral traditions handed down by the Savior, Jesus Christ, were taught in the early church and then converted into the texts that we have today. There ceased to be a need for any further scriptures or traditions to be added, as each accretion from that original understanding just takes us further and further away - like a 2000 year old game of telephone. Maybe we don't agree on that. But I think we can find some common ground again that some biblical interpretations perhaps don't matter much when it comes to our eternal salvation. All things being equal, will God love someone less if we fellowship on Friday evening instead of Sunday morning? If we use wafers and grape juice as the elements vs a loaf of bread and red wine? Where Catholics would probably want to correct some Protestants is on baptism. Perhaps you feel that some denominations are putting the lives of children in jeopardy by not baptizing infants. As for me, one of the most troubling aspects of Catholicsm is the elevation of Mary to a position of advocacy and mediator. This would seem to be an area where the bible puts her in no such position, but Catholic tradition and extreme mental gymnastic would. Unfortunately, those are topics that have kept us at odds for 15 centuries. It's not we will be able to fix any time soon. God bless you. I am thankful to our God Most High for the areas in which we can agree.

Did babies understand circumcision?

Comparing an Old Testament Covenant between God and the people of Israel to a misinterpretation of scripture and useless practise doesn't make a strong argument. It simply doesn't really compare, don't you think? And another question what is in your understanding the "true" church of christ?​@sharondavidson7412

The point of this video is to show what happens when the flawed principle behind an argument against infant baptism is applied to women's communion. Yes, women were included in communion even though the Bible doesn't specifically mention them - as is also the case with children and baptism. :)

As a male I am glad to hear it! ;)

This isn't a different angle - it is the exact point I was making fun of. But let's go with it anyway. We do not know that. We have records of people being baptized but it says nothing of their having come to faith (Acts 16:14-15). Further the command about being baptized to be saved in Acts 2 is directed to whole fmailies not just adults. In any case - the Church taught infant baptism from the earliest times and without debate until after the Protestant Reformation (when only the cult of the Anabaptists taught against it).

Thanks, but I must be missing something here as I can see in Acts 16 where she would have come to faith as in "The Lord opened her heart to what Paul was saying" (came to faith from that) and then she was baptised (and her household) Acts 2 is not directed just at whole families, but more so at Men of Israel vs 22 Men and Brethren vs 29 Men of Judea vs 14 but I suppose there may have been others there, but when they asked "what must we do" Peter said '1 Repent & then 2 be baptised. So, we might just have a different interpretation of these passages. I suppose I just don't know why an infant would need to be baptised, anyway Thanks Douglas👍✌

@gregghumphreys5455 Peter says the promise is for them and their children right after he commands them to be baptized. The reason is similar to why Israel circumcised infants (see Col 2:11-12). Baptism is the way people enter the new covenant.

Definitely best practice!

I was an Evangelical apologist for two decades and taught young pastors at a Baptist seminary. I doubt I haven't heard it all. ;)

Not a red herring when it is answering a popular argument which I proved it is.

Yes haha, the point was to show how bad the anti-infant-baptism argument of the same form is by applying it to something else ;)

@@DouglasBeaumont i figured haha. First time on your channel

True but doesn't affect the point of this video. :)

Oh..it does.@@DouglasBeaumont

OK yeah but... ;) I agree, of course.

Correct, but they are not "mine." The goal of this video was to show what happens when the flawed principle behind an argument against infant baptism is applied to women's communion. Yes, women were included in communion even though the Bible doesn't specifically mention them - as is also the case with children and baptism. :)

@@DouglasBeaumont But then your argument breaks down, since the second statement of your syllogism would be wrong assuming that the Bible does not refer to women participating in the Lord’s Supper when in fact it does. So the Baptist argument is not one from silence.

Kind of missing the point but FYI "Limbo" is a theological opinion, not a doctrine of the Church.

Very nice! I think a Protestant would attack premise 2 and say that one could apostatize (= lose / reject one's faith) and that would cover sub-points 1-3 without involving works. Different Prots would explain this in different ways, but it could happen that at time T1 a person expresses and even seems to live as a faithful Christian believer and yet at time T2 they express that they are not / no longer believers. In such a case a person lost their salvation yet salvation remains by "faith alone" because works had nothing to do with it at times T1 or T2. Thoughts?

If Catholic theology makes Catholics worry about whether they did enough good works then the Protestant one makes Protestants worry whether they have had enough faith. How do you know you have enough faith to be saved?

​@@barborazajacova7633 "...How do you know you have enough faith to be saved?..." Exactly. Especially when non-caths invoke the 'you were never really saved' clause to explain away fallen brethren when they have their hearts set on OSAS to save them. I am 50+ and have been a practicing Catholic my whole life. In hindsight I have never really worried about doing enough good works. Jesus said whoever does the Will of my Father is my brother and sister. So my overarching concern has been 'am I doing the will of the Father at this moment for the right reason?'.

@39knights exactly. What I meant to say is, we Catholics often get accused of legalism, "works righteousness" and such things, while I have already seen a LOT of extremely scrupulous Protestants that worry about having sinned against the Holy Spirit, or worry about not having the Holy Spirit in them, feeling condemned all the time esp. if they sin, worst of all worrying they have never been saved in the first place... completely lost and hard to be comforted by their pastors who point them to the Scriptures. Without grounding in solid doctrine they could rely on (what is the right Protestant interpretation of the Bible? ) or the sacraments that provide tangible means of receiving God's mercy and grace, this must be almost unbearable at times.

Here’s another angle on the Faith alone argument. We all agree we must repent of our sins. They only think of sins that involve doing something we aren’t supposed to do like lie cheat or steal. Ok fine so far but here’s the problem. What about sins involving NOT doing things you SHOULD be doing? You didn’t pray or worship God before but now you MUST DO those things. You didn’t honor your father and mother but now you MUST DO that. You didn’t helped the poor but now you MUST DO that. You failed to confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord but now you MUST DO that. So the very act of repentance means you are going to start DOING things you MUST DO to be saved. Protestants can be slippery as a greased pig in their attempts to avoid Truth but I can’t wait to see what they say about this. 🤷🏼‍♂️🤓

I 100% agree with the linguistic counter-argument, l but the problem is the same can be used to defend infant baptism. Either way my point is made. ;)

Your assumption about who MIGHT be included in what the Scripture actually says does not create a non sequitur in my argument about what Scripture actually says. But even if it did, it would only prove my point against using this type of argument against infant baptism.