A Man from Adelaide Pretended we are Heretics

A Man from Adelaide Pretended we are Heretics · Debate under one of the comments

Most Roman Catholics Are Going To Hell! False Gospel of Roman Catholic Church Exposed
iThink Biblically | 12 May 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xJ5W5vA7lU

0:40 OK, so, a different Gospel than St. Pauls is, if not necessarily damning, at least under a curse.
Fine.
You and us Catholics don't believe the same Gospel, apparently, as you say we are going to Hell.
Could be.

Now, the problem for you is proving it is us and not you who deviated from St. Paul's Gospel ...

1:23 "that is not what St. Paul means"
But what if they at least contain the thing St. Paul means?

Plus, what St. Paul means (according to you), are you getting that from the "Bible alone" as you proclaim your formal principle?

You turn to 1 Cor 15 - and I read verses 1-3 ... looks as if:
a) St. Paul says he will here give at least the most basic essence of the Gospel
b) it involves what he has received and given as Tradition.

Now I make known unto you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you have received, and wherein you stand; By which also you are saved, if you hold fast after what manner I preached unto you, unless you have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all, which I also received: how that Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures:

And I turn to the last verse, and it involves works:

Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye steadfast and unmoveable; always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.

So, that's more like you Protestants are cursed for denying God demands works of His faithful ... or that they have an import on our final reward and at least possibily even on whether we get one.

3:00 Note, it can be argued Christ died in our place or with us, but it does not say He ever bore the Father's wrath ... (nor does it say so anywhere else in the Bible).

3:20 But when you give the Bible passages, you actually give one more that requires works:
Who his own self bore our sins in his body upon the tree: that we, being dead to sins, should live to justice: by whose stripes you were healed.

How can this not mean ceasing to sin and starting to do good works, precisely as the Catholic Church says?

iThink Biblically

@iThinkBiblically

Protestants obviously believe that we should do good works. We just don’t believe we are saved by our works. Works are a fruit of salvation not to root of salvation.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

OK, @iThinkBiblically ... what exactly do you mean by "root" of salvation?

Is any kind of condition a "root"?

As a Catholic, I believe my justification does not come from any works of mine prior to it, but very definitely with works to do from then on and to agree to when accepting forgiveness.

3:56 I was previously starting a comment here, in a cyber, but it seems some bright head (or otherwise) gave you an opportunity to answer my comment before I could go on and comment on this following part of the video.

But here are a few of the things I was commenting on:

3:47 "Roman Catholics don't believe this"

If it comes to the punishment death, we very clearly do believe it.

3:49 "believe in the doctrine of Purgatory"

Like, what's the connexion between believing that and supposedly not believing Jesus bore our sins?

3:52 "they believe that they will pay for their own sins"

Not really.

1) We believe that Jesus paid for our sins on the Cross so we can get saved
2) We believe that the justification in baptism takes care of all previous sins and penalties for sin and one pays nothing at all for these
3) We believe that to get justified again after a mortal sin after baptism, one needs to confess, and one pays a price for that, namely penance
4) We believe that sometimes the penance due is not done correctly, but neglected or rushed through, and that some venial sins are not repented, which means one comes before God in a state not immediately apt to enter Heaven
5) And that that is what purgatory is about.

3:56 "for thousands, sometimes 100s of 1000s of years"

I think this is a misunderstanding of what "indulgence of 70 000 years" means.

This example might make it clear that it's about the time of canonic penance on earth this corresponds to, not the time in purgatory as such.

Also, Pope Leo XIII abolished all partial indulgences of 1000 years or longer.

4:05 "that doesn't sound like they believe Jesus died for their sins on the cross"

Maybe not to your ears? What if the problem is your ears, and how you listened to misrepresentations of what we believe?

4:33 Robert Barron is a Vatican-II-er. Why don't you try that with Fulton Sheen or Richard Williamson instead?

6:10 "we are saved by believing the Gospel"

Sure. But not by doing so without works. If you meant 1 Cor 15, it actually ends with a reference to works in verse 57 ... and an even clearer one in 58.

6:25 How come you end the Ephesians 2 quote in verse 9?

As a Roman Catholic, I can read on to verse 10:
For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them.

So, while our justification is not from works of our own, they are into works that are both God's and our own.

Which is exactly what Catholics believe.

6:33 Ah, Romans 3.

The great divide between Latomus and Tyndale.

Did you know that Tyndale was burned, not for his translation of the Bible, as might have been the case if he had remained in England, where the anti-Lollard laws were somewhat unusually against Bibles in the vernacular, but because of his exposition of Romans 3?

Tyndale: "apart from works of the law" means both apart from prior and of subsequent laws of the moral law.
Latomus: "apart from works of the law" means apart from works prior to justification, but not apart from agreeing to works subsequent to it.
Council of Trent: "apart from works of the law" means apart from the Mosaic law.

Romans 3:20 b For by the law is the knowledge of sin.

While Latomus agreed this meant the moral, not just the Mosaic law, it could be stated of the Mosaic law too, as many of the sacrifices and impurities remind a man he is sinful, which the Greek or Nordic religions didn't in the same sense.

The Mosaic law forced the Jews to attend to the moral law ... it was a kind of paedagogic.

9:00 "nowhere" (see 2 Cor 9:10) "does the Bible say we can increase in justification"

Not sure if Barron was paraphrasing Trent or not, but the Bible certainly says we can increase in sth :

And he that ministereth seed to the sower, will both give you bread to eat, and will multiply your seed, and increase the growth of the fruits of your justice:
[2 Corinthians 9:10]

9:10 "to be justified is to be regarded as innocent, to be legally declared just (-ified?) by God"

W h e r e exactly does it say that?

11:14 Where does the Bible say a man needs to know he'll remain saved?

11:24 wait, does the Bible anywhere say "we have peace with God"?

Being justified therefore by faith, let us have peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ:
[Romans 5:1]

It seems to say, let's hope we are really justified by the faith, and that our peace with God is real, and remains with us.

You see, "we have" and "let us have" is not the same tense or mood ... Latin also has "pacem habeamus" and not "pacem habemus"

Now, Bible Hub, on Greek Interlinear Romans 5, actually has ἔχομεν*, but with an asterisk, marking a footnote, probably there in the printed version, but omitted in the online version of Bible Hub, and probably stating that an alternative text has omega which makes it a subjunctive.

Hebrews 10 says "confidence" and not "knowledge", see:

19 Having therefore, brethren, a confidence in the entering into the holies by the blood of Christ; 20 A new and living way which he hath dedicated for us through the veil, that is to say, his flesh,

Ephesians 2:8 doesn't state the faith that justifies is a faith that means certainty rather than confident hope of being saved. Same for Romans 3:28.

Romans 11:6 is very interesting, St. Paul is basically comparing the Jews that persecuted Christians to Baal worshippers.

And if by grace, it is not now by works: otherwise grace is no more grace.

Again, this is a good answer about what happens at justification, but does not state (or it would contradict other Scripture) that we are not saved into works of justice. However, in context, it may underline we are not saved into works of the Mosaic law ...

11:58 Sry, the comment in verse 20 is very apt about the Mosaic law.

One can consider, Jews are a bit overconscious about sin ... and anyone who is, may find it a relief to look at the sins of others instead of his own.

12:32 "that the Roman Catholic Church has set up for him to be saved"

Or that God has set up for him to do?

Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them.

Does James 2:24 Contradict The Doctrine of Salvation By Faith Alone?
iThink Biblically | 12 Nov. 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6kfZX-tkFY

1:04 I go through James chapter 2. I do not find one single indication that St James is talking of our claim to have faith before the Church, but it is clear he is talking about our standing before God.

Obviously, the intro of the chapter would be fairly pointless if by dishonouring a poor man, one could risk only disapprobation before fellow Christians rather than actually damnation.

Equally obviously, the devils are not just people reputed to have no faith (by the way, James says they believe), they are persons that are damned and known to be so.

1:47 Actually, in the wider context, starting with verse 1, St. James is forbidding to have faith in certain ways, namely along with respect to persons.

He does not forbid to say one has faith, but forbid to have faith along with that respect to persons.

2:07 Your point pretty much leaves out the last sentence in the quote on the screen.

See also:

Could This Bible Verse Destroy Catholicism?
Douglas Beaumont | 22 Dec. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uvS3ra_zUE