The Protestant position holds that salvation comes through faith alone in Christ Jesus, not through works, sacraments, or church membership, and that scripture alone is the ultimate authority for Christian faith and practice. This contrasts with Roman Catholic teaching, which maintains that salvation requires faith plus works, participation in sacraments, and submission to papal authority, with tradition serving alongside scripture as a source of authority.
Installez notre extension pour rechercher instantanément dans n'importe quelle vidéo
6 Reasons Wes Huff REJECTS CatholicismAjouté :
Welcome, welcome, welcome, welcome everybody to the live stream. This is going to be an interesting live stream.
Welcome everybody.
Welcome everybody.
All right. So, how how's your day? You know, how's your day going? How how you guys fairing, you know.
Um, so basically we're going to be looking at, you know, the six reasons that Wes Hoff gave as to why he's not Catholic.
And I've not seen the video. Yeah, I've not seen the video. So, as I'm as you guys are watching the video, I'm watching the video with you guys. And um it's going to be an interesting one because Wolf is quite popular and I've seen um videos of Catholics reacting to this particular video we're about to react to and um it's it's quite an interesting one. It's quite an interesting one. I must confess.
I don't I've not watched it but I mean it has over 500 half over over a million half a million views. So judging from that is going to be an interesting one.
So that's just what it is. So So if you're here for the first time, please like, you know, like the live stream, you know, support us by subscribing to the channel and share out the live stream as well. Bring your friends, bring your family, bring even your enemies to the live stream and especially bring your Catholic friends. Let's have this conversations about what we believe. And um I I want to see if somebody can come up in the comment section and say, "Hey, what Hoff is saying is false." Do you get what I'm saying?
I need somebody to come up and say, "Hey, what this man is saying is false."
And um and I also need people to come say, "Hey, what he's saying is true." If you think it's true, if you think it's false, you can equally come up and say, "Hey, what he's saying is false as as well." And here's the thing that I want you guys to know. Here's the thing that I want you guys to know.
So, what I want you guys to know is that this live stream is not um for it's not only for Christians. It's for skeptics.
It's for atheist, is for Catholics, Pentecostal, Baptist, Methodist, um you name it. It's for everybody. It's for every everybody.
If you're a politist, you're welcome.
You're an atheist, you're welcome.
You're aist, you're welcome. If you're a Democrat, you're welcome. If you are a Republican, you're welcome. Everybody Everybody is welcome in to the live stream. So without much ado, I want to show you guys the video that made me say, "Hey, you know what? Let's look at Wes Hoff's video. Somebody that I admire, somebody that has, you know, um he's a content creator. He has a ministry and um he has really helped shaped, you know, a lot of Christians to see that, hey, salvation is forever once saved, always saved." Yeah. So, so without much ado, let's look at the video and it will serve as a teaser into the main video we want to react to. All right. So, here we go, guys.
Video yesterday titled six reasons why I'm not Roman Catholic. And so, I sat down yesterday and watched it. Here are my thoughts. First, I love the thumbnail. Some of you not as familiar with church history might not have noticed this. This is the original picture. Now, I'm probably going to slaughter the pronunciation of his name, but this is a picture of the trial against Pope Formosus. And if you look closely, it's clear that he's a dead body because several months after he died, Pope Steven had his body pulled out of the grave. They dressed him in his papal robes and put his corpse on trial. And I'm sure some of you have some questions, but go ahead and do your own research on that one. I just wanted to point out that it's an interesting thumbnail choice. Now, as far as Wes's video, I would actually agree with all six of his points, and I think he does an excellent job presenting them in a charitable way. He also does a really good job making it clear that it's not an attack on Catholicism, just a clear statement of why he's not Catholic. Not only would I agree with his six points, I would actually add two more if it was my video. And these two points kind of go hand in hand. The first one is the doctrine of purgatory, which is a dogma, which means it must be believed. And the second point is later developed doctrines turned into dogmas. Meaning things that came about much later after the life of Christ and after the apostles being required for belief. For example, the assumption of Mary. This is a dogma pronounced in 1950. And when it was declared by Pope Pas, he made clear if anyone rejects this, they are separated from the faith. He also went on to say if anybody speaks against it or tries to teach against it, then the wrath of God, Peter and Paul ab son says, "Yeah, welcome to the live stream, guys.
Welcome to the live stream." Smash that like button and if you're new here, please um subscribe to the channel as well. So, Savage Lee says, "There are some things I like about Catholic, the first church founded by St. Peter himself." But the but is is a capital but you know, there's always some but you know. Let's continue.
Let's continue, guys.
>> On you. And so you have a belief that is a development of doctrine that comes over 1,900 years after Christ and it becomes a must. And so these later developed doctrines become absolute requirements for saving faith. And so I would add that on top of the six points that he makes. But if you haven't watched it, I definitely recommend you give it a watch. And if you have seen it, let me know in the comments how you think he did. God bless and go in peace.
Wes Huff released a video. All right.
So, this is the video we want to look at.
Okay. This is the video we're looking at, guys. This is the video we're looking at. So, let me look at let me just read some let me read the charts.
You know, Savage Lee says they want to focus on the they want to focus on the mother of Jesus, not necessarily focus on Christ's blood shed on the cross. That's the problem I have with them. And um there was a time I did a video I think if you check if you're on Tik Tok and you follow me on Tik Tok and possibly I did that video also I dropped it on um my channel is a short and I said hey Mary is not only the mother of Jesus because Jesus you know elevated spiritual relationships over um what would I call it? He elevated spiritual relationships over physical relationships, you know. And um the favorite verse where I said where I show that is um is we can get it here where he said who is my mother?
I want to believe my Bible app. We uh where did he say that?
Uh okay.
I think he's here. So if you read here, I think it's Matthew.
Let me hide this.
Sorry. And he answered, let's do this properly here.
Okay. And he answered and said to the one who told him who so so a group of persons, you know, let me read, let me show this here properly.
What is this?
Oh, this is Jeremiah. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. This is not what I wanted to show, guys.
Uh, so let me hide this. Let me just look at the charts. Let me just look at the chats. So, as I really said, they want to focus on the mother of Jesus, not necessarily focus on the on Christ's blood shed on the cross. Exactly. The focus is just on Mary. There's a Catholic friend that I have on her status is just Mary, Mary, Mary, Mary.
Pray the five decades of Mary. Pray the 10 decades of Mary. Um is the blood of Jesus on the cross that paid the debt of my your and all our sins. Yeah. To be saved. Yeah. Is that is you're completely right about the savage.
And then it says and uh um and holy and holy Roman Catholic doesn't include Jesus in there at all. So that's that's the thing. That's the thing. Hey, thanks for the subscription. Speak the truth.
Thank you for subscribing to the channel. Thank you for subscribing to the channel. You're my first subscriber for today. A big shout out to you. A big shout out to you. All right. So like as as I was saying before, yeah, I I was saying that what I was saying is that Jesus always elevated spiritual relationship over and above you know physical um relationship or natural relationships. So and if we look at Matthew 12:46 he say while he was speaking to the multitude behold his mother and brother stood outside seeking to speak with him. 47 um 40 um verse 47 of Matthew chapter 12.
Then one said to him, "Look, your mother and your brother are standing outside seeking to speak with you." 48 But he answered and said to the one who told him, "Who um who is my mother?" He answered and said to the one who told him, "Who is my mother and who is my brothers?" All right, he was asking a question. And he stretched out his hand towards his disciples and said, "Here are my mother and my brothers." All right. 59. For whoever does the will of my father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother. You know, I read this out. No, no, not this particular one.
There's a particular verse I read out to a Catholic and he ran away from my live stream. So there you go. It shows that Jesus elevated. So that means if my mom believes in Jesus, my mom is the mother of God. If my sister believes in Jesus, my sister is the sister of Jesus or is a sister of God. If my brother believes in Jesus, it means my brother is the brother of God. So if you're a lady here and you believe in Jesus, you're a sister of Christ. If you're a man here and you believe in Jesus, you are a brother of Christ.
Okay? So that's just what it is because Jesus elevated spiritual relationship over and above natural relationship and the reason being that natural relationship only ends here on earth. spiritual relationships are eternal, you know, but it is what it is, but it's it's sad. But so without much ado, let's let's dive into what Wes Hoff has got to say. And um let us hear his six reasons why he is not Roman Catholic. Are you guys ready?
Let's do this.
What's happening?
I get a lot of engagement on my content with Roman Catholics. And some of it I really appreciate. There are quite a few Roman Catholic voices out there online that I genuinely see as good and articulate and clear when it comes to a host of issues despite the theological differences that I might hold as a Protestant and they would hold as a Roman Catholic. Trent Horn, for example, comes to mind. I've watched quite a bit of his content. I really like Trent. I like his demeanor. I appreciate the stuff he puts out online. I've been on Michael Nul's show. I enjoyed our interaction and he's been very supportive and encouraging towards me since. And so despite what some of you may have seen on like Roman Catholic Twitter or YouTube or whatever, I actually have never made a video solely focused on Protestant versus Roman Catholic distinctives. There are videos floating around out there on the internet of maybe me being asked about the subject in like a Q&A at a talk that I'd given, but there aren't actually any on my channel. So, h it's those ones that are fully around online. They're they're me giving an off-the cuff answer as opposed to focused and specific content like that you would find here on my personal platform. The closest I've ever come is discussing the topic of the canon of scripture where there is there's a difference when it comes to the Old Testament in a Roman Catholic Bible and in a Protestant Bible that but that's been an attempt to discuss and clarify the issue rather than like pitting the Protestant position over and above the Roman Catholic one.
But I wanted to take the time and stipulate why I'm a Protestant, why I am not a Roman Catholic in particular, because I get a lot of comments that say I I think it would have been better to say why I am, for instance, I'm not a Protestant. I see myself as Catholic, but I'm not Roman Catholic. Do you guys get me? I don't like that title Protestant. is is I feel like is a label Catholics place on non-atholics.
So I I I want or Roman Catholics place on non Roman Catholics. I just I feel that that's the label they use and I and I don't like that label. Me saying I don't like it is even an understatement.
I think the word I want to use is I hate that label. Um, I'm Catholic, but I'm non I'm a non Roman Catholic basically.
Do you understand? I think there's a problem with Rome when it comes to Christianity. But um, so when you say when you hear me in this live stream, when I say the Catholics, I'm referring to the Roman Catholics. All right? So I I don't like using that word Protestant.
Yeah. But that's my pet peeve. That's my pet peeve. And I'm I'm sure there are some of us here who have that pet peeves because I'm I'm not protesting. Yeah, I'm not protesting.
That's what it is. Let's continue.
>> Things like, Wes, I can't believe with all of your study of scripture and church history, you still remain Protestant. And so, I wanted to lay out the reasons why that is. The short answer is that it's because of my study of scripture and church history that I am a convictional Protestant. But there's obviously things that need to be teased out there. And so I want to go through some of these things with you to clarify, okay, what are the reasons that I hold to a modern Protestant position rather than a modern Roman Catholic one.
And the first one right off the bat is the issue of sufficiency. So first sufficient meaning that in what they are and in what they do they meet the needs entirely of their proposed intent. So if we're talking about the sufficiency of scripture in other words and I've said this elsewhere scripture is ontologically unique. So though it contains both divine and human authorship scripture remains the speech of God. Nothing else we possess as a rule is akin to scripture. Likewise, scripture functions unrivaled in its authority. Nothing we possess as a rule does that. But both in what it does and in what it is, scripture is unique. And that uniqueness provides the basis for its sufficiency. Scripture intends to communicate to the body of Christ both the primary and infallible means for faith and practice. So what scripture intends to communicate when properly understood contextually and exoggetically it does. And this doesn't preclude misunderstanding or misinterpretation. Even when God spoke directly via the prophets to people in Israel or the surrounding nations around Israel, it didn't mean that they wouldn't misunderstand, twist, or misapply those prophetic words despite them being near divine dictation, right?
God is speaking directly to the prophet.
And there's a divine communication there that is it is infallible, right? God is he's communicating those words. And that doesn't mean that everyone who's hearing them is going to apply them perfectly.
Scripture being sufficient and is sufficient due to its divine origin. And that doesn't mean then that you won't have individuals who disagree with what it means or how it should be understood. That is why the discipline of interpretation and the study of the original languages has been a core emphasis by so many throughout Christian history.
Yeah, I I totally agree with him because I mean the scriptures they were not written in English. They were not written in our language. They written in the Old Testament is written in Hebrew.
The New Testament is written written in Aramaic and um basically Greek you know going Greek. So sometimes you need to go back to the original to get the proper meaning of a word. For instance, that this particular word because that was translated in the 16th century English, New King James, it says, "Study to show yourself approve unto God a workman that needed not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." Correct?
Now the thing is this a lot of people will read it in today's English and they will think that what that verse is saying is for you to go um study like study your Bible study very well so that you show yourself approve unto God a workman who needs not to be ashamed but rightly dividing the word of truth.
Yeah. But the challenge with that is that when you go back to the original, the word translated study in the old king James 16th century English is the word translated study is it means to be diligent. So now modern English or modern translation we now say be diligent to show yourself approved unto God a workman that needs not to be ashamed rightly dividing the word of truth. So now in today's English because as at when it was written in English 16th 16 16th century English they didn't have enough verbage.
All right they didn't have enough verbage and so the the the the the closest they could for that particular word was study. But now modern translations will tell you be diligent to show yourself approved unto God. Do you see what I'm saying? So that is why a lot of Bible scholars advocate that more often than not we have to go back to the original manuscript. More often than not we have to go back to the original language in which it was written and actually look at the words because bulk of your translations basically they are interpretations of the translators. I will tell you many of them are just paraphrase and that is why ignorant Muslims will come around and tell you that your Bible has been corrupted. They have several translations and they will say several translations but they don't think and that's because they've been blinded by their deceit is a translation. If you if you want to check if it has been corrupted there's there are thousands of original manuscript right there. So you could go check it out yourself but because you don't want to check it out yourself. they've your scholars have regurgitated the fact into your head that has been corrupted. You don't want to reason. It's more or less like when people have been brainwashed. But that's aside what I'm just trying to let us know is that the importance of what of you know sometimes going back to the original manuscript. Do you guys get what I'm saying? Let's continue. goal is as Alan Selm of Canterbury said is faith seeking understanding because we are fallible and God is not and it is not God's fault that we fallably understand or misunderstand his infallible words and likewise does not negate that due to the origin being divine scripture is therefore insufficient to communicate properly without an infallible interpret While Luther and the reformers taught that the Bible alone is the authority for Christian faith and practice, the Roman Catholic Church responded at the Council of Trent by affirming that truth and salvation's rule exist in both written scripture and in unwritten traditions received from the apostles.
So Roman Catholics therefore operate with a two source of authority scripture and tradition. Importantly the Protestant principle of solos scriptorura does not eliminate all authority. Churches acknowledge church tradition as possessing a ministerial or serving rather than a magisterial or leading authority. That's important to take note of that the authority right is uh the church possessing a ministerial or serving rather than a magisterial or leading authority. So seemingly valued when grounded in scripture and cherished historically but ultimately subordinate to scripture.
Tradition for Protestants has a vote and it has a voice. Scripture simply has the veto. This distinction between scriptures ultimate authority and tradition's secondary role marks the Protestant position's essential contrast with Rome's dual source framework. I believe scripture to be sufficient to effectively communicate. Neither tradition nor personal experience have the same divine authority. So scripture in that way is sufficient. Secondly, I believe in the sufficiency of faith. The Protestant emphasis on salvation is that it comes through faith alone. That justification, which is going to be a further point that I'm going to elaborate on a little bit later, is a definitive moment when God declares a person righteous and they enter the Christian life. This represents a judicial understanding. God pronounces the believer righteous based on faith in Christ. This standing with God excludes all human works, including religious rituals performed through a church. The Catholic perspective differs fundamentally. Rather than viewing justification as a single point in time, the Roman Catholic position understands it as an ongoing process dependent on grace received through participation in the church as a repository of saving grace. Grace functions almost as a substance that can be dispensed through various channels. The church's leadership, prescribed rights, the mass, eukarist, baptism, and sacraments, all of which serve as a means of saving grace that progressively improve and perfect the believer towards salvation.
So justification then in Roman Catholicism is understood as a continuing process in which God makes believers righteous through faith expressed in works of love, including participation in the sacrament that convey grace with justification initially conferred in baptism and involving sanctification of the whole person. It's important to note that Catholic doctrine does not advocate worksbased salvation. Rather, both traditions, Protestantism and Roman Catholicism, affirm salvation by grace.
The crucial difference lies in how grace is received and what it accomplishes.
Whether justification is sufficient as a one-time entrance into Christian life or a constant movement towards salvation.
Roman Catholicism joins justification with sanctification and regeneration, tying it to baptism and the sacrament through which grace is infused, making justification a cooperative effort between God's grace and human effort, where believers merit eternal life through Christ's involvement and good deeds. This represents the watershed separation I think of these two theological traditions on the nature and sufficiency of faith in salvation. The Protestant position is that humans possess no inherent capacity to contribute meaningfully. Let me just pause this here now. Now, now let's see this. Let's see this. Well, so Weshov here Wov is saying that um Catholics they say that they do not advocate for worksbased salvation but that is what they are saying with your mouth but their actions and if you engage with them on with debates online and s that you will know that these guys advocate for worksbased salvation and their favorite verse is James chapter 2 verse James chapter 2 verse 24.
So basically they advocate for it.
That's the argument they keep bringing online. They advocate for it that it is faith plus works. Do you guys get it? Is faith plus works. You can listen to him when he say that is is is something that is a collaboration between God's effort and human effort. In the work of salvation, it is 100% God's work. You have no impute in it. And when you site examples, they keep jumping around, you know. They keep jumping around, guys.
They keep jumping around. When you site examples and say that, hey, look at this example here. The thief on the cross, he believed. He was not waterbaptized.
He didn't take holy communion.
and they'll tell you that okay it's an exception that um um it's an exception that uh uh God can save without it and I'm like also why do you think that God can save without it but you and I God cannot save us without it who is creating the exception when I told them that for you to to to be saved you don't need to confess your sin and they're like who are you to say that who are you to say that? And I said, listen, listen and listen and listen. Well, the thief on the cross didn't confess no sin. The 3,000 that were added to the church, they didn't confess no sin. When Peter went to the house of Colenius, after the Bible says while he was still speaking, the Holy Ghost fell on them.
They didn't there was no confession of sin. Another example was the conversion of Saul who is known as Paul. There was no confession of sin.
Despite the fact that Jesus told him why persecuted thou me and stuff like that the next thing was what must I do Lord or something like that that Paul said and then Jesus said you know what I will send somebody anas is coming your way.
So I'm just saying the examples are littered everywhere that for you to be saved you don't need to confess your sins. But sadly, even the so-called Protestants, we say, "Come on, you're teaching something wrong. How dare you say that? How dare you say, uh um you don't need to confess XYZ?"
Well, it is what it is. It's there already.
It's there. Except you want to pretend like you didn't see it. Except you want to pretend, guys. So, what chat? What do you think about this? What do you think about this?
Do you believe that the Catholics believe that salvation is by faith plus works or they don't advocate it? They just they just saying that you have to, you know, there's an ongoing justification that takes place when you participate in church practices and all of that. Let me know what you guys think about this because that's that's the issue right now. That's the difference between them and and basically non-atholics, you know. So that that's it. Let's continue >> to their own salvation having lost the freedom to accomplish anything pleasing to God. So we see that in places like Hebrews 11:6 or Romans 8:8, meaning salvation must originate entirely from Christ rather than from human effort. So this res recognition of human inability paired with Christ's sufficiency becomes the foundation of faith itself.
Meankton in his letter to uh Brentius in 1531 articulated this position by clarifying that faith justifies not because it represents some perfect perfection within us but because it quote lays hold of Christ the basis for our acceptance before God. And um we also see Zwingley the other reformer similarly holding that faith understood as humanity's appropriation of Christ's redemptive work through grace and that it functions as the sole instrument of salvation. These are the historical Protestant positions for Calvin. Genuine faith involves not ignorance but knowledge of God and Christ. not submission to an ecclesiastical authority, but firm persuasion that God acts as a benevolent father and confident expectation of salvation.
Luther also employed the metaphor of a bride united with her bridegroom. Faith unites the soul with Christ in such a way that Christ assumes the believer's sin, death, and damnation while bestowing his grace, life, and salvation upon the soul. Luther and the other reformers insisted that justification by faith alone represented salvation as entirely God's work accomplished through grace alone because of Christ alone. The reformers distinguished their position from Rome's claim that faith constitutes merely one component of justification alongside things like works and sacraments and post-mortem purggation.
This emphasis on faith's sufficiency, therefore, simultaneously rejected both human merit and institutional mediation as necessary components of justification. I believe that what Jesus accomplished, he did so sufficiently.
His act of justifying the believer was once for all. There is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. It says in Romans 8:1, "And I can hold that sufficient work in my life confidently."
The next one would be sufficiency of grace. So, >> so, so that that's basically what it is, guys. Faith alone in Christ Jesus. Faith alone in Christ Jesus. Not not putting your faith in your works. Not putting your faith in your ability, not putting faith in sacrament, faith alone. faith alone. So let me know what is the what is the difficult thing in believing that it is faith alone that saves guys. Why why are people finding it difficult to to believe that it is faith alone that saves? Why the difficulty? I mean it's that simple.
Is that simple? Is that easy?
Is that simple and is that easy?
Why? Why? Why do people find it difficult to believe that it is faith alone, not your good works can save you, your good habit can save you, your good character can save you. It is what it is. Your good character, your good behavior cannot save you.
That is the gospel.
That is the gospel.
any other gospel is is is ah man it's difficult because folks go to money hungry churches that teach that teach otherwise big fish welcome to the live stream it's been a while though it's been a while I think I saw you day before yesterday I could not go live because I I did like six hours and I was out and I had to go to work almost immediately that same immediately I closed the live stream I had like 2 hours sleep went to work like that managed myself not to sleep on duty and I came back I wanted to go for another one I didn't want to break the streak and I told myself man you're going to sleep on this live stream just go go go to bed go to bed I would have done this live stream yesterday but here we are today welcome to the live stream big fish it's been a while is your brother I wanted to ask you day for yesterday, but the chats were crazy. Like it was popping up, popping off, you know. I had to respond to so many people. I even guess that some of your response even got lost in the multitude of chats plus those who were trolling the live stream, you know. So good to have you. How is your brother doing?
How is your brother doing? So please guys, let me know. Why is it difficult for you guys to accept grace? like what Big Fish pointed out here that because it's difficult because folks go to money hungry churches that teach otherwise and I and I agree with him. I mean look at look at the the Orthodox the Eastern Orthodox church. I mean where people pay up to $1,000 to get water baptized.
That's crazy. If you want to go to the fish market, I think all of us are guilty.
Yeah. If if you say, "Let us go to the fish market." All of us are guilty as Christians. Yeah. Because we have we have prosperity preachers. You find them in the Pentecost and the charismatic circle that they think that you can buy God's favor, God's gift or whatever with money. So, a seed of $10,000 for XYZ.
They do that a lot in the Pentecostal charismatic circle.
So many gimmicks. Oh, I'm going to Israel. The famous one is I'm going to Israel and I'm going to pray at the grave site of at the tomb of Jesus and sending your prayer request and a gift of $200 and stuff like that. Another one is I just came back from Israel. This is mustard seed. If you want to buy it, this is water from River Jordan and people are selling all of those things and ignorant people are buying thinking that there's power in water from River Jordan.
Do you do you get what I'm saying?
Another one is um I don't want to mention names. They take a prayer shaw and they say they just go back from Israel with a prayer shaw. So that's for the Pentecostals and the charismatic.
The one of orthodoxy eastern for is is just realizing that people take people pay as high as you know $1,000 to to take swimming lessons.
what they call baptism. That's not even necessary. I wish they knew it was not necessary. That doesn't get you saved. I wish they knew. I just wish they knew.
All right. And then we had What do we have about the Catholic Church? The Catholic Church, their history is messed up.
Imagine people paying for their sins to be absorbed.
You know, imagine people paying for for their sins to be absorbed. Thanks for asking my work right now, but my brother is done with treatment now and we are waiting on the result to see if he's working or not.
Uh, okay. Okay. We'll keep praying for him. We'll keep praying for him. We'll keep praying for him.
So guys, guys, faith alone in Jesus is sufficient. Is sufficient sufficient. There's nothing you can do to add to the work of God.
Like I keep telling people, once you put your faith in Christ Jesus, God declares you righteous once and for all. You receive the forgiveness of sin. You receive the forgiveness that God has made available in Christ Jesus. And you receive that forgiveness once. What it means is that your past and your past, present sin, and future sin have been paid for. So you receive the forgiveness for your past, present, and future sins. It's as simple as that. If you struggle with accepting that immediately you put your faith in Christ that you receive the forgiveness for your past sin. If you struggle with that, ask yourself a very good question.
When you when you when you get married eventually if you're not married or if you are married here and you are expecting a a child, do you understand?
Or think about it. The babies that are unborn, unborn babies that are yet to be born, when they get born, did Jesus Christ pay for their sins?
If you struggle to accept that as salvation, you receive the forgiveness of your future sins.
Many of many of us think it is when we come to God and we cry and say, "Oh Lord, have mercy upon me. Forgive me."
That that is what makes God forgive.
That that's a lie.
Your sins are forgiven you because God is merciful. It's not because you are remorseful.
It has to it has nothing to do with remorse.
It has nothing to do with because sin has to be paid for. I'm sorry cannot take away the penalty of sin. It's just like somebody who is guilty of murder.
Telling the court you are sorry cannot reverse the judgment.
So it's because a lot of people don't understand the gravity of sin and that is what makes them think that confessing sin that confessing sin will make God take it out not knowing that it has already been taken out. And who took the punishment who took the penalty? Christ on the cross. It's Christ on the cross that took the penalty.
Do you guys get Do you guys understand what I'm saying? It's Christ on the cross that took the penalty. Not you, not your confession, not you say I'm sorry, Lord. Your I'm sorry does not make God forgive you. Your remorse does not make God forgive you. You are forgiving already because God is merciful and because he took upon himself the penalty for the sin of mankind. Does that make sense guys?
Let's continue. The fundamental divide in these kind of definitional differences which I think are important and which are key to why I am Protestant and not Roman Catholic is that the divide concerns whether grace accomplishes salvation by itself or requires human cooperation. The reformation debate centered not on grace's necessity but on its sufficiency. Rome maintains that grace enables but does not compel salvation since grace cannot initiate or sustain or complete salvation without human ascent and cooperation. This disagreement reflects competing understandings of grace and nature itself. Roman Catholicism treats grace almost as a substance dispensed through meritorious channels. Like I said before, you have the >> the thing is this, grace is a person.
Grace is a person and that person is Christ. It's not just it's not like a spiritual substance in in itself. Grace is a person. The law came through Moses but grace and truth came through Jesus.
Another place says that Jesus was full of grace.
God doesn't just have grace.
God doesn't just give grace. God is grace personified.
Do you guys get this? God is grace.
Christ is grace himself.
He's grace himself and he doesn't administer it through mediums.
Why does he need to administer it through water baptism and and um the so-called funny holy communion? Because I asked somebody on my previous live stream when he was asking me if Christ is in the Eucharist and I asked him a very simple question. When you believe where is Christ in your heart? Why do you need to take an element when you already have Christ in you already? The Bible make made it clear that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost.
Not just that Christ, the spirit of Christ is in your spirit. Your body itself is the temple of the Holy Ghost.
So why why take a substance when you have why take a substance in order for you to eat Christ when you have Christ already in you? Does that make sense?
And he was arguing that Christ is in both. A piece of bread, a piece of bread, a piece of bread that somebody baked in a factory or whatever, possibly an unbeliever and then you claim you're invoking Christ into a piece of warfare. Come on, guys. Come on, guys. We can do better than this.
Let's continue. magisterium. You have prescribed rights. You have the mass, Eucharist, baptism, and the sacraments.
All of these as a means of grace that improve and perfect the believer towards salvation. Protestants though, in contrast, understand grace as God's sovereign transformative power that operates independently of human merit or institutional mediation. So Romans 11:6 establishes that if salvation is by grace cannot simultaneously rest on works.
>> Exactly. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works. Otherwise, grace will no longer be grace.
Catholics, I hope you guys can see this, but they will see it. And they will wink. They will close their eyes. Their eyes are like this. No, we can't see it.
No, we can't see it. No, we can't see it. Give us water baptism. Give us give us our sacrament. Oh, give us give us uh give us water baptism. Give us I want to eat the holy communion. Oh, because I think he's the body of Christ. No, I can't see this verse. No, take it out of take it out of my way. I don't want to see it. I don't want to see it. I want to go to a priest and confess my sin. I want him to absorb my sins. No, take take that verse out. Take that vase out.
I need to pray to Mary the angels. I need to I need to pray to Oh, um um the departed saints. Take take it out. Take it out. Yes, Paul said I'm a saint. No, I don't agree. I don't agree. I I I agree with the pope. I agree with the pope. I'm not a saint. The church have to declare me a saint. Yeah, the church have to declare me a saint. Take this verse out. I don't I don't want to see it.
That's what they do. They just close your eyes and pretend not to see it.
Perhaps he's looking at them in the face, but you know what? We don't want to see it.
We'll just close our eyes. We'll just close our eyes.
Look at it. Look at it there. star at you in the face if it is by grace it is no longer on the basis of works. I know Wes Hoff is trying to be politically correct by saying um by saying it's kind of like interchanging works and saying that Catholics are saying it is um human corporation. That's just a a nice way to just cover up works. It's just a word used to masquerade works, you know, just a word used to masquerade. grace would otherwise cease being grace. Paul declares that in 2 Corinthians 12:9 that my grace is sufficient for you. And I think that underscores grace is completeness. While in 2 Timothy 1:9 attributes salvation to God's purpose and grace given before the ages and not because of our cooperation or in cooperation with human works for its origins. The sufficiency question is a very important one. I don't negate that Roman Catholicism says that those things are necessary. Scripture is necessary. Grace is necessary. Faith is necessary. But I ultimately think that what we see in scripture is not that these things are necessary, but they are sufficient. They are sufficient to actually accomplish God and his in his communication and in the salvific work that he operates. My next reason that I'm let me let me help Wes Hoff say it properly. So what he's trying to say is that the Roman Catholics say it is necessary but the Roman Catholics are saying it is not sufficient.
Yeah, that's what he was he's trying to say. But since he can't say it, let me say it for him. What West Hoff is saying here is that Catholics are saying that the grace of God, the grace of God in Christ Jesus that you receive at salvation is necessary but is not sufficient. You have to add your own to it to make it sufficient. What Christ did is necessary but is not enough. Just in case you don't understand the word sufficient, let me break it down. What he's saying is that the Catholics are saying that it is not enough. What Jesus did on the cross is not enough.
That's what he's saying or that's what the Catholics are saying.
And the the live stream I had day before yesterday, many of the Catholics who came to engage me, that's what they were alluding to that the grace of God is necessary. Faith in Christ is necessary, but it's not enough. It's not sufficient. We need to add works. We need to add good works, you know. And the darling verse is James 2:4. And and the thing is this, you cannot build scripture. You cannot build a doctrine on one strand of scripture. You cannot just rush to James 2:4.
Excuse me.
You can't just rush down there. You can't rush down there. You have to show other scriptures that supports it.
Otherwise, what you think James was saying is not really what James is saying. You have overwhelming evidence in scripture that is faith alone in Christ is sufficient. You pick one strand of scripture, you sit down there and you want to build a doctrine out of it.
Do you understand what I'm saying? You just want to build a doctrine out of it.
So that that's just but I don't know why is just trying to be political correct.
What they are saying basically is that grace is not enough. Faith is not enough. It's necessary. Faith in Christ Jesus is necessary but it's not sufficient. It's not enough. Grace, the grace of Christ Jesus is necessary but it's not enough. We need to add our own.
Yeah. It is what it is.
I'm not Roman Catholic is the papacy.
>> Yeah.
>> I simply do not see Matthew 16:18 being a statement about Petrine supremacy. So let me read this for you.
It says, "And I tell you, you are Peter and on this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." So the way that Rome today has understood this is that Peter is the rock and that through Peter there is a line of successors which are the bishops of Rome and that this specific bishop is the vicer of Christ on earth. I think this is a misreading.
>> It's a very big misreading. The vicar of Christ on earth is the Holy Spirit. Is the spirit of Christ.
That's the vehicle of Christ on earth.
And once you have the Holy Spirit in you, once you believe in Jesus, you're now an ambassador of Christ. You are vicar of Christ. Every Christian, every person who puts his faith in Christ Jesus, who has believed that God raised Jesus from the dead, that person is a vicar of Christ. You are Christ's representative here on earth.
It's not the pope that is the vehicle of Christ. The pope can never be the vehicle of Christ. How do I know?
Because he was never chosen by God. He was chosen by men.
Let me make this clear. The pope is not the veicle of Christ.
He's not chosen by God. He was chosen by man.
He was chosen by men.
It was chosen by men. Was not chosen by God.
If you are a Christian here, you are a ve of Christ.
You're a ve of Christ, not the pope. The pope can never and has never and will never be the vehicle of Christ. I know some of you will not be will be angry with me, but it is what it is guys.
It is what it is. If you think the pope is a vehicle of Christ, let me know in the chats, let me know, guys. If you think the pope is a vehicle of Christ, but if you know that the pope is not the vehicle of Christ, let me know in the chats as well that you know the pope is not the vehicle of Christ. And if you believe that Christians, me, you listening to me, that you are the vehicle of Christ, let me know in the chat if you agree with me. Okay? Don't end me on this one, guys. Let me know in the chat if you agree with me. And please, if you're here for the first time, smash that like button. Share the live stream to your Catholic brothers and sisters. Let them hop on the live stream. Let us let them share with us what they you know let them share with us what they believe about about everything we are talking about here. If they have something to refute, let them know bring them in. Let them come and refute it. You know, I love having the conversations with them.
We may not see eye to eye on many issues, but at least let's have the conversation. And by subscribing to the channel, you help us spread the truth of the gospel to the nations of the earth.
Do you guys get that? So, please help me share out this letter and please subscribe to the channel. Let's continue, guys. Let's continue. And I would go as far as saying that uh what Augustine states in this passage when he talks about it in his homalies on the gospel of John is correct. He articulates that the rock in Matthew 16:18 is Christ himself, not Peter. And he clarifies that Peter derived his name from rock, right? So Petra in Greek, right? That's rock. Uh and that it's not the reversed. So So his actual argument is just as Christian comes from Christ, not the other way around. So we have the statement um on this rock I'll build my church and then you know calling Peter the rock. He Augustine argues it's the same that we we the same way we view the term Christian that it's it's it's we get our our title as Christian from Christ not the other way around. So Augustine is pretty specific on this that when Christ said upon this rock I will build my church that we ought to interpret that as referring to the confession of Peter that he had that he just made in context rather than the person of Peter. And Augustine doesn't argue grammatically from the Greek. I think um that you know he's very candid in saying he doesn't understand the Greek. I think that is what we see in the Greek. Uh Jesus says this. So let me read it for you. Um I'll put it up on the screen and you can follow along if you you can't read Greek. He says deoy leohhati su iros kai epi tutra melesen.
On this rock I will build my church. He doesn't say on you that being Peter I will build my church. He says on this rock I will build my church. So I don't think there's an exogetical argument there for papal authority. I think Augustine is correct that it's Peter's confession of Christ's identity, not Peter himself on which the church stands. Now, anticipating push back, I can already hear people typing in the comments section about other things Augustine said about the authority of the bishop of Rome that I, as a Protestant, clearly don't adhere to. And I I totally grant that. I neither believe or am obligated nor even need to agree with Augustine on everything he says about the position, authority or posturing of the bishop of Rome. I can however agree with him here where I might disagree with him elsewhere. I agree with Augustine when he correctly looks at Matthew 16:18 and properly reads the context of the passage as I believe it is meant to be read. But even even if we grant that Peter is the rock, right? That the rock that Jesus is talking about is Peter, I still don't see this as meaning that Peter's successors are the heads of the church. I also think the historical record format, at least the century following the time of Jesus, indicates there being a single bishop in Rome. So this like 100-year period after Jesus as the office of bishops developed into a role distinct from pastors hierarchically it does not appear that there was a single ruling bishop say in the late 1st or early second century during Ignatius's time rather than addressing a bishop of Rome or a college of prespits Ignatius never mentions any presiding or noteworthy supremac Y um authority for the Roman Catholic Church. And this isn't a facious argument from silence.
Ignatius held extraordinarily strong convictions about hierarchical church structure and the necessity of obedience to bishops. No writer in the early church asserted the episcopal authority in more emphatic terms than Ignatius.
And so his complete silence on papal primacy is an elephant in the room. The shepherd of Hermas from the early 2nd century mentions quote the elders who preside over the church. So rather than a a single bishop, he he refers to it in the in the plural. And Clement, traditionally listed as an early Roman bishop, should probably be understood as one of several collegiate presiding elders rather than the sole bishop. uh while Steven of Rome is the first one to initiate Petrinebased claims in 256 AD and earlier bishops exercised authority.
Bishop Sylvester, the bishop of Rome during the time of the council of Nika, he doesn't even show up to the council of Nika and no one appears to think that this is some serious issue. Uh while he does send delegates on his behalf, neither him nor his delegates are given any special privileges or seen as exercising any more or less authority than any other church leader. um explicit assertion of Rome's unique overarching supremacy doesn't realistically crystallize until I would argue the late fourth and fifth centuries particularly through Damascus, Leo the Great and Galatius.
So I don't see the papacy um holding any kind of unique office in that way. I don't see that biblically and I don't see that in this very early kind of infancy church period. The next reason why I uh don't buy Roman Catholicism is prayer to the saints.
>> I believe prayer to the >> not just prayer to the saints. Sorry, not saints. Not saints. Prayer to departed saints. You have to put that in context. But although although Yeah. The Catholics have their own definition of saints. They mean Christians who have died and the church declared them saints. Yeah. Yeah. So the the the it's not just prayer to the saints, it's prayer to Mary, prayer to the saints, and prayer to angels. These three categories, Mary, um prayer to departed saints and um prayer to angels. Yeah, basically that's that's just it.
That's just it. So let's continue.
>> Saints to be a serious issue. I have less of a problem with the acknowledgment of particularly exemplary figures throughout church history. I'm a big fan of highlighting heroes of the faith that we can recognize within the communion of saints. This is somewhat aside from the fact that scripture consistently refers to all Christians as saints. Paul address exactly all of Paul's letters whenever Paul is greeting you say to the saints in Colos to the saints in Corinth to the s to the saints in Corinth to the saints in Philippi to the saints in um um um Thessalonica stuff like that to the saints to the saints to the saints.
The Bible with with with a plethora of evidence refers to every Christian as saints. So Catholics when you are praying you might as well just include me. I should pray for you at least in my life. You know when you are venerating the rest you might as well just venerate me and say St. Steven pray for us. Oh yes you can as well just venerate me as well.
But you know they of course they'll close their eyes. No we close their eyes. We do like this. We are not seeing it. We don't see what P said. We don't see what P said. We have our own definition of what saints means. That definition is the old definition.
This is a new definition and we will go with our new definition.
We will ignore what the Bible says. We will ignore what the Bible says.
Capish kapash. That's it. They ignore it. And at best sometimes I feel like they don't ignore. Many of them don't even know the Bible. Yeah. Many of them don't know the Bible. Many of them don't. They close your eyes. They always close your eyes when you show them the scriptures. Like Yeah. I can remember vividly when one of them was talking about this and I told him, "Listen, listen carefully." And I was reading scriptures upon scriptures showing him showing him from first Corinthians 2 Corinthians 1 Thessalon Thessalonians 2 Thessalonians Philippians Colossians I was showing him that hey look at it here look at it here look at it here look at it here these guys we are these are sins that we are alive that Paul was writing the letters to and then he ran away cuz he didn't have any argument but I know damn deep in my heart or I strongly believe that the Holy Spirit will be working on his heart with that because that that's a major stronghold that's a major stronghold a major stronghold you don't want to come to God directly you want to go to God through a medium because you feel that those ones they are now perfect you you're not perfect when it has already been made clear that you've been made perfect but you say no no the church says I've not been made perfect but the Bible says you've been made perfect and you say No, no. I've not been made perfect. I feel like these guys have been perfected as well. Addressing the believers in Rome as called to be saints. That's Romans 1:7. And he similarly designates the Corinthian church as those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. That's uh 1 Corinthians 1:2. I also grant that the Roman Catholic position in regard to prayer to the saints is not a worship of the saints but speaking to deceased saints signaling the distinction of dullia service and latria worship that the Roman Catholic would articulate that in the same way that we would ask saints here on earth to pray for us the saints in glory are closer to God himself and so we ask them to pray for us in a similar way and that's not true. They are not closer to God.
The same closeness that they have to God is the same closeness you have with God.
How closer can somebody be when he lives on your inside? God lives in you. God lives in you. And you are saying departed sense that God is closer to them than you. Do you think God lives outside of you?
It is littered all over scripture that God lives in you. Even from the mouth of Jesus himself, if you put your faith in Christ Jesus, the spirit of Christ lives in you. Your body is a temple of the Holy Ghost. God does not live in your cathedral. It does not live in your church buildings. It does not live in your houses. It does not live in your car. It does not live in that crucifix.
It does not live in that warfare.
God lives in you. How hard can this be?
Just accept it. That is what the Bible says about you. And so if you have God living in you, there's this nonsense about saints who have departed being closer to God's rubbish.
It doesn't make any sense.
It doesn't make any sense. God lives in you already. He lives in you. What is difficult in accepting this guys?
It was difficult in it.
So, please, if you're here, please smash that like button. Smash the like button, guys. And let's let's take this live stream to another level. Smash that like button. Let's take this live stream to another level.
And please subscribe to the channel. You help us spread the good news of the gospel.
Man, I I have so much heart for my Catholic brothers. Seriously, I have so much so much.
They're the reason I'm doing this video.
I want to really let them know who they are in Christ. Many of them don't know who they are in Christ. Many of them don't understand what Christ did on the cross. They think they do, but they don't.
Let's continue.
>> And specifically due to their proximity to the divine. due to their glorified state is a lie.
We've all been glorified equally. They don't have any more glorification than what we have.
They don't have more glorification than what we have. We've all been glorified equally.
That glorification is in our spirit.
We've been made perfect.
They are not more closer to God than you are here on earth. We are all close to God equally.
Whether we are life in Christ or we are sleeping in Christ, we are all close equally.
Excuse me.
Theologically I can understand this. But the practical reality of piety listen theologically I'm I'm shocked that you you are understanding this man I don't theologically what their position is wrong. The saints departed saints are not closer to God.
I need to sound this clearly so that everybody get to hear it. The departed saints are not closer to God than saints who are still here on earth.
We have equal access to God. We are all equally close to God. No person there can claim that he's more closer to God. No. No. We are all seated in Christ. We are all in Christ.
And Christ is equally in all of us. No person has Holy Ghost pro max and one person has holy ghost pro. No.
I do think problematically collapses the dullia and latria distinction in an unhelpful way. So prayer is only ever addressed to God within scripture. It is a fundamentally worshipful act in its nature and its function even in instances of biblical prayer that encompasses complaints or negotiation or self-defense or maybe even like raw emotional expression. Every instance of prayer within scripture is only ever a genuine dialogue with the divine.
From Genesis down to Revelation, prayer has always been to God.
Has always been to God. You don't ask somebody else to pray for you.
You can ask saints here to pray for you, but that that's that you can ask for prayers, but no, not to departed saints.
They they can't hear you. Don't bother yourself. They can't hear you. They can't and they will never hear you.
You're wasting your time talking to them.
Because if you say they accept prayer, then that means they have ominresence quality. It means they are everywhere at the same time.
That's the fundamental problem with that position. If you think that when you ask them to pray for you that they hear you is a problem because they don't have omin presence quality is only God that can be everywhere at the same time. They can't be everywhere at the same time.
They so they can't hear you. Stop wasting your time talking to them.
They're just wasting your time. You could a just go and sleep.
So the divide of a prayer to a saint which is understood as non worshipful and a prayer to God that is understood as worshipful I think actually breaks down under the scrutiny of scripture.
And I mean this with a great deal of respect to my Roman Catholic friends.
But when you look at the practice of prayer to the saints throughout church history, it far too often develops into superstition and supplication to saints.
in contrast or even instead of God himself. There are countless examples of that where you see individuals throughout church history who have taken on this practice and they pray to saints for help or for um aid in derrogation of actually praying to God and I prayers for the >> s exactly the Catholic school I went to I saw this with my own very eyes. It's not like okay St. Steven, I'm referring to myself now. Okay. Or maybe St. Jude. It's not like somebody saying, "St. Jude, um, help me tell God the Father that I need rice right now to eat." No, it is St. Jude, give me rice.
It is not, "Oh, St. Jude, I have a court case tomorrow and I don't know what to do. Can you help me tell God the Father to help me out in this court case?" It is, "Sude, please help me out in this court case."
That's I I saw it with my own eyes, guys.
So it is it is not oh St. Jude help me tell God the father that I need to pass this exam really bad. It is St. Jude help me I I'm writing this exam. I need you to help me pass this exam. That's what I saw.
It is not holy Mary talk to Jesus to help me pass my exam. It is holy Mary help me pass this exam. So really on in one breath the Catholics will tell you that they don't they don't necessarily pray to them. They ask them to help them pray.
But what is being practiced basically is that they actually pray. They direct their request to these demons masqueraded as saints that they claim to talk to. Sorry if I use a strong word, but I know many many of them are doing it out of sincerity, but truth has to be told. Any prayer, you're you're not directing to God. You're you're obviously directing to something else and that's not God.
That's what I saw. And if you if you think I'm wrong, let me know in the chat if you think I'm wrong because I went to a school. So I'm telling you what guys, what I saw with my own very eyes.
So none none of them is saying, "Holy Mary, talk to Jesus to help me pass the exam." No, it is holy Mary, help me pass the exam.
None of them is saying Angel Michael as I'm as I'm going help me talk to God to to grant me safe journey. It is Angel Michael grant me safe journey.
I know I know the places they say St. Jude, pray for us. City of David, pray for us. David, pray for us. This and that, pray for us. Holy Mary, pray for us. All those stuff. I know. I know they recite those funny things. Yeah, I know that part. But I'm seeing way beyond that. They actually send their request to these folks.
That just that I and I totally agree with with Hoff on this. That's the practice. If you think I'm wrong, let me know in the chat that I'm wrong. And if you think I'm not wrong, let me equally know that I'm not wrong.
Excuse me, guys.
As an early developing practice, I grant that, you know, that goes within antiquity origin in the late second century and early third century. He defended it by appealing to the communion of saints.
But it's really in the fourth and fifth centuries that you see the practice start to crystallize with its advocacy by individuals like Serial of Jerusalem and Chrissum and Gregory um Nazien. So uh I don't think we start to see a shift from praying for the dead to praying to them um until a little bit later. I think the evidence shows more that for the first three centuries, veneration of martyrs restricted itself to remembrance of their virtues and celebration of their death as their heavenly birth.
That's kind of the language that's used in in some of these early writings. But in the Nyine age, it starts to advance and it advanced to formal invocation of saints as patrons and intercessors. And biblically, I have an extremely hard time justifying either prayer to or for saints. I just do not see it. And though I understand that Roman Catholics have a different understanding of prayer and how it operates in being offered to saints without being confused or conflated with worship, I don't think it's biblically warranted. And more often than not, I think it's what from a scriptural lens can actually be tant tantamount to idolatry. My next problem, and >> no, that is not tantamount to idolatry.
It is actually idolatry. Simple.
It's actually idolatry, man. That's that's just what it is. Say it the way it is. I know you are trying to be political correct and um whatever. But it's fine. I understand your position, man. or but it is idolatry. That's what they doing.
It's as simple as ABC. This idolatry, man. It's idolatry.
And reason why I'm not a Roman Catholic is because of the mass. Now, I hope if you're a Roman Catholic and you're this far into the video, you hear me pause to say that the whole reason I'm making this is not to be inflammatory. It's it's not to be mean-spirited or capitalize on being a Protestant who's more concerned with being right than being loving. I care for my Roman Catholic friends and I want only what is best for them. I'm saying these things um because I think that that these things are important. I'm a convictional Protestant. I genuinely believe that the effort of the reformation was good and was needed and was a true pursuit. And so my desire is that you keep that in mind with what I have said and with what I'm about to say particularly because I'm about to talk pretty candidly about the mass. The mass as is understood in formal Roman Catholic doctrine and dogma is at minimum theologically problematic from a biblical standpoint and at most what I believe to be a denial of the work communicated within the gospel message. Now that's a bold statement and and I don't say it lightly but I think it's true. Here's why I say it though.
The notion that the mass in formal Roman Catholic theology is an unbloody sacrifice where the priest offers up Christ to God the father. That the mass constitutes an actual sacrifice that does not differ in essence from Christ's sacrifice on the cross. So the former being bloody while the latter is bloodless. Now, my own theology as a historic Baptist would say that the >> listen the the Jesus Christ, man. What see now this part now I never I never knew this. The other one I I I kind of like know like I had had an idea of them but this one. So So basically when you ask somebody how was mass exactly this what he's talking about that Christ is being offered up every Sunday. Jeez, every Sunday all around the world, Christ is being offered is that it's a bloodless sacrifice. Listen, nobody offered like check the gospels. It was Christ that offered himself, not man that offered Christ.
Let me tell you something, man. If you if you really read your Bible and you're Catholic, you get you stop being Catholic. If you just read your Bible, if you just read your Bible, I wish I had done this live stream yesterday. If you just read your Bible, guys, you not have any business in a Catholic. I can assure you, you ain't got no business being a Catholic if you just if you just dare read your Bible. Is that simple?
Christ sacrifice is once and for all and you say you are offering Christ to God like can you guys hear yourself jeez let's continue table contains the idea of real presence that Jesus is present in the matter of what we are doing whenever we meet together in remembrance of him and I would even go as far as saying that I think there's a sacrificial compon component to this in so far as this is a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving that we offer and worship but is not a propitiatory sacrifice. Exactly.
>> So propitiation is a theological term referring to appeasing divine wrath through prayer or sacrifice when sin has been committed. During the mass, the mechanism involves the priest's consecration of the bread and the wine. And then the consecrated host and cup represent the slain lamb through the action of consecration and the production of the body and then separately of the blood by the words of consecration. Luther distinguishes between a sacrament and a sacrifice. And I think that's helpful. The sacrament is the means of the grace by which God gifts us participation in this event by him saying this is my body given to you and the posture is God to us. The mass has the priest offering Christ to the father and the directionality of the posture then is not heavenly downward for the church which I would argue is what is happening in the means of grace that takes place at the Lord's table but earthly upwards on behalf of the church to God. So in Roman Catholicism, it's earthly upwards. In Protestantism, I would argue in in the kind of proper biblical understanding of what's going on at the the last supper at the Lord's table, it's heavenly downwards. What I believe is happening at the Lord's table is an action where we participate in praise and thanksgiving in remembrance of a one time. The question is this, what are you remembering?
Do you remember somebody who who is dead or somebody who is alive?
you somebody who is already living in you, what are you remembering him for?
So this is my gripe both with the so-al protestant and so Catholics that hold this where I no we disagree with Hoff listen what you guys call the Lord's supper what you guys call the holy communion is pointless useless I mean yes is a strong word though and I mean it with every respect but if you feel disrespected it's fine communion holy communion The Lord's supper is pointless, useless, unnecessary.
He's just you guys are just having fun.
You're just having refreshments.
Basically, that's what it is. It's just just refreshment. Christ is not in that thing. And he's it doesn't have any significance.
If you want to if let me tell you the proper way to remember what Jesus did on the cross is go to the streets and go preach the gospel. That is the proper way to remember what Jesus did on the cross. Not to sit around the table eating one bread that one bakery manufactured for you guys and drinking some people drink food juice and they call it communion.
What Jesus was what Jesus had with his disciples at the opera room was Passover. It's not holy communion. is a is Passover.
Maybe you guys don't know that it's Passover.
It's a Jewish feast.
It's a Jewish feast.
There's nothing new about it. And it has four cups. Yours is just one cup in your church.
If you want to copy it, copy it very well.
They had a lamb that they that they killed at the Passover. Do you kill a lamb? Go check the price of of a ram in the market and see if you guys can afford doing that every Sunday. I mean, those who rear ships will be very very happy with you guys. If you guys will be doing that every Sunday, it's pointless.
It was pointing to Christ and after Christ died, doing it is pointless.
What is there to remember you is for us to sit down and remember what Christ did for us. There's nothing to remember there. If you want to keep remembering what Christ did for you, go out there in the streets and preach to those who are lost.
If you don't want to go out, set your ring light and go live on YouTube or Tik Tok or Facebook or Instagram and preach the gospel. It's as simple as ABCD.
There's nothing there's nothing more to it. If you if you really want that, just go out there and preach the gospel. It's as simple as that. That's how you remember what he did on the cross properly.
Not sitting down and eating eating an empty bread that doesn't mean anything.
And drinking fruit juice, colored bread, that doesn't mean anything event. We're not offering Christ up as a sacrifice to appease the father's wrath.
So please, if you're here for the first time, sorry I just went a little bit emotional, you know, and sometimes hearing things like this just breaks my heart, you know. So please like, please like the live stream.
Sup? I don't know. I don't know.
Hello guys. Can you guys hear me?
What's happening? So, please like the live stream, support the channel, and um yeah, support the channel by subscribing. Basically, that's just that's just what I wanted to say. Let's continue for the forgiveness of our sins. I totally understand that this is representation rather than resacrifice.
I don't want to be accused of misrepresenting the Roman position on this. I think we just disagree fundamentally and I recognize the nuance. I simply deny the whole premise.
My position as a historic Protestant is that the Roman Catholic understanding of what takes place on the mass is not compatible with what we see in places like Hebrews chapters 9 and 10 where the mass as a sacrifice is a direct conflict with the juxtaposition of the sacrifices in the Old Testament in the old covenant system being compared with the once-forall sacrifice of Jesus in the new a representation of an unbloody sacrifice that needs to be done over and over in order for the remission of sins is contrary to I think what the author of Hebrews describes in what takes place on the cross. And I think that that's a problem. My next point is the idea of the changing in the quote unchanged church. Uh, last spring I traveled to Trento, Italy where our film team at Apologetics Canada went there specifically to produce episode 4 of our Can I trust the Bible video series and the purpose of us being at Trent was to discuss its impact on the official pronouncement of the canon of scripture that took place on April 8th, 1546. So for that project, I was reading a ton of stuff that was going on at Trent in the 16th century and the conversations and disagreements that happened during the counter-reformational movement. And I have to be honest, my experience of that investigation solidified for me that the religion of Rome being argued for at Trent, at the Council of Trent, is quite different in places to the religion of Vatican 2 following 1965.
The theology of Rome has changed. The historical consistency often claimed within Roman Catholicism is simply not there when actually compared with what the church has in the past declared about its beliefs. The pmics that took place during the reformation taught that Roman Catholic teaching as it was at Trent was the universal teaching of the whole church. And that's simply false.
So when you have Cardinal Henry Newman uh writing an essay on the development of Christian doctrine in 1848, he's outlining the parameters of why the claim of unchanged continuity isn't true. The development hypothesis undermines a unified constant and uniform teaching from the apostles to today. What Newman outlines is simply not the thinking of those at Trent. It isn't. They would not have agreed with Cardinal Henry Newman's thesis. On paper, the claim of continuence and unchanged succession sounds great. But at a deeper inspection, it's just simply not true. And a simple example of this is that the medieval church taught that submission to the bishop of Rome, the pope, was a matter of salvation. It was salvific. The papable bull unum sanctum issued by Pope Bonafice in 1303 stated quote we declare affirm define and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary to salvation that every human creature should be subject to the Roman pontiff.
I'm sure the Muslims are subject to the Roman pontiff.
The John 3 say, "For God so loved the world that he gives his only begotten son that whosoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life." But no, Roman Catholics will not see it. Of course, they will close their eyes and say, "You have to submit to the Pope for you to be saved." Can you see how crazy this position is?
For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life. The Roman Catholics said, "No, Jesus, shut your mouth up." They need to also submit to the to the to the Roman pontiff. Shut your mouth up. They need to submit to the Pope.
How dare you say you just believe in you is they can believe in you. Yeah. But they have to submit the Roman pontiff. If they don't submit to the Roman pontiff, they ain't saved. Shut your mouth, Jesus. How dare you say that? Yeah, that's what it is. And they've made the word of God ineffective by how they make it un ineffective by mixing the traditions of men with the word of God. That's how they made it in ineffective obviously. But let's continue. This is a wide claim.
This this is a wide claim, man.
that Jesus Christ that a man that some some group of men came together mortal men came together to to to elect all creature including my dog has to submit.
Sorry guys, I don't have any dog including the mosquitoes flying in my house. I have to submit.
Okay, they said human creature. Forgive me.
I have to submit to to Jesus Christ. I'm pleased with this. I wish I could take a a screenshot of this.
Major reason I can never and we never never ever be a Roman Catholic.
A modern Roman Catholic teaching acknowledges that those suffering from invincible ignorance of the true religion can achieve salvation through moral readiness and faithfully fulfilling God's will through the precise mechanisms that remain unexplained.
>> You know the thing is salvation is simple but humans just love it hard.
They love it. Like, let it look like they're solving um what's this math? Sign and cosine, you know? They just want it so complicated. Humans love it complicated.
And that's that's what you see with the fallen nature. The fallen nature wants things complicated. Satan love things complicated. But God loves things simplified. He has simplified salvation for all mankind. But man is saying no.
How dare you make it simple? We want it hard.
We want it difficult.
How dare you make it simple. We We want it difficult, guys. We want it difficult.
That's just it. We want it difficult.
And this includes, according to the Catholic Catechism, Muslims and Jews being able to be saved even if they are outside the church. Let me read for you paragraph 841 841 of the catechism. It says this quote, "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the creator in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims. These profess to hold the faith of Abraham and together with us they adore the one merciful God mankind's judge on the last.
You see how problematic this is when John 3:16 says for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life.
The the Catholic said no no John 3:16 we we don't see it. Let us close our eyes.
We don't see it. No, no, no, no, no. We don't see it. It is those who acknowledge God. It is those who just believe in God, you know, that will be saved. This is listen, if you don't believe in Jesus, you are yet in your sin. You are not saved. If you don't believe that God raised Jesus from the dead, Jesus himself said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the father except by me." Somebody's saying here, Rosico, this man makes strong men. If you want to submit to Christ, it has to be done through his one and only holy Catholic Church. Show me where it is written in the Bible.
Rastico, show me where it is written in the Bible that I have to submit that I for me to submit to Christ, it has to be done through his one and holy Catholic Church. Show me where it is written in the Bible. See, she say he's a strong man. Show me where it is written in the Bible. I have to submit to the Holy Catholic Church. Show me. I bet you you cannot point it out from any scripture from Genesis down to Revelation. You will not be able to produce one. I double dare you.
I dare you. Show me one.
You don't have any scripture. is just what was forced down your truth in catechism. Show me one. You can show me any scripture from Genesis down to Revelation.
Show me one. I I dare you to show me.
Bring one scripture out and I will end this live stream. If you can bring that scripture that shows I have to submit through your Catholic church.
Show me one. How you submit to Christ is very simple. Is to believe in Jesus.
That is how you submit to Christ.
Believe in Jesus. Believe that God raised him up from the dead. Believe that Jesus is God. That is how you submit to Christ. It is outlined all through scripture.
How did Abraham submit to Christ and he's in heaven?
How did Samson submit to Christ and he's in heaven? How did Elijah submit to Christ and he's in heaven? How did Moses submit to Christ and is in heaven? Show me how they submitted through the Catholic Church.
How did they submit? It is very simple.
They their faith was that Christ would come and that he will be resurrected from the dead is outlined in the book of Hebrews. Go read it out. That is how they submitted. The Bible says and Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness. God position cannot just change.
He's the same today. He's the same yesterday, today, and forever. Show me that in the Bible. Of course, you can't.
You just drop a comment and I'm sure maybe you've run away. Just drop a comment that you can't defend. Typical of you guys. Anyway, I'm waiting for you, man. Show me one.
Show me one that has to be through your Catholic church. Show me one.
false gospel spreading just coming around spreading your false gospel.
Let me continue my live stream, man.
I'm sorry, but this is not the teaching that you find in the very clear medieval Catholic theology of extra ecclesia nola salos. Outside of the church, there is >> Let me see what this man say. Sure, I'll show you when you prove that the only thing to believe that the only thing to believe is in the Bible. Scripture alone is scripture alone is anti-biblical and anti-apost. The question is this. Show me one from the Bible. Show me one.
There's no You're the one that see this is the first thing you said right then.
Show me where it is written in the Bible that you have to be to submit to Christ.
It has to be through your pope. Show me one.
Of course, you can't show it. You're putting a condition. Show me one. And I when you show me one, I will show you that the only thing to believe is the Bible. I will I'll show you that the only thing when it comes to salvation, mark my words. When it comes to how man has to be saved, the only thing to believe. Scripture has the final authority. Every other thing submits to it. Including that one you want to present, submits to it.
Show me one, man. Show me one.
Show me one.
But he's pointing the disagreements that you guys have been changing for for years.
The same pope that came and said Mary is um co co-redeemer. The latest pope came now and changed it and said no Mary is no longer co-redeemer. That's the set of people I should be I should be following. Set of confused people.
Pope the popes previously before him said Mary is a co-redeemer. Now this latest pope from the US is saying Mary is not co- redeemer which the protestants have been telling you guys since that Mary did not have a hand in our salvation and you said I should these are the people I should the so-al vicar of Christ confusing themselves this one says he's co- redeemer the other one comes out and say he's not Mary is not co- redeemer so we how do I take you guys seriously should I who should I listen to you or your your popes that are changing.
These guys are just funny.
>> No salvation. It's just not the same.
There's a clear change. You read the writings of the medieval church and it has sometimes even stark differences like this, a a clear growth. And so I don't think that that validates that this is the one true church that it has gone unchanged. And when you read, >> let me tell you something. The one true church is a church that believes that for you to be saved, you have to believe in Christ Jesus alone.
Any other addition to it, that church is a fake church. I I put it to you guys.
That church is fake. Any church that believes that for you to be saved, it needs your corporation, that's that belief system, that church is fake. Any church that believes that for you to be saved, you have to be waterbaptized, that church is fake. Any church that believes that for you to be saved, you have to take the Eucharist, that church is fake. Any church that believes that for you to be saved, you have to submit to the Pope, that church is fake. Any church that believes that for you to be saved, you have to take the so-called holy communion. That church is fake.
It's not a true church. Is a false church.
Why am I even using the word fake? Is a false church. Fake is an understatement.
The real position of things is that that church is false. That church is not a church that Jesus founded. At best is a devil that founded the church. If you want to get peace, get pissed.
individuals like Cardinal Henry Newman.
He is working a thesis to explain exactly how change does happen. Okay, justification. I I touched on this a little bit before when I talked about sufficiency, but when I use the word justification, what I'm asking is the question, how am I made right with God?
Is very simple. How you are made right with Sorry, man. Sorry guys for going off tangent. This guy just pissed me off.
Sorry I went off, but I had to say the truth. But I know some persons will not like the way I said it. But it's it's fine. It's fine. Maybe I may lose some subscribers. It's fine.
Some people are going to dislike the video. Is fine.
All right. Some people are going to suppress the video. Is fine. Some people are going to report the channel. Is fine. You can report the channel if you if you are pissed. You can report. But thank God that YouTube is not Twitter that when they mass report your channel, they take it down. That's that's why I'm doing this live stream on YouTube. Okay. So, if if you pissed, you can you can do whatever you want to do.
You can as well just leave the live stream as well. Just scroll past and maybe block the channel so that you don't get to see it again. Okay. But here's the thing. How do you get justified? It's very simple. How you get justified is by believing in Jesus.
That's all. That's how you get justified.
That's that's it. That's the only way you get justified. You don't get justified by water baptism. You don't get justified by holy communion. You don't get justified by attending mass.
That mass is pointless. Water comm holy communion is pointless. Water baptism is pointless and useless. You don't need it.
But I mean if you like eating bread and fruit juice, go ahead and take it.
If you like swimming in water, go ahead and get water baptized.
If you like attending mass where they say they offering a blood that they offer Christ, but although bloodless, if you believe in that forever, go ahead, keep wasting your time.
But this alone, justification can only be achieved by putting your faith in Christ Jesus. You can't be justified by your good works. You cannot be justified by your can't be justified by your good works.
You can't be justified by your good behavior. You can't be justified before God. You can't. Your good works can't can justify you. Your good behavior can never and will never justify you before God. That's self-righteousness. If you are doing good things thinking that your those good things you are doing will justify you before God, the Bible calls those things dead works.
So your good behavior, your good character, your good habits, giving to charity and all of that, behaving yourself well, having good morals cannot earn you points with God.
It can't end you justification in the sight of God. What makes you justified is your faith alone in what Jesus did on the cross. That is what makes you justified.
That is what makes you justified.
That's just it.
How is God's work in moving a person from sin to a state of grace accomplished? Of course, the apostles wrote saying that those who listen to us listen to Christ and those who do not reject Christ. The apostles are the first teaching authority of the Catholic Church. And I'm asking you quote where the apostles said that if you don't submit to the Roman Catholic Church, you will not you you are not submitting to Christ.
That's what I'm asking. Just show me quote. Give me a book, chapter, and verse. Or maybe a book, chapter, and series of verses. That's what I'm asking.
That's That's what I'm asking. You made a claim that if you want to submit to Christ, it has to be done through the one and holy Catholic Church. And I'm asking you, show me that Bible verse.
You're busy going around the bush.
You're just going around the bush.
I'm asking you, show me the Bible verse where you found that.
When you show me the Bible verse, I will prove this one for you. If you can't show me the Bible verse, don't don't bother yourself, man. Don't bother yourself. It says, "Now, now prove that the only thing to follow is the Bible.
You won't find it in the in the doctrines of men invented during the reformation." You, my friend, are still following the teachings of what is it?
Martin Luther where where did the Bible say that I'm asking you where did the Bible say this simple you can't prove it where did the Bible say it because you can't find it so you have to resort to catechism that some group some group of people heretic group of people invented over a succession of years that's it is what it is man people can write books But the authority is scriptures. You can't you can't you can't. So this position of yours is false at best. That's the best it is because you can't show from scripture where it is.
And because you can't show you are so pained that you can't show it from scripture. That is why you are now saying I should prove to you that the only thing to follow is the Bible alone.
That is why you are so pained. You wish it was written somewhere in scripture, but sadly it can't be found.
It can't be found. You I'm I'm so sure it's pinning you right now that your position you can't show them from scripture.
There's no difference between you and the Mammons. The Mammons have the Bible and they have their own book. The same thing with Catholics. They have the Bible, they have their own book. They call it catechism. It's as simple as that. You are so pained when I say show me from the Bible. You are making the same arguments the Mammons will also make.
You're making the same arguments with them.
So I'm saying show me the same thing with the Jehovah's Witness. They have their own Bible that they've authored, you know, they've crafted and stuff like that and they have their own book.
Strong man, strong men. The Holy Catholic Church teaches that salvation comes only through Christ Jesus. Stop lying. Lying is a sin and and is from the devil.
What did he just say here now? He said he said you just keep it's like straw man is the word you just learned. That's the new word you just learned. You can't make any statement without using straw man.
You said if you want to submit to Christ, it has to be done through his one and only Catholic Church. And I ask you a simple question. show from scripture that you have to submit to the Holy Catholic Church in order to submit from Christ. And up until now, you can't show me any verse. You can't. It's so sad.
It's nice having you around though. Good to have you here. Welcome to the live stream. And so, please, if you're here for the first time, smash that like button and share the live stream. Invite your fellow Catholic friends. Let them come and roast me, you know. And um if you're in support of what I'm doing, send the live stream out to your fellow Protestants, to the Baptist, the Methodist, the Eastern Orthodoxy, the Anglicans, the Presbyterians, the Evangelicals, the Pentecostals, and the Charismatics, the Calvinists, you know, send it out to them. Let's let's have this conversation on what it really means to be justified, on how salvation can be gotten. Is salvation only through Christ or you have to submit to a pope? It was shown here on this on this video. Right? It was shown here that you have to submit to pope for you to be saved.
Also in some places they say you have to do the rosary for you to be saved. You know so it is what it is. It is what it is. So if if you're here please support the channel by subscribing. It helps us have conversations like this. I know at some point I I was I I went off tangent a little bit but it is what it is. It's fine. Sometimes I just get emotional sometimes. Like day before yesterday I was I was I was super calm but today I don't know. It seems like I've lost my cool but I'm sorry guys especially when it comes to salvation when it comes to justification. I'm very very emotional when I'm addressing things like that. Especially when I see positions, yeah, that seems to not seems to positions that make rubbish of what Jesus did on the cross. Positions that make it look like the what's what Jesus did on the cross is not sufficient. They will tell you it is necessary, but they but their action and their attitude shows that what Jesus did on the cross is not sufficient. So, they have to keep doing it in the mass every Sunday.
That's the problem I have.
When people make what Jesus did on the cross as though it is not sufficient as though it when people like blantantly go against scripture.
That's my That's the problem I have.
That's the problem I have. So that's why you see me I'm I'm I'm just I'm just You see me the way I am.
This friend says that baptism doesn't save. First Peter 3:21 say baptism which corresponds to this now saves you. Did did first Peter 2 first Peter 3:21 did first Peter say water baptism?
What makes you think? Go check the meaning of baptism. It has nothing to do with water. There are different kinds of baptism. But you just concluded that 1 Peter 3:21 is talking about water baptism. Did you see water at the back of baptism?
I know this particular verse you you're quoting, man.
Rastico, I know this particular Bible verse you're quoting. Don't think I don't I've not seen it before. I said baptism doesn't save. Baptism doesn't save. Water bapt water baptism doesn't save. The only baptism that save is when you believe in Jesus. You are now baptized into Christ spiritually.
The only baptism that save is spiritual baptism. And that baptism takes place at salvation. Once you put your faith in Christ Jesus, the Bible says you were transferred from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of light. You were translated from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of his dear son. It is that translation, it is that transference that is baptism itself. You are being baptized into Christ, not water baptism.
First Peter 3:21 has nothing to do with water baptism. It is baptism. That's what Peter said. I think I I addressed this particular verse. Um what do we call it? I addressed it in my last in my the day before yesterday in my live stream. It has nothing to do with water.
You are the guys adding water. Baptism has baptism has nothing to do with water.
John said, "I baptize with water, but he who comes after me will baptize you with the Holy Ghost and fire."
Do you understand?
He said, he said, "No worries. You don't report any channel. They only self to expose the falsehood of Protestantism and in scripture alone." Listen, there's no falsehood in scripture alone and there's no falsehood. I not I'm not a Protestant. I'm not protesting against anything, right? You're the one in my comments here protesting. I'm not I'm not protesting. You're the one in my live stream protesting. Right? Let let me show you something. If if you will read the scripture, if you will, if you will there read the scripture with me.
Let's go to uh okay this spirit.
All right, let's go to this so you get to see it. I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sand I'm not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Ghost and fire.
That's Matthew 3 11. Let's go to Luke 3:16. I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance.
But he who is coming after me is mightier than I whose sand that I'm not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.
So water baptism does not save anybody.
It doesn't. It is the it is a baptism of the Holy Spirit that saves people. And that is what Christ does when a person declares or when a person put his faith in Christ Jesus. That's it. Any other thing than this is falsehood at its best.
Let me even show you the reason John came bapt baptizing.
Maybe if you want to see it, you can request I show you. But this is just see.
This is just see.
So baptism does not save anybody.
Baptism does not. Holy communion does not. The ukarist does not. As a matter of fact, Christ is not in the ukarist.
He's not there. He's in the believer.
Those who put their faith in Christ Jesus, that is where Christ dwells. He does not dwell in the Eucharist.
He dwells in the believer. If and and radical if you put your faith in Christ Jesus indeed your faith alone in Christ Jesus Christ dwells in you already and you are justified before God. Your good works doesn't justify you. Your good behavior doesn't justify you. Once you put your faith in Christ Jesus, you are now the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus. God declares you righteous and you are righteous forever regardless of your conduct. I dare to say that.
And the reason I say that is because your conduct itself, your conduct does not make you righteous before God. Under the law and under religion, your conduct makes you righteous. But under the law, no person could be righteous because the law could not produce the righteousness of God in man. It only accused man. It only pointed out sin in man.
So what Jesus came to do was to was to die on the cross. And the sins of the whole world has been paid for once and for all. The sins of the whole world is not being paid for every Sunday mass.
No, it was paid for once and for all.
And once you put your faith in Christ Jesus, you receive forgiveness, the forgiveness of sin, past, present, and future. You receive it at once.
You receive it at once. You receive it at once.
So that's what I'm saying to you. If you dare put your faith in Christ alone, your past sins were forgiven.
Your present sin are forgiven. Your future sins are already forgiven.
The sins of the whole world has been forgiven because John said, "Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world." The lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. So the sins of the world has been taken care of. The sins of the whole world has been paid for. But not everybody has received that forgiveness. And how do you receive that forgiveness is by putting your faith in Christ Jesus.
Believing that God raised Jesus from the dead. Believing that Jesus died for you.
Jesus died as you. On the third day, he resurrected for your justification. That is the gospel. If you believe it, you are saved.
So baptism doesn't save. He doesn't. He can never save and we never save.
Look at Romans chapter 10 verse Romans chapter 10.
Let's go to Romans 10 verse 9. Classical ve verse.
Let's go there. Romans 10 verse 9.
But what does he say? The word is near you in your mouth and in your heart.
That is the word of faith which we preach. It goes further to say that and if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
10 For with a heart one believes unto righteousness and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
That's the formula to be saved. To is essentially believe.
The thief on the cross was not baptized yet he was saved.
He was not baptized yet he was saved.
So baptism is not required for salvation.
If it was required for salvation, Jesus would have baptized his disciples after his after his resurrection from the dead. But he didn't do that before his before going to the cross. He could have he would have baptized his disciples. He didn't baptize any of them.
Do you understand? He would have baptized he would have done that.
He would have baptiz he would have done that. But he didn't.
Unity is saying um catalism true. Is he a question you're asking? He say I prayed the rosary recently. So why are you praying the rosary if I may ask you?
Why are you praying? Why do you pray the rosary if I may ask you? Why do you pray the rosary? Let's have that conversation. Let's talk. Why do you pray the rosary?
Whoever listens to you, listen to me.
Whoever rejects you, whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me. Okay? And that's the person I'm listening to. I'm listening to the apostles. That's what the apostle wrote here. Look at them.
Look at it here.
And you guys have clearly rejected the apostles. He say, "For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." I'm listening to them.
I'm listening to them.
Is that the proof you want to bring? How does he how does he how the people he was talking to, were they in Rome?
The people Jesus was talking to, were they in Rome?
I'm asking you a question or do you think receiving the apostle is because of how beautiful he speaks? By by receiving the apostle, you are receiving the authority of the one who sent him.
To reject him is to reject Christ. And I've told you, I have received the apostle, the ones who wrote the scriptures we are reading right now.
Look at look at what John Let me take you since maybe some of you don't read your Bible. Let me let's go. Let's show you that I I've received them. I believe they are witness because Christianity is built on the foundation of the apostles. Christianity is historic and apostolic.
And when I say apostolic, I'm referring to the apostles of Christ, not the popes and the bishop.
Look at it here. I'm I'm believing the apostles now. Look at it. Look at it, guys. For God so loved the world. This is John. That he gave his only begotten son that whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life.
That's it. That's the formula for salvation. Believe in Jesus.
Believe in Jesus. That so this this this apostle this is what he says that to believe in Jesus is the way to be saved.
So what are you talking about?
It is not true. I'm a I'm a Protestant in the Catholic. I don't understand you.
The reformation of the mata Christ. Are you Catholic or Protestant? I see more truth in Protestant in Protestant church. Okay, I get you. I get you now.
So let me put it like this. I'm not I'm not a Roman Catholic. I'm Catholic but I'm not Roman Catholic. Catholic means universal. There's nothing special about that word Catholic. It means universal.
I'm not a Protestant because I'm not protesting anything.
I'm just a bibleelving Christian. I follow my Bible. I read my Bible and I follow what is written there.
Not what some people are who are confusing themselves are busy adding to the scripture and saying it is not scripture alone. You have to believe other things too. Other things that contradict the scriptures.
Jesus is saying for you to be saved, put your faith in me. The Catholic said no, you have to submit to a pope.
They're telling Jesus, Jesus, shut your mouth up. How dare you say that? You have to also believe in the pope. But it's written there in black and blue.
Look at it here in black and white. For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life.
That's John. That's John, one of the apostles of Jesus. Now let's go let's go to another place where you you it will be so interesting. Let's go to John chapter 10. This is Jesus speaking. Red letters right now. Red letters guys. Red red letters. 27. Let's go there. My sheep hear my voice. I know them and they follow me. I give them eternal life and they shall never perish. Neither shall anyone snatch them out of my hand.
My father who has given them to me is greater than all and no one is able to snatch them out of my hand. I and my father are one. All right. He said is Jesus that gives eternal life. No water baptism.
No water baptism. No holy communion. Not the ukarist. The ukarist cannot give any person eternal life. Cannot give any person salvation.
Do you understand?
You're just lying, man. Rastico, you're lying. Stop lying. I asked Unity. I because he said he just prayed the rosary. And I asked him, do you why are you praying the rosary? I never said the church teaches that the rosary saves any person. I asked a simple question.
Everything is strawman. Straw man. You start your statement with straw man.
That's interesting. I guess you just learned this new word recently. All right. So this is going to be an interesting one guys. Let me show you guys John chapter 6.
I want to show you that water baptism cannot save anybody. It doesn't has never saved anyone and will never save anyone.
It has never saved anyone.
Let's go to John 6:39. This is the will of the father who sent me that all he has given me I I should not lose not I should lose nothing but should raise them up at the last day. And this is the will. Now watch this. This is Jesus speaking. And this is the will of him who sent me that everyone who sees the son and believes in him may have everlasting life and I will raise him up at the last day. Do you guys see that believing in Jesus believing in Jesus is sufficient is necessary and is sufficient and is more than enough. That's it. Not water baptism.
Not water. Not water. Listen, when you guys see baptism in the Bible, it is not is not always water baptism. Except if you see baptized in water, that's when you can say is water baptism. But if you just see baptism because John said, "I baptize with water." But he who comes after me will baptize you with with the Holy Ghost. John baptized with water. Jesus baptizes with the Holy Spirit.
And John's baptism was onto repentance.
It was not onto salvation.
It was onto repentance. Is a sign that you've repented. But Jesus's baptism is onto salvation. That is why he baptizes with the Holy Spirit.
But some people don't want Jesus's baptism. They want to go swim in a swimming pool.
That's it.
It It bothers you because you are against what Christianity has taught throughout the ages. No, I'm not against what Christianity has taught throughout the ages. I'm against what the Roman Catholic Church has lied about throughout the ages. That's why it bothers me cuz I'm passionate about salvation, you know. Unity says he didn't say anything about the rosary. I did the rosary is a prayer used by by a Catholic but Catholic love Jesus just like any other Christians. I believe that. No, they love Mary more than Jesus.
I went to a Catholic school. So everything was centered around Mary.
I said what I said. They love Mary a lot. Jesus Christ of Nazareth. They love Mary a lot.
They cannot go a day without mentioning Mary. Jeez, they even pray to Mary. They pray to departed saints and pray to angels.
They can say, "No, we asked them to pray for us." But what I saw in my Catholic school, the school I went to, they were you see there's a difference between there's a difference between holy Mary, pray for us, and holy Mary, I want to write an exam. Please talk to Jesus. So that which I think is pointless but let's for sake of an argument let's just go with it and please talk to Jesus so that Jesus will help me pass my exam. Do you get now h but what I saw in my school what I saw practice amongst that they talk to Mary directly and say Mary help me pass my exams. They don't say Mary help me talk to Jesus. They say help me help me pass my exams.
St. Jude, help me as I'm traveling. Help give me safe journey. He's not like St. Jude, please talk to Jesus on our behalf. Which I which I think is pointless is useless. God hears your prayer regardless. Those ones quote and unquote in heaven are no more closer to God than you are here on earth. How do I know? Because Jesus, the spirit of Christ, dwells in your inside. He dwells on your inside. You get what I'm saying?
You said explicit that baptism does not save you. Exactly. And I'm not denying that. I said what I said. Baptism does not save anybody.
Salvation cannot be gotten through baptism. Salvation is only in Christ and through Christ and by Christ. Not through water baptism. I would love to ask you a question. Rasico, the thief on the cross, how did he get saved? Was it through water baptism?
And so when I said baptism does not save any person, the baptism I'm referring to is water baptism. It does not save anybody. Show me where in the Bible, show was the thief in the cross or on the cross, was he waterbaptized?
The thief on the cross, was he waterbaptized? That's the question.
It says exactly the Roman Catholic has twisted. Exactly. They've been twisted for a very long time. just that now they are being exposed greatly. Thank God for the internet. We are going to get this solved.
We are going to untwist them with scriptures you know. Exactly. I have argument with X is with X is over which which cause division you know it's fine doctrine most times causes division especially when people believe separate things or different things. He usually cause he causes division especially when see listen there are things that I don't really argue about because it's not it's not basically salvation. I won't be arguing about water baptism here. If the Catholic position was that you should just do it but it does not mean that if you don't do it you will not be saved. I will not be arguing it with you guys.
But when somebody says that if you don't get water baptized you are not saved.
That is where you see because salvation is a core issue.
It's not a minor issue. Is a core issue is a is a core issue of our faith of the Christian faith. So when people go around lying that you have to be water baptized to be saved, that's a problem.
We add water to baptism. He said haha Christ himself said whoever is not born of baptismal water and the spirit cannot enter into the kingdom. You're just giving your own private interpretation.
Let's see whether Christ said baptism water. Let's go to John chapter 3.
Uh let's go. Let's read that Bible verse.
Let us see where it added baptism water.
Let's let's go. Born of water 3 verse 15. Let's go there.
All right. Let's go. Uh Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, you read the Bible today." Many of you don't read your Bible. Rastico, you will read the Bible today. Jesus answered and said, "Most assuredly, I said to you, unless one is born of water." Where did you see baptismal water there? You added baptismal water to it. You You added baptismal water to it and the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Now, you'll be a corn man to to to hang in here. Move to the next verse. Now this is what Jesus is saying. That which is born of the flesh is flesh. That which is born of the spirit is spirit.
Why did he say that which is born of the of the water and spirit is spirit.
Say that which is born of the flesh is flesh. That which is born of the spirit is spirit.
Look at it here. Let's go back on go back to the original the original text. You you see it read like this.
Jesus answered and said, "Most surely I say unto you that unless one is born of water, that is the spirit or which is the spirit that there is a further explanation." Jesus was talking to a Jew and to the Jews water means newness.
Water symbolizes the Holy Spirit.
So he's saying the same thing. He's not saying two things. It is not born of water and spirit. It's not two things.
It's still one thing. And that one thing is spirit. So when you are born again you are born of the spirit not water and the spirit not sorry not not baptisma water. You're the one that added baptisma water to it.
You're corrupting the scriptures guy.
You're corrupting the scriptures. You just lied.
You just you think I will not read it.
Jesus never said baptism man water. He said water and the spirit. And what are they is figurative of the spirit.
Friend, we have an authority, bro. I can give you verses and you can give me others, but it's but it's easily resolved. I've been asking you to prove the writing alone for half an hour and you won't.
Let's sit with scripture. The problem with you guys is that you don't want to sit with scripture. You don't want to sit down with what the apostles of Christ, direct apostles of Christ wrote.
You have problems with it because you are so fixated on on what some other persons wrote down. Sit down with what those who learned from Jesus said you won't.
I stick with what those who who learned from Jesus are saying, not what some other people that don't know where they came from are saying.
You say that Christ is not in the Eucharist which goes against the entire history of Christianity. The apostolic teaching is a lie. It doesn't go against the entire history of Christianity. It goes against the entire history of the Catholic of the Roman Catholic Church.
It Christ is not in the Eucharist. Has never and will never be in the Eucharist.
Christ is in the believer who believes in him. That is where Christ dwells. He dwells in our heart. He does not dwell in a piece of bread that people eat and out in the toilet. Don't you have sense? Think about it. Think about it.
That something you eat that you go to the toilet and out, you say Christ is in that thing. Come on, man. Think.
Think.
How can Christ be in a warfare? That's an insult to Christ that Christ is in is is in a warfare. Come on, man. Come on.
The annoying one is you when you guys say Christ is in the is in the crucifix.
Come on. Is not in the crucifix. He can never and will never. God does not dwell in temples made by human hands.
It's I can show you the verse. God does not dwell in temples made by human hands. Guys, it does not dwell in a piece of wood and not dwell in a piece of wheat.
Acts, let's go to Acts 7:48.
You guys are going to read the scriptures today.
You're going to read. You're going to read it today. However, the Most High does not dwell in temples.
made with hands as the prophet says.
Come on. What does the prophet says?
Heaven is my throne, the earth is my foottool. What house will you build for me, says the Lord? Or what is the place of my rest?
Has my has my hand not made all these things?
You stiff necked and uncircumcised in hearts and ears. You always resist the Holy Spirit as your fathers did. So do you. So Rasico, don't resist the Holy Spirit. Right now God does not dwell in temples made with men hence and we and he will never dwell there.
Let's go to Acts 17:4.
He says, "God who made the world and everything in it since he is Lord of the heaven and earth does not dwell in temples made with hands." If God does not dwell in temples made with hand, will he dwell inside a bread manufactured by a man baked inside the bakery by a man? Do you think God will so will we stoop solo and and and enter into something that a man baked with his hand?
That's the question I'm asking you.
Let's think about it.
So Jesus has never, Christ has never, will never and can never be in a loaf of bread or in a piece of waver. He can never be in it. He's not in the Eucharist. He's not in the crucifix.
He's not in any of them. He's in the heart of the believer. That is where he dwells.
God does not dwell in temples. If by this extension, God is not in your cathedrals. God is not in any church building. is in the heart of those who believe in Christ Jesus. That is where God dwells. That's my argument.
You don't have to tell me where you put your faith since is fair because we believe in Christ. We believe in his one and only true church. I believe in Christ and I'm that part of that true church. The church is not a building.
The true church of Christ are believers.
Those who believe in Christ Jesus are the true church.
The true church is not Roman Catholic.
The true church is not Pentecostal. The true church is not the charismatic church. These are denominations. The true church is not Presbyterian, Anglican, Baptist, Methodist. No, the true church are those who put their faith in Christ Jesus. That is the true church.
That is the true church radical.
That's the true church. Check it anywhere, anytime. That is the true church. And that is the church Christ has built.
That's the true church.
I trust in him. You say you, my friend, talk about trusting him. I trust in him.
I put my faith only in him, not in water baptism and um swimming in water and eating a bread that somebody baked in the bakery. And then your Huh? Your priest put his hand and then he says he invokes Jesus. You can't invoke God. God can't be invoked. It is demons that are invoked.
Even angels can't be invoked.
It is only demons, fallen angels that can be invoked into substances. You can't invoke Christ into a piece of bread. You can't You can't invoke Christ into a piece of bread. You can never, no man can do it.
God can't and can never be invoked. He's the God Almighty and Jesus is God. So you can't invoke him into a piece of bread. God cannot be invoked. Check all check all your scriptures. Show me one from Genesis to Revelation where God where God was invoked. Check the New Testament. Show me where Christ was invoked into a into a piece of bread that was that was baked in the in the in the bakery. Show me one. You can't.
God can't be invoked. It is only demons that can be invoked into a piece of anything into a piece of wood into a piece of fabric into a into any substance. It is only demons that can be invoked. God Almighty can't and will never and can never be invoked. Don't allow any priest deceive you telling you that they invoked Christ into a piece of bread.
Can never can never.
The thief on the cross did not receive a bapt because the church had not yet begun his salvific work. No, it is Jesus. Jesus did his salvific work. It is not the church that starts salvific work. Salvation is of Christ. It is not of the church. Don't mix. Don't confuse the two. Salvation is of Christ. It is not of the church. Simple. The thief on the cross was still under the old covenant, not the new. So if he was under the old covenant, how did he get saved?
I'm asking you if he was under the old covenant, how did he get saved?
I mean, he's a criminal. He's a thief.
He has broken the law and he deserve what he got.
So, how did he get saved?
The law has declared him guilty.
The law has even declared him cursed because cursed is anyone who is hung on the tree. On the tree. That's what the Bible says. So how did the thief on the cross?
How did the thief on the cross get saved? Since you claim he was under the old covenant because for you to for your sins to be covered under the old covenant, the blood of goats and bulls have to be shed for you.
Yeah. If he was under the old covenant.
So you claim he's under the old covenant. And I seem to agree with you.
So then how did he get saved?
How did he get saved?
Let me ask you another question. Who baptized Apostle Paul?
Exactly. Jesus said, "You will be with me in paradise."
You will be with me in paradise. So, he was not baptized. So, baptism can't save anyone. Since you claim he was under the law, how did he get saved?
How did he get saved?
That's the question. That's the only question I'm asking. How did he get saved since he was under the law, guys?
How did he get saved?
How did he get saved? I'm waiting for the answer.
How did they get saved? That's what I'm asking. He said the the apostles are the first magisterian of the Catholic Church. Keep deceiving yourself. Who told you that the first magisterian of the Catholic Church? You asked me for proof and I gave it to you. Just one example. Now prove to me you haven't proven. There's nothing to prove to you, man. There's nothing to prove to you.
The apostles are the first magisterium of the Catholic Church. Who told you that the first mag of the Catholic Church?
The church in Corinth, was it a Catholic church? Answer me.
The church in Thessalonica that Paul wrote to, was he a Catholic church? The church in Rome, was it the that the book of Romans was written to, was he a Catholic church? The church, the seven churches in Revelation towards the last chapter, was he a Catholic church?
The church in um um Philippi, was he a Catholic church? The people that the book of Philippians were written to, the church in Thessalonica that Paul wrote to in the book of first Thessalonians and second Thessalonian, was he a Catholic church?
The church in Jerusalem, was he a Catholic church? Answer the question.
Stop lying.
Stop lying.
Stop it.
guys lie like Muslims. Like sometimes when I listen to Catholic, there's no difference between them and Muslims. The same way the Daer bros lie a lot. That's how the Catholic bros lie a lot through their teeth. They just lie.
The church in Corinth was not a Catholic church. The church in Thessalonica was not a Catholic church. The church in Philippi was not a a Catholic church.
The church in Corinth was not a Catholic church. The seven churches Paul um John wrote to in book of revelations that Jesus sent messages to the seven churches, they were not Catholic churches.
So stop lying. Stop telling lies.
Stop telling lies.
And these churches that I'm talking about, they were in people's houses. We were not in buildings.
The churches I mentioned they they were not in Rome. The letters that Paul wrote to these churches they were house churches basically. The church in Ephesus that the book of Ephesians we were we were written to was he a Catholic church.
Answer the question. You know they were not Catholic church. So stop lying that the apostles were the first magisenterium of the Catholic church.
No, they were the first magist. They were the they were the they were the people that that started and led the church. The church when Paul was writing was saying the church in Corinth. He didn't say the Roman Catholic Church in Corinth. It was the church in Corinth.
The church in this, the church in that Catholics came and added Catholic to it.
That's it, man.
What pisses me off with the Catholics that they claim that if you're not in the Catholic church, you won't be saved or you are not saved. Which is a big lie. A big lie.
He was speaking to God made flesh we worship, not a building, but the living God, but made in man like us. That that's why we love Jesus. You're right about that. When you say that's why we love Jesus, I wonder if the Wii includes Catholic in it.
A wisdom, man. Show me.
You guys cannot tell me. I'm waiting.
I'm waiting.
Jesus Christ never baptized any of the apostles before his death. After his death, he didn't baptize any of them.
It's as simple as that.
Jesus did not baptize anyone in water himself. You can go read it in John 4:2.
All right?
So there there's no evidence. The thief on the cross was not waterbaptized. The early gentile converts, we are not waterbaptized.
All right? So let's stop this funny things that we are doing. Paul said himself, Christ did not send me to baptize anyone.
Paul himself said it. I can show you if you want me to show you. All right, let's continue. Let's wrap up this video. How long have we gone? We're almost there.
The fact is I have a problem. I have a problem because I'm a sinner. And so as a sinner, I am confronted with a holy and righteous God who due to his holiness and his >> well you're not a sinner.
Anyone that put his faith in Christ Jesus is not a sinner and can never be a sinner. A sinner is the one who has rejected what Jesus did on the cross.
Who has rejected the gospel. who has rejected the forgiveness that God has made available in Christ Jesus. That's who a sinner is.
Once you put your faith in Christ Jesus, God declares you righteous. And since God has declared you righteous, you don't have that identity as a sinner.
Because Christ became sin for us on the cross.
He died as sin. He didn't die as a sinner.
He died as fornication. He didn't die as a fornicator. He died as stealing. He didn't die. He didn't die as a thief. He died as robbery. He didn't die as an armed robber. He died as transgenderism.
He didn't die as a transgender. He died as homosexualism. He didn't die as a homosexual. He died as abortion. He didn't die as an abortionist.
He died as prostitution. He didn't die as a prostitute.
He died as sex work. He didn't die as a sex worker.
So he died as sin. He became sin for us.
So once you put your faith in Christ Jesus, the righteousness of Jesus becomes credited to your account. The holiness of Jesus is credited to your account once and for all. You receive the forgiveness of sin once and for all.
You receive the forgiveness of your of past, present, and future sin.
Everything was paid for because John the Baptist said, "Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the whole world."
So my brother West Hoff, you are not a sinner and you can never be a sinner.
How do I know? Because you've put your faith in Christ Jesus.
You've put your faith in Christ Jesus.
Stop calling yourself a sinner. You are not one and you can never be one. I'm not a sinner.
Sin is not my identity. I am sinless.
How do I know that I'm sinless? Christ is my sinlessness. I am perfect. How do I know I am perfect? Christ is my perfection.
Christ is my perfection. I am holy. How do I know Christ has made me holy?
Christ is my holiness. I don't have any righteousness of my own. I don't have any any I don't have any righteousness of my own. I don't have any holiness of my own. I don't have any perfection of my own. My perfection is of Christ. My holiness is of Christ. My righteousness is of Christ. Same for everyone who who has put his faith in Christ Jesus who believe that Jesus died as them died for them. And on the third day he resurrected for their justification.
That is the gospel. You don't have any business labeling yourself a sinner. You are not a sinner. You are a child of God. You are the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus. And the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus cannot and can never be a sinner.
All right, that's just it. Wes off. You're not a sinner. I know there some Christians that hold this position and sometimes you guys say to sound humble, but you are actually sounding proud when you say you are a sinner. You're actually sounding proud. It is what it is, guys.
You are sounding proud when you say you are a sinner. You There's nothing humble about it. Humility is accepting what God says you are.
Pride is rejecting what God says you are and seeing otherwise. God says you're the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus and you are saying you are a sinner.
That's pride. That's not humility. At best it is false humility.
So let's stop this. Let's stop this guys. You're not a sinner and you can never be a sinner. It's as simple as ABCD.
It's as simple as ABCD. You're not a sinner. Okay. Capish kapash.
Luke 22:1. And he took bread. Listen, pay attention. And he took bread and gave thanks and broke it and gave them saying this is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.
The question I would love to ask you unity do you remember somebody who is dead or somebody who is alive.
Jesus is alive in you and he lives on your inside. Do you remember somebody that lives on your inside?
Do you understand? He took bread and said this is my body. His body was there standing with him. He was there with him.
So Jesus was speaking metaphorically.
He was speaking figoratively.
So we have to understand that Jesus speaks figuratively.
I don't know why it's very difficult for Christians to understand this. Jesus spoke a lot figuratively. For instance, John said, "Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the whole world."
Is Jesus a literal lamb?
Is Jesus a literal lamb? That is the question I'm asking.
Is Jesus a literal lamb? He's not a literal lamp. So John was speaking figuratively. Jesus is not a lamb. He's not a sheep.
He was speaking figuratively. So Jesus is fond of speaking figuratively.
Jesus is fond of speaking. The Bible also refers to Jesus as the rock. Is Jesus a piece of stone?
Jesus is not a piece of stone. Let me show you where it say Jesus is the rock.
I want to show you where he say Jesus is a rock. And I'll ask you, Jesus, a piece of rock.
Look at it. I'll show you. Let's go to 1 Corinthians 10:4. And all let me show you so that you understand this.
Let me show you. 1 Corinthians 10:1.
Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to become unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud. All passed through the sea. All were baptized into Moses. Look at baptism here. They were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. Now, did any of the children of Israel when they were crossing the Red Sea, were they baptized in water? No. Because the Bible say they walked on dry land. So, they were not baptized in water. But Paul here interpreting what took place in the Old Testament said they were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.
Now all ate the same spiritual food.
Watch this. All ate the same spiritual food. You will still see the spiritual food they ate. And all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual rock. They drank of that spiritual rock that followed them and that rock was Christ. The question is this is Christ a piece of stone? The answer is no. So Christ is a spiritual rock. The spiritual drink they drank is Christ. The spiritual food they ate in the wilderness is Christ.
Do you see that? So how do we eat Christ?
Is by believing in Christ Jesus. How do we drink Christ? How do we drink the blood of Christ? Is by believing. So you you you you eat by believing and you drink by believing. So once you believe in Jesus, you've eaten the flesh of Jesus. Once you believe in Jesus, you've drank the blood of Jesus. That's what it that's what it means.
Do you understand?
So he says uh uh he says Psalm 23 just like a shepherd which handles his sheep, he will handle you the lamb of God.
Exactly. Does he mean I'm a sheep? When when David said the Lord is my shepherd, was David saying I am a sheep? Was David saying I am a goat?
He was not. He was he was using that figuratively.
When Jesus said he will separate the sheep and the goats, the sheep there is figurative of those who believe in Jesus. The goat is representing those who are unbelievers. Does it mean that Christians are sheeps literally? No.
Does it mean that unbelievers are goat literally? No. So it's a figure of speech. The problem is that Catholics refuse to understand figure of speech.
That's the problem.
You don't judge. Let me tell you something. And this is the problem you have. Rastical. You don't judge a truth.
You don't truth is not determined by how long it a thing has been believed.
Because people can believe lies for centuries.
For instance, people say the customer is always right. But that statement is not complete and people have been running with it. The complete statement is the customer is always right in the matter of taste.
But people always run with the customer is always right. The customer is always right.
Another problem I have with people.
Another thing again is when they say a fool at 40 is a fool forever. People have believed this for years, but the actual saying is a fool at fortune is a fool forever, not a fool at 40.
So that something has been held as a belief for years does not mean it is correct.
For a very long time in the body of Christ, people have always believed that when you read study to show yourself approved unto God, a workman that needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the work, they thought it was to study your Bible very well so that you be approved unto God. People held that belief.
Whenever they read that scripture, but when you check the original, it read like it reads like this. Be diligent to show yourself approve unto God. That is the word translated as study in the 16th century English in KJV.
So that something has been believed for years does not make it the truth. That is not how you judge the truth because history has shown that people have believed lies for years.
So the age of a of a belief does not prove its veracity.
It does not.
It does not.
It does not. For instance, somebody believe that his father is James, for instance. And this person is 60 years old and he believed that his father is James. Then they did a test.
Something came up. They did a test and he found out that the person he's calling James is not his father. His mother committed paternity fraud.
So because he has believed all his life that this person he's calling father is his father because he has believed his all his life that this person is his father. After that test result is being shown to him DNA test and his found that this is not my father.
It will be stupid of him to go ahead and say this is my biological father. At best he can say this is my the father that adopted me.
So the age of 18 does not determine his veracity.
So the Catholic Church has believed a lie. That's what I'm saying. I'm not saying the whole of Christianity has.
I'm saying the Catholic Church has believed a lie, taught a lie, and deceived people for ages. I know the way I'm saying it sounds harsh, but sometimes you have to be harsh with falsehood that way.
That's what I'm saying.
You're saying that's false. No, not Christianity. The Catholic Church has always taught that the Eucharist is Christ himself. The Eucharist can never be Christ himself. Stop lying.
Christianity has never always been in Catholism.
I can never agree with you, man.
All right, guys. So, let me continue with with this calling himself a sinner, which I don't agree with. And now you stop calling yourself a sinner. You're not a sinner. righteousness. If I am to ever be in relationship with him, my sin must be accounted for. And so justification is the act by which God declares a sinner like me righteous. And one of the main reasons and if a sinner has been declared righteous, he is no longer a sinner. You cannot be declared righteous and still have the identity of a sinner.
It doesn't make sense. Hear yourself.
Hear yourself.
You can't be declared righteous and at the same time still have the identity of a sinner. It's it doesn't work that way.
Something is wrong with your theology of a lot of Christians at large wrong with this mindset. You cannot be a sinner who has been declared righteous. If you have been declared righteous, you are no longer a sinner.
It's just like saying I'm an amateur who became a master or who became a professional. You cannot be a professional and still have the identity of an amateur. Does that make sense?
Does that make sense guys?
You cannot you cannot be a professional or a pro and still have the identity of a learner. It's not possible.
A learner cannot be a pro. And a pro is not a learner.
So a sinner cannot be righteous. And somebody who is righteous can never and cannot be a sinner.
I love this verse. One verse that helps is 1st Samuel 16:7. For the Lord seeth not as man sees, for man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart. You know, I love this verse. So, here's the thing, guys.
Here's the thing. So, please, if you are here, smash that like button. Subscribe to the channel. Subscribe to the channel. Let's take this live stream to another level. Subscribe to the channel, guys. Subscribe to the channel, you know. Let's take this live stream to another level.
Subscribe to the channel. You help us.
You support, you help to support what we do, and you help to push out the gospel, the true gospel. And what is the true gospel? You help to push out when you subscribe to the channel. The true gospel you help to push out is that salvation is in faith alone in Christ Jesus. It is not faith plus works. It is not faith plus sacraments. It is not faith plus water baptism. It is not faith in Christ plus the mass. It is not faith in Christ plus submitting to a pope that group of men sat down together to choose. The gospel you're helping to push out is that salvation is in faith alone in Christ alone.
That's the gospel you're helping to push out. So please support the channel by subscribing. Smash that like button and also share the live stream. Invite your friends, invite your family, invite your Catholic friends to this liveream. Let them come and see what's being discussed here.
All right? Let them come and see what's being discussed here. Let's continue guys. If not the main reason I am not Roman Catholic is due to the answer to that question on justification. When I read scripture when I look at passages specifically addressing the topic throughout the book of Galatians and Romans, Ephesians, Titus, First Corinthians and James I see the clarity of the Protestant position compared to the discontinuity of that of the gospel that Rome articulates.
But the divide between the Protestant and Roman Catholic perspective here hinges on a crucial semantic and theological distinction about what the term itself means. The Roman Catholic Church maintains that God will not declare a person just until that person actually is just, requiring the person to be just by definition. Then why did God declare Jesus sin without Jesus doing sin? Because Jesus died as sin.
On that cross, Jesus turned God turned his back on Jesus. And Jesus for the first time called God God. Before now, he was calling God father and then he said, "My God, my God, why have thou forsaken me?"
Do you understand? Why have thou forsaken me?
Why hast thou forsaken me?
So when you put your faith in Christ Jesus, God is now just to declare you righteous.
So that this position of the Catholics is 100% faulty.
100% error. Thank God that Wesov is pointing this out.
It is God that declares you just. You cannot be just by anything you do.
So that when God examines and defines that person, he finds genuine righteousness present. In contrast, Protestants argue that a person can be justified only when something is added to them, namely the righteousness of Christ, and that one must be covered by his righteousness in order to be justified with acceptance by God resting solely on this basis. This disagreement stems from competing interpretations of the word justification itself. Historic Protestants uh thinkers like uh the Lutheran and reformed camps recognized that the verb to justify was forensic meaning to declare or pronounce to be righteous, not make >> righteous. So for Protestants, justification refers to God's external ruling that the sinner is regarded as righteous before him, before God, marking the beginning of the Christian life. Roman Catholicism on the other hand understands justification to mean both the initiation and the ongoing process of regeneration. In other words, when we use the term justification, we could just as easily use the word vindication. So for the Protestant position, I go to places like Romans 4:es 4:5, which uses Abraham as the model showing that faith, not labor, is counted as righteousness when directed toward God who justified the ungodly. Uh Romans chapter 4 25 and chapter 5:1 connects Christ's resurrection to our justification and the resulting peace with God through faith. uh Romans 8:33 identifies God as the one who justifies. Romans 4:9 connects justification through Christ's blood with future sal is littered all over scripture.
It is liter scripture.
It is liter Jesus that justifies a man, not works.
But Catholics, no, they say you must do something from God's wrath. And then 1 Corinthians 6:11 places justification alongside sanctification as part of transformation in Christ. Galatians 2:16, it establishes that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ. And then Romans 3:es 20- 24 explains that no one achieves righteousness through lawkeeping. Yet all who believe are justified by God's grace through Christ's redemption. And then we see that we see that just a little bit later in in chapter 3 verse 28 where it affirms the justification comes by faith apart from works of the law. So it's not that I contribute toward the act and then get it.
>> Instead the one who does not work but trusts in God who justifies then our faith is credited to us as righteousness. Luther argued that justification occurs through legal imputation of Christ's righteousness to the sinner apart from the sinner's own righteousness with moral transformation being the effect rather than the cause of justification. It's not like you can just you know be pronounced righteous and now you can do whatever you want because God has has washed you clean.
No, the the cause has an effect. And so the Protestant position is that justification is acquired by faith alone, not by faith plus ritual obedience or personal holiness. It's entirely received and not achieved.
So as I conclude, do I think Roman Catholics can be true Christians? I've highlighted all these things. I think there are there are real issues. there real differences, divides with things like sufficiency, talking about scripture, talking about faith. Uh I I you know look at what the doctrine of the mass is according to Roman Catholicism and I reject that. I look at the papacy and its historic understanding. I reject that.
>> He said despite all the talking ever prove where the scripture says we should only believe what is written. Do you know why? Because it does it doesn't exist.
is owned by countries. What the apostles teach? Don't worry, let me prove it to you quickly from scripture.
Um, let me prove it from scripture.
I think it should be Galatians. Okay, let's go to the book of Galatians chapter 1 verse 8. I think I remember now 1 verse 8.
Let's read.
Yes. Sorry, I can't hear myself, but I know you guys can hear me. All right, I think I can hear myself now. Let's read. But if we, this is apostle Paul talking that even if he himself, if he and the apostles, so but if we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. A cost here does not mean let the person be cursed.
Let the person be put away. All right?
As as we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preach any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.
So Paul says, "Salvation is by faith in Christ Jesus alone." Roman Catholics said, "No, you have to be justified by what you do."
So this is this is this one proves that scripture should was what should be believed alone when it comes to salvation because what Paul was addressing here addressing here was a matter of justification was a matter of salvation that's just it is that is where I base my solar scriptural that's where I base it that's the proof so any other documents that contradicts what The apostles, the early apostles thought is false.
The Bible say let us put it away. Let them let it all be accosted.
Otherwise, why was the gospel of Thomas rejected? Why was the gospel of Barnabas rejected? We other things too. If you are to believe the other ones you added to the Bible, why can't you believe the gospel according to St. Thomas? Why can't you believe the gospel according to St. Barnabas I be Barnabas or St. Barnabas. The thing is this, if we look at it here, I said, as we have said before, so I say now again, if anyone preach any other gospel to you other than what we have received, let him be accosted. That's it. That's my basis for the you believe only the Bible.
It's as simple as that. any other book, any other thing that you guys are adding to it, magistrum or magisterium or whatever that contradicts any pope that contradicts what Paul teaches what the apostles taught that pope let him be put aside does it was of recent the current pope said that Mary is not co-redeemer before now other popes have been saying that Mary is co- redeemer so all those popes they were preaching the false gospel.
Let me continue my my chart. Man, >> I look at this idea that the Roman Catholic Church is the the true unchanged 2000-year-old church and I I simply look at the evidence for that.
He say something that gives me distraught is seeing some videos of devil worship in the Roman Catholic church from old videos from the church that was linked to online sources. It translates to Latin. You see he said the thief on the cross was saved by Christ.
He has God before him and did whatever he wanted but afterward he established it so that his savic work could continue on earth. You you are joking. You are joking. You are joking. You are just contradicting yourself. Should I show you what you said earlier?
Yeah. I'm just showing you what Paul said. If we have said anything before, so I now I say again, if anyone preach any other gospel to you than what we have than what you have received, let him be accosted. And so what the Catholic Church is preaching, let it be accursed.
They have hidden so much in the Vatican underneath the church. If God should open the eyes of many Catholics, they will in in mass and in droves leave the Catholic church.
I don't want to start going into things that I cannot like prove here now on on video. But it's so it's so sad. It's so sad.
You said you don't have anything to prove. Excuse me. Drop the hypocrisy and stop asking Catholic for proof. I have already given you your approval, young man. Let me consume my video.
>> I see clear developmental change. So in light of that, do I think that Roman Catholics can be genuine born again believers? And the answer to this, and I've maintained this publicly many times, is yes. Luther himself addressed this question. Any person that believes faith plus this, faith plus that, in my own opinion, that person is not saved. That person is yet in his sin. If you believe that for you to be saved, you have to submit to a pope, you are not saved. If you believe that you have to be saved through water baptism, you are not saved.
Yes, you are not saved. Your faith is not in Christ Jesus. Your faith is in your works. Any person that believes that you have to be justified by works, by doing good deeds, by your good character, if you think your good character, your good deeds, your good behavior is what justifies you before God, I put it to you, you are not saved.
You are yet in your sins.
You're yet in your sins.
You are yet in your sins. So, we we are we are gradually coming to the to the end of this video. You you are yet in your sins. You are not saved completely.
I put it to you. You are not saved. It has to be faith in Christ Jesus and faith alone. Not faith plus something.
Not faith plus something, guys. You are not saved. I put it to you. You are not.
It's as simple as ABCD. You are not saved.
All right?
You're not saved.
So, we come to the end of this live stream. think I've let me just let's play this video finish.
>> 1528 when asked about whether those coming out of the church of Rome should be reb rebaptized due to their now realization of the falsehoods taught under the papacy and their movement towards proh um I think I'm done. I'm done. I'm done.
I'm done. I'm done with this.
Yep. So, we come to the end of this live stream. See you guys on my next one. I think I may be jumping on another live stream where I'll be preaching the gospel solely. I think the title of that live stream should be why are you not um why are you not a Christian or why don't you believe in Jesus or why don't you believe in Jesus? I think that that will be the title of the next live stream.
It's going to be a vertical live stream.
I intend to go live here and at the same time go live on Tik Tok as well. So you can catch me on the next live stream.
It's going to be up in the next 30 to one hour. So see you guys on my next one. Thank you guys. Please subscribe to the channel. Support us. Like the live stream, share the live stream to your friends and family and stuff like that.
All right, so it is what it is. Bye for now, guys.
What just happened, guys?
I didn't see this coming.
Vidéos Similaires
The 'Islamic dilemma': Quran tells Christians to judge by the Gospel
canceledkings
1K views•2026-05-29
BSA Goldstar - I gave up! And why animals beat humans!
thebingleywheeler
102 views•2026-05-31
3 Dreams That Changed Philosophy Forever
mommyplus24
731 views•2026-05-31
don't put shein's responsibility onto individuals #shein #neoliberalism
ScintillaePod
231 views•2026-05-30
Seneca - Escape The Crowd, Find Your Inner Peace!
realfreewisdom
114 views•2026-05-29
Scholar Explains: WHAT IS A GNOSTIC?
fightbackpodcast
965 views•2026-05-31
Fulton Sheen: A Mente Tenta se Manter Jovem para não Sofrer com os Impactos do Tempo
SantoCotidiano-port
673 views•2026-05-29
When They Ignore You, Do This Instead | Stoicism
ZenithWisdom-e3k
615 views•2026-05-31
