Transcript
Use with ChatGPT / Claude Auto-scroll A
The discussion opens with whether salvation depends on Jesus alone or also on human obedience, confession, and works. The speakers debate justification, Abraham's faith, and whether works are evidence of genuine belief or necessary for eternal life.
Any truth that is saved in your church comes from the Catholic Church because we are the church that Jesus Christ established.
Why do I think I'm going to heaven?
And if our answer starts off with because I are probably going astray, we're probably thinking it's about us.Our answer should only be because of Jesus.
Mary is praying for us.
Where does it say that Mary is right now praying for
is not not really She's part of the church.
She's still alive.
Sorry?
Where does the Bible teach us to go and pray to Mary?
What verse in the Bible would you say teaches that once you receive salvation that you can no longer lose it?
If God asked you, "Why should I let you into heaven?"What would you say to him?
I'm always trying.Um I go to confession.I keep his commandments.I honor him on Sunday.And also I believe that grace was a gift to us.
Notice in that answer you it shows that your trust is actually in yourself.
You're a Julian.
It sounds like salvation in your view is a very easy thing.
Very costly for Jesus, but free to us.
Why does Paul say you have to work out your salvation in fear and trembling?
But the reason why it's not prideful for me to say I'm 100% sure I'm going to heaven is because My name is Ryan from needgod.net from Australia.My first prompt is the Bible teaches that believing in Jesus is sufficient for eternal life.All right, let me just clarify what what what my prompt mean means.So I believe that and I think you would agree that believing in Jesus is necessary for eternal life.But this prompt is more than just that it's necessary to believe in Jesus, but that believing in Jesus is sufficient meaning enough.As in there's nothing more than believing in Jesus is required for a person to have eternal life.That's my contention here.
Now would you just for more clarification, would you say the position is intellectual ascent?
Oh, good question.No.When I say believing in Jesus, I'm not just saying ascending to a fact, mental ascent.When I think of faith in Jesus, I think of it as knowledge of him, ascending, and trust.So, trust in Christ and what he's done to save us.Does that involve outward expression?
James says faith without works is dead.
Yes, so I think there will be an outward expression as a result.Works will flow.Is that necessary?That will come as a result, but not necessary for eternal life in the sense of
for the faith.
Um not at the time of conversion at the at the time of coming to faith because Romans 4:5 says to the one who does not work, but believes uh that man's faith is counted to him as righteousness.So, that means it's possible for a person to have faith in Christ and it's genuine faith and not have any works yet and still be counted as righteous.
Mhm.And do you think that I mean there's a bit of discrepancy when you read Romans 4:5, you know, works of the law and heart you I'm sure you've heard that.I don't want to focus too much on that right now.But when it comes to the faith itself, would you say that there's implications that are necessary within that?Because you say the works are produced.We can get into that with James and everything.I'm sure you've heard it a lot.But that production, okay, is it going to be universally true that it's always going to be the case that there's works?Because if you say that there isn't then that's where we have a problem.
Well, John 15:5 says that if you abide in Christ, he it is who bears much fruit.And James 2, I love James 2.I'm so glad it's in the Bible cuz it illustrates first of all, like in verse 14, the person who says he believes, but doesn't have works, that kind of faith can't save him.So, where it's just simply a profession, where they say they believe, but not that they actually genuinely believing, that man isn't going to be saved.
Mhm.
And so, it's not about profession of faith, but a possession of faith.
Mhm.
And how do I know if you or someone else has faith in Jesus?I can't look inside your heart.I'm not all-knowing.So, all I can look at is your actions, and that's what demonstrates your faith to the world.
To to the world.
Well, like cuz James 2:18 says "I will show you my faith by my works."So, showing people God knows everything.We don't need to prove anything to God.Uh he knows our heart, but people don't know our heart.Or at least they look at our work.
Why do people need to know?
Well, in terms of how you can figure out who's who's in the faith and all.Obviously, our our judgment's not infallible, but it can be at least indications of them.
Well, is that relevant to your salvation?
Is it relevant to our salvation in terms of Let's say hypothetically, someone just hears the gospel, they put their trust in Christ, and they've not told anyone yet that they've got their trust in Jesus.
Well, the demonstration part specifically, is that necessary?Because you're saying that's the case that's always going to be produced, but it's for demonstration of the world.What I'm saying, is that necessary?Cuz you just said like your question.You just said like the people aren't the judges.I don't think you want to take the position that that's not about justification before man, cuz you said that's an abomination.So, that part is that
Well, no, you've taken that out of context.
So, what Jesus is saying, or so what James is saying, is about how do I vindicate How's my faith vindicated or shown to the world?Well, it's by my actions.And so, you gave the hypothetical, what if it doesn't happen?So, let's say someone's in a remote area, it's just them.They believe in Jesus, and they haven't shown their faith to anyone.Well, are they still going to heaven?Yes.
Does that apply to Abraham?Because he uses the I want to also let them hop in, too.Cuz the example was Abraham.He says he was counted as righteous before he did anything.But he says, was he not justified when he offered Isaac on the altar?There was no one else there.And he says, but just real quick, he says that scripture was fulfilled.And he says the works were playing along with his faith, and they were completed.If it's the position you're demonstrating that to the world, no one no one else was up there.Do you think any anyone else was up there with Abraham?
Well, he wasn't So, he had his son there.And not only that, any person who would read this account in Genesis 22 can now see what Abraham's faith led to.
Mhm.
So, we see that in Romans 15.Whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction.So, that instance was not just so Isaac could see, but for everyone else.This is what a man of God does.When he believes, look what it leads to.God says, "Go sacrifice your son."And he's like, "Okay, I'll do it."Even though that would be so hard to do.He was willing to do that.
But, do you I want to ask you, how long was it between Abraham getting justified and him being willing to sacrifice his own son?How long in between?
Approximately 15 chapters?Something like that?
Oh, it's not quite.So, it's I mean, turn off speaking about years, though.
Years?
Years.
That's a good question.I'm not sure about the chronology of that.
so it's seven chapters in between, but the years is about 30 to 40 years.
Mhm.
And so, in Genesis 15 is when he's justified by simply God giving him a promise.In verse six, it says he believed the Lord and it was counted to him as righteousness.
Mhm.
And then seven uh about seven chapters later, so Genesis uh 22, we then see, so 30 to 40 years later, God says, "Now go sacrifice your son."
Mhm.
You would agree with me that he's justified already in Genesis 15, correct?
Uh it was counted to him as righteousness, but James says that that scripture you're referring to in Genesis 15 was fulfilled.He says that scripture was fulfilled when he offered Isaac on the altar.So, I mean, just a clarifier, right?
does that mean that it's fulfilled?What do you think that's talking about?Cuz we know James affirms he's already righteous.
Was he already counted as righteous in Genesis 15?
Yes, he was.But, here's the thing, the where we disagree is losing the righteousness.
Okay, but if someone is counted as righteous,
Mhm.
do they have peace with God?
Yes.
Okay, so Abraham has peace with God.Do you think he lost peace with God between the next 30 to 40 years?
I wouldn't say so, no.
Okay.So, then he doesn't need to get re-justified, even on your view.He's justified in Genesis Okay, so just got to Genesis But
said at the beginning of the chapter Genesis 22 that he's going to put him to the test and James says he Abraham did that and he fulfilled that scripture.I want to see like specifically how you address that because let's say for the sake of argument, if it's the case Abraham decided not to sacrifice Isaac or to almost do it, you know, he didn't actually do it.If he decided not to do so, would he still remain righteous before the eyes of God?
Great question.I would say yes, but
With those in disobedience?
Because every cuz Abraham was disobedient numerous times even after being justified.He even lied about his wife before Genesis 15 and even after Genesis 15.And Abraham, he probably he wouldn't have treated everyone with perfect courtesy as we're called to.He would have sinned just like we all sinned.But he's counted as righteous and according to how Paul uses it in Romans 4, that's an instantaneous thing that happens when he believes.And he even makes the point was it before circumcision or after circumcision?And what what's the answer?What does Paul say?
it was before the circumcision in chapter 15.Mark.
Which again is like many years later.And so then Paul's point is and it's not something that you gain and then lose.It's something you have and then it's a permanent thing.Now you must
Justification.
Yeah, justification.Correct.
No, I don't think Paul taught that.I mean that's an eternal security kind of thing but like
That's Paul's argument in Romans 4 and 5.
No, no.I want to get back to that point specifically.You said Genesis 22 he still disobeys between the and then I want to let the brothers hop into it.I don't want to hog everything.
Now in terms of like
Real real quick.Real quick.So, the promise of the covenant with Isaac, was that before or after the altar sacrifice?
The covenant with Isaac, what are you talking about?Which covenant with Isaac?
When when God promised that he's going to make a covenant with Isaac and give a many nations to Ishmael.
Well, we see like Genesis 17 is like the circumcision and then we also see with Hagar and all that stuff.
The old on and then the the Well, you know the the old covenant and then the old covenant and Isaac.Was that before or after the altar sacrifice?Then he will bless him.
That would be before I believe.It would be You're talking about Genesis 17.Which Which chapter are you referring to?What What are you talking about?
I think I'm I think it's uh
Oh, with Isaac.With Isaac.Okay.
Yes, is that before or after the altar sacrifice?
Um I believe the chapter would be Was it after?Is it
I'm pretty sure it's after.
20 I'm not sure what exact chapter it is um for that.
But it was after, yeah.
Okay.So, in terms of why Abraham's faith was completed by his works as we mentioned in James 2 um is because faith has an intended end.The intended end is not just justification but it's also producing works.God saved us not by works as Ephesians 2:9 says, but for good works as Ephesians 2:10 says.And so, Abraham's faith is right with God.He's got peace with him.And therefore as a result, he's willing to go sacrifice his son Isaac and do other works and go and do other works.
But he's justified.Last thing tent I want Please help him.So, last thing, right?Canaan, you said the works completed his faith.We agree there.James says the same thing.Can an incomplete faith save you?
Can incomplete faith save you?Well, if it's a real living genuine faith then that would justify you.Like he was justified before he did any works as we saw in Genesis 15:6 and quoted in Romans 4.And because Abraham's justified, you agree that he's got peace with God.And if someone's got peace with God, do they have eternal life?
If they have peace If they sustain it to the end just like Jesus says in John chapter 1.
Well, Jesus says in John 6:47, "Whoever believes has eternal life."So, in that verse Jesus Well, hold up.So, then do you think according to what Jesus saying, does the devil have eternal life?In the sense Jesus is talking about.
If you're If you're negating believing down to that kind of faith well, then I mean I would never say that.
Whatever Jesus is When he says, "Whoever believes has eternal life."He's not talking about demonic faith theory, clearly.
Judas, I said Judas.
I assume you don't think the devils are going to are going to be up in heaven.Okay, cool.So, then, if Jesus says, "Whoever believes has eternal life."That speaks about the sufficiency of believing, does it not, to have eternal life?
Well, what about when he says in John, he says, "It unless you're baptized water and spirit, you will not inherit kingdom of God."
Yeah, I would I would That's a great question.I would say that it doesn't say anywhere in that context with Nicodemus, that discussion, that he's referring to water baptism
Mhm.
because if you were interpreting as water baptism
Mhm.
and he says, "You can't even enter the kingdom unless you're born of water and spirit."If that's referring to water baptism, then that means unless you're water baptized, you're going to hell.
The conversation turns to whether believing in Jesus alone is enough for salvation, including John 3 and the thief on the cross. They clarify what 'belief' means and whether baptism or other acts are required.
Hey, quick break from the show.If you're enjoying this video or you like this channel, take 1 second and make sure you're subscribed.It's actually surprising.A lot of people think that they're subscribed to this channel, but they're not.Matter of fact, only about 8% of people that watch these videos are subscribed.So, if you want to help me or help the team that is making these videos, please take 1 second and subscribe.And if you're already subscribed, make sure to hype this video.That helps this video get pushed out into the algorithm more.So, thank you so much for supporting the page.Now, let's get back to the video.
And so, that would mean, okay, thief on the cross went to hell.It would mean Abraham went to hell.It would mean anyone else like Cornelius
That's not what I'm saying.I'm saying the thief on the cross.Like, thief on the cross did exactly like he did everything he could.
But, he make Jesus makes an absolute statement with no qualifications.He just says, "You cannot enter the kingdom unless you're born again."And so, therefore, if you're interpreting that as water baptism, you're going to have to say that all these people who died unbaptized did go to hell, which I'm not willing to say that because I know Jesus said
That's what I'm saying.The thief on the cross and all these ones that we believe in baptism of desire and baptism of the blood.
Is that what he's talking about there in John 3?That in cuz he says he says, "Born of water and spirit."Which I don't think is referring to water baptism.Um I think that there could be an illusion here to Ezekiel 36, which is talking about a symbolic way of our sins being forgiven as God sprinkles water on us, not in a literal sense, but the washing ofthe water by the word.You hear the gospel, you put your trust in Jesus, and you're forgiven as scripture consistently says.
Yeah, but the thing about the thief on the cross is he had no other option.He He couldn't A lot of people say he didn't do anything, but he did.He did what he could, and that was accept Christ at that moment and profess his name, and only ask if he could remember him when he goes into his kingdom.
Mhm.Yeah, I agree that thief on the cross he probably Yeah, he couldn't get baptized.And there's probably other people similar scenarios as well.
God's mercy is infinite, you know.
You have into them You have into them say that the thief was that Jesus is actually incorrect if you were to take his statement at face value.You'd have to say that Jesus when you said you can't be going to heaven unless you're born again, actually that's not entirely true.That's what your position is.I'm I'm saying it's entirely true.You cannot go to heaven unless you're born again, absolutely.So, therefore, born again would be when the Holy Spirit softens your heart and brings you to faith in Jesus.That's what it means to be born again.
Now, what about in the Acts of the Apostles where after Peter was preaching, he said to repent and be baptized.It was the first first command he gave cuz these people wanted to follow Jesus, and that was the first thing he told them to do.
Amen.I I I I encourage people to do that.When people put their trust in Christ, I encourage them go get baptized.It's a brilliant thing, an act of obedience.But Peter also says in Acts 10:43 that whoever believes in Jesus receives forgiveness of sins through his name.So, therefore, if someone believes in Jesus and is unbaptized, has not and maybe dies unbaptized, but they believe in Jesus, then according to Peter, they still have forgiveness of sins through his name.So, it speaks about the sufficiency of believing then.Like if I tell you, "Look here, um I'm selling you a coffee.It's $5."And you're like, "Okay, here's the $5."I say, "Actually, no, it's $10."Well, I lied to you then.Right?Cuz $5 should be sufficient for you to get the coffee.And so, if Jesus and Peter and Paul say believing in Jesus is how you get saved, and then they actually know that's not enough.
There's extra things as well.And then that would be lying.Does that make sense?
Yeah, we we we we we got to go back to your definition of believe though.So, what you said was intellectual assent, trust, and
Yeah.
saving faith.
Having known the facts about what Jesus did, assenting to those facts, and then trusting in Christ for your salvation, resting in him
Right.So, I feel like that could be summed up into to believe in Jesus is to act as if he resurrected from the dead and that that's true.
But, resting for your salvation.So, not cuz I obviously the demons know that Jesus died and rose from the dead.They can affirm those as historical facts.That won't save them.So, you need to come to the point people need to come to the point of realizing I should be in hell for every sin that I've done.I've done so many sins.But, Jesus is my righteousness.He's paid the price for my sins, and so I'm going to heaven because of his merits alone and not what I do.So, that's what it means to trust in what he's done.
The speakers compare Protestant assurance with Catholic ideas of mortal sin, grace, and remaining in salvation. They debate whether Catholics can know they are saved and whether obedience is part of the basis for salvation.
I would love to ask you guys what you think of this passage.This is John 3:18.Whoever believes in him, so Christ, is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already because he's not believed in the name of the only Son of God.My view on that is that believing means you're not condemned.Not believing, you are condemned.And so, that speaks about sufficiency of believing in Jesus for eternal life.What are your thoughts?
I think we actually may have a lot of agreement.So, I'm I'm curious as to know where you think we disagree.Where you think the Catholic position is different.
That's a good clarity question.I would say the difference is one, you guys think that you have to get baptized to receive justification, when I would see justification as by faith.
We wouldn't say that in all cases.
Ordinarily at least you'd say
Right.So, we don't want to we don't want to mix up the ordinary means of salvation versus the extraordinary.
about the ordinary means, though.So, it's obviously can always have except this ordinary means you'd say it's by baptism.But then not only is baptism required, you'd also or your church would teach that continued good deeds are required to keep your justification, the state of grace, such as attending mass every Sunday and on on holidays
of obligation.Uh so, that would be like six times a year in the in the US.You've got to go and if you don't if you willfully choose not to go, you forfeit your salvation.
All right.So, what what do you think Catholics believes what what do you think Catholics believe happens at the mass?
Well, you have the homily and you have scripture reading, things like that, but you also have which is obviously what Catholics most want is the Eucharist where they believe the body and the bread and the wine turns intothe body and the blood of Jesus.
Right.As Christ taught.So, that's So, that's what Catholics believe, right?And so, then the question becomes why would you not want to participate in that, right?So, even just taking that face value, right?You get to go and receive the blood, the body, the soul, and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ.You know, aside from the mortal sin aspect of it, why would you not want to participate in that?You know, so that that's where it comes to
I get what you're saying with that.But let's say the hypothetical is a person goes to mass six days a week every morning six days a week Monday through Saturday.But one and usually that's on Sundays as well, but they miss they like, I don't want to go this Sunday.I went yesterday in the morning.I don't want to go today.And instead they want to go mow the lawn, they want to help their neighbor cook dinner, and maybe pray and do some Bible reading.And so, they are getting they're taking the Eucharist six days six days in that week.And yet because they missed the Sunday, they forfeited their salvation on your view.
So, luckily I we have the Saturday vigil that they can attend as well.So, that fulfills their Sunday obligation, right?That's why I say I specifically say Saturday morning.Sure.Well, it's about being a part of the body of Christ, right?These are again, the ordinary means of of salvation.And to be a part of that, that's why we don't want to be seen as Protestants being in a state of protest to the church that Christ established.Okay, but if they are taking the Eucharist 6 days a week, which is more than most Catholics who go to just mass on Sunday.They're going 6 days, they're getting the Eucharist six times more.And yet, because they didn't go on Saturday, also on the Sunday, they lost it.Or even on, say, December 8th.Tuesday, December 8th is another holy day of obligation, the Feast of the Immaculate Conception of Mary.
If they are like, "Yeah, I went on Sunday, but they're like, I don't want to go on Tuesday."
Right.
Then forfeit his salvation.So, therefore, that would be, under your view, not believing that uh your view is that believing in Jesus is not sufficient for eternal life, cuz even though that person still believes in Jesus, because they did they failed todo that good work of going to church, they end up in hell.
Well, it's uh it's important to understand the the cause of them not fulfilling some precept, like not going to mass, because it's not that we are uh we are saying that they would not be saved due to justsimply not going to mass, but that they they know a precept of the church.Um and if they're Catholics, they would they would believe that uh Christ taught that the the church uh can teach these things and bind people to sin.Um so, if they are not fulfilling a precept of the church, the cause is a lack of faith.So, really, what we're seeing is it's not about them going to mass particularly, it's about that they lacked the faith enough to fulfill a precept uh that they could have.
I appreciate that you said that.I do appreciate you said that, because the Council of Trent talked about that.They're saying, "When you When you do mortal sins, if your faith is still retained, do you still lose salvation?"And he's saying means of salvation.But then he says, "You still You lose your grace of justification."And he's saying even mortal sins don't mean your faith is lost.So, you can have still full faith in Jesus that he's paid for all your sin because you failed to do that good work.
At least I think we we would agree that apostasy would bring you outside of the means of salvation.
say that someone who is justified will never commit apostasy, never abandon the faith altogether because scripture says that God keeps us to the end.
Right.Well, we don't we don't believe because we do.It's rather the opposite.We do because we believe.So, then um let me pose it this way.
I want to give a shout-out to Logos.So, Logos is a Bible study app that can help you learn the scripture deeper.Not only does it have AI that's backed by thousands of Christian books and thousands of theologians where it's pulling data from, but it can actually go into the scriptures and teach you what the original Greek or Hebrew say.It can make you get deeper with your study.So, if you're interested in it, go to the description of this video and check out their free trial.It's a great way to see that this is a powerful tool and you will be so grateful that you're using it because it can help you get deeper and deeper with your study.Now, let's get back to the debate.
Let's say that you believe it's going to rain tomorrow, right?You're you're reading the weather app, the forecast for it, you believe it's going to rain.Does that not change your behavior and how you're going to act in accordance with this knowledge, right?
Likely it won't.But at the same time, you may know it's going to rain today, be like, "But I'm going to go out there anyway.I couldn't be bothered having an umbrella."And you may be just have to deal with that a little bit.But in terms of the prompt, it is Does the Bible teach that believing in Jesus is sufficient for eternal life?The Bible never teaches that you forfeit salvation if you miss a Sunday of mass, right?So,
Bible it say that.um, scripture speaks about different types of sin.And so, we know that sin all sin is wrongdoing, but we know that there's some sin that is deadly.And so, that indicates that there are mortal sins.And then, we also read in scripture that whoever doesn't keep whoever says that they know God, but don't keep the commandments, then they are a liar.So, going back to the, um, the Sunday Eucharist, we are told to keep the commandments, which one of them is the Lord's Day.And we understand as Catholics faith is an act of an ascent of the mind and a consent of the will.And we understand that faith and faithfulness are like two sides of the same coin.And that the difference is is that if you don't have faith, that doesn't mean that means that it's disobedience.That's how we understand it that we're disobeying abiding Christ.
Just a couple things you said there.So, you said there are some sins that are mortal.And so, 1 John chapter 5 verses 16 and 17 talks about there are some sins that that that that kill you.And I would see that as some sins actually physically kill you.We see some people abusing the Lord's Supper and therefore they died.Ananias and Sapphira lied about how much money they were giving to the church in Acts 5, God struck them down dead.Right?So, I don't think anywhere in the past is necessitates that it's talking about a loss of salvation.You mentioned about the commandments teach we have to keep the commandments.The commandments teach that you got to remember the Lord's Day.The commandments don't teach that.You have to keep the Sabbath.Yeah, the Sabbath and the Lord's Day are two different days.If you look at Exodus 20:8 remember the Sabbath day, which we know is Saturday.
The Lord's Day we know is Sunday.And so, that there's no commandment for us to have to go to church on Sunday in particular.And so, that's why I would see it's going beyond scripture to basically create a tradition of man and make it binding on your salvation.It's not a tradition of man and keep in mind too the the canon of the Bible wasn't established until about 360.What was it?364 AD?So, before then all you had was tradition.All Christians had was tradition before the official canon of the
No, that's incorrect.
We see that even Peter refers to Paul's writings.So, Paul's writings were written already and and Peter's like, "Hey, people some people twist it as they do the other scriptures."That's 2 Peter 3:15 and 16.And so therefore it's not like these guys like we don't we don't have any of God's revelation.They had the Old Testament all complete and by the end of the first century the entire New Testament
of the first the first century, right?
Yeah, and so therefore even if they didn't have the New Testament, let's say you lived even before Christ um came.Like let's say um maybe the year Jesus was born you lived at that time.Well, you still had the Old Testament which according to 2 Timothy 3:15 is still able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.And so in terms of the prom
Old Testament was complete including the Deuterocanonical texts.
But in terms of the prom
Christ read and never denied.
Okay, but in terms
I have a question actually.Um, kind of bringing this back to the premise if I can.
Yeah.
Um it what verse in the Bible would you say teaches that once you receive salvation that you can no longer lose it?
Yeah, good question.I'll go to first of all Romans 5:1 which says, "Therefore, since we've been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ."It talks about the sufficiency of believing.And then verse nine it says "I since therefore been justified by his blood much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God."So, it's basically an argument from the greater to the lesser.So, if justification's already happened for a believer then much more you know are they going to be saved from the wrath of God that's to come.So, it's a guarantee.
We see in script well first of all as Catholics we believe that we are saved by God's grace.It's initial justification and what we're supposed to do is repent, receive, and remain.And we remain with him by not being disobedient to him by following his like instructions.And
That would be a I would see that as a performance view of salvation, though.Because like if I was baking a cake by myself, um then I get all the glory um for the cake.If my friend baked it, he gets all the glory.But if me and my friend did a joint effort, he did a bit of the work, I did a bit of the work, could we cooperated, we both get the glory, we kind of share in the glory there.And in regards to salvation, I see salvation as a work of the Lord.Um salvation's of the Lord, yeah.Which means it's not based on our cooperation, our works, and our obedience.
Can someone do before you consider them not having genuine faith?Like at what point
My judgment of someone else's salvation is going to be fallible.So that's why I don't make pronouncements of of like
the one um who's this is their
But in terms of let's say
one who's changed the the belief that the church has had for over 2,000
no, not at all.This I'm my I'm going straight back to the beliefs from 2,000 years ago, scripture.
So are we.
All right.Well then if if you are, then you'll be able to show the prompt that believing in Jesus is not sufficient for eternal life.
But that's not what that's not what we believe.We believe that um belief in Jesus is sufficient for um eternal life, but I think that your belief your just what is it called?Definition of the word belief is incorrect.
I get the definition from the Bible itself.In Hebrews 11:1, it's for example, it defines faith this way.Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.So notice it's not being good enough, cooperating well enough, it's assurance of what's hoped for.So God's given us a promise, and we are just trusting his promise.
And we believe we are we have full belief that we full belief that Jesus Christ excuse me, Jesus Christ died on the cross for us.But one thing that we are not going to do is presuppose that I will never sin, that I will never turn my back on God.Cuz there could be a Christian, there has been histories of Christians, for example, Charles Templeton usually gets brought up.He was a Christian for majority of his life, an evangelist would bring people to the church.Um I believe to work with Billy Graham, and then he decided to become an agnostic, and then turn away.Was his faith a total lie the entire time?
Yes, because 1 Corinthians chapter 1 verse 8 tells us that God will sustain you to the end guiltless in the day of our Lord.
He will stay, but we can leave him.
No, he didn't say that.He will sustain you to the end guiltless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.So, it's not dependent upon our goodness, our working.It's dependent on God sustaining us.It actually says he keeps us in Jude verse 1.
tell us not to sin?Why does it tell us to keep his
Great question.Why do
I actually
I have a
I have a verse that
why
have a verse that I find kind of interesting, which is
While you're While you're While you're finding that, cuz you asked why did God give the commandments?And then you can say your verse.So, the commandments were given, Romans 3:20, to bring the knowledge of sin, to make us It's like a mirror, to show us how dirty we are.Wow, I've broken God's law so many times.To show us why we need Jesus, so I can put my trust in him.But, it's also then acting as a guide for how we should live now.Because I love Christ I'm saved by Christ.I can't go to hell cuz he died Jesus died for my sin.Do I want to now sin against the Lord he died for me?No, I want to try and avoid that
because I love my savior.
Because you don't want to damage the relationship between you and Christ.So, and again I have to I have to caution you
Because Can I just say that's not the reason why?You said that's that's not the reason why I do it.The reason I do it is I do it cuz I just love Christ.I know that I can do nothing that's going to make him kick me out.Just like my wife and I promised to each other we're never going to leave each other.No matter what happens.So, does that mean I'm going to now do bad things towards my wife because she's promised that?No, I I love her and because I've received so much love from her.
So, if you were to do bad things against your wife, you would damage that relationship, even though
Interesting thing is this, is that it would not break the marriage because it's no matter what.There's We're never divorcing.That's what we've promised.And so, with the promise God's made to us, he says, "My sheep hear my voice, and they follow me, and they will I I they I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one willsnatch
One thing to distinguish um like your the view of from the view of God um to the view of of men.So, do you think that from the view of God, he he will he foreknows all those who will will be saved?
Yeah, he knows everything and from the beginning.Yeah, yeah.
Um, but do you think from the perspective of of like ourselves and other people, um, we we would it would seem to us that we are lose it like losing our salvation?
No, I think from our perspective, if if someone is genuinely trusting in Christ, they will never lose their salvation.
Do you think you could ever apostatize?
No.
You think it's impossible?
Yeah, it's impossible because God's given me a new heart and new desires.So, therefore, I would just never do it.Just like God would never lie.Cuz he's just it's just it's against his nature.God's given us we're a new creation in Christ.The old is gone.The new has come, which means believers never abandon.God keeps us.
If somebody is a Christian for their whole life and then when they're 50, they they apostatize, would you say that they're they they they never actually had any love of Christ at all?
Love?They might have a love, but not believing it.They weren't genuinely
no belief?
Because well, they weren't not genuine faith at least because 1 John 2:19 says they went out from us because they weren't really of us.Cuz if they were, they would have remained with us.So, I just want to make clear that Jesus is the good shepherd.I love this metaphor in John 10.He's the good shepherd.And it says that with with a good shepherd, he doesn't let
She do work for the shepherd as well.So,
But the the purpose of a shepherd is to look after the sheep.All right?And and so, a good shepherd never lets his sheep walk off a cliff.Always preserves them, keeps them safe.And if a sheep did walk off a cliff, it's actually the shepherd's fault, not not the sheep's.
What denominations would you say are saved and what are and what denominations aren't?
It's not about denominations.It's about the individual.
Would you say Would you say Catholics are saved?I think there are some Catholics who say
Why only some?
Or just like I think it's
I have a belief in Jesus Christ as most as everyone in this room does.And so, is that not enough?Is it okay that I still go to mass?Is it okay that I still pray my rosary?
pray with Catholics for instance.
that that is wrong?And so then therefore is that making me is that sin so bad that it would take me from God?
because you pray the rosary, it's not because you go to mass.Those things don't determine because I I think there could be saved people who do those things and and they're going to heaven, right?But it's what you're trusting in to get you to heaven.Like if I was to ask you personally, why do why do you think you're going to heaven?What would you say?
If Sorry.
So if God asked you why should I let you into heaven, what would you say to him?
Well, I'm a Catholic in practice.I'm always trying.I go to confession to keep his commandments.And I honor him on Sunday and also I believe that grace was a gift to us.
Yeah, I appreciate that answer.And I appreciate that answer but notice in that answer you it shows that your trust is actually in yourself.You're a Judean.I do this, I do that.
Um he gave me a free gift.I can choose to reject it.Where does it say that I can't reject it?
Yeah, and so the difference between what your answer would be and what I would say to God is simply I'm going to heaven because Jesus died for my sins.Not about not about my obedience.I'm a I'm a terrible person.I've sinned but Jesus died for
Salvation is the ultimate goal of of life, right?That we are here.We're searching for something.Somebody could say your God comes, I'll give you a hundred billion dollars, trillion dollars, all the money in the world or salvation.You You'd pick salvation ten times out of ten, a hundred times out of a hundred.So to say that you have salvation and can't lose it is an is the ultimate statement of pride.
Unless it's based on the promise of God.
That's the opposite of humility.
It would be arrogance if it was based on him and not on me.So it would be arrogance if it was based on my obedience.But the reason why it's not prideful for me to say I'm a hundred percent sure I'm going to heaven is because it's based on the promises of God.If God promised eternal life to anyone who believes, if I believe then I've got eternal life.
This section focuses on certainty of salvation, apostasy, and whether true believers can fall away. The discussion includes Judas, warning passages, and whether faith alone can guarantee eternal life.
My next prompt is that Catholicism leaves people with a lack of certainty that they're going to heaven.What I'm contending with this prompt is that because and under Catholicism your salvation is dependent upon avoiding mortal sins and mortal sins being having full knowledge of deliberate consent, you know, it's and all those sort of things andit's a grave matter.There's trickiness here in knowing whether something that something is done with full full consent whether it be deliberate, is it grave, there's some there's some nuance and trickiness there about whether an action was actually mortal.
Can I interject?
Yeah, sure.
Um Catholics do not base their salvation off of the avoidance of mortal sin.We base our salvation off of the pursuing of grace, right?So we base off our Oh my gosh.We base our salvation off of a faith formed by charity.We get this from Galatians 5:6 where it says neither circumcision or uncircumcision is of any avail but faith working through love.
Yeah.
That's what we believe.We don't believe we have to avoid mortal sin.
What's that?
So I would, you know
Yeah, that verse simply talks about what what matters in the Christian life.It's not whether you've been circumcised or not.Matters with faith and I agree that faith does lead to works.But you you were saying that mortal sin avoiding mortal sins, I would think you would agree with me that that is a necessary thing to avoid mortal sin to remain to remain in a state of grace.Is that correct?
Yes, but it's not merely so.It's not merely so.We're not merely here to run away from sin cuz
At least at least
At least it's part of it.That's something
Right.
This is one aspect.You have to avoid mortal sins to remain in a state of grace.And so there's sins of commission and the sins of omission.You understand the difference?Yeah.So sins of commission like uh don't murder, don't lie, don't commit adultery.That's sins of commission.Sins of omission are things like God obliges you to do this.You must, for example, we talked about the mass one already.But you also go to the days of fasting, right?Certain parts of the world every Friday you got to abstain from meat, and during Lent, you guys have to abstain from meat in certain days.Uh giving to the material needs of the Catholic Church would be also be one of those deeds.
Well, Matthew 25 uh has Jesus separating the goats from the sheep based on if they're feeding the sick, if they're visiting the homeless, or I don't know the exact wording here, but he bases um who will be throwninto the pits of hot uh fire and who will be saved based on their works.
I actually disagree with you on that.In Matthew 25 31 to 46 that the uh the story of
sheep and the goats.If you read the very first three verses, it says he comes he's going to come back one day, he's going to separate the sheep from the goats.He's going to place the sheep on his right and the goats on the left.So, we already see in the very first three verses of that story, the separation happened before he looked at their works.The separation was based on were they a sheep or were they a goat?The works that he then looks at are an evidence on Judgment Day of whether someone is the sheep or the goat.It's not the basis of why he's sending them to hell.
Yeah, I'd I'd like to go um back more particularly to to the prompt because I think um the way you stated the prompt, I think that is true.Uh it also does leave people with a lack of certainty of their salvation, but I think what what's included uh what you might uh be thinking but but not saying is that that's uh wrong or like bad.Is that Is that correct?
Okay, I appreciate that you you admit that it does When I speak to Catholics all the time, they say, "Yeah, I'm not 100% sure I'm going to heaven."I assume What about you guys?Would you say you're 100% guaranteed going to heaven on
The Catechism states that I have moral certitude of salvation through the sacraments.I have an objective external anchor to salvation.
certain though that
I have a moral certitude of salvation through the sacraments.
just
How do you quantify how sure you are of salvation exactly?
Yeah, it's it's not you're you're not completely certain of your salvation.
I appreciate that.
And uh I mean, the thing is that's the case even I I to bring up this point at the Last supper when Christ uh prophesied that someone would betray him.And he says it would be better if they were never born.The apostles questioned each other.They said, "Master, is that me?Is that me?"So, they were questioning whether or not it was going to be them being thrown into hell.Even Judas himself, he says, "You're not talking about me, are you?"So, if the apostles themselves questioned whether or not they were going to be the center of the son of perdition or the guy getting thrown to hell, being the um the uh the prophesied person that ate the breadand betrayed Christ.
Okay, it doesn't say I It doesn't say in that passage that in that passage that man was going to hell.All it's simply saying is better that that man wasn't born.Why?Cuz to betray the son of God, what a wicked sin that is.It's not saying therefore that guy's definitely going to hell.I agree.In terms of In terms of Judas Iscariot, there's no record to say that he came to believe and and yes, we can assume that he went to hell.But in that context, it's not like they're thinking is it Am I going to go to hell?They weren't thinking that.And it doesn't mention that in Matthew itself.
Go to Judas specifically.Cuz in John chapter 15, Jesus says, um I no longer call you servants, call you my friends.And then he says, "I appointed you and chose you."And he lists out all these promises.In John 17, he says he protected them.Do you think that when he says he the friends
one?
The Right, he says one was lost.But he still refers to them as friends.Do you think he referred to Judas as a friend Excuse me, Judas as a friend?
Well, he washed his feet.Like Jesus could Well, he could call many people friends.
Of the promise the promise
But I don't think he made a promise to Judas Iscariot.
Okay, so when he said when he said friends and said I appointed you, he wasn't talking to Judas?
Depends.Appointed you to do what?What if not for salvation?Like I promised you salvation, Judas.You don't think he made a promise to
The pro When it not to him specifically, that's why I'm asking you cuz there's a bit of ambiguity there.He was talking in a general sense because he made the whole promises of abiding in him for life um that we're going to produce fruits like you said the branches and everything.So I'm I'm just trying to be clear.So like when he said you were my friends and he gave all these promises you'd say it was referring to everyone else just not Judas because Judas was the never saved.
Well, he actually says you are my friends if you do what I command you.Judas didn't do what he commanded.He we even see him stealing from John 12 he was stealing from Jesus helping himself to the money back.So we see throughout his life he was disobedient to Jesus evidencing he is that son of perdition as John 17 talks about.
Okay.So So I don't think we see this as somebody uh cuz back to the prompt can we have certainty of eternal life or are we unsure?I want to read this verse out to you guys and tell me tell me what you think.1 John 5:13 I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life.So according to this passage it says we can know we have eternal life.Uh under your view you couldn't know you have eternal life if at any time you could forfeit salvation.Correct?
Do you uh just out of curiosity do you think that you are uh certainly going to be saved?
100% going to heaven because I've been justified and much more will I be saved from the wrath of God.
And are there people who uh are very good Christians for 20 years and then leave Christianity?
There are people who profess to be Christians for a long time and leave Christianity but that evidence they weren't really belonging to him is 1 John 2:19.
So So were they lying or
Um some could be.Some could be.Like this is the thing my parents are doing my friends are doing so that they're doing it for that purpose and it's not really from the heart.Um it could be that I find a lot of people who profess to be Christians just don't understand the Christian message.You ask the average person about why they're going to heaven they'll say even this is Christians professing Christians cuz I'm a good person.That's what they point to.This is like 90%
Well I'm not I'm not talking about just uh somebody who thinks they're a good Christian.I'm I'm talking about somebody who who uh maybe by your standards would be like would be a great Christian.They go always go to church.They don't really commit that many sins.Do those sometimes do those people leave the faith?
Yeah, I would say that they could do many mighty works like the people in Matthew 7:22.Lord, Lord, I prophesied, cast out demons, and did many mighty works.They could be pastors of churches potentially, right?And notice what Jesus says.He says, "I never knew you.Depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.I never knew."Meaning they never had salvation.They were never in Christ.
Do they do they do they believe that they believe in Jesus?
So sure, there can be people
Okay, so So what is the difference between that person and you?
The object of their faith wasn't truly Christ's sacrifice alone.It was likely their own obedience to Jesus.And therefore, they've got the trust They're trusting in the wrong object.
And how do they How do they know that?Or how Yeah, how How do they know that they're putting their faith in the wrong thing?
question.What they should do is ask themselves the question, "Why do I think I'm going to heaven?"And if our answer starts off with because I, we're probably going astray.We're probably thinking it's about us and our obedience.Our answer should only be because of Jesus.
So if somebody answers that, is it impossible for them to fall away?
If somebody genuinely believes that from the heart, they have the Holy Spirit.As Ephesians 1:13 says and 14 says, it says the Holy Spirit is the guarantee of our eternal redemption.
How would I know if I genuinely believe that from the heart?
You can know what you're believing in.As Paul says in 2 Timothy 1 1:12, "I know whom I have believed, and I'm convinced that he's going to guard until that day what has been entrusted to me."
Can I respond to the prayer point you just made about abiding in him?Because you brought up Judas that he wasn't, you know, a true believer because he was stealing money and things like that.But Jesus still referred to him as friends.Let's go to first beginning of the chapter.He says, "You are my friends.You are the branches.Everyone that abides in me will have eternal life."And then he says, "Whoever abides in me and produces no fruit, he will be thrown into the fire."So, when it comes to Judas specifically, he's in that group referred to as friends.You'd say he never had that promise, but the thing is Jesus cuz like it could be like oh, it's a general sense.But the problem with that is Jesus explicitly calls Judas friend in Matthew 26:50.
Jesus said, "You are my friends if you do what I command you."And I think
He called him friend.
Well, because it you can in different ways.Like I can call my Muslim buddy a friend.So, he's just being rhetorical.No, no, because you can use different words in different ways.You know what I mean?You can say I can call you you're my brother.
Mhm.
Or my Muslim my friend I can call my brother.I don't mean brother in Christ with my Muslim friend.
Can you show me any others?
brother in Adam.Like Paul does the same thing.He in Romans 9
Mhm.
he calls his unbelieving Jewish people brothers.
Right.But real quick.
See that?
There's only two times in the New Testament where Jesus Excuse me, four times, two of them were parables.Where Jesus explicitly calls one person friend.Excuse me, three times.One of them was Judas, the other two were parables.If you're saying right, it's like a rhetorical thing.
No, I just think you're you're implying that if someone's a friend, they're saved.
Do you think Jesus doesn't save his friends?
Jesus
Does he condemn his friends?
makes it makes mine his salvation was called friendship with God.That's how it was referred to.
Well, he's called a friend.He was called a friend of God, but
So, does he condemn his friends?
Anyone who's in Christ is who say Anyone who's got their trust in Jesus.So, it depends what you're meaning.So, um so, no, like for example, we start off not as children of God.I Do you agree with that?
Yeah, it's
Okay, so we're like children of the devil in a way.Like
Born as a son, right?
Yeah, children of wrath.And then we get adopted in as children of God.That's usually the imagery.For those who received him, they adopted in as children of God.But And so, if you are a child of God, you're going to heaven.You got the Holy Spirit, guaranteed going.
Does that come with funds?
But, friend, no, you don't see anything like that of if someone is a friend, definitely have You don't see that anywhere.
So, so Jesus Wait, so
Cuz under your view, do you think that?Do you think Judas Iscariot, because he was classed as a friend, is going to heaven?
No.I think he lost his salvation.No, no, no, the the difference is you know, let me tell you I do believe he lost his salvation.The thing is Jesus said to his friends that he promised him these things.He said if they abide
Does it ever say that Judas truly believed in Christ?
It doesn't say that It doesn't So, here's the thing.Here's
No, because he said, "Have I not chosen you all, but one of you is a devil?"So, it was appointed for there to be one of Jesus' followers, one who would eat bread with him, who would lift up his heel against him.That's Old Testament stuff.
So, does that mean, right, when Jesus was speaking in this room of people, 12 apostles, um he gave them all of these promises, said, "You will have eternal life if you abide in me."He says, "You are the branches."And then I look at him.I say, "You are one of those.You are my friend."
are you thinking of, by the way?
Matthew 26:50.He explicitly calls Judas friend.So, with that in mind, are you basically telling me Jesus said all of that in front of him, he explicitly calls him friend, but oh, never mind, you're going to hell.
Because remember, I Is this is not a strong argument.Calling somebody a friend does not imply necessarily saved.
Does he call anyone else friend?
Well, we can see that
Besides Abraham?It's only Abraham and Judas, interestingly enough.
For example, Israel is called the beloved of God.
The friend.
No, no, but hold Beloved is actually
No, hold on.Can we please stick to friend?
Your your your case isn't strong because nowhere does it say friend equals salvation.
So, he didn't damn him as friend.
The term beloved is actually even closer than friend.If you're somebody's beloved, you're very close, even closer than friend.
But, Abraham is a friend.
and therefore, if Israel's called beloved, I don't think you believe everyone in Israel is all saved.
No, I'm not I'm not talking about the I'm talking about the friend.
And so, therefore, and so, therefore, you're you've got a weak argument cuz you can't pull one verse that says if you're called a friend you're saved.
It doesn't ask you to
You you do the same You do the same thing with children of God.You do the same thing.
if you're a child it says you're a co-heir with Christ.
So it's Romans 8.When Abraham right, Abraham was justified.He was called God's friend.Can he condemn him if he wanted to?
Well, it cuz he's justified no, he won't.Because if God has already pronounced the verdict it says in Romans 8:33 and 34, who is to condemn?If the judge has already made the pronouncement he's not going to condemn that person.
he keeps one of his friends but he condemns the other friend.
Listen, this is a different thing.The reason why Abraham's called a friend is cuz he did some things for God later on.He wasn't it wasn't because specifically he believed.He was justified cuz he believed.
Mhm.And that's totally different from being justified.
Being a friend is different to being justified.And this is a focus on how do we get peace with
You could be a friend without being justified.But I don't think you guys have I don't think you guys have dealt with the passage I read out to you.It says you can know you have eternal life.
Do you have an example of that?
We're not talking about can know.I just said that moral certitude of salvation.
The speakers examine Hebrews, Paul's warnings, and the role of commandments in the Christian life. They distinguish justification from sanctification and discuss why believers still avoid sin if salvation is secure.
Does moral certitude mean that you are 100% going to heaven?
No.
Then that's not that's not saying
quantify how sure you are of going to heaven.That doesn't make any sense.
Okay, well let's
It's a completely arbitrary
So, do you know for sure that you have eternal life?
I don't need to.
So your So your answer is Is your answer no?
I had eternal life I know that I would fall into sloth.
Okay, so that means you're implying you don't know.But this says we can know.
Cuz you don't know.You don't actually know.That's the thing.
The passage says I can know then that means I trust And the reason why I know is cuz God promised me eternal life.
May I have a question?
Just wait.Let me finish what I'm saying.God promised me eternal life and so if he's promised me eternal life, if I was to say God, I don't think I'm going to get eternal life, I'm calling God a liar.
He guaranteed to us that we will be saved if we abide in him.And there's many times in scripture where it speaks about abiding in him and that we will be um in accordance to our works.And we see that many times in scripture.And so I'm curious how you make sense of that with your understanding that if you don't abide in him that you still will be saved.
Yeah.Actually, I think everyone who goes to heaven has abided in Christ cuz abiding in Christ means just continuing to trust in him for your salvation.So therefore everyone who is saved continues to trust.And and therefore they are saved.And that's why they can know they have eternal life because God the God is out the author and the finisher of our faith as Hebrews 12:2 says.
I want to go back to the Judas example that was just previously talked about.So Judas betrayed Christ.Obviously, we don't disagree on that.There's still speculation around the motive, but one may say that Judas betrayed Christ because he did believe that Christ was the Messiah and he just wasn't happy with the direction he was going.He thought the Messiah would would you know stage the takeover.So but his faith in Jesus knowing that he was the Messiah led him to betray him.And I see a great parallel between your philosophy here and what Judas did in betraying Christ where you will say where Christ says not all who say Lord Lord will enter the kingdom of of heaven.And so on your deathbed you say I am 100% certain that I'm going to be saved because I trust in in Jesus.Um that is remarkably similar to the trust that Judas had in Jesus to to overcome the the cross.
And then you even see Judas you know he's sorrowful for what he did.He returned the money.He hung himself because of his guilt.Um
Okay.I appreciate what you're saying.I actually think you misunderstand my view if that's what you think.I don't think just affirming Jesus is the Messiah is going to going to save you.Muslims say they affirm Jesus is the Messiah.That's not going to save them.Um instead it's about resting in what he's done.So, he's promised, "I've paid for your sin.I'll take you safely to heaven."So, therefore, trusting in Jesus is "I will go to heaven cuz he's promised it to me and he's not going to let me down."
You're you're trusting in almost trusting in Jesus.It's it's almost another way of testing God.If I don't There's nothing I can do to harm the relationship.There's no sin I can commit.Uh, no sin too grave that will sever me from God.Well, that's directly contradictory to what Christ says.
anywhere that he had trust in Christ for his salvation paying for his sins or anything like that.So, he didn't have true faith.It as scripture uh, scripture never says he had true faith.Well, again, he he was one of the apostles.He left behind everything.He gave up his riches.He gave up his family.He gave up his life.He gave up his career.He gave up his reputation.He gave up his friends.He gave up his family.He gave up his life.He gave up his career.He gave up his reputation.He gave up his friends.But, in the case of the apostles, he left behind everything.He gave up his riches.You can have people do many mighty works and Jesus said, "I never knew you."Not that they were saved and lost it.They were never saved and they did mighty works.
They were casting out demons in Jesus' name even.But, you said, um, you know, this would be maybe arrogance or something like that, but it's how promises work.When God promised to Noah after the flood, "I'll never flood the earth again.It's going to be" he promises to Noah, the animals, and the earth as a covenant he made.Now, it wasn't contingent on Noah's faithfulness.There was never going to be a flood again in that scale because of the promise of God.And so, 1 John 2:25 tells us, "This is the promise he made to us, eternal life."So, therefore, I don't have to make a promise to God of "I'll be good enough now and so let me in."It's "You've promised to justify a bad person like me.I trust to Jesus that you've done that.Therefore, I go to heaven."
Well, again, you you we don't we don't believe because we do.And in the case with Noah, he did because he believed.
Yeah, but you missed the point of the the the the covenant was not based on him having to build an ark.It's after the flood, God says, "I will never flood the earth again."And there were no stipulations on Noah's part.He didn't have to do anything for there not to be a global flood ever again.Do you agree with that?
He You do anything.Well, yeah, it's all in God's grace.
So therefore, so therefore you can have a covenant.We call it a unilateral covenant, which is a one-way covenant, where it's one party promising to the other, and the other party doesn't have to make another promise back to them.It's one-way covenant.So do you understand that?
If Noah did not fulfill the will of God, would he be saved?
No, in terms of the covenant was not about say of salvation for Noah.It was that there would be no flood ever again.So do you agree that no matter what would happen with Noah, there would never be a global flood ever again?
Sure, I I agree with that.
There we go.That's a one-way covenant, and that's what salvation is.It's a covenant, it's a promise from God to us.Never in scriptures does it say make a promise back to him that you'll do this or that for him.
He instructs us to keep the commandments.Yeah.And then we also see that during the time of Paul when earlier on in his ministry, not when he was on his way to die, but he mentions that he needs to discipline himself.He needs to preach.But then later on, he said and he says because he may be disqualified.And later on when he was on his way to die, he's writing a letter to Timothy, and he says that he has ran the race.And so how do we How do you reconcile that with your understanding that salvation is not a process, that it's a one-time thing, and that it's not something that continues for your life and then until it's final justification?
First Corinthians 10:12, but anyone who thinks he stands let's take heed lest he fall.
And the context of that is simply about temptation.So anytime you're tempted, um don't think I don't I can let my guard down because you're probably going to fall, right?But in terms of your what your question was
So you can fall?
Fall into sin.Doesn't mean fall out of grace and go to hell.That's a misunderstanding.
What is talking about that context?What is falling into sin mean?What does that do?
whenever you tell you swear, you've just fell into sin.You've just by by using unwholesome language, you've you're violating Ephesians 4:29, and so therefore you've fallen into sin.
We classify a swear word as anything you'll say.
What's the problem
can understand your question because you had a good question.And that is Paul does say he's run the race in 2 Timothy 4:7-8.And but he actually then says in verse 18 that I know the Lord will take me safely into his heavenly kingdom.So, he wasn't unsure.He was 100% sure.
2 Timothy you're saying?
In 2 Timothy 4:18.
that point he had already like I'm I'm saying that yes, he's at the end of his life that he's lived a good life and he knows that he's abided by his um he has turned away from sin, hasrepented, and continued in the commandments to this point.And so he knows that he has not fallen away.
But under the Catholic view, even if he's near the end of his life, I mean he's maybe got a couple years left or something before he dies, he could do a mortal sin right before he dies and goto hell under the Catholic view.But on Paul's view, he says the Lord will take me safely to heaven.And this is not just 2 Timothy.He says the same thing in 2 Corinthians, which is decades earlier before 2 Corinthians uh 2 Timothy.And he mentions the same thing that the Lord will raise me up and I will be in his presence in chapter 4.And so then when he says in 1 Corinthians you quote 1 Corinthians 9 he says, "I discipline my body and keep it under control lest after preaching to others I myself will be disqualified."He The context is clear.He's not talking about disqualified from salvation, but disqualified from reward and ministry effectiveness.
He says, "I become all things to all men that I can save as many people as possible cuz I want I I run to win the prize."And the prize is the reward and ministry effectiveness.If he's just like carrying on and doing like bad stuff, people aren't going to listen to them anymore.
2 Timothy that's what he's saying.
2 Timothy also says he who denies him will be denied before the Father.And uh would it not be so to define denying Christ as not abiding by his will?
Uh no, I'd say denying Christ is to just not have trust in Christ, to reject him altogether.And yeah, if you deny if you reject Christ altogether, you're going to hell.
So again with the the example of if you believe it's going to rain and you don't take the necessary precautions uh to avoid the rain, you're not going to be saved of the rain, right?So if if you believe it's going to rain, and you don't properly prepare, you don't bring an umbrella, you don't cancel the picnic that you're going to have outdoors, right?You're not You're still going to be in the rain.You're not going to be saved from it.
Okay, but the rain to come in your analogy is the wrath of God, judgment day, right?
Right.
And how we're protected from that judgment day is by being in Christ, by having him as our refuge.And Jesus does invite people, you believe in me, you're not going to perish, you're going to have eternal life.And so, if he's Jesus Christ himself has promised that to me
Abide in me and keep my commandments.
he actually says, John 3:16, "Whoever believes in me will not perish, but have eternal life."So, therefore, if you say all the verses that you bring up
are not contradictory to our view.
They actually are, because it talks about the sufficiency of believing.
we bring up are directly contradictory.
somebody believes in Jesus Christ,
Uh-huh.
but then they don't fast on Ash Wednesday.
But, again, what does it mean to fast?
they they they therefore No, they've got their trust in Jesus.So, as in they're in Christ.Like, Jesus is the one who paid for all my sins.So, they've got that genuine faith.
Right.
That person can know they have eternal life, even if they don't fast on Ash Wednesday.Under your view, no, they're going to hell.They didn't fast on Ash Wednesday.
Leave Leave for a God's sake.But, I do have a question continuing John 3.
mortal sin.
If you read John Well, there there are different things to commit a mortal sin.You have to have full knowledge
I I said that before.And I'm saying if this person willfully chooses to not fast on Ash Wednesday, under the Catholic view, they've lost their salvation if they die at that point in time.I don't believe
I I don't I wouldn't argue that that's a a a a mortal sin.
It's considered one of the five precepts, and they are the very bare minimum obligations that a Catholic needs to
I do have a question that continuing John 3.Um there's a verse that says, "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever disobeys the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains upon him."
Beautiful verse, by the
Yes.So, what does it mean to disobey?
Yeah, so the first part of the verse gives us the understanding of what the disobey is.In the gospel message itself, there is the call to believe in Jesus.And if you believe in Jesus, the first part of the verse says you'll have eternal life.
Yes.
And so, therefore, if you reject
therefore, if someone says, "I hear the call to believe in Jesus.I don't want to believe in him."and they're atheists or whatever, well, then they've disobeyed Jesus.They've disobeyed the call to believe in him, so therefore, they go to hell.That's why you even have certain translations translate that as whoever rejects the son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains upon him.Now, I just had a quick question.Do you believe that avoiding sin is a work?It would be obedience to the law, to the law of God, and the Bible says that if you seek to be justified by the law, you're under a curse because it cursed is everyone who does not abide byall things written in the book of the law and do them.So, I would say Catholicism does say paragraph 2068 of the Catholic Catechism, "All men may attain salvation through faith, baptism, and the observance of the commandments."
And so, since they're making law a necessary thing for keeping justification, they're ordinary means, ordinary they make that you're actually under a curse because if you're honest with yourself, you know that you don't keep the law.You don't keep it as good as you ought to at least.I don't either.I don't either.I'm thinking of the Hebrews 10 where it says those who do not abstain from sinning will not have a sacrifice for them.That's not not exactly what the verse says.Yeah, I get what you're I know what you're trying to refer to.If you look in the context of Hebrews 10 there, the sin he's talking about is the sin of rejecting Jesus Christ.He's contrasting the animal sacrifices in verse 4 which can never take away sin and the once for all perfect sacrifice of Jesus dying for your sin.And so, he says verse 23, I love this.
Hebrews 10:23, "Let us hold fast our confession of our hope without wavering for he who promised is faithful.So, therefore, it's it's an encouragement to keep believing.Keep trusting in Jesus."And then verse 26 says, "For if we go on sinning deliberately after coming to a knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sin."So, the sin in the context is talking about the sin of rejecting Jesus.If you go and say, "Look, I don't want the sacrifice of Jesus.I want to go back to the animals or something else."then you've got no sacrifice, so you're ending up
Can I Can I Can we continue reading that, actually?So, Hebrews 10:26.For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful prospect of judgment and fury of fire, which will consume the adversaries.Anyone who has violated the law of Moses died without mercy at the testimony of the two or three witnesses.And then this part that I like to continue to.How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified and outraged the spirit of grace.He was sanctified and he rejected God.
Okay.So, first of all, sanctified doesn't always have to refer to salvation cuz you have an unbelieving partner in 1 Corinthians 7 as described as being sanctified even in their unbelieving.So, sanctified just means set apart.But, in that context of what I think he's getting at is this is a warning There's a few warning There's six warning passages in Hebrews.This is one of them.I love it.This is a really good passage.These are conceivable warnings in the mind of a believer that if I just say, "I I want to give up on Jesus and I become an atheist."What's going to happen?I will go to hell and my punishment would be would be so bad cuz I would claim to be a Christian for long.I'd be at massive punishment.So, he was So, therefore, what it is is a warning passage to keep the believing believing.
So, therefore, it's not that a true believer will ever abandon the faith cuz scripture says that he keeps us till the end, but this is the very means that God's going to use.He uses the warnings to keep us in the faith.So, it sounds like salvation in your
view is a very easy thing to attain.It's very very easy to say
for Jesus, but free to us.
So, then why does Paul say you have to work out your salvation in fear and trembling?
Yeah, so he's talking about sanctification there that So, he cuz he said "You don't He's not saying to work for your salvation.
just believing in Jesus.
sanctification different to justification.So, justification is how you have peace with God, so you can go to heaven.Sanctification is your growing in wholeness, becoming more like Jesus daily.And so, Paul there is talking about two two believers.He's saying they've already got salvation, so now work it out.Do works in accordance with the salvation you've got.He's not saying work for your salvation.If I told you, "You you got some muscles there.Work out Work out your muscles and lift this heavy table for me."I'm not saying lift the table to get muscles.You've already got them.You're just now working them and using them for a good purpose.And so, we have salvation once we believe in Jesus.So, Paul's saying, "Now use it.Do good stuff with your
you don't use those gifts for evil, even if you believe in Jesus?
Well, we all do evil at different even Paul and Peter, they sinned at different times.Even James says we all stumble in many ways.James 3:2.So, we're not perfect.
So, they can kill and will go to heaven as long as we believe in God.
But in 1 John 2:1 it says, "I write these things to you I write these things so that you may not sin.But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous."So, don't sin.Sin is terrible.But even in when you do slip up, Jesus is still your advocate.He's still Why Why is sin terrible?
Then what's the point of
Because it's the breaking of God's law.
Right.Then why do you have to keep God's law?
Well, because I
If all you have to do is believe in Jesus, why do you have to not break his law?
If my parents said to me, "No matter what you do, Ryan, I we're never going to disown you."I'm not going to say, "All right, let's now do bad things against my parents."No.Because I know how much love they've shown to me, I just want to do anything for them.
The topic shifts to whether Christians should pray to Mary, with arguments over the meaning of prayer and biblical examples of intercession. They discuss angels, saints, and whether heaven's inhabitants can hear earthly prayers.
The Bible does not teach that Christians should pray to Mary.All right.Yeah, so I in in scripture
Mhm.
I see consistently that we are told to pray without ceasing.Prayer is a beautiful thing.But who we're told to pray to is God.All right, I I think of the Lord's Prayer here Matthew chapter 6 verse 9.Pray then like this and then he says, "Our Father in heaven."And that's the same thing as what the Apostle Paul says when he says, "Don't be anxious about anything."in Philippians 4:6.He says, "But by prayer and supplication with Thanksgiving, let your requests be made known to God."
Right.
And so, consistently scripture seems to command and instruct us to pray to God, never to Mary.
Respectfully, I think we're starting off on a false premise to begin with because I want to start by asking you how you define the word prayer.I think we have different definitions for that word.
Sure.I would see prayer as beyond just asking.Like when I go to In-N-Out Burger and say, "I would like a double-double."I'm not praying to the the person at the counter.And when I say to my dog, "Sit, I'm about to feed you."I'm not praying to my dog.And so, I think it's more than just asking.I would say that prayer is this means of communication between humans and the divine.
Mhm.
With God.And And so, therefore, it's like a almost you could see it as like a walkie-talkie that God says, "Look, my ear's open to you.Jesus is your is the one who's the mediator between you and God.And so, therefore, my ear's open to your prayer.And so, we should use that walkie-talkie and speak directly to him, not divert it to other people."
Is your claim that the Bible always conflates the word prayer with worship?
Uh not that it not that they mean the same thing, but I would say that prayer every time I pray, it's always worship.
Mhm.
Um because it's an act of submission to my Lord.And in prayer, it's great to adore him and just thank him for everything he's given and also just to recognize I'm not in control, he is.And so, I bring my requests to him.
Mhm.Of course, we know the Greek language is insanely um detailed and the English language does not cover what we need to know.Um for example, there are eight different forms of love in Greek and we just have that one term for it, love, and it's so complex.And I'm curious what you think about Matthew 4:10.It uses two different words for worship.It says, "You shall worship the Lord your God, and him alone shall you serve."
Right.
It separates the clause with the Greek chi to say that there are two independent clauses with two different meanings, and it uses the word proskuneo to say, "You shall proskuneo the Lord your God, and and him alone shallyou latreuo."And proskuneo is also used, if you look at the Septuagint, in Genesis 33:3, when um when Esau is bowing to Jacob seven times, and we can see that even Christ commands in Revelation, um the synagogue of Satan toproskuneo at the feet of the disciples.
is also relation to Christ.So, when the disciples they calmed the storm, and they proskuneo Jesus.Now, and what does it translate?It's worship.So, that I think the word proskuneo can in different contexts means different things.When it's in a religious sense, it means worship.When it's in just like a greeting respect sense, like you mentioned with Jacob and Esau, that's not religious worship.
Yeah.
It's just like obeisance, you would say.
Yeah, it can certainly be used referring to God, which that would be worship as we would understand it.Um but it makes that clear distinction of worship reserved for God alone, which is why Catholics separate that word into three different categories, latria, dulia, and hyperdulia.We can see hyperdulia in Luke 1.It's the first indication of Mary being venerated, um saying, "Blessed are you among women.How How am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me?"These sorts of things.
And so, those three levels of worship aren't specifically a scriptural distinction.That's more just a Catholic church distinction.
Sure, sure.
And how does this relate though to praying to Mary?I'm curious where you're going with this.
And I I think the as you were saying, like the that the Bible doesn't explicitly mention to us for us to pray to Mary, which I can agree to an extent for sure.But I think overall in the encompass and the entirety of scripture, it does come to the conclusion where we that they are aware of what is happening on Earth.I think one of the first things we should get into is angelical intercession that the angels that are aware of what is happening on Earth.I would just bring up like some of the verses cuz like there's two in the New Testament and then there's one in the Old Testament.
Would you say there's a difference between an angel and a human being?
Yes, there is.I got two.I got both.So, which is why I'm going to
The angels obviously Hebrews 1:14 they're sent to serve us.So, they can be around us right now.There might be angels we don't know yet, right?
I think I'll I'll set up first with with the angels that they are able to intercede and be aware of what is happening on Earth and then go with the humans and then we'll just
But they're not omnipresent either.Like angel can be in one spot at one time.He's not like a particular angel is not every single place at the same time.
God would provide insight for that individual.
Yeah, but in terms of like we don't have the names of all these angels, say God sent an angel to be here today.He's here and therefore he's not in Los Angeles.
Right, the the how they're able to receive all their prayers at once is another is another question that we can
even talking about receive.I'm just saying just in terms of their local their locality is one location at a time.I assume you'd agree with that.
I would question it.
Okay.
I would.In materiality is something that Well, it's not material.It's
Right, but omnipresence isn't that a res
Omnipresence is
reserved for God.
Yeah, and that is reserved for God.But that is reserved for God's nature.That doesn't mean that the angel is everywhere at one time.But it can be in multiple places at once.
Well, whether a a singular angel can be in multiple places at once or that's I'd have to see scripture scripture doesn't say that.
No, I will go in I will go into scripture.For example, in the Old Testament verse Zechariah.Then the angel of the Lord said, "O Lord of hosts, how long will you withhold mercy from Jerusalem and the cities of Judah with when you have been angry with for 7 years.This is an angel pleading to God, "How long are you going to withhold your mercy from the cities of Judah?"This is an example of an angel interceding for the for human beings on their behalf, speaking to God or praying to God or whatever the case.So, and then in Matthew in the New Testament, Jesus make mentions, "Take care that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I tell you in heaven there are angels continuously seeing the face of the Fatherin heaven."This is Jesus saying that do not despise one of these little ones.
Do not do anything to these little ones.This is right after the "Do not cause a little ones to stumble."Cuz whatever you do to these little ones, the angel is also going to kind of kind of get guardian angels, where the angel will see what's happening to the little one, and he will intercede for them cuz hesees the face of the Father.That's
say that they'll intercede.It doesn't say that.That's adding it.It just says "See that you despise them, for their angels always look at the face of the Father in heaven."
Cuz who's saying How is the Father going to find out?
But I have I have no issue with this if angels are communicating with God.I've got no issue with that myself.So, that's not a point of contention.It's more so do we as human beings should we pray to Mary?
Yeah.
Can I jump in there?So, where in scripture doesn't mention that at death we're not able to inter- ask for prayers for other people or pray to God to or ask for prayers in general?
So, in terms of what's in the afterlife about what can people do what I think if someone's a believer they go to to presence of the Lord.Paul speaks about that, you know, when you are absent with your body you're at home with the Lord.And Paul longed to be absent from this body and and with Jesus.And so, then in terms of what they're doing, we don't have the full details.It is in God's presence.
So, you would say that we just don't know?
Well, in terms of all the details of what the believers in heaven are doing right now.We do see a small picture in like
We do see
Revelation 6:9.I'll give you an example when it says that the martyrs who got killed they're saying, "How long, oh Lord?"So, they are talking to God here.It's how long, oh Lord, until you judge and avenge our blood and those who dwell on the earth.So, I have no problem with that.
provides them the information.
Well, he just said, "Yeah, wait wait until the full amount of people are martyred like you are."But, that this prompt is more so about humans who are here on this earth communicating with Mary.
How how do you feel about Well, like if if the righteous if their prayer if their prayers are more um efficacious I think I believe that would be the word.
So, James 5, you're talking about with Elijah, a prayer of a righteous man avail with much.
We know that um the prayers of the righteous I mean, like those in heaven are the most righteous of all of us, correct?How does that make sense that God would disconnect us from the most faithful whose prayers would be much most righteous?
think when he's talking about there, he's talking about he's talking about Elijah.Elijah wasn't in heaven.He was on the earth and he wasn't a perfect man.You know, we don't think the prophets were perfect.Um and so therefore, Elijah would have sinned at different times even as a believer in the Lord.But, he was righteous by faith.He he trusted the Lord.And so, if we trust the Lord, we put our trust in Jesus to save us, we're considered righteous.He we're called holy brothers um in like Colossians 3:12, therefore holy brothers, you who share in a heavenly calling.Um you see those sort of passages.So then, I think I if I'm righteous, not inherently but because of Christ's righteousness given to me, the Lord is open to my prayers.And so then, he's not like, "Okay, those up in heaven, they're more valuable cuz they're already up in heaven compared to the believers on the earth."
No, I'd say equally as valuable because both been declared righteous.
Well, the people who are in heaven, there are scriptures that mentions that they are aware of what is going on on earth.I think one of them will be in the Old Testament with Samuel when Saul tried to conjure up Samuel committing necromancy.Samuel comes up and he was aware that Saul was trying to commit necromancy to pull him up.He comes up, why are you disturbing me, and then rebukes him.And then later on in the New Testament with the transfiguration where Elijah and Moses were aware of what Jesus was doing on Earth.This is during the time where the apostles didn't even fully understand, but Moses and Elijah were understanding of what Jesus was going to was going to do in Jerusalem.So, we have instances where people in heaven or people who are dead, whether it's in the Old Testament or in the New Testament.
I can even bring up Abraham in the rich man and the rich man and Lazarus.But, we have instances where people are dead.And especially the one with Abraham because Abraham was already dead for a while, and he knew the life of the rich man, and he knew the life of Lazarus and pointed it out that you you had everything, richman.Lazarus had nothing.And at this point, Abraham was already dead for a couple centuries cuz they already had the notes or the writings of the prophets and Moses.
Much more than a couple centuries.
Right.
It's like 2,000 years.
Right.Right.Right.He's already He's already gone for a while is is my point in that he was aware of the life of the rich man.
I have no issue with that.So, that's not even a point of disagreement, either.I think the people up in heaven, God can be communicating.Whether they can directly look at everything going on, that's we're not sure about.At least they can have some knowledge.I have no issue with that.Doesn't mean that they're all-knowing.I don't think we ever become all-knowing.
Of course not.
If they know what's going on Earth, that is a fraction of knowledge compared to the infinite knowledge of God.If they can know what's happening on Earth, that doesn't mean they're all-knowing.
everywhere on Earth.It could just be specific instances.What do what do whatever God
Whatever God provides.
Maybe, yeah.Whatever God It's about It's still if scripture itself never tells us to go and pray to Mary or the saints and the examples of the godly men and women in scripture, every time they pray, it's always to God.Like Paul in Colossians 1:3, he says um I thank my I thank God the Father.He's telling us specifically who he's praying to.
Is there scripture that mentions that we should pray to the Holy Spirit?
Well, I actually think the model of prayer
Mhm.
is that we pray to the Father in the name of Jesus and through the power of the Holy Spirit.That's the model
Given in scripture?
Yes.Is there something
And so is there something that explicitly says that we pray to the Holy Spirit?
thought I don't think we're told to pray to the Holy Spirit.
So, we're not told.
No, we're not told to I'm not saying it's sinful.I'm not saying it's sinful if we did.
That's the point.
But, it's true though.Can you point There's no There's no passage that says, "Go pray to the Holy Spirit."
Right.
And so, therefore I think we should follow the model given in scripture.Pray to the Father in the name of Jesus through the Holy Spirit.
Right.
And actually says in in Hebrews 4:16, "We can boldly approach the throne of grace."
Mhm.
Right?So, if we can boldly approach his throne, we don't need to go to Mary to say, "Hey Mary, can you say a good word for me?"Cuz we ourselves can go directly before God and he accepts me.
He accepts believers because they've they're clothed in the righteousness of Jesus Christ.
I'm still not sure that we're operating on the same premise because just like we see in 2 Samuel where Jonathan goes to David and he says, "I pray thee" when he's making a request to him.That's what we're doing when we're asking Mary to pray for us.And you mentioned communication.
Pray thee, that's
That would be an archaic way of saying that.That would be like you raising your hands or something like that.It's not In modern translation, you'd just say like I ask you.
We value tradition and that's the way that we use that word.So, I think to operate off of any other premise would be disingenuous.
Well, no because whenever you see like prayer to spoken about
Mhm.
um it's spoke spoken of as this means of communication between us and God.Now, there was a time in the book of Daniel when Daniel there was a edict who enemies of Daniel were like, "We can't we we can't find a flaw in him.Let's make a law that you can only pray to to no one besides the king.So, to pray to the king.And so then, what does Daniel do?Well, he's a faithful man of the Lord.And so, he just keeps praying to God three times a day.His enemies are outside and they see him praying to God and they throw him into the lion's den.Now, God kept him safe um because obviously Daniel was doing the right thing, not the wrong thing.And so, the lions didn't get him, he gets out, his enemies, they get thrown in and they get eaten up.
And so, I think I want to be like Daniel in that when I'm told by other people I should go pray to, whether be an angel or whether it be to Mary, I'm going to say no, I'm goingto be like Daniel and pray only to God.
Well, the same way how we pray to the Holy Spirit, it comes down to a reason of conclusion, right?Holy Spirit is God, Holy Spirit is one with the Father and the Son.Therefore, we can pray to the Holy Spirit.It doesn't say explicitly to say is it explicitly say to pray to Holy Spirit, but we can, the same thing with Jesus.We can pray to Jesus, even though it doesn't explicitly say pray to me whenever I'm God, right?And as the same thing goes with the saints, it's because we have so many scriptures that humans are aware, which Samuel, um Abraham, and the transfiguration, and then the angels are aware of what is happening on Earth.And if all of these people, angels and saints are aware of what is happening on Earth, they are also aware of what we are praying for, because obviously in Revelations when they bring up the bowls of incense or
whatever.So, if they're aware of everything on Earth, which is they're on Earth, they're we're on Earth, they're in heaven.If they can be aware of what is happening on Earth to the point where even Abraham knows the life of the rich man, then therefore, we can they they'll know what we're praying for.
Revelation 5:8, which you quoted about the bowls of incense, it actually doesn't say that they know what's the prayers.It says that they're holding they're simply holding a jar, which contains those prayers, not that they are aware of them.
The debate continues over whether Mary intercedes for believers and whether the Hail Mary is biblically grounded. The speakers argue about Genesis 3:15, queen mother imagery, and whether scripture supports praying to Mary at all.
I want to ask you about this verse in Romans 8:26, which says, "Likewise, the Spirit helps us in our weakness, for we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for uswith groanings too deep for words."So, even when we are stuck for words, we're like, "I don't know what to pray for at this point."The Holy Spirit seems to be the one interceding, praying for us.
Cuz it knows our intention.
And who is the Holy Spirit praying to?
Holy Spirit prays to for us.What was the
But who is he praying to?I'm asking.Who is the Holy Spirit praying to?
I would say that I would I would just redirect with this because I'm not sure.
Clearly it's God.I think
Well, the Holy Spirit is God, so it's kind of a nonsensical question.
So, the Holy Spirit is praying to God.Or would the Holy Spirit go and pray to Mary?
No, cuz Mary's not God.
Okay.
The Holy Spirit is God.
So, it makes sense that the one who we want to bring our request to is God.And so, therefore, even when we're stuck for words, the one who's interceding is not saying Mary's up there praying for us.It's the Holy Spirit.
Does Mary give any requests to God?
In terms of up in heaven, it doesn't speak about that anywhere in scripture that she's up in heaven making requests to God.
Does the heaven kingdom in heaven resemblance of the Davidic kingdom?
I In what sense?What do you mean by that?
Does Jesus fulfill the Davidic promise that someone from the line of David would sit on the throne of David?
Yes, we do see that.And Christ is Christ is the lion of the tribe of Judah.
And the Davidic sense, the king's queen was always the mother.
Not always, because we even see one of the queen mother, because she even made an a a an idol, she worshipped an idol, she was removed from being queen mother.All right?So, just because someone That may be a common thing that someone is a queen mother.That doesn't mean that even permanently that person Yes, that's Jerusalem.That's
Otherwise, the northern kingdom.
Right, do you understand?That's actually referring to um that because she had set up an idol she's removed from being queen.
So, what does it mean that if she has a perfect enmity with the serpent and the enmity
We say perfect enmity?So, you're alluding to Genesis 3:15.Okay.W- It d- It doesn't say perfect enmity.it says yeah that the enmity
The enmity is understood to be complete, so I mean
Well, between between the woman, the woman being Eve and the serpent and between Eve's offspring and the serpent's offspring.So, um and so therefore the Eve's
So, if we're
Eve's offspring would be Christ.
Eve's offspring.
I agree would be Christ.
But are we also part of the seed?
Yes, in that we are descended from Adam and Eve.We all come from Adam and Eve.That's true.
And are we all descended from Abraham and Sarah as well?
Uh we're through Noah's line.But we're all in Abraham's
We're all descended from Mary and Christ.
Okay, so not physically.You're saying
All scripture makes it clear that he's going to have descendants as numerous as stars.We know that.
Yes, so in terms of in like Galatians 3 uh 31 and I it talks about how if you are Christ, then you are Abraham's offspring heirs according to promise.But it never mentions that Mary is my mother or that I have to pray to her, which is what the promise is about.
Because if the woman was meant to be the mother of all, which was Eve's role as the woman.And then Mary comes in.Now she is that prophesied woman that was meant to put have the enmity.
I disagree.No, it's Eve
When does she When does the woman When does it stop?
any enmity between the serpent and her.
Yeah, but there is because because ultimately Satan caused Eve to fall.She tempted the serpent tempted uh Eve and she fell.And so there's this enmity There's this hostility between them because Eve
There's a prophetic
You're going to say it's prophetic, though.
Yeah, there's an operative word in Genesis 3:15 and that's will, not is.So, it's talking about who is going to come and undo Eve's disobedience through her obedience.
And it's actually not doesn't speak about Mary anywhere in that verse.It The one who undoes the sin of Adam is Christ.
Right.Right.But, Mary undid Mary's diso- I mean, sorry.Eve did undid Oh my gosh.Mary undid Eve's disobedience through her fiat.That is
The Bible doesn't say that.
She has her fiat in which she submits herself to the will of the Father.And Christ says, "Blessed are not the teeth that suckled me, but the the one who keeps the will of the Father."So, I mean
There's many people who do things for the Lord.Abraham and I even Sarah.She was like She was very respectful even towards Abraham and obeying the Lord in different things.But, that doesn't mean that's talking about Sarah.
And what you're saying is the same thing.And it also points to the
So, just because So, it nothing in Genesis 3:15 is at all talking about Mary.It's about Eve and the offspring.
So, prophecy cannot take place in Genesis.Is that what we're saying here?
There There is.I love Genesis 3:15 cuz it's a prophecy about Christ, not about Mary.
So, Mary and Christ are mentioned in Genesis 3:15.The mother the and the seed
Who is Who is Who is he talking about when he says um you know, the woman that you gave me gave me this fruit and I ate.Who's that woman?
Eve.
Okay.And then he says, "Now, there's going to be enmity between the woman and you the serpent."
The role of office of woman is not Eve.
Yeah, the the word woman here is gene, it's vocative tense.
The woman hasn't actually changed.In the We've got to read things in context.The woman is still Eve.
role is still existing.The role of woman is still there even if if it's vacant.
No, no.It's It's not talking about as a role.It's saying this woman, the woman that you gave me, God gave me this fruit and I ate.So, it's got nothing about Mary there in that verse.
One thing that has to be made perfectly clear in Genesis 3:15 is that when it talks about the woman, the word used is gene.This is either vocative or nominative tense.Not dative.It's not describing a specific person.It's describing the office of woman like you said earlier.So, this is the capitulation of womanhood that exists within Mary.
The woman that you gave me, all right, so it's referring to Eve, and then there'll be enmity between and the woman.
Yes.
Right, and there is because there is because Even think about in in um throughout Eve's life, she would have continued to face different temptations like we all do from the devil and from the demons.
But she would have been perfectly justified.
But then we see that Christ ultimately would have like the devil tried to tempt Christ.Like there's a 40 days of temptation, three and three temptations, and Christ successfully resisted them.But it's really reading into the text to say this passage in Genesis 3:15 is about Mary.
I'm really trying to show that
prompt?How does it relate to our prompt?How does it relate to our prompt?We should go pray to Mary.
Now, because it does relate to position that where if she is the queen, then she can petition the king.And like I said, um where does it say that she's the queen?
Solomon said, "I will never refuse you."when he's speaking to Bathsheba, if mother the queen mother, this is the model he used for Mary intercession.
But that again, that's not talking about Mary.That's talking about Solomon about Bathsheba.Now, do you actually realize
No, no, no.We're not going to do this talk over anything.Do you know what a prefigurement is?
Do you understand that she actually Solomon didn't always say yes to Bathsheba.There were times he refused.
Yes, there were times in which her
There we go.
That doesn't disprove that I will never I will never I will never Yeah.That doesn't disprove the same thing.
the Catholic Church, Alphonsus Liguori, said, "Whenever Mary makes requests of God, they are not requests, they are demands.Jesus must obey."Do you guys agree with that from your doctor of your church?
Of perfect justice, she would not ask anything that is outside of God's justice.
So, are they commands?As in they're not just requests, they're commands and God must obey.
he tells you."she was kind of telling a command of Jesus.
Anytime Mary any Mary anytime Mary says like there's actually a time when Mary's outside saying, "Hey Jesus, we want to see you."And Jesus actually doesn't go out.He's like, "Who is my brother and my my mother?"And they're like,
family skirmish.It's not like a
So, therefore, was Jesus obeying his mother at that point as an adult?Jesus was an adult.He's obviously not under the command to obey parents.
really under subject to obedience.It's just really social preference.He just didn't want to be out.
He did Okay, so then
no This is like a mother-son
Alphonsus Liguori says, "Anytime Mary requests Jesus something, it's a demand, a command, and he must obey."Yes, Alphonsus Liguori calls it The Glories of Mary.Have you read The Glories of Mary?I can't remember the chapter.You can look at it.If you have Have you read the book The Glories of Mary?
you read Alphonsus Liguori as a whole?
I've read I've read the part that where he talks about um Mary's role in the eyes of Christ.
Nope.
Yeah, you you just said you just read that.So, why are you even using it?
Because it's a I can give you a quotation of what Alphonsus Liguori says.I'm asking
what Alphonsus Liguori says at all.
under
You don't really understand Alphonsus Liguori at
agreed with the quote.Do you agree with the quote, yes or no?Do you agree with the quote, yes or no?
Do I agree that Mary makes demands of God?I feel like that's a loaded question.
It's what he It's what he said.So, do you agree, yes or no?I'm not quote mining at all.
You literally admitted to it.
Have you read Have you Have you read Have you read The Glories of Mary yourself?Have you read it?
I would say I I mean, it's not really my particular re
Yes, you did that last time.You're being unreasonable.You're not answering the question.
about faith formed by charity or moral virtues or anything.
to answer any questions.
answer any of
Notice that you're dodging.This is what you do.Instead of actually dealing with the text, the prompt is
Because you haven't necessitated an actual inquiry, and I know what you're doing here.
Let's go back to the prompt.The prompt says, "The Bible does not teach that Christian The Bible does not teach that Christians should pray to Mary."Do you guys agree with that prompt?
No.
What is our prayer to Mary that you
What do you do?You haven't said anything.So, do you agree
that
You don't want to talk to
Do you say that the Bible does te- tell us to go pray to Mary?Is that what your contention
I believe it in so far as the Bible tells us to pray for each other that does say that we should pray to Mary to ask for intercession cuz
Where does it say pray to Mary cheers?
You can
You said earlier that we don't
Here's the distinction that we tried to make earlier that you kind of shot down as linguistic.When we say pray we aren't meaning worship.We're meaning I pray you I ask you to do this you know.
So where does the Bible say that we should go and ask Mary right now as a Christian here on this earth where does it say that you should go and ask Mary who's up in heaven for things?
Where does it It says that you should ask the righteous for prayer.
Is that correct?
Where does it say that it doesn't
Is Mary righteous?Which verse is that in?First Timothy 2:1 I urge for prayers of intercession to be made for all people.
Yeah that's so you pray we should pray for all people but it's not saying that we should go pray to righteous people.
the prayer of the righteous is more effective.
say that we should go and ask Mary
go and ask like your like for lack of a better word your pastor?Would you ask him to pray for you because he's more righteous?
The contention is the Bible does not tell us to go pray to Mary.You're saying you disagree.If you If you disagree with me
No it never says that go and ask righteous people to pray for you.So do you do that though?
No but but the You disagree with the prompt.The earlier three people who had the same prompt agreed with the prompt.You guys are disagreeing.So I'm just curious where does the Bible teach us to go and pray to Mary?
It doesn't say go pray to Mary but I would say what's wrong with our prayer Hail Mary full of grace if it comes from the Bible.
Well because that's not a prayer in the Bible.
It's not a prayer but if it's a mental ascent right?And I you know
What makes it not a prayer?We see Hail is greetings.Greetings Mary.Greetings our favorite line.Actually it's a misquotation.
No it's not.
It doesn't say Hail Mary.
It doesn't.It says Hail full of grace.
There we go.So you're you're you're not even citing
It's the catechism that says that.
So, so therefore your prayer is not actually even from the Bible word for word.
Well, wait a second.To go back to
Who is he really talking to?Who is he addressing then?
And it's not even it's not even the angel praying to Mary there.
No, it's the phrasing of the address.That's what we're doing.Hail Mary and we're recognizing the same heavenly reality that she is hail full of grace.
does the Bible tell us to go pray to Mary?
We're not Our prayer is calling to mind a heavenly reality which is what the devil does not want to do.It does not want us to think about this heavenly aspect.It wants us to keep us in the world, right?The world, the flesh, and the devil are what's tempting us.So, keeping us out of that heavenly mentality by saying hail Mary full of grace, we're opening up the reality that is heaven, that which also agrees she is full of grace.Um Hail Mary full of grace, the Lord is with thee.Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit.Again, more scripture.Pray for us sinners now, again, because we ask people to pray for us.Now, it's cuz it's the most important time and
is not from the Bible.That request itself is not from the Bible.
Yes, but we urge for prayers to be made for intercession for all people.So, it is in the
Where does it say that?
Did the apostles ask people to pray for
That passage says that we should be praying for all people.It never says there that we should go pray to Mary.
Did the apostles Right, but Mary is praying for us.All Christians are praying for all people.
Where does it say that?Where does it say that Mary is right now praying
Mary is not not really She's still alive.
Sorry?
So, do you Does the Paul ask the church to pray for him?
Yeah, he writes to the Colossians and say pray for this.
So, why can't Mary, who's also part of the church, to pray for us?
Well, because first of all, the contention is the Bible doesn't tell us to do that.Secondly, secondly, there's nothing in scripture There's nothing in scripture that indicates that Mary can hear your prayer requests.There's nothing in scripture that indicates that, right?Particularly with millions of people millions of people who are praying to Mary at this very moment in time, even from various language, you guys aren't listening.I think you're being disrespectful.Let's have a serious conversation and listen to what I'm saying.And so I would say that if if scripture never tells us that they can or Mary can hear us, I think it wouldn't be right for us to say, "Well, scripture says to focus on God and let myrequest be made known to him.I'm not going to do that.I'm not going to do that.I'm going to focus on praying to someone who's not
Um from the Hail Mary prayer, focus on Mary or focus on God?
Unfortunately, it's it's a prayer to Mary.
No, it's not.She We're asking her to pray for us.
The Catholic Catechism, paragraph 2679, says, "When we pray to Mary."So, the Catholic Church admits
Yeah.We're not This the debate isn't about worship in particular, it's about Does the Bible tell us to pray toHave you guys conceded this point that the Bible does not tell us to pray to Mary?
No, because I would say that
Then then if you disagree, give me one verse that tells us to go to pray to Mary.
I think you're being very presumptuous in assuming that this prompt is like valid in its uh in its entirety.
you agree with my prompt, then say the last three Catholics
But that's what we've been saying this whole time is that we don't.Like I don't
The last three Catholics who are on the panel, do they agree with the prompt?You two are saying you disagree.
applies to the prompt.I'm not sure what you're saying.
I said that the Bible doesn't explicitly say it, but I think it's a little I would argue that it's not against prayer to Mary or the saints.
That's a different thing.So, then you actually agree with the prompt then.You agree with the prompt.
The conversation moves to whether the Roman Catholic Church is the one true church and whether Peter was given unique authority. They debate Matthew 16, the keys of the kingdom, apostolic succession, and the role of councils.
It never explicitly says it.
The Bible does not teach that the Roman Catholic Church is the one true church.When we see the word church in the Bible, ecclesia in Greek, we see two senses of it.One referring to the local assembly.It so can be in the plural like in Galatians 1:7 to the churches of Galatia.But then you also have it in the singular.There's one church founded by Christ, which I think we both agree.And when it's talking about there is talking about the body of believers across the world.So that when a person puts their faith in Jesus, they're united to Christ and therefore they're part of the church.Do you guys agree?
I would agree that Jesus Christ definitely founded a church, but I would I would say that that one church is the Catholic Church that he founded.And obviously we can go into Matthew 16.I prefer like starting at 17, but Matthew 16:18, "Upon this rock I will build my church."So I would say that was when the Catholic Church was started cuz it was founded on Peter.And I actually would argue that for this premise, I would argue for the papacy.Cuz at least me personally, the papacy is what proves to me that the Catholic Church is the one true church.Like we can go over authority and go over binding and loosing and whatever, but like the papacy, specifically the keys, is what shows that the Catholic Church is the one church which is given to Peter.
That's interesting that you say that cuz you would agree with me we don't see Roman Catholic right anything like that mentioned explicitly, but again that's not a that's not um a sure a slam dunk argument for example.But in terms of an institution, you're seeing the church as an institution when I'm seeing when it says ecclesia it's either referring to the local gathering or referring to all believers everywhere.And so then what makes you think it's specifically an institution?That's your institution as opposed to the LDS institution or the Orthodox or Assyrian Church of the East and those other things.
And for for me it would become down to the papacy cuz I when he says like the the the the company of tons of people or the entire church, I'm thinking he means that one church.So I look at Matthew 16:18, but I look at it with Isaiah 22:22.Where how in Eliakim was taking the office of Shebna.He was taking the office of Shebna and both passages have the same structural type of language being said where with Eliakim he is given the keys of the house of David and then whatever he opens shall not beclosed whenever he closes shall not be opened.It's the same exact structural language given to Peter and when the when the book of Matthew when Matthew is writing the book of Matthew he references Isaiah the most out of any other prophet or book in his bookMatthew and I think that's done for a purpose because in Matthew 16:18 if you look at it with the Jewish lens of knowing the book of Matthew as a Jew you would read that and instantly connect make the
connections towards Isaiah
Okay.
22:22.
It's interesting you mentioned this Old Testament prophecy.
Mhm.
Who do you think in the Bible has spoken of having in the New New Testament particular having the key of David where none can open only him he can open and no one can shut.Do you know of anyone in the New Testament who's said to have that role of the house of David?
Jesus?
Yeah the key of the house of David I'm
Yeah so in the Old Testament it's given to Eliakim and in the New Testament it's referred Christ has them.
Yeah so I'll read this one this is Revelation 3:7.And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write the words of the holy one the true one who has the key of David who opens and no one will shut and who shuts and no one opens.It's talking about Jesus Christ that you mentioned there.So therefore that prophecy is not about Peter or the papacy it's about Christ.He's got that key.
Right.
Establishing the church right Paul calls uh the church the new Israel.So when he established it in the Old Testament we see 12 tribes New Testament see 12 apostles and then he tells them they will reign um and judge the 12 tribes.Do you not see that as a prophecy is re-establishing Israel cuz he did when we see the New Testament in the book of Revelation each apostle has a name their names engraved on the pillars of heaven.So, do you not see that prophecy?
we are going to reign with Christ.Um not just the apostles will but we will reign with Christ and it's amazing blessings to have
they judge.
Actually, no.It says if you go read through 1 Corinthians chapter 6, it mentions that we're going to judge angels.
Mhm.And that's what you told me about the apostles tribes.
Yep.But in the sense of we judge along with Christ.
Mhm.
That not that we are the judge ultimately.Christ is the judge.But we're we're concurring with his judgment saying, "Yes, your judgments are right and true."And we see that in Revelation 19:4.They're actually saying that."Holy are you.Just are your judgments, oh Lord."That's what it means to be judging along with Christ.
Is our is our names engraved on the pillars as well?
Our names are written in heaven.We see that specifically in scripture.
In the book of life?
Well, the book of life, yes.So, anyone who
Not on the pillars?
But in terms of if you have a look at uh Philippians 3:19, it says our citizenship is in heaven and it speaks about uh having our names written in heaven is what's even more important than whether you cancast out demons.Cuz remember that even the apostles are like the 72 like, "Well, we we cast out demons in Jesus' name."And he's like, "Don't rejoice in that.Rejoice that your names are written in heaven."So, every true believer has their name written in
Yeah, but just to go back to the institution part of the church.So, the 12 apostles are given this divine prerogative.Peter is given a divine prerogative.His name is changed.We see that pattern played out in the Old Testament.
We see a name change?I do agree that in John not in Matthew 16, he wasn't name changed.It was in John chapter 1.
Right.It's earlier on where he shall be called Cephas.
Well, he actually
Guys, relax.Relax.Relax.
So, in John chapter 1, his name is already been changed.
Where it says protos.
As in his name became Peter?As in he
Yeah, protos means chief.
Yeah, you know you shall be called Peter, all right?Now, in Matthew 16, I'm glad you brought this up.Um so, let's read out just the context for for people's sake.So, it says verse 15, "But who do you say that I am?"He's asking like, "Who do Who do you think that I am?"
Yes.
Simon Peter replies, verse 16, "You are the Christ, the son of the living God."Verse 17, "Jesus answered them, 'Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you.'"I assume we the group This is the confession.Yep, good.Uh, to you, but my father who is in heaven.And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of of Hades shall not prevail against it.
Right.
So, he I note that he doesn't say, "You are Peter, and on you I'll build my church."But he says, "You are Peter, and on this rock."And I see the pronoun this referring to the same pronoun as the Yeah, the profession of Jesus is the Christ, the son of living God.
And we would agree with you on that, that the confession was very important in catechism 522.It mentions that it's because of Peter's confession he is the unshakable rock that the church is built by.So, we would agree that yes, the confession he's talking about the confession, but that doesn't take away the fact that he still is the rock.Like, for example, you're mentioning the keys, right?There is the keys in Revelation, and therefore Are you Are you saying that like Peter doesn't have the keys because
So, I'm saying in terms of the the prophecy that you referred to, that it's fulfilled in Christ, not in Peter, is what was my point with bringing up Revelation 3:7.I think there are different keys here that's referring to something else.
Okay.
What kind of keys does Peter have in this scenario?
Well, I would say that Yeah, I So, in this is verse 19, "I give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Okay.
And so, I see that the key to something is like what you use to like get into your car, get into your house, treasure treasure chest, that's your key.And so, therefore, I see that he's giving to Peter, and I don't think you just uniquely Peter.I think church fathers would agree with me on that, cuz the same thing, "Whatever you bind on earth and bound in heaven," is mentioned again in chapter 18 verse 18 to all the apostles, right?And so therefore, I would see it as how do we enter God's kingdom?That message of the gospel, which is how we enter the kingdom, for the gospel is the power of God for salvation, was entrusted to Peter and to the other apostles and then subsequently to every Christian and we havethat same message to proclaim out to this world.
Do we have the authority to bind and loose like the apostles in Acts 15?
I would say that we have the In terms of what he talked about the binding and loosing, if it's talking about the keys of how you enter the kingdom, when I go and share the gospel with someone andI say, "Hey, look, if you put your trust in Jesus right now, you're you're free from your sins.If if you reject Jesus right now, you're still bound in your sins and heaven agrees with that."And that's what I see it's talking about.
Right.But, in Acts chapter 15, we see the controversy of the Judaizers saying about the circumcision deal and Peter silences that and James makes a judgment.So, when it comes to that judgment specifically, we see a visible institution with a visible structure.Do you think all Christians have that authority or still that same visible structure Christ instituted?
That is a unique time because they are living in the time of living apostles who would be guided all truth, as Jesus says in in John 16.He never promises that that being guided into all truth will carry on to councils or people after the apostles.Well, no, it never even to the church.You don't see any passage that says, "Look, the church will be guided into all truth."It does mention the apostles.And so that's why they are dealing with an error in the in the early church where some people are saying, "You need to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses to be saved."So, they have a debate, discussion with them and then they meet together and the apostles are in agreement with that.And so I think they were able to nip it that in the bud, that that issue, which is really good, but it doesn't establish that the Roman Catholic Church today uh is that same church even um because church
fathers in regards to Matthew 16, 80% of them don't think that the rock is Peter.80% of church fathers, is Catholic theologians have have done survey of of all the church fathers and um in terms of I'll quickly show you.So, this is from Juan de Lo Loana.He's a 17th century French Catholic historian historian and theologian.He found 17 of them agree that the rock referred to Peter, but they never affirmed him as a pope.16 of them thought that the rock referred to Christ.Eight of them thought that the rock was all the disciples and then 44 church fathers identified the rock being Peter's confession that Jesus is the Christ the son of living God.So, 80% who didn't think it was Peter.
Can I respond to that?Yeah, so interestingly enough, you just brought up historians from the 17th century, but I want to bring up there's two councils that we need to take into account.The Council of Chalcedon and the Council of Nicaea II especially.The whole church universally agreed with Pope Hadrian II's letter where he says Peter Peter is the rock and foundation of the church and he says the keys are given uniquely to Peter.So, the church in the 7th century and the same thing was said in Chalcedon on a sermon for of Pope St.Leo the Great said the same thing that the Peter, since he's the foundation of the church, he has the authority to universally shepherd the church and they agreed with him.
So, everybody
I didn't say what he's saying.
Why do you think they signed off?
There is development that comes along later on and even disagreeing with earlier church fathers.Disagreeing with 80% of church fathers.I understand that.
church fathers are there.
got the second like Second Council of Nicaea, Second Council of Nicaea.You've got an accretion there mandating um venerations of of icons, which you don't find in in scripture.
has nothing to do with
but I'm trying to say but you're going to say let's go to these councils.
Let's go to Chalcedon for Nicaea II cuz
But in terms of in terms of scripture itself, scripture never identifies that the one true church is this Roman Catholic institution.
They actually at the Council of Nicaea Council of Chalcedon, the church fathers there who were are called like St.Cyril, they all agreed universally.They looked into the past, looked at Justin Martyr, looked at Clement.They all agreed with what was there and said, "Pope St.Leo the Great, you are the rock.You have the keys."And he had the authority to overextend his authority over everyone else.
We don't We don't see uh for example, like anything of you cuz he says tied to the papacy.This whole thing is tied to the papacy.Even if I I would say clearly context shows that it's not uh Peter that's the rock, it's the confession.But let's say even just for the sake of argument we would have said that it was Peter.It still wouldn't establish the Roman Catholic Church.All right, because you even have Protestant scholars a number of Protestant scholars who will say, "Okay, we can agree that it's Peter, but that doesn't establish a papacy uh or that Peter was a pope even.Peter's attitude about himself was just that he's a fellow elder."First Peter 5:1, he says that.
Uh cuz he was he's still a servant.
Yeah.
He's still a servant.The greatest among you is the one who serves.And then
he So, if Peter's saying that he is a common elder, right after that verse, he actually gives a command right after that verse.So, yes, he is
whole book is about Paul gives commands as well.
Right.In fact,
we see uh in 1 Corinthians 12, it says, "In the church, God has appointed first who?"Do you remember?
Oh.
In the church, who does God has appointed God Who has God appointed first in the church?He says, "Apostles."Not Peter.He says apostles.Second, prophets.Third, yeah.And Ephesians yeah.
Yeah.
Um and then evangelists and so on, teachers.So, we see if the Bible was to teach Peter, he's the top apostle, everyone's going to be in submission to him, you'd see well, he appoints first Peter, but it doesn't say that.He's described as an apostle to the Jews.Paul's described as an apostle to the Gentiles in Galatians chapter 2.And then even when Paul goes to meet up with the apostles, he's like, "Who they are didn't bother me cuz God shows no partiality.Those who seemed influential added nothing to me.That's Galatians 2:5.And so Paul did not think any of the other apostles were greater in authority than he thought than he himself was.
Mhm.
Does that make
Yeah, so I'd like to make a point on that till I go to another point, but Paul, interestingly enough in Galatians chapter 2, he received a revelation.You you know that.He received revelation and what does he do?He goes to the church to make sure what he's doing is not in vain.And this is mentioned in Acts chapter 21.He talks about what he did among the Gentiles and James gave him the okay.So
So not Peter, interesting, but he actually said that his gospel was not from any man.So he didn't even get the gospel from Peter.
But he still wanted to go check on it.
He got it as a direct revelation from Jesus.Now he knows that this is from Jesus.He's not going there to like, am I preaching the wrong message?He's going to make sure that are they on the same page as what I'm on what I'm preaching.
He knows he's got one from Jesus.
Where these other people getting it from?He he's he can't know, but and so they preaching the same message.They all agreed Acts 15, they all agreed on the same gospel.
Yeah, and yeah, I agree.But why do you think he says he went to the church to make sure what he was doing was not in vain?
Which is uh it says it's 17 years after he's already been preaching and so on.So it's long after.And the reason is because he wants to make sure he had not run in vain.
Mhm.
He's like, I'm I'm preaching this message of Christianity, but is it like different to what these other guys are preaching?And he's like uh those people who seemed influential and he lists the three influential apostles.Doesn't list Peter first.He lists James first.James, Cephas, and John.And he says, what they were doesn't make any difference.
The speakers argue over whether salvation requires belonging to the Roman Catholic Church and submitting to its authority. They contrast institutional claims with biblical faith in Christ and revisit the meaning of belief in John 6.
So this prompt is that the Bible does not teach that the Catholic Church is the one true church.I think there is one true church and it involves anyone who's got their faith in Jesus Christ.And so me, I have my trust in Jesus, but I don't belong to that Roman institution.So would you say that I don't belong to Jesus Christ because I'm not part of the Roman Catholic Church?
Saint Augustine would.
Well, what do you guys think personally?Just your own thoughts.
I think that any truth that is saved in your church comes from the Catholic Church because we are the church that Jesus Christ established.
Yeah.
So all of the church Jesus Christ is the final revelation.The apostles guard that truth.Peter is the head of the apostles, but we pass on our truths and any truths that you took out from our religion are going to possibly damn you, but any truths that you kept and assent to could possiblysave you.
In other words, you you are outside of our church.
Yeah, you can kiss Christ.
And so if I'm outside the church, there's no salvation for me.Is that correct?
According to the other church, yes.
Okay.And you guys agree with that yourselves?
Well, however God's mercy does extend.
Wholeheartedly agree with this, yes.
You agree with that?
Yeah.
You agree with that?
I do agree.
That's what Augustine said.
Yeah, that's true.And then you
People drowned outside of Noah's Ark.
And you have like yeah, Unam Sanctam saying if you're not subject to the Roman Pontiff, you cannot be saved.
Yes.
You love that.You love that.
That's what Christ said.Like
Because the first step of disobedience is the first step to moral um rebellion.
It's I mean like the the first step of disobedience.
Some period So you're saying that Christ said that if somebody's not subject to the Roman Pontiff, they are going to hell.Is that what Christ said?
It's because it's not the Roman Catholic Church.That's Christ's representative.So we don't just necessarily believe that's the Pope.That's some person.That's Jesus Christ his keys which the Pope holds.
How does someone enter the church according to the Bible?
Well, first I would kind of want to uh provide the argument that first before even getting to the papacy in my interpretation of it is that we have to establish that there are there is something that is apostolicsuccession.That first off needs to be clarified and understood because the church fathers did recognize that.They did understand apostolic succession.
What do you mean by apostolic succession because
There's a there is a hierarchy of the church in the early form at the time of the early church.It might not be as big and as an institution as it is now.However, it was there.
So just how does how do you think someone according to the Bible how do you think someone enters the church according to the Bible?
Well, according to the Bible well, first off they would have to accept our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and in a large part they would have to be baptized as well.
first 300
Our Lord gives us that commandment to believe and be baptized.
So if someone puts their trust in Christ genuinely they haven't been baptized they're not part of the church?
If they are
If they are willingly not getting baptized?
If they are willingly
That's a design and Augustine spoke on partial communion as well.Like that needs to be made clear.
Okay, because according to scripture because I was curious what you said according to the Bible.The Bible hasn't doesn't say you enter the church by baptism or the things you were saying there.Wouldn't you be entering the church by putting your trust in Jesus?
By repentance believing the gospel and then they would
You would obey his word
get baptized and then No, because if you're united to Christ through faith justified then you are in the church.Right?You got the spirit.You'd agree that you only get the spirit if you're in the church.Right?In the new in the new covenant, right?So then anyone who believes gets the spirit and therefore they must be part of the church which shows that the church isn't the Roman Catholic institution.
Do you believe that we are fully what happens with someone claims that this is part of the church.How do we verify?
Well, is it?
Yeah.
Okay, as in how we know if someone's in the church our our judgment about someone else's salvation is fallible.All right, we understand God's infallible, we're fallible.
Yeah.
But
is infallible.
we can tell we can instruct to other people about you want to be part of Jesus' church, you want to be saved, put your trust in Jesus.That's true.We check it with the standard.We we check it with the Bible.
Within the first 300 years actual Protestants have different ideas on what Sola Fide and any all of this even means.
Well, Catholics have a variety of opinions as well on even what the magisterium
Yeah, but these aren't actual matters.These aren't like actual huge like distortions in doctrine.Like the Protestant Sola Fide and your Sola Fide are wholly different.So, I mean, where does your church come from?
Yeah, my my church is founded by Jesus Christ because because we don't see a Roman Catholic institution anywhere in scripture cuz remember I'm waiting for you guys to provide the evidence for
that.
But in terms of but in terms of cuz the prompt is the Bible does not teach that the Roman Catholic Church is the one true church.
I also like I would want to ask like what do you mean by the Roman Catholic Church?
I'm talking about the institution which is headed by a papacy of pope who has has universal jurisdiction and is in can speak infallibly.
Okay, uh because there's often there needs to be a distinction too because when people say Roman Catholicism there's a giant the Roman Catholic Church is like subsect of the Catholic Church headed by the papacy.However, the bishop yes, Eastern Catholicism also exists where they do give the honor that is due to Peter.
Yeah.
And that is what they
The reason why in the prompt why of Catholic is to distinguish from just the the word like Catholic means
It was the Roman Empire and you can make that argument.I mean like
Yeah, so but there's a difference so in the New Testament it just calls us to put our trust in Judas.We unite him in faith, we get the spirit.It never says, "Now you need to join this institution in order for you to truly be saved or submit to the Pope in order to be saved."None of the early None of the people like when Peter's going around Paul's going around in his missionary journeys, he doesn't say, "Guys um you know you Philippian jailer, what must I do to be saved?"Paul just says, "Believe in the Lord Jesus and you'll be saved."He doesn't say, "Submit to the Roman Pontiff and you'll be saved."Which is your position.
So requires some incense.
Anyways, though.Yeah, like we we wholly disagree on what belief even means still and we haven't resolved this from like an hour ago.So with that being with that being said, one of the earliest works of the church was the Nicene Creed which was promulgated directly from scripture.In the Nicene Creed, we hear one holy Catholic Apostolic Church.Your church cannot be one.There is no councils.In Acts 15, we see the church use councils.Acts 15
Acts 15 is our council.
No, it's not.
Where is that model today?
You don't even have a conciliar model in the first It's not your council.
Because who who scripture says is guided to all truth as I said is the apostles.
15 exist back then.
You didn't You didn't exist personally either back then.But But the point is is that Christ is the one who brings people into his fold.Um my sheep hear my voice, right?And they hear me, I give them eternal life and they'll never perish.
And so therefore
So therefore any person throughout the last 2,000 years if they're living in the time when Paul's preaching the Philippian jailer
Remember what we said about that last time?
He's Now listen, be respectful.Be respectful.
One holy Catholic Apostolic Church.You've been arguing with me the whole time.
Instead of told me I was ducking.Are you going to let me finish?
You didn't let me finish.One
Okay.
holy
We want to have a respectful conversation.Being a respectful conversation means If you don't Be like Be like Be like your friends you're actually willing to be respectful to.Every timeEvery time you've been unreasonable.Let me finish what I'm saying.Cuz you got three of you, remember?Just one of me, three of you.So you got to give me time to respond to what you guys are saying.Instead, what we're seeing in the book of Acts, when you see the apostles preach and the Philippian jailer receives the message, he believes in the Lord Jesus.He is saved.He's part of the church.And we don't see any model of a singular bishop having universal district jurisdiction over the entire church.Nor do we see that person then being able to make infallible dogmas and things like that.So therefore, I don't see We don't see the Roman Catholic Church anywhere in the pages of sacred scripture.
I I I see that as something that, you know that carries on, right?But it doesn't contradict.Uh but I would like to get back to like
What do you mean it carries on?What are you saying?
Like that was made through developments.
Right.So you would So you're you're agreeing However, you're saying you're agreeing it's not actually in the Bible.
Well, I'm not saying that either.I'm saying like it's just not contradicting like what is going on here.
contradicting but not in it.
Well, I I I haven't studied it that much.Like I'll be honest about that.I mean like in regards to that, I'm not going to make a definitive thing.I'm not going to say that.However, uh I'm not going to say that contradicts it either because from my knowledge it absolutely does not.But I would also like to take it back that um regardless of the papacy Eastern Orthodox also hold this and they hold uh our uh church fathers in very high regard.Early church fathers um forget which one exactly has been a minute since I've read this particular document, but how do we know who the true church is?In other words, at that time Gnosticism was at a rise and they were very similar to our faith.However, they had very contrary beliefs.How do we know?The argument, this is right after they knew the apostles.
How do we know?Go to the bishops.
That still doesn't show I appreciate appreciate you saying that, but it still doesn't show a monarchial bishop in Rome even in the first century.And that's what Catholic scholars agree with.There is actually no evidence of a monarchial bishop in Rome in the first century.
Well, I'm not making that argument.I'm saying that there is the Roman Catholic Church exists.
And what does that mean to be the Roman Catholic Church?Cuz you said a big element is the papacy.How do you know it's Pope?
apostolic succession.
Well, in terms of the apostles sending on to the next generation, you preach what I've preached.I pulled, you know, with Timothy as protege saying like you go continue preaching what I preach.That's still not the Roman Catholic Church.So, what do you You said it's the papacy.
So, you Here's the thing.I didn't pull Can trace it to Peter.
Say it again.
Do you think the people teaching us the faith can trace their teachings or office back to Peter?
You can have people claiming We can have people claiming that their traditions and go back all the way to the apostles.We even see that in number of centuries after the time of the apostles.They said, "Look, our traditions go back to the apostles."Like for example, Irenaeus he mentions the Pope.He mentions that he's got a tradition that goes back to the apostles themselves that Jesus died between the age of 40 and 50.
where the faith developed from that's the thing passed down through the generations.How does How does that How does the church pass it?
Do you understand that's false?Like Jesus didn't die between the age of 40 and and 50.And so therefore people can claim all that they want.This goes back I've got it passed down in a in a lineage from the apostles.We're going to go back two seconds to the first century.I know what it says.
the criticismyou just levied against us.Do you realize that?
In what sense?I'm saying
less actual You have much less actual like justification for making this claim because the church you're a part of didn't exist for like it's just a fact 1800 years at least.
That's incorrect.
It's completely correct.
It's incorrect.
Nobody believed what you did until 1800 at least.
explain.
that?Cuz every time you're asked
Can you at least
Let me explain.
Can you at least
Okay no he's asked one question.Let me respond to him.
Can I ask you
So the question is three of you remember one of me say if you make it one of you say something I should have the chance to respond before someone else makes a
We always talk about specific questions so I'm just curious.
So you you made the assertion and please don't interrupt me that uh you know no one believed this until what 8
I meant
200 years in 1800s or something.
Very long time.
Come on man we got way people way before 1800s who believed it.
You made up a number.
Ultimately we see that this is believed by Paul, Peter, and all the other apostles.I I base my doctrines on the ancient truths more ancient than you your guys.Your beliefs are far too novel.You've talked about doctrinal development.You're you're the reason why your beliefs are far too novel is cuz they're not just based on the Bible.My my beliefs my beliefs beliefs are just based on the Bible so they're not novel.
no suffering in this world.
Therefore it's actually on the ancient truth.
How are you supposed to say that our beliefs come from the Bible?The Bible comes from the same place.How are you supposed to say that our beliefs aren't based on the Bible?
And in the sense of you cannot find every every single belief that you would hold in your church you can't find every single one of them in the scriptures.
You can't find any of yours in the scriptures.
find all of them.
You can contrive.You can contrive.You can contrive a lot.
And we've already shown in this debate how we can show this from the scriptures.what I believe.All right we see if you talk about how we are saved we we've already talked about that before.You know to the one who doesn't work but believes that man is counted as is in Romans out
What are the works that we do that we may inherit eternal life?What are the works that we must do to inherit
Paul then says to the one who does not work but believes.So, do you disagree with Paul there?
But do you disagree with Jesus says when he said when they asked him what are the works that we must do to inherit eternal life?
And what does Jesus say?What does Jesus say?
Breaking bread.Breaking of the bread.
No, wait.You just misquoted the scripture.
this is
Bro, you don't know your Bible.John 6
Peter was random in John.This is the bread of life discourse.
You just got What is the
What is the verse?What is the verse?What is the answer to that question?
When when they were they asked the question what what work should we do to have eternal life?What does the response Jesus gives in the very next verse?Do you know it?
He goes deeper and deeper
Give it Tell me what Jesus said.Come on.You
eat my flesh.
Wrong.You've skipped all the way to verse 52.
Yes, because because they keep asking him the same question over and over.He answers and he gets more specific every time.
What is What is the answer Jesus gives in verse 29?You've You've bring this up as if it's an argument.What's the What's his answer?You don't know.You don't know.Okay, fine.Just admit that you don't know.The answer all end
I know where it sums up to is
Okay.
eat my flesh.
This is the work of God that you believe in him who he has sent.So, it's What is he saying?It's God's work that we believe in Christ.He then goes on in verse 35 of the of John 6 to say that whoever comes to me shall not hunger.Whoever believes in me shall never thirst.So, he's actually said you believe in
Do you get hungry?
Never hungry, never thirsty in a spiritual sense.Hopefully you're understanding spiritual.Okay.Verse 40, he says this is the will of my father whoever looks on the son and believes in him should have eternal life and I'll raise him up on the last day.
A new prompt asks whether the Eucharist is truly the body and blood of Christ. The discussion centers on John 6, the Last Supper, symbolic versus literal interpretation, and whether communion is necessary for eternal life.
Hey, I'm Trevor.
And I'm Vanessa.
And our prompt is the Eucharist is the real body and blood of Christ.
Okay, let's do this.
Let's do it.
All right.
Okay, and I I would say that the Eucharist is a beautiful celebration that we get to remember what Christ has done.His body broken, blood shed.Paul says that we eat this bread and drink the cup in remembrance of him and we proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.I don't think this by not me personally, I don't believe that the substance changes to the literal body and blood of Christ.I don't think that it devalues the celebration.I think it's still very special.Just like Passover was very special every year, even though they weren't literally eating the same lamb that was back sacrificed in Exodus.So just because it's not literally or a substance changing with the body of the bread and the wine, I don't think it devalues it.
Sure.Well, was it Fulton Sheen that said if it's just a symbol to hell with it?
I've heard that before.I I I I I
Let's go to to John 6.
that mean by the way?What do you think that means?
To to hell with it?If it's a symbol, then it has no no use.If it's if it's merely a symbol um because we're we're looking into Christ's actual words and what actually happened when he institutes the Eucharist.
So would you say the same If you were would you living in Israel under the Old Testament, would you say if the Passover is not really the same lamb I ate they ate in Exodus, then like it's rubbish,there's no point having doing it?
Well, we're Catholic.
But in that scenario, would you It's still valuable even if it's not literally the same lamb.
I don't want to to relate it to any other topic, but
it we can find it diminishing by acting as though it is a symbol when Christ was very clear telling us that it's not a symbol.And scripture tells us many times that it's not a symbol.
Right.It's not a symbol.So it's not Cuz in John 6:50 63 I would personally I don't think John 6 is about the Eucharist at all.He's not giving instructions there at the last supper.This is still years away from that.We'll get into that.He's He's talking about He's talking to a group of unbelievers largely who've just come to him for more bread.He's just fed them on the other side of the Sea of Galilee and they follow him over and Jesus tells us that you're not searching after me because you saw the signs, but because you ate the fill ofthe loaves and you want more bread.
Well, let's let's go to John 6.Um
And so my point just in verse 63, he says, "The words I'm speaking to you are spirit and life.The flesh is of no help at all."So, he's actually very very clearly teaching that he's teaching speaking about spiritual truths rather than literal you need to eat some sort of physical meal to be
He says flesh is of no avail.Is that what you're saying?That
His flesh or just flesh in general?
Flesh in terms of the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking as even Paul mentions that.It's a matter of being united to Christ through faith.As he says in verse 47, "Whoever believes in Jesus whoever believes has eternal life."
And what a gift of faith it is to believe if the Eucharist is truly the body and blood of Jesus Christ.So, we go back into John just right before John 6:50.This is the bread which comes down from heaven that a man may eat of it and not die.I am the living bread which came down from heaven.If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever and the bread which I which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.Continuing on, the Jews then disputed among themselves saying, "How can this man give us flesh to eat?"So, Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life within you.He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life and I will raise him up on the last day.
For my flesh is food indeed and my blood is drink indeed."
So, when Jesus calls them in verse 40 and verse 47 to believe in him, is he calling them to believe in the Eucharist or is he calling them to put their trust in Jesus for their salvation?
So, in 44, "This is the will of my father that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life and I will raise him up on that last day."Yeah, and this is all part of the same speech that Jesus
So, the call in this chapter is to believe in Jesus.It's not to believe a fact about a ceremony that they're going to do every week in the future if they come to faith.It's about coming to him.They want bread, he's like I'm the bread.Come and eat me.And you eat of him by as that verse says, believing in him.
nine here is actual chewing or excuse me, later on Paul talks about the chewing.And so we recognize that that is them actually eating the body and blood of Christ.And when people say, "I don't understand.Like what do you mean?"He doesn't like step away and go, "Like, oh no, I'm just being symbolic.I'm talking about I'm the bread.You're not actually going to chew me up."He said, "No, I am the bread of life.You're going to eat my flesh and drink my blood."
Yeah.
And people who don't will not have eternal life.
Cuz I see this as a metaphor because he says in verse uh 58, this is the bread that came down from heaven.He describes himself as the bread, all right?Uh he said earlier on, "I am the living bread that came down from heaven."Verse 51.So So then if
So if he's merely being metaphorical, why did the Jews who were there and heard him, when they ask if he's being metaphorical, why did he not um say he was, but rather he doubled down and used harsher language?
Because verse 36 says they didn't believe in him.And then verse 63, he mentioned uh right before they left him.In 64, he says, "There are some of you who do not believe."And then verse 65, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."So he's demonstrating this clearly.He's demonstrating that you can't even come to him in a saving way unless God grants you to come to him.And the demonstration of the fact that they're not understanding and he kind of like, "Yeah, guys, you you're not understanding."Cuz they they're actually interpreting him literally.They're interpreting him as I got to like eat his flesh.That's weird.What they should have done is interpreted him spiritually.That okay, I need to come to recognize my own depravity and I need Jesus.
He's my sustenance.
They were there and they did ask him.
have a question though.Um who were the people that turned away you said?Like when Christ was like, "This is my body.This is my blood."And you
The unbelieving crowd.There's the unbelieving crowd.
it says
His disciples.See verse 66.
His disciples.So, how will we define disciple then?
Because he's just said in verse 64, "Some of you who do not believe."So, a disciple is someone who just follows after or is a learner.And so, that doesn't mean that they're saved necessarily.Cuz he says they don't believe.So, they're not clearly saved if they don't believe.
they claimed that they had faith in Christ earlier and
never says that.He never says
I'm just asking.Would that mean that they are a follower?That they could turn away if Christ was literal here?
If claiming is different to actually trusting in Jesus.
Okay.If they say they trust in Jesus, but this is a hard teaching and they turned away, would they still be saved?
trust in what sense?Are they relying on him alone for their salvation, his atonement at work, those sort of things?People can acknowledge Jesus as Messiah, even as a good teacher, and not truly be saved either.So, it's about coming to the end of yourself to find rest in Jesus.
Okay.
Um I would just say that Peter cuz he would Jesus said, "Peter, and the disciples, do you want to leave me as well?"I love I love Peter's response.So good.Um and then it says verse 69 or 68.Mhm.Peter says, "Lord, to whom shall we go?You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed and have come to know that you are the holy one of God."So, Peter believes.Peter hasn't taken the Eucharist at this point cuz Eucharist hasn't been instituted.But would you agree that Peter has eternal life?
Yes.
Yeah.
Yeah, we won't deny that.
Okay.So, Peter has eternal life because he's heeded the instruction of verse 47 to believe.He's got eternal life.
Yes.
And so, therefore, whatever Jesus meant in verse 53, "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you."That therefore must mean not the Eucharist cuz Peter's already got life in him, and he hasn't had it.It must mean to believe, as he said, is how you have life.
Well, later on we see during the like Last Supper and also as we see in the writings of St.Paul, they did believe that that was the body and blood of Christ cuz St.Paul says, "Whoever eats the blood or excuse me, eats the bread or the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner um will be guilty of the body of the Lord."And so, what would that necessarily mean if that wasn't his actual body and blood?
It's a good question.I would say that these people were abusing the Lord's Supper.We see some of them some of them getting drunk off the wine, which you couldn't do if it was blood, by the way.Um but they would some were drinking all the wine, some were eating all the bread.
remain the same that the it changes.
But it's but the Catholic Church also says it's no longer bread and it's no longer wine.
We recognize that the re-
The accidents.It looks like it's bread and wine.Like yeah, accidents.It looks like it's bread and wine.Uh it might smell like bread or wine, but it's not bread and wine.
Again, what a what an amazing gift of faith that Christ has given us to to believe his actual words, his literal words that he said.
Well, I would say it's you're aligning yourself with the people who are like, "This is strange.I got to go and eat someone's flesh."
I think you're aligning yourself with that.We're we're all on board here.Peter Peter doesn't think I don't have life.Peter doesn't say I I don't have life cuz I haven't eaten your flesh, Jesus.Peter is like, "We You've got the words of eternal life."cuz he's just heated he's just heard believe.He's believing he's got eternal life.And I think it's a metaphor.Remember, "I'm the bread come down from heaven."We don't think he's a loaf of bread that's popped down and we think he's a human being.It's just part of this metaphor.And so, if the if the bread is not literal, the eating of that bread mustn't be literal.It's just part of the same metaphor.And you said, "But he said, 'No, no.'"I understand.He uses those literal those those sort of terms, but Jesus also says, "Chop your hand off."
and he uses a literal term to like physically chop your hand and pluck your eye out.But I don't think you guys should go and do that.
We've never argued that uh that Christ was never metaphorical.It's just what is happening in this context.Every context that the Eucharist is brought up, it is quite literal.
How do you know this is talking about the Eucharist?Cuz I I would actually I don't think it's talking about the Eucharist at all, cuz it's not the context of that.So, what makes you think this is definitely talking about the Eucharist?
Because Christ is the bread of life.
I agree, but that doesn't make mean that it's the Eucharist.
She's making a promise that this will occur during the Last Supper, and he uses
Where does he say that in this text in John 6 of the
What I'm saying is that it's fulfilled within the Last Supper.We see the same terminology of saying, "Eat this bread.This is my body."
say that in John 6 though about eat this bread.
He does not, but it we can understand and also in John 6 doesn't really have a notation about the Last Supper.That's why you only see the Last Supper in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and um and one other gospel.
Last Supper is not The Last Supper is in John 13.
It's It's not It's not written out in its like fullness as we see in other gospels.
But we do have the Last Supper recorded in John's gospel, too.
And so
And so this is years.This is John 6 years before John 13.And so I think if there's nothing like in here saying I eat my flesh, eat my blood in terms of I'm going to be giving this in some sort of meal to to come.I would say
to say all things in all instances.
That's why is there anything in the chapter itself that proves that this is definitely about the Eucharist?
When he says, "This is my flesh."
Yeah, and he also says, "I'm the bread who's come down from heaven."But you don't actually think he's bread at that point in time.
Truly, truly I say to you, "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life within
So, he doesn't say I I will be the bread, but I am.So, presently.Has Jesus turned into bread at this point?Has a consecration
That is a sacrifice that he has allowed us to continue to participate
Listen, at this point in time in John 6, has he turned into bread or is he actually just a human being at this point?
No, he's God.
Yeah, the God man the God man human being.You know, he's he's not bread at the moment.
he doesn't turn into bread.The bread becomes
Yeah, that's what I'm trying to say.So, as in
No, he wasn't bread at um John 6.
Okay, but he says at that I am the living bread.So, at that moment in time.And so at that moment in time we the people can already eat him.He's presently bread, and the people can already eat him when they place their faith in him.They've eaten him.They've consumed him by faith.That's spiritual truth.Cuz I'm glad you guys agree that Jesus does speak figurative language numerous times.In fact, throughout John's gospel, it's it's it's so common.He says that out of your heart will flow rivers of living water.Uh in in John chapter 4:14.And you guys
happened to him, too.
No, no.No, no.The one who believes in me of his heart will flow rivers of living water.You don't think a river of living water is going to flow out of your heart in a literal sense.
I'd call the the water the blood and the water that for flowed forth from the body of Jesus when he was crucified, that that also has
That's not what he's talking about there in John
Well, no, but if when you when you're talking about metaphors, how beautiful is it that he uh
So, there's a number of different things.There's um
That also we're not trying to just prove that
Everyone who drinks of this water, this is Yeah, this is a different one.I was thinking of John 7 30 39, but John 4:14 is Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, so the woman in the well he's talking to.But whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again.The water that I'll give him will become in him a spring of water welling up up to eternal life.So, Jesus there, he's just saying that we have to drink this water.So, what water is he telling you to drink?
Oh.
To have eternal life.He's saying you have to drink water to have eternal life.What water do you have to drink to have eternal life?
Well, we believe that we get eternal life by um receiving the grace of God, which is a free gift, and then we follow his commandments, and we follow what he tells us to
So, is there any water that you have to
and drink his blood to have eternal life.So, what does it mean to eat his body and drink his blood
so you didn't answer my question, though.So, whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again.
Mhm.
And the water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.So, do you have to drink water to have eternal life?
There I think we can understand that as symbolically but the thing is is that we're not just using John 6 to prove the Eucharist.We're using the last supper also.We're using the writings of Paul as well.And so, where in the text of John 6 are you reading this is symbolic?Because under all scripture it should say that it's symbolic.But in the context of John 4, this is symbolic.Where does it say in John 4:14 that you can read it you can find out by the context and by the context of the entire scripture and also by the last supper and the understanding of the church thatthe Eucharist is actually the body and blood of Christ.But in the context of John 4, what makes you think this is not literal water that we have to drink?Because there's no literal water there but literal water is there.
He's literally saying give me a drink.So there's literal water right there.Also in the last supper it's different.He's bringing up bread and wine and he's saying that this is my body this is my blood do this in remembrance of me.John 6 is not the last supper.He's not pulling out bread and wine at this point in time.But but but my point is not in John 4 we we've agreed that this is figurative not literal.In John 6 similar thing.He's already just giving metaphors.I'm the living bread.You guys agree that he's not actually a loaf of bread at that point.He's a human being the God man.And so therefore when he's saying eat me that he has to make that distinction.He never turns a jar of bread.
I understand I understand but he but my point is I am the living bread.He's not bread at that point in time.But and we understand that he fulfills that when he answers to it.The last supper which we believe in.
The final exchange revisits whether Jesus' words about eating his flesh should be taken literally. The speakers compare Eucharistic interpretation with other figurative sayings and argue over whether the sacrament is essential to salvation.
But but he doesn't turn into bread there at the last supper does he?The Eucharist turns into Christ.You're getting it mixed up.Yeah, let's keep going.Let's keep going.Oh sorry.We can do a bit How long do you think we just like Yeah, just a little bit longer maybe?Yeah, we can do a bit later.We can do 5 minutes just make sure within that time I just got to take a Oh you got to go hey man.Yeah, great chatting to you man.Take care.Yeah.Make sure in those 5 minutes that include your closing statements.How long are yours?Your your closing statements are usually longer so Ryan I just like give your whole spiel.Don't ask questions and ask for clarification cuz it's going to take up your time.
Got it.
Sure, yeah, yeah.So, let let's bring it to a historical context.Now, again, for 1,500 years, more than 1,500 years, this is it was undisputed that the Eucharist became the body, blood, soul, and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ.And then this this was a very new idea uh in the 16th century.
I would disagree with that.Uh we see the quotations uh from Augustine where he says John he's talking about John 6.6.He says even in regards to interpretation, if your interpretation of a passage would potentially lead to a vice, then therefore you don't interpret it literally, you interpret it spiritually or symbolically.So, he actually says that if you were to interpret John 6 literally, that's going to encourage a vice.
So, this is that's contradiction to your opening statement.
It's actually symbolical, spiritually.So, you
Your opening statement with this topic was that it's a beautiful thing.It's a wonderful celebration, right?Then but if it's something that can lead anybody to vice, how can that be a
You didn't understand what I'm saying.In John 6, if you to interpret John 6 literally where he says you should eat my flesh and drink my blood, if that leads to a vice, which would, it'd lead to cannibalism.If they're taking that literally, all right, take a piece of his liver and just have a bite of it now.That leads to a vice.Therefore, don't interpret John 6 literally, interpret it spiritually.And so
It's a very unfair characterization to call Catholics cannibals.That's not what we're
I didn't I didn't I didn't say that.I'm just quoting Augustine here where he's saying if your interpretation of it leads to something that would be sin, like chop your hand off is another example.That would lead to a vice, wouldn't it?To chop your hand off, it'd be sinful.To pluck your eye out because you're mutilating your body which God doesn't give you permission to do that.I assume you agree with that.
Well, but your view of sin doesn't matter.Not that change that.
No, no, not at all.That shows you don't That shows you don't understand my position.My position is that holiness is important.All right?And that's why people who often people say, "Oh, faith alone."Holiness is not important.Actually, it is cuz we're saved to be holy.We're saved for good works, just not by them.Um but I would see that when Paul quotes it again in 1 Corinthians 11, he says that uh when you eat eat this bread and you drink the cup, you do this in remembrance of me.And so personally, when I see if I'm doing something in remembrance of another person, it's because that person's not there with me.It wouldn't make sense for for me to do something in remembrance of you if you're just right there in front of me.And so I think what he's establishing here at the Last Supper is saying, "Look, guys, you know the Passover meal that we've been celebrating every year as Jews, we're now making it about me, about Christ, his body broken
and blood poured out.So therefore it's not that Christ is here right now.In fact, Acts 3 Acts 3:21 says that Jesus is up in heaven right now.Heaven's got to receive him until the restoring of all things.So he's not there sitting on the pew uh or like at the front on the altar.Instead, he's up in heaven awaiting the second coming."
I Again, I when he says, "This is my body."Again, we're establishing now the the Last Supper, "This is my body."He never took the time to to correct anybody who questioned that, ever.
That's fine.Because he can say that.Like he can say, "I'm the true vine."He actually says John the Baptist is Elijah.Now, I don't think you guys I'm not sure Do you guys
Okay, that that has nothing to do with the Eucharist.
No, but hold on.It's the same language.Is this is this person, John the Baptist, is Elijah?So we don't we don't think that.
But then historically
Jesus doesn't even clarify.
You say uh it was Augustine that says
Just wait.Can I just finish that point?Then you can
I don't mean to interrupt it.
So then, but I don't think either of us would say that John the Baptist is Elijah in a literal sense.Because John himself in John 1:21 was asked, "Are you Elijah?"And he's like, "No, I am not."So therefore, we're not going to have scripture contradict scripture.So therefore, what do we see?That he is Elijah in the sense of coming in the the of Elijah.It points to Elijah.He's wearing similar clothing and stuff like that.Um and so therefore I'd say that when he says, "This is my body," that doesn't mean literal like the example I just gave.This bread is now about me.It's pointing you reminding me you about my sacrifice and this wine is now reminding you about my blood poured out.
It can be it's a it's a great reminder, but again a great gift of faith that we get to participate in receiving the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Lord Jesus Christ.
The miracles of scriptures are all visible one, they like when Jesus walked on water healed sick people.They were all signs people could see.It wasn't like, "Hey guys, I've healed that person, but you just can't see.He's still in the wheelchair.He can't move."No, all the miracles that he does were visible signs that you can actually see yes that a miracle has happened.
Right and and and again just historically, um you say Augustine had this verse about, you know, interpreting types of scripture.He never explicitly in that he never explicitly condemned the Eucharist.Where again
condemn the Eucharist either.
historically, uh we see the the celebration and the participation of the Eucharist for up until the 16th century.Uh
I participate in the Eucharist as well.It's a beautiful celebration.That's where the Eucharist is celebrated
was celebrated as literal where he's being
Well, no, the language of trans cuz you you hold to transubstantiation.You don't even for us millennia, you don't even have that defined, transubstantiation.
Cuz it was something that so broadly understood.
no problem with saying, "Look, it's truly the body and the truly I have nothing no issue with that."What what do we mean by that?You think the substance changes and I don't think that's what he's getting at when he says, "This is my body and my blood."
And here in the time where this hasn't even gotten into Eucharistic miracles or dozens and dozens and dozens of other
kind of outside, yeah.Look, well,
Well, it's not outside, but it's miraculous.
We believe the Eucharist is really the body and blood of Jesus Christ because scripture tells us it, the church affirms it.Jesus Christ made a promise and he kept it and we're not saying that he said any of these things in vain.We read all of this with full truth.We understand that he wasn't being symbolic.Where later on in other verses we can actually read that he was being symbolic when he says I'm the vine or I'm the door.So we truly believe that Jesus Christ is fully in the Eucharist and we receive him willingly.
And um thank you and again uh it's truly the body, blood, soul, and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ.And it's an amazing gift of faith that he allows us to to have that and when he says truly, truly I say to you unless you eat the flesh of uh the son of man and drink his blood,you have no life within you.We take that very seriously.
The debate concludes with brief closing remarks and thanks. Both sides summarize their positions on faith, communion, and salvation before ending the conversation.
Um I think that this isn't just a theological quibble.It's a it's a uh a a defining characteristic of um your path to salvation.
Okay, I appreciate that.And my thoughts would be if we are to take that literally that if you don't eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood, you have no life, then that would exclude so many people who'venever had communion, who we believe is the thief on the cross, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, all those people never communion, and yet they had life because they had the same faith as Abraham.They put their trust in the promises of God and they found salvation by receiving that righteousness of Jesus Christ.And so I think we've seen numerous times Jesus speaks figuratively.Uh we saw the John 14:4-14 example that we don't actually have to literally drink water.We came to agreement on that and I think John 6 is another example of something figurative that he calls us to do and that is to come to him in faith.
He says three times in that chapter believing in him is how we have eternal life.And so I say anyone who believes, even if they haven't taken communion, which we should do, but even if someone hasn't, they got eternal life because Jesus is their savior and there's no condemnation for those who are inChrist.I appreciate this conversation, you guys.Good job.
Thank you.
Thank you.
You're very welcome.