LIke St Pius XII said, the first thing the devil does is to tell people that they dont need the Church. Second they dont need Jesus, fourth they dont need God. Is it not what we see going on today? God being taking away from every place of government? all because protestants dont let the Church of God rule over government.
Cant take so much ignorant. the Pope and Cardinals and Bishops are the teachers of the
Faith. It is ok for you to teach the Word of God but not ok for the leaders of the Catholic Church to teach the people. protestants are so lost, they dont even what they are saying. The Spirit of the Lord says we must obey our leaders of the Church. But this man wants to descredit the Word of God. Confused man this is. he is allowed to teach the people but not the Catholic teachers.
2 tim 3:16 does NOT prove solo scriptura. At best it proves the OLD testament alone. Second, to prove the infallibility of the Bible you need an authoentic outside source. To argue the way Pat does is circular logic.
Both debaters seem very ignorant in their understanding of their opponents position. Their arguments are thin in their exegesis and scholarship. Still its an interesting discussion.
@philosophizer149 I don't think the problem is that they don't understand each other's position, but rather, Sola Scriptura is not defendable. That is why this debate seems to be all over the place. John Martignonoi, I agree is actually alot better in his newsletters. It is very well thought out, whereas here he has to dispute what his apponent is saying.
@SandritaRowan26 Why is Sola Scriptura no defendable? What is the final authority? Human ideas or God's written verifiable word? Church leadership can help interpret the written word but can not add onto the written word. New Oral tradition and Papal teaching is not supported in scripture in any teaching of Jesus or Peter. What is the source of revelation? Jesus and the Apostles only. The church today can develop doctrine but add no new revelation.
@MRGV7373 "Why is Sola Scriptura no defendable?" May I ask you where in the Bible does it say it is the only thing you need? Sola meaning alone or by itself. Where in the Bible does it say that the Church discontinued with the death of the last Apostle? Where has the Catholic Church added anything that isn't Scriptural? "New Oral tradition and Papal teaching is not supported in scripture in any teaching of Jesus or Peter."
@SandritaRowan26 Mary as assumed into heaven is one, Papal infallibility is another. Peter as Rock mean that Peter can never make a mistake in doctrine, no one stretches it that far. Baptism of babies is not taught. Children and adults yes. Since you need belief to be saved, how can a baby be saved?? another new teaching.
@MRGV7373 "Peter as Rock mean that Peter can never make a mistake in doctrine, no one stretches it that far." I can tell by this statement that you never understood what the Catholic Church really teaches. Where did you get your info from? May I ask. Or who told you this is what Catholics teach?
@MRGV7373 actually, peter tells us that baptism replaces circumcision as the means of entering the covenant withj God. Circumcision was done at birth. Second in acts of the apostles, whole households were baptised, not just adults. the reason for adult baptisms being common in the time of the apostles shoudl be obvious: most disciples were ADULT converts from Judaism.
@cheesemonkey1990 The whole house holds that believed, no place does it say babies or infants. I agree with adult and children that were able to know and understand the salvation message. A person who believes is the teaching of the NT, not babies, since they can not understand. There were plenty of babies about in Jesus time just like today. If the Apostles or Jesus wanted to teach baby baptism then why is not taught? It is not right to assume here. Believers not babies.
@MRGV7373 the point is not about belief. It is about being brought into a covenant. INFANTS were brought into the OT covenant at 8 days old. The same is true of babies of the new covenant. They are welcomed into the covenant that Christ instituted at birth. You also didn't read the rest of my comment about why adult baptisms were common in the time of the apostles.
@cheesemonkey1990 If you review acts 2, Peter never talks to the Jews that were listening to "join the covenant" , Peter tell them to believe and be baptized. By belief a person comes into the new testament and confirms publicly the private belief by public baptism. you have the process backwards. If a person does not believe then baptism is not applicable to do since baptism is the public confession to an inward belief. Simple and scriptural.
@MRGV7373 read 1 peter 3: 20-21. He shows that circumcision is replaced by baptism. You also keep missing the point that the earliest Christians were mostly ADULT converts: hense he popularity of ADULT baptism. Also: if you are so opposed to infant baptism, show me in the Bible where it is condemned.
@cheesemonkey1990 It is never condemned in the bible since it was not practiced. How do you ban something that was not an issue? the early church fathers did not practice baby baptism so they never had to forbid the practice. The reason that most of the baptized were adults is that only adults could understand the message and therefore were the ones baptized. baptism was for male children of Jews, Christians are baptized when they believe.
@MRGV7373 if it is never condemned then that means that it is not forbidden. God is always very clear about what is permissable and not permissable. Since baptism is a necessary condition for salvation it would seem to make sense that it be done early on, given they high infant mortality rates of the time of the Apostles.
@cheesemonkey1990 No, you missed the point. Peter in act 2 starts with telling them the truth about Jesus. Many believe first, then they repent and finally they are baptized. The proper order is key. Baptism is only required after belief. Putting water on a baby or adult will not save them, It give them clean skin but not a clean soul. Belief is always first then baptism. We have many baptized but many less follower of Jesus since they never believed.
@SandritaRowan26 Peter had the keys and taught the early church the saving truth of Jesus. Jesus no scripture teach that Peter was to give the keys to anyone. Jesus never taught or did the Apostles teach apostolic succession. Peter did fill the open Apostleship left by Judas. A one time act. No other succession is taught by the apostles or Jesus.
@SandritaRowan26 John20:30-1. John is saying that Jesus did so many things that no one could write them all down and that what John has written is plenty to know the truth about Jesus and come to saving faith. Mary more things could be written and they are in the Other Gospels. John 21:25 Same as above.John is simply saying Jesus did so many amazing thing that if you could write them all down you would file many buildings. So how does this explain or refute Sola Scriptura?
@crazyuncleandy And sometimes I will tell you things that the Church does teach, but it may be something you don't want to hear. That's all I am going to say.
@crazyuncleandy With all do respect, you did address me, so I am going to respond. I didn't answer your other comment because it was not addressed to me. Sorry if I came a little strong. But I am going to defend the Catholic Church, no matter what. GB+ + +
@crazyuncleandy The term trinity does not need to appear in the scripture for it to be true and yes I know the trinity is found in scripture. Justification is by faith is taught in scripture and AMEN! just not faith alone. many many times in scripture it says God will judge (justify) or render every person to his works. I just showed one passage yet I have a whole list of verses from the bible that say works are needed for salvations. If you want I can send you ALL of them. God bless
@crazyuncleandy Continuation.... Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your GOD, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of it, shall fear and never again do such evil as this in your midst."
This is just 1 of many. And you think it is not Biblical?
If you would like here are even more verses proving that indeed inquisitions are in fact Biblical. Also I have never said that in the present day that the Church agrees with murder and violence. The Bible verse that crazyuncleandy said I took out of context isn't true because I stated that it was only 1 of many versus.
@SandritaRowan26 Also I gave the definition of the word inquisition. Look through the comments. That definition came out of Webster Dictionary. Again look for yourself. So, if you want don't debate with me concerning the definition, take it up with Webster Dictionary. Also he stated that inquisitions were not Biblical, the Bible verse that I gave was answering that, not whether God approved of it or not.
@SandritaRowan26 "Sandrita .. You are twisting a scripture to justify something that the Catholic Church does not support in the present day ..Anyone can take a scripture here or there and attempt to justify sinning .. God was speaking to the Jews in a particular context ..one which does NOT APPLY to Christians today .. What you seeming to suggest is anti Christ and frankly anti catholic .. Abuse and misuse of scripture is evil ..And that is all i will say on the matter to YOU ."
@SandritaRowan26 First off, no I am not misusing scripture at all. And secondly you may want to look at who gave you the Bible. It was the Catholic Church that gave everyone the Bible. Thirdly he stated, that he agreed with Pat Donahue, "I believe the Church of Christ guy read into scripture rather than reading out of it .." Well, then apparently he didn't listen to the whole vid. Lastley, I gave a quick summary of each Inquisition.
@SandritaRowan26 The word combat or combating when reffering to the inquisition(s) does not mean to kill, rather, it means to combat through verbal debate. Who ever did the killing the Church did not and does not condone that. Not unless they had to use physical force because of physical threat as I have stated when I gave a quick summary of the inquisitions.
@crazyuncleandy Continuation....Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or your intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nation, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him.
@crazyuncleandy Deut 13:5-12, "The Lord, your GOD, shall you follow, and Him shall you fear; His commandment shall you observe, and His voice shall you heed, serving Him and holding fast to Him alone. But that prophet or dreamer shall be put to death, because, in order to lead you astray from the way which the Lord, your GOD, has directed you to take, he has preached apostasy from the Lord, your GOD, who brought you out of the land of Egypt and ransomed you from that place of slavery.
@crazyuncleandy I must remind you to look in your own backyard before doing so. I am reminded of the phrase, "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones."
This Inquisition was convened to combat the Protestant heretics soon after the start of the reformation. We all know the story of the censure of Galileo from this Inquisition in 1616. Pope John Paul II had declared Galileo's censure, and therefore his persecution by this Inquisition, to be in error. He has apologized for the part the Church had played in it.
@crazyuncleandy Continuation......Several Popes condemned the Inquisition, which had come under the control of the Spanish civil authorities, when it was brought to their attention that civil justice was giving way to cruel abuses. It was this insistent condemnation by the Popes which finally put an end to the Inquisitions.
@crazyuncleandy Continuation... The purpose of the Inquisition was to ferret out Moslems and Jews who were causing social havoc by posing as faithful Catholics. Some were even masquerading as priests and bishops and they were attempting to lead the faithful away from the Church. Non-Catholics who admitted they were non-Catholics were not persecuted by the Inquisition.
This is the Inquisition of which most detractors refer. It was initiated by the secular governments of France and Spain and with the approval of the Church at the beginning. Be it known that Spain had been under fierce attack from Moslems for over 700 years. (Read about the Spanish hero, El Cid, for more on these Moslem and Moor conquests). The Moslems were determined to convert Catholic Spain into a Moslem state by force of war.
This was considered to be the first of the Inquisitions. It was convened specifically to combat the Albigensian heresy. This was a cancerous heresy which threatened the very foundations of the Church.
@crazyuncleandy Not really, You haven't answered which Inquisition you are reffering to..... There were several. And to be honest you were the first to address me. Or did you forget? Just something to think about........ Neither you nor I can change what happened in the past. And yes I agree that murder and torture are acts that should not be tolerated. But also don't make it sound like it was only the Catholic Church's fault either when you don't know the Catholic side.
@crazyuncleandy You may want to read these Scripture verses before continuing: Acts 9:4, 1Cor 10:32, 1Cor 11:22, 1Cor 15:9, Gal 1:13, Gal 1:23, Gal 4:29, Eph 3:8, 1Tim 1:13.
@crazyuncleandy Before continuing, since you are addressing me, just so I know that we are on the same page...... What is your definition of the word Inquistion(s)?
@SandritaRowan26 Sola scritpura (Scriptures alone) and Sola fidie (Faith alone) and complete failures. Most protestant know this but instead of converting, protestants only point their fingers at the Catholic Doctrines such as assumption, immaculate conception and etc and say "its not in the bible" when at the same time nowhere in the bible is faith alone found or scriptures alone found. Also nowhere in the bible does it say that you must get everything from the bible. Protestantism is a FAIL
@Zebedex When it was St. Paul, I believe, that said, "Hold fast to the traditions which you have learned (or heard) from us whether by word (oral) or letter of ours."
OMG this really is embarrasing, this Pat guy is someting else. if this is the best protestant preachers have in deffence of sola scriptura, God help us . i would have loved to see the reaction of his supporters in the audience, because this is foolish apologetics and utterly laughable(sp). please prove from scripture this teaching nothing more and nothing less , be honest please and prove for us your argument, scripturally , period.
Hello everyone! I will be re-doing this vid sometime in the near future, because I noticed that it cuts off early in some parts. Just to let everyone know.
Sola Scriptura is not only illogical, but unbiblical. Given that anyone who's ever studied the history of the creation and compilation of the bible would agree it's source is ecclesiastical and (while the words are God inspired) the collection as designed in the current canon is out of church tradition decided by men. It's like saying e=mc^2 (which is true), and ignoring who findings of how that came to be and creating new meanings apart from the original work done to prove it as authoritative.
There are a multitude of popes, doctors of the church and sources that will claim that the pope just like every other human being can err and fall away from the faith. Even from the example of Peter and Paul, we see the need to challenge each other. An infallible teaching isn't just that the Pope said thus and it must be true. It is that he spoke on a matter of faith ex cathedra and what he said is agreed upon by the scriptures, magistrate and prior tradition. That makes it infallible.
Just to let everyone know, I don't care who comments on here, but the comments need to be repectful. I don't mind if you disagree, but put it in a repectful manner. Thank you and God Bless+ + +
I am not a catholic but I have to say that Mr Martignoni is on point in this debate. Mr Donahue did a great job of proving that protestants are very confused about what they believe.
Why does he think that the Pope is the head of the Catholic Church? Poor guy, he's so far lost in what Catholics actually believe. Next thing you know, he's going to start claiming we "worship" Mary and statues too.
The Pope is the "Visible" head / leader left by Jesus himself (Mat 16:18-19)
When there is not leadership, caos is born.... protestants are so divided,, each pastor explain God´s revelation according with his own interpretation... this is not what Jesus left us... this is what men´s ego created... Jesus left us ONE church, visible and with a full Authority
Baptism & Immersion - Baptism is doctrinal and faith based. How faith is expressed and practiced is tradition based. Immersion is tradition based. Based by Pat's own words, it's not going against doctrine to change how Baptism is performed.....
@blueydleprechaun Some people believe that baptism is only valid by immersion, but I have a question for those people. They lived in a dessert. They couldn't immerse if you lived nowhere near water. That is why the Catholic Church finds the pouring of water and immersion valid.
@SandritaRowan26 Not to mention on the day of Pentacost, there were 3000 baptized. Where did they find that much water for that many people in Jerusalem or how much time in that one day was it done by even 12 apostles to baptize them all? Also, entire households among a desert people were baptized. Same question, where did they find that much water. Lastly, Jewish custom for Yom Kippur was after the slaughter of the sacrifice, the priest sprinkled the blood on the people for their salvation.
@joxios I'm a bit confused. I don't see how your comment flows with what I wrote. Please explain so that I may understand. I wasn't debating the definition of "immersion" - only that Baptism is doctrinal and the process by which it's accomplished (immersion) is tradition based. Therefore it doesn't matter how the Baptism takes place, as long as it takes place. Changing a tradition isn't changing a doctrinal belief. I don't see how the definition of immersion matters. Please explain.
What I was trying to point out the word immersion doesn't necessarily men 'submerged God's promisee Eze 36:25 I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you.
Num 19:19 and the clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean on the third day and on the seventh day; thus on the seventh day he shall cleanse him, and he shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water, and at evening he shall be clean.
The whole "Bishops must marry one wife" bit that Pat claims the Catholic Church has contradicted.....further study of that teaching and putting that into context reveals that Catholics interpret that to mean that Bishops, priests, clergy, etc, take the Catholic Church as his wife, NOT a woman, thereby making both statements true.
@SandritaRowan26 He is totally being owned! It's sad to me how firmly he seems to believe what he's saying. His misinterpretation of what Catholics believe and teach is so far out there it's just sad.
@blueydleprechaun Permanent deacons are married to a woman. Priest and Bishops are not married to a physical woman, but they are married to the Church.
So.....Sola Scriptura....do people really believe that our God is so awesome and great that He stopped revealing truths to humans almost 2000 years ago? I think not....He continues to this day. God reveals Himself and continue to speak through holy people........
I listened to this debate a while back. Pat Donahue simply could not defend sola scriptura so he shifted the burden of proof to the Papacy and Tradition. At one point, I sort of felt sorry for him.
Did Pat Donahue not realize that the debate was on Sola Sciptura? John Martignoni knocked him outa the park though. It so sad how some are so full of pride that they will not admit that they are in error and convert to the fullness of the Christian Faith.
@redbaron998 Pat Donahue I think was fully aware that the topic was Sola Scriptura, but Sola Scriptura is not defendable. Why because it is a man made invention. Nowhere in Biblical history was it taught.
LIke St Pius XII said, the first thing the devil does is to tell people that they dont need the Church. Second they dont need Jesus, fourth they dont need God. Is it not what we see going on today? God being taking away from every place of government? all because protestants dont let the Church of God rule over government.
37thecrusader 22 hours ago
Cant take so much ignorant. the Pope and Cardinals and Bishops are the teachers of the
Faith. It is ok for you to teach the Word of God but not ok for the leaders of the Catholic Church to teach the people. protestants are so lost, they dont even what they are saying. The Spirit of the Lord says we must obey our leaders of the Church. But this man wants to descredit the Word of God. Confused man this is. he is allowed to teach the people but not the Catholic teachers.
37thecrusader 22 hours ago
2 tim 3:16 does NOT prove solo scriptura. At best it proves the OLD testament alone. Second, to prove the infallibility of the Bible you need an authoentic outside source. To argue the way Pat does is circular logic.
cheesemonkey1990 3 days ago
John Martignoni won this debate
loreto808 1 week ago
Both debaters seem very ignorant in their understanding of their opponents position. Their arguments are thin in their exegesis and scholarship. Still its an interesting discussion.
philosophizer149 2 months ago
@philosophizer149 I don't think the problem is that they don't understand each other's position, but rather, Sola Scriptura is not defendable. That is why this debate seems to be all over the place. John Martignonoi, I agree is actually alot better in his newsletters. It is very well thought out, whereas here he has to dispute what his apponent is saying.
SandritaRowan26 2 months ago
@SandritaRowan26 Why is Sola Scriptura no defendable? What is the final authority? Human ideas or God's written verifiable word? Church leadership can help interpret the written word but can not add onto the written word. New Oral tradition and Papal teaching is not supported in scripture in any teaching of Jesus or Peter. What is the source of revelation? Jesus and the Apostles only. The church today can develop doctrine but add no new revelation.
MRGV7373 2 weeks ago
@MRGV7373 "Why is Sola Scriptura no defendable?" May I ask you where in the Bible does it say it is the only thing you need? Sola meaning alone or by itself. Where in the Bible does it say that the Church discontinued with the death of the last Apostle? Where has the Catholic Church added anything that isn't Scriptural? "New Oral tradition and Papal teaching is not supported in scripture in any teaching of Jesus or Peter."
SandritaRowan26 2 weeks ago
@SandritaRowan26 Mary as assumed into heaven is one, Papal infallibility is another. Peter as Rock mean that Peter can never make a mistake in doctrine, no one stretches it that far. Baptism of babies is not taught. Children and adults yes. Since you need belief to be saved, how can a baby be saved?? another new teaching.
MRGV7373 2 weeks ago
@MRGV7373 "Peter as Rock mean that Peter can never make a mistake in doctrine, no one stretches it that far." I can tell by this statement that you never understood what the Catholic Church really teaches. Where did you get your info from? May I ask. Or who told you this is what Catholics teach?
SandritaRowan26 2 weeks ago
@MRGV7373 Because I know that no one comes to the Scriptures objectively.
SandritaRowan26 2 weeks ago
@MRGV7373 actually, peter tells us that baptism replaces circumcision as the means of entering the covenant withj God. Circumcision was done at birth. Second in acts of the apostles, whole households were baptised, not just adults. the reason for adult baptisms being common in the time of the apostles shoudl be obvious: most disciples were ADULT converts from Judaism.
cheesemonkey1990 3 days ago
@cheesemonkey1990 The whole house holds that believed, no place does it say babies or infants. I agree with adult and children that were able to know and understand the salvation message. A person who believes is the teaching of the NT, not babies, since they can not understand. There were plenty of babies about in Jesus time just like today. If the Apostles or Jesus wanted to teach baby baptism then why is not taught? It is not right to assume here. Believers not babies.
MRGV7373 1 day ago
@MRGV7373 the point is not about belief. It is about being brought into a covenant. INFANTS were brought into the OT covenant at 8 days old. The same is true of babies of the new covenant. They are welcomed into the covenant that Christ instituted at birth. You also didn't read the rest of my comment about why adult baptisms were common in the time of the apostles.
cheesemonkey1990 1 day ago
@cheesemonkey1990 If you review acts 2, Peter never talks to the Jews that were listening to "join the covenant" , Peter tell them to believe and be baptized. By belief a person comes into the new testament and confirms publicly the private belief by public baptism. you have the process backwards. If a person does not believe then baptism is not applicable to do since baptism is the public confession to an inward belief. Simple and scriptural.
MRGV7373 1 day ago
@MRGV7373 read 1 peter 3: 20-21. He shows that circumcision is replaced by baptism. You also keep missing the point that the earliest Christians were mostly ADULT converts: hense he popularity of ADULT baptism. Also: if you are so opposed to infant baptism, show me in the Bible where it is condemned.
cheesemonkey1990 17 hours ago
@cheesemonkey1990 It is never condemned in the bible since it was not practiced. How do you ban something that was not an issue? the early church fathers did not practice baby baptism so they never had to forbid the practice. The reason that most of the baptized were adults is that only adults could understand the message and therefore were the ones baptized. baptism was for male children of Jews, Christians are baptized when they believe.
MRGV7373 16 hours ago
@MRGV7373 if it is never condemned then that means that it is not forbidden. God is always very clear about what is permissable and not permissable. Since baptism is a necessary condition for salvation it would seem to make sense that it be done early on, given they high infant mortality rates of the time of the Apostles.
cheesemonkey1990 14 hours ago
@cheesemonkey1990 No, you missed the point. Peter in act 2 starts with telling them the truth about Jesus. Many believe first, then they repent and finally they are baptized. The proper order is key. Baptism is only required after belief. Putting water on a baby or adult will not save them, It give them clean skin but not a clean soul. Belief is always first then baptism. We have many baptized but many less follower of Jesus since they never believed.
MRGV7373 9 hours ago
@MRGV7373 Continuation: Then explain the long line of apostolic succession the Catholic Church has, that traces all the way back to Peter?
SandritaRowan26 2 weeks ago
@SandritaRowan26 Peter had the keys and taught the early church the saving truth of Jesus. Jesus no scripture teach that Peter was to give the keys to anyone. Jesus never taught or did the Apostles teach apostolic succession. Peter did fill the open Apostleship left by Judas. A one time act. No other succession is taught by the apostles or Jesus.
MRGV7373 2 weeks ago
@MRGV7373 You can also try to explain to me John 20:30-31, John 21:25 if the Bible is the only thing we need.
SandritaRowan26 2 weeks ago
@SandritaRowan26 John20:30-1. John is saying that Jesus did so many things that no one could write them all down and that what John has written is plenty to know the truth about Jesus and come to saving faith. Mary more things could be written and they are in the Other Gospels. John 21:25 Same as above.John is simply saying Jesus did so many amazing thing that if you could write them all down you would file many buildings. So how does this explain or refute Sola Scriptura?
MRGV7373 2 weeks ago
Has Pat seriously done so little homework that he did not even consider Ex Cathedra? That shows he is either incompetent or misleading.
philosophizer149 2 months ago
@crazyuncleandy And sometimes I will tell you things that the Church does teach, but it may be something you don't want to hear. That's all I am going to say.
SandritaRowan26 3 months ago
@crazyuncleandy With all do respect, you did address me, so I am going to respond. I didn't answer your other comment because it was not addressed to me. Sorry if I came a little strong. But I am going to defend the Catholic Church, no matter what. GB+ + +
SandritaRowan26 3 months ago
@crazyuncleandy The term trinity does not need to appear in the scripture for it to be true and yes I know the trinity is found in scripture. Justification is by faith is taught in scripture and AMEN! just not faith alone. many many times in scripture it says God will judge (justify) or render every person to his works. I just showed one passage yet I have a whole list of verses from the bible that say works are needed for salvations. If you want I can send you ALL of them. God bless
Zebedex 3 months ago
@crazyuncleandy Oh by the way, the definition that I gave was from the Webster's dictionary. That's all. Good night.
SandritaRowan26 3 months ago
@crazyuncleandy Come back when you have a good argument.
SandritaRowan26 3 months ago
@crazyuncleandy Continuation.... Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your GOD, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of it, shall fear and never again do such evil as this in your midst."
This is just 1 of many. And you think it is not Biblical?
SandritaRowan26 3 months ago
@SandritaRowan26 Ex 32:1-35, Deut 13:5-12, Deut 13:13-16, Deut 17:2-7, Deut 19:18-19, Est 2:23, Wisdom 1:9, Isa 54:17, Matt 18:15-18, Acts 20:28-31, 1Cor 5:13, Tit 3:10-11.
If you would like here are even more verses proving that indeed inquisitions are in fact Biblical. Also I have never said that in the present day that the Church agrees with murder and violence. The Bible verse that crazyuncleandy said I took out of context isn't true because I stated that it was only 1 of many versus.
SandritaRowan26 3 months ago
@SandritaRowan26 Also I gave the definition of the word inquisition. Look through the comments. That definition came out of Webster Dictionary. Again look for yourself. So, if you want don't debate with me concerning the definition, take it up with Webster Dictionary. Also he stated that inquisitions were not Biblical, the Bible verse that I gave was answering that, not whether God approved of it or not.
SandritaRowan26 3 months ago
@SandritaRowan26 "Sandrita .. You are twisting a scripture to justify something that the Catholic Church does not support in the present day ..Anyone can take a scripture here or there and attempt to justify sinning .. God was speaking to the Jews in a particular context ..one which does NOT APPLY to Christians today .. What you seeming to suggest is anti Christ and frankly anti catholic .. Abuse and misuse of scripture is evil ..And that is all i will say on the matter to YOU ."
SandritaRowan26 3 months ago
@SandritaRowan26 First off, no I am not misusing scripture at all. And secondly you may want to look at who gave you the Bible. It was the Catholic Church that gave everyone the Bible. Thirdly he stated, that he agreed with Pat Donahue, "I believe the Church of Christ guy read into scripture rather than reading out of it .." Well, then apparently he didn't listen to the whole vid. Lastley, I gave a quick summary of each Inquisition.
SandritaRowan26 3 months ago
@SandritaRowan26 The word combat or combating when reffering to the inquisition(s) does not mean to kill, rather, it means to combat through verbal debate. Who ever did the killing the Church did not and does not condone that. Not unless they had to use physical force because of physical threat as I have stated when I gave a quick summary of the inquisitions.
SandritaRowan26 3 months ago
@SandritaRowan26 I will say this, crazyuncleandy has apologized for provoking, and I forgive him. What I am putting up now is to clarify.
SandritaRowan26 3 months ago
@crazyuncleandy Continuation....Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or your intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nation, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him.
SandritaRowan26 3 months ago
@SandritaRowan26 This Scripture verse is just 1 of MANY proving that inquisitions are indeed Biblical.
SandritaRowan26 3 months ago
@crazyuncleandy Deut 13:5-12, "The Lord, your GOD, shall you follow, and Him shall you fear; His commandment shall you observe, and His voice shall you heed, serving Him and holding fast to Him alone. But that prophet or dreamer shall be put to death, because, in order to lead you astray from the way which the Lord, your GOD, has directed you to take, he has preached apostasy from the Lord, your GOD, who brought you out of the land of Egypt and ransomed you from that place of slavery.
SandritaRowan26 3 months ago
@crazyuncleandy I must remind you to look in your own backyard before doing so. I am reminded of the phrase, "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones."
SandritaRowan26 3 months ago
@crazyuncleandy (4) Roman.......1542
This Inquisition was convened to combat the Protestant heretics soon after the start of the reformation. We all know the story of the censure of Galileo from this Inquisition in 1616. Pope John Paul II had declared Galileo's censure, and therefore his persecution by this Inquisition, to be in error. He has apologized for the part the Church had played in it.
SandritaRowan26 3 months ago
@crazyuncleandy Continuation......Several Popes condemned the Inquisition, which had come under the control of the Spanish civil authorities, when it was brought to their attention that civil justice was giving way to cruel abuses. It was this insistent condemnation by the Popes which finally put an end to the Inquisitions.
SandritaRowan26 3 months ago
@crazyuncleandy Continuation... The purpose of the Inquisition was to ferret out Moslems and Jews who were causing social havoc by posing as faithful Catholics. Some were even masquerading as priests and bishops and they were attempting to lead the faithful away from the Church. Non-Catholics who admitted they were non-Catholics were not persecuted by the Inquisition.
SandritaRowan26 3 months ago
@crazyuncleandy (3) Spanish.....1478-1834
This is the Inquisition of which most detractors refer. It was initiated by the secular governments of France and Spain and with the approval of the Church at the beginning. Be it known that Spain had been under fierce attack from Moslems for over 700 years. (Read about the Spanish hero, El Cid, for more on these Moslem and Moor conquests). The Moslems were determined to convert Catholic Spain into a Moslem state by force of war.
SandritaRowan26 3 months ago
@crazyuncleandy (2) French....1306
This Inquisition was called again to combat the Albigensian (or Cathari) heresy.
SandritaRowan26 3 months ago
@crazyuncleandy (1) Medieval... 1233
This was considered to be the first of the Inquisitions. It was convened specifically to combat the Albigensian heresy. This was a cancerous heresy which threatened the very foundations of the Church.
SandritaRowan26 3 months ago
@crazyuncleandy Not really, You haven't answered which Inquisition you are reffering to..... There were several. And to be honest you were the first to address me. Or did you forget? Just something to think about........ Neither you nor I can change what happened in the past. And yes I agree that murder and torture are acts that should not be tolerated. But also don't make it sound like it was only the Catholic Church's fault either when you don't know the Catholic side.
SandritaRowan26 3 months ago
@crazyuncleandy So if you are talking about both then tell me which inquisition are you refferring to?
SandritaRowan26 3 months ago
@crazyuncleandy So this isn't so much about the inquisition? You are refferring to murder and torture...... Correct?
SandritaRowan26 3 months ago
@crazyuncleandy Are you sure about that?
SandritaRowan26 3 months ago
@crazyuncleandy Now I will tell you my definition: 1. It is the act of inquiring into a matter; an investigation.
2. A tribunal formerly held in the Roman Catholic Church and directed at the suppression of heresy.
Another question: Which inquisition are you referring to?
SandritaRowan26 3 months ago
@crazyuncleandy You may want to read these Scripture verses before continuing: Acts 9:4, 1Cor 10:32, 1Cor 11:22, 1Cor 15:9, Gal 1:13, Gal 1:23, Gal 4:29, Eph 3:8, 1Tim 1:13.
SandritaRowan26 3 months ago
@crazyuncleandy Before continuing, since you are addressing me, just so I know that we are on the same page...... What is your definition of the word Inquistion(s)?
SandritaRowan26 3 months ago
Its funny how Pat quotes revelation 20:12 out of context and it completely destroys the doctrine of faith alone at the same time. LOL
“the dead were judged by those things which were written in the books, according to their WORKS.”Revelation 20:12
Zebedex 3 months ago
@Zebedex But yet he is getting on the Church's case for keeping traditions.
SandritaRowan26 3 months ago
@SandritaRowan26 Sola scritpura (Scriptures alone) and Sola fidie (Faith alone) and complete failures. Most protestant know this but instead of converting, protestants only point their fingers at the Catholic Doctrines such as assumption, immaculate conception and etc and say "its not in the bible" when at the same time nowhere in the bible is faith alone found or scriptures alone found. Also nowhere in the bible does it say that you must get everything from the bible. Protestantism is a FAIL
Zebedex 3 months ago
@Zebedex When it was St. Paul, I believe, that said, "Hold fast to the traditions which you have learned (or heard) from us whether by word (oral) or letter of ours."
SandritaRowan26 3 months ago
Patt please answer the questions. Who wrote the gospel of mark & luke? Oh wait you can't.
deannalopez14 4 months ago
OMG this really is embarrasing, this Pat guy is someting else. if this is the best protestant preachers have in deffence of sola scriptura, God help us . i would have loved to see the reaction of his supporters in the audience, because this is foolish apologetics and utterly laughable(sp). please prove from scripture this teaching nothing more and nothing less , be honest please and prove for us your argument, scripturally , period.
jphairy 5 months ago
Hello everyone! I will be re-doing this vid sometime in the near future, because I noticed that it cuts off early in some parts. Just to let everyone know.
SandritaRowan26 5 months ago
Pat Donahue makes you thank God for being Catholic and if your not Catholic he makes you want to become one.
TheManGadoosh 6 months ago
Sola Scriptura is not only illogical, but unbiblical. Given that anyone who's ever studied the history of the creation and compilation of the bible would agree it's source is ecclesiastical and (while the words are God inspired) the collection as designed in the current canon is out of church tradition decided by men. It's like saying e=mc^2 (which is true), and ignoring who findings of how that came to be and creating new meanings apart from the original work done to prove it as authoritative.
kaegrokothar 6 months ago
There are a multitude of popes, doctors of the church and sources that will claim that the pope just like every other human being can err and fall away from the faith. Even from the example of Peter and Paul, we see the need to challenge each other. An infallible teaching isn't just that the Pope said thus and it must be true. It is that he spoke on a matter of faith ex cathedra and what he said is agreed upon by the scriptures, magistrate and prior tradition. That makes it infallible.
kaegrokothar 6 months ago
Here's a dirty little secret.......... Inquisitions are Biblical.
SandritaRowan26 6 months ago
Pat just keeps repeating himself.
PetertheGreatest1 6 months ago
Just to let everyone know, I don't care who comments on here, but the comments need to be repectful. I don't mind if you disagree, but put it in a repectful manner. Thank you and God Bless+ + +
SandritaRowan26 6 months ago
I am not a catholic but I have to say that Mr Martignoni is on point in this debate. Mr Donahue did a great job of proving that protestants are very confused about what they believe.
cushcush100 6 months ago
@cushcush100 Just out of curiousity, what church do you belong to?
catchzz 6 months ago
@catchzz I Jewish
cushcush100 6 months ago
Why does he think that the Pope is the head of the Catholic Church? Poor guy, he's so far lost in what Catholics actually believe. Next thing you know, he's going to start claiming we "worship" Mary and statues too.
blueydleprechaun 7 months ago
@blueydleprechaun That claim wouldn't surprise me.
SandritaRowan26 7 months ago
@blueydleprechaun
The Pope is the "Visible" head / leader left by Jesus himself (Mat 16:18-19)
When there is not leadership, caos is born.... protestants are so divided,, each pastor explain God´s revelation according with his own interpretation... this is not what Jesus left us... this is what men´s ego created... Jesus left us ONE church, visible and with a full Authority
blesses
mjmenjivar 7 months ago
Baptism & Immersion - Baptism is doctrinal and faith based. How faith is expressed and practiced is tradition based. Immersion is tradition based. Based by Pat's own words, it's not going against doctrine to change how Baptism is performed.....
blueydleprechaun 7 months ago
@blueydleprechaun Some people believe that baptism is only valid by immersion, but I have a question for those people. They lived in a dessert. They couldn't immerse if you lived nowhere near water. That is why the Catholic Church finds the pouring of water and immersion valid.
SandritaRowan26 7 months ago
@SandritaRowan26 Not to mention on the day of Pentacost, there were 3000 baptized. Where did they find that much water for that many people in Jerusalem or how much time in that one day was it done by even 12 apostles to baptize them all? Also, entire households among a desert people were baptized. Same question, where did they find that much water. Lastly, Jewish custom for Yom Kippur was after the slaughter of the sacrifice, the priest sprinkled the blood on the people for their salvation.
kaegrokothar 6 months ago
@blueydleprechaun need to understand the definition of immersion, it's is not only a dunking:
an act or instance of immersing.
2.
state of being immersed.
3.
state of being deeply engaged or involved; absorption.
joxios 6 months ago
@joxios I'm a bit confused. I don't see how your comment flows with what I wrote. Please explain so that I may understand. I wasn't debating the definition of "immersion" - only that Baptism is doctrinal and the process by which it's accomplished (immersion) is tradition based. Therefore it doesn't matter how the Baptism takes place, as long as it takes place. Changing a tradition isn't changing a doctrinal belief. I don't see how the definition of immersion matters. Please explain.
blueydleprechaun 6 months ago
@joxios
What I was trying to point out the word immersion doesn't necessarily men 'submerged God's promisee Eze 36:25 I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you.
Num 19:19 and the clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean on the third day and on the seventh day; thus on the seventh day he shall cleanse him, and he shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water, and at evening he shall be clean.
joxios 6 months ago
The whole "Bishops must marry one wife" bit that Pat claims the Catholic Church has contradicted.....further study of that teaching and putting that into context reveals that Catholics interpret that to mean that Bishops, priests, clergy, etc, take the Catholic Church as his wife, NOT a woman, thereby making both statements true.
blueydleprechaun 7 months ago
@blueydleprechaun Pat's twisting of Scripture is so bad, it's not even funny.
SandritaRowan26 7 months ago
@SandritaRowan26 He is totally being owned! It's sad to me how firmly he seems to believe what he's saying. His misinterpretation of what Catholics believe and teach is so far out there it's just sad.
blueydleprechaun 7 months ago
@blueydleprechaun Permanent deacons are married to a woman. Priest and Bishops are not married to a physical woman, but they are married to the Church.
SandritaRowan26 7 months ago
@SandritaRowan26 Yes, because Deacons do not take the same professions of faith that Priests do. Being a deacon is an entirely different vocation.
blueydleprechaun 7 months ago
So.....Sola Scriptura....do people really believe that our God is so awesome and great that He stopped revealing truths to humans almost 2000 years ago? I think not....He continues to this day. God reveals Himself and continue to speak through holy people........
blueydleprechaun 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@blueydleprechaun "God reveals Himself and continue to speak through holy people." who are those holy people? who determines that they are holy?
MrEpitome888 5 months ago
I listened to this debate a while back. Pat Donahue simply could not defend sola scriptura so he shifted the burden of proof to the Papacy and Tradition. At one point, I sort of felt sorry for him.
Mkvine 7 months ago
Is this about Sola Scriptura or Papal Infalibility?
jl4e23 7 months ago
@jl4e23 Its about Sola Scriptura. But Pat Donahue starts talking about the Papal infalibility. GB+ + +
SandritaRowan26 7 months ago
Did Pat Donahue not realize that the debate was on Sola Sciptura? John Martignoni knocked him outa the park though. It so sad how some are so full of pride that they will not admit that they are in error and convert to the fullness of the Christian Faith.
redbaron998 7 months ago
@redbaron998 Pat Donahue I think was fully aware that the topic was Sola Scriptura, but Sola Scriptura is not defendable. Why because it is a man made invention. Nowhere in Biblical history was it taught.
SandritaRowan26 7 months ago 2
I enjoyed the debate. Pat Donahue could not prove sola scriptura. He just does not have the ammo.
TheChurchAuthentic 7 months ago