A Brilliant Catholic Apologist Tries to Convert Me
Vložit
- čas přidán 9. 09. 2024
- Btw, Suan Sonna is the brilliant Catholic.
------------------------------- GIVING -------------------------------
Patreon (monthly giving): / capturingchristianity
Become a CC Member on CZcams: / @capturingchristianity
One-time Donations: donorbox.org/c...
Special thanks to all of my supporters for your continued support as I transition into full-time ministry with Capturing Christianity! You guys and gals have no idea how much you mean to me.
--------------------------------- LINKS ---------------------------------
Website: capturingchrist...
Free Christian Apologetics Resources: capturingchris...
The Ultimate List of Apologetics Terms for Beginners (with explanations): capturingchris...
--------------------------------- SOCIAL ---------------------------------
Facebook: / capturingchristianity
Twitter: / capturingchrist
Instagram: / capturingchristianity
SoundCloud: / capturingchristianity
-------------------------------- MY GEAR ---------------------------------
I get a lot of questions about what gear I use, so here's a list of everything I have for streaming and recording. The links below are affiliate (thank you for clicking on them!).
Camera (Nikon Z6): amzn.to/364M1QE
Lens (Nikon 35mm f/1.4G): amzn.to/35WdyDQ
HDMI Adapter (Cam Link 4K): amzn.to/340mUwu
Microphone (Shure SM7B): amzn.to/2VC4rpg
Audio Interface (midiplus Studio 2): amzn.to/33U5u4G
Lights (Neewer 660's with softboxes): amzn.to/2W87tjk
Color Back Lighting (Hue Smart Lights): amzn.to/2MH2L8W
-------------------------------- CONTACT --------------------------------
Email: capturingchrist...
#Catholicism #SuanSonna #Apologetics
Hey everyone! Very sorry about the abrupt ending. My neighborhood has been experiencing power outages today and it just happened to hit us near the end of this stream. The good news is that Suan and I are planning a Part 2 of this discussion to go live next week--in that stream, he'll defend his argument for Catholicism from the Magisterium. Stay tuned!
The Reformation 🎃 was the Great Apostasy 💯 No Apostolic Succession = No True Church
I did not think he did a good job at all defending Catholicism. Especially weak was the Eucharist discussion.
You should host Mike Winger from Bible Thinker and have him provide his arguments for why Catholicism is not true.
It is important to counterbalance these discussions, and to not only listen to the best arguments for a position, but also to listen to the best arguments against that position.
@@PatrickSteil Jesus's words are Spirit & life and I know it's a hard saying who can accept it but truly truly you must eat His flesh and drink His blood or else you have no life within you. Your flesh cannot perceive it but truly truly it is His flesh and blood.
@@Menzobarrenza Yes, but Suan did a very poor job defending Catholicism here... :(
Suan here.
Just a few notes:
1. Some people have complained that I didn't do a good job defending Catholicism. Perhaps that is true, as I was intending to establish friendship and a possible bridge between me and Cameron. I stress in the first part of the video that conversion is not a purely intellectual phenomenon, and there's a lot in the dialectic and evaluation of evidence one must first get right. Going in guns-blazing with arguments isn't always the best approach. But, the next part will definitely involve more direct arguments rather than stage-setting. I also appreciate how Cameron has helped me become a better thinker in this conservation. I care more about Cameron than winning an argument.
2. Also, I was a bit tired in this video, because I stayed up late making the presentation on the magisterium. There were times where I might have seemed passive aggressive, or it looked like I was "rolling my eyes". Not my intention.
3. I think asking for a "perfect analogy" was a mis-formulated question. I was trying to emphasize that something like a doctrine of analogy must be applied when we try to make sense of the Trinity - HOW can our one God be three persons? In that sense, analogy is necessary I would argue. My point is that there is nothing in creation that is a perfect one-to-one comparison, and so the Trinity is a wholly unique reality that nothing else in creation perfectly mirrors.
@Excuse me but Thanks for your comment.
I try my best to be careful with my demeanor. I think when Gavin kept on asserting that my argument was "typology run amok", it pinched a nerve. I also looked at some comments, and so I think my nerves might have slipped out in the discussion. I hope to be more careful in the future.
Regarding the Sanhedrin, my point with Gavin was that if you condemn the Sanhedrin for being cruel, then I see no reason why you can't also condemn Moses or even God's divine commands. Gavin and I both have a high view of scripture, and so this is something we both have to wrestle with.
I thought you did a fantastic job! This was just Part 1 so your demeanor was very appropriate. Cant wait to see Part 2. Keep up the good work!!
@@intellectualcatholicism he was wonderful on pints with aquinas :)
Suan, you're the man. You have to hear the reality of the euchairst attacked and then respond without aggression. That is a Testament to your charity. I am certain you will get your point across in the follow up. God bless man.
BTW, just get Pat Flynn to address the divine simplicity objection. You and me both know he blows up Modal Collapse, and Joe Schmidt can try again. Good luck I guess, lol.
You did an great job. The comments I have heard say you did a bad job do not explain further than stating you didn't convince them. You cannot convince anyone. You can only give them information.
Cameron, if you ever announce a conversion to Catholicism, it better be by a simple and subtle post that just says: "btw, Catholicism is true."
That would be awesome
Jesus is the way truth and life. No church can save anyone.
@@frederickanderson1860 exactly that’s why I’m catholic.
@@lucidlocomotive2014 salvation is not through any church you adhere too. Predestination of who is saved even Augustine of hippo admited it was impossible to be saved because of our corruptible nature. No Pope or pontifix maximus or vicar of Christ can determine who is saved or not. Jesus himself said same " all that my father has given me,will come to me,and no way cast out". John gospel chapter 17, jesus glorified his father for choosing his disciples that he had given him.
@@frederickanderson1860 yeah I know the Catholic Church teaches that salvation is through Christ. The church itself doesn’t save anyone
Seems like Cameron wether intentionally or not didn’t address a lot of the points Suan made.
It’s not a debate
@@YoloMINEgamer did I say it was? Cameron was treating it more like a debate than Suan and at many points getting defensive.
Suan is the man! Very proud of having him in the Catholic church.
Born again in 2019 flirted with Calvinism but ultimately I became a non-denominational Christian and the more I studied early church, early Christians and the last thing I thought I would become would be Catholic.
Cameron too!
I think certain points that Suan was making flew over Cameron’s head. Especially the reliability of the Apostolic Fathers
I am not saying this to be rude to Cameron, but it really seems like 95% of this discussion went over his head and Suan has incredible pateince lol. Nonetheless, God bless to all.
Cameron doesn’t care he just wants views and subscribers … unfollow him
@@matthewmartin725 that’s a little disingenuous cmon bro
I think is unfair to say that what Susn said flew over Cameron's head. I think people who are already familiar with what Suan was saying didn't have trouble understanding it, but that he didn't do a great job explaining it for people unfamiliar with what he was saying. Cameron is capable of following some pretty complex philosophical arguments, and he's very use to the structure of philosophy. Suan's presentation so far has lacked that structure, making it harder to follow. He also didn't do a great job explaining what he meant by various things, such as the doctrine of analogy. That term was new to Cameron and he couldn't be expected to know what is meant by it, so Suan attempted to explain. He probably would have done better just to look up a definition via Google, which I'm sure Cameron would have understood just fine. It just seemed to me that there was too little good explanation of terminology that Cameron is unfamiliar with. I suspect Suan expected Cameron to be more familiar with the subject matter, and so wasn't prepared to give good explanations, so I don't blame Suan, especially since it is reasonable to assume that given that Cameron talks with Matt Fraad. Cameron also often reads up on stuff prior, but apparently he didn't this time for whatever reason.
@@miltonwetherbee5489 Then he wasn’t engaging them well. I think it was a double standard for him not to accept the testimony of the apostolic fathers because the way we trust the apostolic fathers is the same way we trust the historicity of the Gospels. I really don’t see how Cameron can hold to a metaphorical view of the Eucharist with Ignatius of Antioch, the leader of the church at Antioch in 110 AD, being overtly explicit about the Eucharist and condemnatory to Christians who don’t confess that Jesus’ flesh and blood isn’t the Eucharist. Like there is literally no way that he, and everyone thereafter was unanimously so badly wrong, given all the communication within these early Christian churches. On that part I believe that Cameron is burying his head in the sand and pulling the Sola Scriptura card, which is not following the evidence where it leads
Cameron, how can your guest convey his complete thoughts when you keep on interrupting him?
Yes! It's painful.
I had a problem with this as well…
All conversions can be initiated by intellectual arguments. But none of them can be completed without the works of the Holy Spirit. That’s why prayers are more powerful than apologetics. (Definitely not saying that there is no merit in apologetics)
They both believe in the Trinity and Im almost certain they both have some degree of a prayer life. There really is no Holy Spirit VS apologetics here. In their pursuit of truth they are both being prompted by the Holy Spirit.
I think the Holy Spirit meets us where we are at. What I mean by that is some people are transformed through apologetics because their stumbling block was intellectual. Some are converted through conviction of the heart because their issue was a heart issue. Just my take on it.
I see ur point and agree. Thank u and God bless ✝️👍🏼
Amen
@@arkofthecovenant6235 Agreed, it’s a little disturbing how many Catholics here are speaking as though Cameron is an unbeliever and does not have the Holy Spirit. Seems like some kind of elitism.
Awww. I’m Catholic and I love Michael Heiser. I hope he beats the cancer and I will be praying for him. 💔❤️🔥❤️🩹💖
It feels like Cameron is realizing the truth in Catholicism but by his own understanding and his own roadblocks…and I don’t mean roadblocks in a bad way, marriage, family etc. These are things that are so important to us. I’m new into the catholic faith-not yet confirmed… and the past year was intense. I didn’t start off looking for Catholicism but in prayer and asking the guidance of the Holy Spirit, I was lead here. I cried but at the same time felt The Comforter and still prayed through it..and still do! Fear of losing my family kept me away and I would even say no way God, this can’t be You. There’s no way and after fighting a bit with God, I’d repent and start giving Him control and bit by bit, i grew in this trust with Him and-Im still growing…
Through the days I would cry because I realized I would now need to become Catholic, I would hear in my Spirit, “count it all loss” and I would hear this more and more every single time I started to work myself up but that voice would interrupt, count it all loss…
Cameron, I know it’s so important to know what you believe and why. And idk your prayer life but either way, keep praying, call on the Holy Spirit for guidance and revelation and ask God to keep your mind pure. Keep pushing forward to settling Him. I believe He’s leading you brother, and I believe your wife will also be led. I’ll keep you in prayer. Gbu always 💕💕💕
That is a powerful testimony and I won’t deny your experiences whatsoever. I will openly say I disagree about Catholicism being the truth through study and personal experience. All in all, I will just say as one Christ follower to another if you feel lead by the spirit to be Catholic, hold onto that label loosely. Don’t let it cause division among those who do not agree. You probably know this but hearing the gospel never will get old. A particular denomination will not determine your salvation. If your heart has accepted God’s grace and through faith you have repented and put your trust into Jesus. Love God and love people. Read scripture, go forth make disciples. Your testimony of how the spirit brought you out of sin and edified the grace will help way more than a testimony about your conversion. It’s all love, I’m just telling you this because I felt prompted to address. I really hope you do not take this as an attack, your story was very significant, may God bless you and continue to grow each and every day. I would honestly do more research, the Catholic Church wasn’t just from my experience but my research. Mike Winger did a whole sermon on this topic of Roman Catholicism which is really good, also a CZcams channel called truthunedited does a history of religion series and includes the Catholic Church. In that video he also discusses the catechisms of the Catholic faith and how it contradicted scripture. So I encourage anyone and everyone to watch their videos but more importantly continue reading the word and forming your own conclusions
@@JoshThomas880 I have been watching truthunedited as you mentioned above... And truly it is so biased and incorrect. I am leaving comments which can be read there on his channel.. This brother is so misinformed and coming from a biased purely protestant opinion that truly i was astounded. Mimi... take a watch for yourself as Josh mentioned and you will find all the errors in his viewpoints that are crazy . I wish people would truly want to understand it befoire makling assumptions .... come join .. experience ask questions, and dont make assumptions from the internet ... Go to a parish and experience and ask....
Being guided by your own convictions and personal feelings is not being guided by the Holy Spirit though. The Holy Spirit will never guide people into divisions yet when multiple people believe they are being guided by the Holy Spirit end up having divisive understandings of God, the Bible and The Church how can you claim that you are being guided by the Holy Spirit and not by something else? Such a post modern libertarian capitalist view of spirituality. I feel free here because I can pick and choose whatever I want and interpret things how ever I feel like doing it. Freedom has nothing to do with being able to pick and chose whatever you desire and however you decide but rather freedom comes from being closer to the truth and living inside that truth. Only in truth you are free. You can choose between truth and lies, if you pick truth you remain free, if you pick lies you don't have freedom anymore.
And by the way, if the magisterium is right then everything else follows because after that if you don't follow the magisterium you won't be following the Church of Christ, quite simple. That's how it worked for the Jewish apostles, once they accepted Jesus had the authority to teach how to understand the old testament and the law, they had to accept everything he put forth no matter how difficult it was for then personally and how much they wanted to stay attatched to their old ways and understandings.
All I see in your approach to theology is, "I" see it this way, "I" understand it this way, "I" believe this actually means this and that, how is that humility and submitting to Christ? if you are the arbiter of everything being proposed to you instead of letting yourself being guided by the Church of Christ how are you supposed to find truth. I mean YOU want people to present you catholicism in such way that fits your mathematical probabilistic aproach, it is you who decided that truth must present himself to you on your terms, so crazy man. It takes humility to accept truth.
Luke 1:38 "And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word."
She didn't say, well present me the evidence in this very specific manner or I won't believe you are an angel of God.
Excellent points. I think Cameron is being quite dishonest at times.
Lots of God working through or with division in both testaments. There is lots if shaking the dust off one's feet.
Conflating "one in Christ" and polity is a category mistake.
God often uses division for multiplication.
@@doctorisout The fact that God can use evil for greater goods doesn't turn evil into a good thing in itself... We are talking about divisions of principles, not division of accidents. God separates the wheat from the chaff, but you can be on either side... How many people God took on the ark? how many people reached the promised land? there was a division there... I don't know your view of God, but from my understanding God wills for everyone to be saved, yet we can either accept that or reject it.
@@doctorisout Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble! Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come!
Matthew 18:7
@@doctorisout And now I am no more in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name, which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are one. John 17:11
Here, Jesus doesn't pray for division, but for unity.
Does anyone else think Cameron was completely unprepared for this discussion and almost wasted Suans time who had obviously prepared a huge amount?
Cameron did spend A LOT of time on low prior probability. My wife was annoyed with that. It seems irrelevant in light of God be coming a man then dying. What's the probability of that?
@@jonathanbohl pretty good actually if you think God exists.
@@trevoradams3702 In light of that, what are the odds that God can keep a infallible magisterium going for about 2000 years? Saying He wanted to. 😁
@@jonathanbohl what is the evidence for Him saying He wanted to “establish an infallible magisterium”?
@@trevoradams3702 I'm going to defer to the next talk they do. They are planning on talking about that exact thing next week.
Interesting exchange!
My friend Suan did well in this exchange, and I also was intrigued by the stated hesitations of Cameron. Interestingly enough, the Church Fathers also show evidence of rejecting a "carnal" interpretation of John 6. For example, if you read the commentary on the Gospel of John by St. Cyril of Alexandria, he clearly understands Jesus to be speaking mystically, and he understood that the Jewish hearers to have a "carnal" interpretation, and thus a false interpretation. I think the Fathers, and the Catholic church (perhaps not Catholic apologists), are all in agreement that Jesus *did not* intend to say that it would have been life-giving for everyone to walk up to Jesus and get our their fork and knife and start feasting on his skin, flesh, hair, nails, musles, and organs. That would have been a gross sin, and it is not what Jesus intended to teach. With that being said, the Fathers understood (and the rest of the New Testament bears out) that it is nevertheless true that a certain kind of worship would be coming to replace the Old Ritual (the Sinaitic legislation), and this new kind of worship would be centered around the fact that Christ's own body is the true Temple, and thus the new "meeting place" (to borrow a nice description from D.A. Carson) between God and men. In short, the Lord's Supper would be a reproduction of the true Temple to which , when we consume, we become Temples of the Holy Spirit. This coincides with us being living member sof the Lord's body, a mystical truth which the New Testament does not shy from still being, at the end of the day, realistic (cf. Eph 5:21-26). Ultimately, Christ is still teaching the truth that we must consume His body and blood, but it is under the sign, symbol, and sacramental rite of a bread & wine supper.
Amazing!
Good post, Yes we need to be honest here (I'm Catholic btw). I believe the two Fathers from the ante-Nicene Church who specifically interpreted John 6:51-59 with a figurative or symbolical or 'mystical' interpretation are St. Clement of Alex, also Origen (which the Church had problems with "Origenism" later on, why he isn't a 'St'). This is spelled out in my article written long ago (I'm an old timer on the Interwebs) titled "Symbolical and Allegorical Language on the Eucharist" (covers Tertullian, St Clement of Alex, Origen)
www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/num29.htm
It might be said they included a literal / realist understanding ALONG WITH figurative/allegorical views. St. Augustine also had a multi-faceted interpretation of John 6:51ff, he hints it is literal in certain passages, while also agreeing with figuative or symbolic understandings. The same can be said of Luther who followed Augustine here, while clearly taking a literal understanding of the institution narrative, "This is My Body/Blood", etc. My article on St. Augustine ( kind of polemical, I was younger then :-)
www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/num30.htm
Of course the Council of Trent also uses the word "SYMBOL" with regard to the Eucharist at least three times (while clearly holding to transubstantiation). Spelled out in detail above.
Phil Vaz
This historical information you gave is very interesting. I need to do some serious reading🕯👍🏼🕯
Hmmmm,I presume then that the guy on the cross never made it in spite of Christ`s declaration, Was it a wind up? And if you say he was a special case and subject to special grace..........,well isn`t that true for every one of us when we come to Christ ! And of course Christ is the true Temple! Isn`t this the entire gospel and wasn`t this the ultimate truth that we were being schooled and instructed from the beginning to the end of time!
Cameron, if you haven’t viewed this video yet, I would encourage you to watch, Father Mike Schmitz “the hour that will change your life.” As I think it is a beautiful way of explaining the Eucharist. ❤️
Another INCREDIBLE talk is called, “The Jewish Roots of the Eucharist” by Brant Pitre. Actually, I would recommend this one first, than the other. Both are fantastic though! 😊
My husband and I are converts to Catholicism and are praying for you as you seek truth. You remind me of my husband as he was seeking truth in the church as he came from strong biblical study with a non-domination church.
I love all this dialogue you continue to have. Many blessings to you!
Those are so great!!
God is Spirit those who believe in him worship him in spirit and truth. Not through the sacrements or the Eucharist. The brazen serpent was the figure of what Jesus used for his sacrifice of the new covenant, not just the bread and wine,that always omitted. Plus the brazen serpent was destroyed by king Hezekiah because it became a idol. Just like the Eucharist.
@@frederickanderson1860 Looks like you didn't actually watch the video. I don't care to debate this with you, I was just simply sharing this with Cameron and anyone else who was curious to learn more depth about the church's teachings.
@@alyssajeanlewis4128 outsiders like the Samaritan woman and the Roman centurion, especially the centurion got the highest praise from jesus,more than the learned pharisses who sat on the seat of moses. God no respector of persons,which you people prefer to their own saints and popes.
@@frederickanderson1860 The Eucharist is Jesus, my friend. Jesus is God. Therefore, we worship Jesus in the Eucharist. And Jesus is not pure Spirit. He has a body and in heaven with a body.
What is so extraordinary about the claim that Christ established a visible Church and that that Church is the Catholic Church seen throughout the historical record.
I would go to the first church, but not the current Roman Catholic Church
@@Wgaither1 I’m not sure what your proposing, what is the “first church” if not the Catholic Church?
@@stcolreplover in the first century
@@Wgaither1 The Apostolic Fathers (that is those Christian leaders in the first century who knew the Apostles) sound incredibly Catholic and not at all Protestant.
@@stcolreplover But did the first pastor of the very first church sound Catholic
I could barely get through this. I’m inclined to believe the Matthew Martin guy and go with the assertion that Cameron is fishing for views. Perhaps I’m wrong, but this was at the least badly done. Suan was barely able to explain, and even when he did, Cameron starts talking about something entirely unrelated. These type of discussions are fruitless if in the end, you aren’t willing to actually be honest. I’m not even Catholic and I seem have a better grip on the things Suan was discussing than Cameron was.
Look what happened!
God bless you brother Suan. Catholicism is always the one and true Church 😇😇😇
That statement is the biggest red flag for a protestant. We'll turn off immediately.
man.... are you in for a shock. Mat 7:23.
Great video. I can recommend the Didache Bible which is a study bible with commentary on every Bible passage and how that pertains to the catechism of the Catholic church
Another good topic would be the Catholic teaching of baptism for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38, 22:16, John 3:5, 1 Peter 3:21, etc.) as opposed to a symbolic baptism.
Yes!!! I second this.
Again you going by western Greek thinking. Not Hebraic thinking of jesus day. The church fathers we're influenced by the Hellenistic influence.
@@frederickanderson1860 ?
I don't understand why Cameron didn't prepare for this. Poorly planned discussion but look forward to seeing Suan again.
This man is brilliant. So young and an amazing witness to the grace of God!
Hearing Cameron talk about the stuff he’s currently researching, has researched or needs to research is oddly inspiring to do more research myself. Like, more than seeing standard content heavy videos. I hope that the research you’re doing in the background behind the scenes goes as well as your content creation does!
Cameron your video quality looks really good! I think I speak for all of us when I say we appreciate the attention to detail!
Malachi 1 ;11 is the Catholic Mass.
11For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts
58:06 Yes. That is exactly what Suan is trying to do. If you let him explain
Cameron's point is if you find that the bible teaches a metaphorical eucharist or anhilationism then it immediately disproves any biblical arguments for the Catholic magisterium which was supposed to be the silver bullet.
But Cameron is comparing apples to oranges. Suan wants to discuss the silver bullet becuase it is an Epistemological mechanism for Christian truth that he thinks is superior. Cameron on the other hand is assuming his own Epistemological mechanism and uses it to argue for protestant doctrines. He then says based of these proven protestant doctrines that means the Catholic mechanism is false. But this sidesteps Cameron's mechanism. The main issue is not, "the Bible teaches X as true therefore whatever u say is wrong." That would be assuming one has the truth already! Then any discussion for magisteriums would be useless becuase you already have the truth..
Rather it's, "how do we know wheather the Bible teaches x or y as Truth."
For an analogy the protestant has a tree and the Catholic has a tree. The protestant tree has rotten roots(sola scriptura+private judgment) and therfore rotten fruit (sola fide, symbolic euchatist,etc. )
If the Catholic just aims for the fruits But never touches the root, then the prot tree will continue to produce bad fruit and never good fruit(Catholic Dogmas).
The Job of the apologist is to show that scripture teaches all Catholic Dogma as a highly reasonable interpretation. But because it is a silent book we can never know 100% that our interpretation is right.
This is the job of the apologist. Right now Cameron needs to see arguments for the real presence as equally true as or more likely true than symbolic.
Then Cameron will not know which one is correct. Becuase previously he thought they were completely unequal but now they both seem equally likely. This is where the silver bullet comes in.
The presence of confusion for the prot will make him question weather his mechanism is functional or not. This is where the Catholic attacks the Rotten protestant Root next with arguments first against sola scriptura and then arguments for the magisterium. Which if both sides accept similar types of evidence (historical, logical, practical, and in agreement with the Bible +Christian writings (not as scripture but as history)
This will prove Sola scriptura wrong and the magisterium as true.
"prot" are you using this as some sort of slur? "Rotten protestant Root" "presence of confusion for the prot will make him question weather his mechanism is functional or not" so your goal is to have a "tactic". It most certainly won't prove Papist doctrines true.
@Daniel Abraham
I hope you realize you decried the way Cameron goes about his understanding, and then went on to do that very same thing yourself. “Rotten roots”…. You just presupposed your own view is the truth, otherwise there’s no way to call Protestant roots “rotten”. The fact is, we all presuppose what we believe is the truth, otherwise…. We wouldn’t believe it!
@@wilsonw.t.6878 I'm simply using prot because it is a abbreviation of protestant. I did not present an argument for Catholicism. If you read it you could see I'm proposing a method of apologetics for Catholics to use against Protestants. It assumes the apologist already has his historical, logical biblical and practical arguments for the magisterium in his back pocket ready to use at a moments notice.. Therefore your accusation that I was presenting a bad argument for the papacy is false because I wasn't even presenting any arguments.
@@brando3342 Your accusation of my post would be correct if I was proposing an argument for Catholicism. But if you read my post you would see no premises or conclusion. I was not trying to give an argument for Catholicism. My post was directed for Catholics who I'm presuming have done the apologetics work, have gone through the arguments for both mechanisms equally, and have found the Catholic Mechanism to be the correct view.
The protestant sees his roots as firm and the Catholic’s as rotten. The job of the Catholic apologists (who has previously done the work) is to argue that the Catholic fruits are just as likely as the protestant fruits to be equally valid interpretations. The protestant then realizes his roots may not be as firm as previously thought and he will now be more open to comparing both the Catholic roots and the protestant roots. This is where the conversation must be directed in order to have productive dialogue between Protestants and Catholics. It may be the fact the protestant has stronger roots, we won't know until we examine them both and see who comes out on top.
Your statement is true that we all as uniformed ignorant sinners come with presuppositions about reality. This however is not something to be praised, it should be criticized. It one of the reason people don't convert to Christianity becuase they are blinded by (unsubstantiated) pressupositions. The goal however is that we both place our presuppositions on the table and examine them. This is why I'm accusing Cameron but not Suan. Cameron is not worried or bothered to examine and prove his Mechanism. BUT he is willing to examine and disprove the Catholic Mechanism, by using his presupposed (AND UNPROVEN) protestant framework. My whole point in making the post was to show that Cameron cannot just pull arguments for symbolic Eucharist or annihilationist and think that disproves the catholic mechanism. Rather he has to pull out his own Mechanism and show that his is better than Suans. If he succeeded and shows that his protestants roots are strong, then he would have a good argument.
My post is not an argument for Catholicism. Rather its a map for Catholics or even Protestants to use to have productive dialogue. If you believe your Mechanism is true then prove it and show that mine is false. Im simply presuming the Catholic side is correct because I and MANY Protestants like myself have gone through this same exact process and have found the Catholic Mechanism for Truth to be Superior. The question then become are Protestants like Cameron willing to do the same?
Wotten woots presupposed?
By God's Grace one day you will😉🙏
Does it matter if he doesn't? What would be the consequences for him should Cameron not become Catholic?
@@Apanblod He could go to hell. You can’t knowingly reject the truth of the Church and be saved. However, that’s between him and God, and none of us knows whether he knows better or not.
@@bethanyann1060 Why would he knowingly reject it? This seems to me to be a very odd notion.
Is it better then to not know about the truth of the church at all, since knowing of it and rejecting it (whether or not one supposedly willingly rejects it despite knowing it's true) can send one to hell? Seems a lot more safe then not to tell anyone about it.
@@Apanblod That’s understandable that you would say that, but no that’s not true. The Church teaches that because God truly desires all to be saved, he gives every single person sufficient grace (help) to be saved. But this can look different to different people. Imagine a person on a desert island, who has no clue who Jesus is. The book of Romans tells us that every person still has the law written on their heart, and that they will be judged based on what they are given and how they respond. We are all responsible for accepting the amount of truth that has been revealed to us. Being ignorant to the fullness of the truth does not automatically save someone. It’s how we respond to the graces we have been given by following our conscience and not numbing it.
As for Cameron’s case, it’s pretty safe to say that the truths of the Catholic Church have been revealed to him, at least partially. But since we are not God, we can’t know for sure if he has truly understood them. And some people mysteriously do reject the truth. Why did the devils reject the truth of God? Especially since they were given way more knowledge than us. Free will is indeed a mystery.
@@bethanyann1060 When you say the law has been written on their heart, what do you mean by that?
It seems that the person on the island, will not have, as you say, heard of Jesus, and can not reasonably have accepted him as lord and saviour. If that person still 'gets off the hook' despite that, telling people about Jesus sounds like a terrible idea, since that basically dooms them should they then reject the message.
I think the most convincing argument for Catholicism is the conversion of Rob Koons.
I’m glad to see Cameron continuing to search on this. I’m a convert from fundamentalist Baptist Protestantism, entered the Catholic Church in 2011. I hold this as the single best decision of my life. The real question comes down to Authority, and this is really, in my mind, linked to history. If the Faith of the Apostles, as evidenced in the writings of the Early Church Fathers, as handed to them by the Apostles, was Catholic in belief and practice, then the Church’s claim to authority is true, and She MUST therefore be accepted in Her teachings. Period. My, and really I find pretty much anyone’s, honest reading of the Fathers, and review of the historical record, shows irrefutably that this is the case. Read Jurgens volumes of the Early Church Fathers, even just look them up on the internet. The first reformers at least have some excuse in my mind: it was a LOT harder to get this information in their day. Now it’s at your fingertips. Nearly every Catholic distinctive practice and belief is shown to go to the very beginning. Swim the Tiber my Protestant brothers and sisters, trust me, the water’s fine!
As Dr. Cooper says, the Jurgens volumes are EXTREMELY selective and a quote mine of the Early Church for Catholic dogma.
@@wilsonw.t.6878 what? I’m sorry, but no they’re not. They provide the entirety of the writings of the Early Church Fathers, at the least through the pre-Nicene era. After that some degree of selection of the most important and influential Fathers had to occur because of the sheer explosion of writings. St. Augustine wrote tens of thousands of pages after all. However that’s not the issue at all, rather it’s the question of what did ALL the writings of those very first Christians show they believed and practiced? Jurgens’ first volume contains, to my knowledge, every single such writing, and they’re all Catholic in belief. You will not find a single writing in the First Century from some sort of Proto-Protestant writing about Sola Scriptura or a symbolic Eucharist. It doesn’t exist. Are there other letters from St. Ignatius of Antioch where he takes back everything he wrote in his other letters about the Church and authority? A letter from St. Clement I saying “Don’t ask me to fix your local issues, pray about it and decide for yourselves”? You have the burden of proof here, please cite these other first century Christians who support Protestant distinctives.
@@nathangraham2189
Not sure the earliest Fathers really support Petrine primacy, infallibility, etc. Besides the NT seems to teach pluriform leadership by the apostles and then multiple elders, in the Pastorals.
Maybe time to go look again🙂
@@doctorisout it might be time for you to look again, the NT absolutely does support the role of Peter as Head of the Apostles, he is mentioned far far FAR more often than ALL the other Apostles combined, he is specifically given a leadership commission by Jesus at the end of John “Feed my sheep”. Read Matthew 16 and understand that Jesus said in Aramaic “You are Kepha, and on this Kepha I will build my Church.” He ALONE is given the keys to the kingdom and the power to bind and loose, directly referring to the King’s Steward in the Davidic Kingdom. Peter speaks for the Apostles in the Gospels and in Acts, he presided over the first Church counsel in Acts. The evidence is overwhelming unless you first put on blinders that Peter had a unique leadership role. As for the Church Fathers, evidence there is also overwhelming, and it’s noteworthy that no Church Father appears to have ever even questioned this. See www.churchfathers.org/peters-primacy for instance. Clement I, successor to Peter as Bishop of Rome and a FIRST Century Pope, writes to Corinth to settle their dispute because they appealed to him on the matter, not to their local leadership! I could go on, but the above is really more than sufficient. In love, I say to you that you are mistaken. The evidence of history is overwhelming on this issue. And I will also issue the same request I did in my earlier reply: You have the burden of proof here in the face of a mountain of evidence. Find and cite a single Early Church Father who writes effectively “Nah, bishops have no authority just read your Scriptures and figure it out for yourself” or even “The Bishop of Rome can’t tell us anything about the Faith, he’s nobody”. If you can’t find a single source to support your position, then you should abandon it, that is the historically, intellectually, and spiritually honest thing to do. And let me say this: you don’t have to leave anything behind to become Catholic, except your Protestant presuppositions to ego that say that you know better and can find all truth on your own. You can bring your love of the Bible, your love of Christ, your spirit of evangelism, all of it. The Catholic Church beckons, and She welcomes you home just as soon as you’re ready. Pax Christi.
@@nathangraham2189 No, I'm Catholic and Jurgens is not complete (in three volumes). It does contain MANY, and sometimes FULL paragraphs of the writings of St. Clement of Rome, St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Justin Martyr, St. irenaeus, etc if we are talking the apostolic Fathers. But it is not complete on those. I have gone through those Red, Blue, and Green volumes thoroughly (over the past 30 years since I've owned them), and many of those quotes appear on my apologetics site :-) It is indeed selective but it is also very FULL in its quotations (often long paragraphs). What we can say is there are no such 'collections' of Protestant or 'evangelical' or 'baptist' volumes on the Fathers equivalent to Jurgens because they CAN'T produce such volumes. The Fathers are WAY TOO Catholic/Orthodox in their doctrines on the sacraments, on one, holy, catholic, authoritative visible Church, on Bishops and the ministerial priesthood, on apostolic succession, on the primacy of Peter and Rome, on the communion of saints and Mariology, on the afterlife, and other moral and doctrinal issues, etc, and Jurgens 3-volume set is enough to prove that to anyone interested. A similar set is Quasten's Patrology (4 volumes).
For a single volume that covers many of the same quotes see The Fathers Know Best edited by Jimmy Akin, another is The Teachings of the Church Fathers by Fr. John Willis. These are slightly less full than Jurgens or Quasten, but are convenient one volume collections of quotations showing how Catholic the early Church was.
The 38 volumes from Eerdman's edited by Protestant scholars Schaff/Wace and others do contain the FULL writings of the Church Fathers (at least at the time they were first published, which is late 19th and early 20th century), including from the apostolic Fathers to the end of the patristic period 7th century, etc. I have gone through St. Athanasius and St. Cyril of Jerusalem volumes, several hundreds of pages on just those Fathers are available there.
For equivalent complete Catholic sets, there is The Fathers of the Church published by Catholic Univ of America, currently updated to 127 volumes. These cover first to fifth century I believe.
verbum.com/product/33665/fathers-of-the-church-series
Those are COMPLETE. Jurgens is not complete or exhaustive. It is indeed 'selective' but it is enough to prove how Catholic/Orthodox the early Church was for the average non-scholar like myself or Cameron if he will look seriously into them. :-).
For super scholars there is the MIGNE hundreds of volumes in the original Latin and Greek, available at most major university libraries (like U.S.F. for me) and digitally for a million dollars. :-)
Phil Vaz
Somebody was being unreasonably difficult. With this type of strategy it becomes obvious one is not open to being convinced no matter how much one says they are.
@sami5to6
I disagree, the point of a video like this is to hash out objections.
Why would a Catholic need to convert a Christian to Christianity? Catholics must not be Christian according to that logic and are trying to convert away from Christianity to catholicism.
This comment hasn’t aged well 😂😂
Suan love to see you defend the faith with such wisdom and evidence.
Seeing that there are other Protestants who specialize in the objections to Catholicism, why isn't Cameron interviewing them more? Jerry Walls isn't one of the foremost critics of Catholicism. BY WALLS' OWN ADMISSION. Yet, Cameron focuses on giving so much time to Catholic apologists. It's only fair to have an equal number of informed Protestant critics of Catholicism. If some Protestants are right in saying that Catholicism is in serious error, then it's endangering the souls of the viewers of Capturing Christianity to over-emphasize the evidence for Catholicism and under-emphasizing the evidence against Catholicism. Maybe that doesn't bother Cameron too much because he's an annihilist. I don't know. But he should have more Protestants on to defend Protestantism and Evangelicalism like Jordan B. Cooper, Gavin Ortlund, David King, William Webster, James White, Eric Svendsen, Robert Zins, et al.
I laugh when I read James white dude his a joke. Islam is a beautiful religion, and catholic is not Christian-judeo Muhammad Jimmy white. R u kidding me??? Lol
What I came to realize in scripture is that it is all things to all men, meaning it is metaphorical, it's literal, it sometimes seems contradicting, but is actually complimentary, it's prophetic, historic, and present.
When Christ speaks his words are truth, and must be in all ways. So when he says this is my body, this is my blood. It must be true
Can someone explain to me why the Apostolic Fathers wouldn't be a top tier source of knowledge?
Yeah, I think Catholic and Protestant would both agree that Holy Writ is the highest tier of writing for the Christian. However, how bizarre the Protestant dismisses those who had an intimate relation with the Apostles. As if they have no weight. Like how do their writings have no weight on how to read scripture.
I don’t know where in scripture that God teaches us that dead Saints will speak to us. Every scripture I can think of says that no one who has passed can come back and speak to the living.
Mark 12:27- He is not God of the dead, but if the living. The book of Revelation shows the saints worshipping God, singing hymns, playing instruments, making requests to Christ to avenge their martyrdom, and offering prayers for the saints on earth (Rev. 4:10, 5:8, 6:9-11).
The Witch of Endor?
Jesus was speaking to Elijah and Moses during the transfiguration.
But Jesus is Eternal God. God always speaks to Moses and Elijah. If you continuously spoke to them you might be certifiable.
I think Cameron was sort of misinterpreting Trent's point, though I'm sure it was unintentional. I don't know whether or not Trent would concede that Catholicism as a lower prior probability than Protestantism and I myself know very little about Bayes theorem so for the sake of argument I'll just concede that point. It seems to me like Trent was saying something like that the claim that Jesus founded a Church (the Catholic/Orthodox view) is *way* less extraordinary than the basic Christian claim that Jesus rose from the dead. Certainly the prior probability of the protestant and catholic views must be closer together than the prior probability of the basic Christian view. So if you're on board accepting the resurrection based on historical evidence, even though we have less historical evidence for the claims surrounding the papacy, and that evidence we do have is stronger than the evidence we have of uniquely protestant beliefs, then at best, you're still probably closer to a wash than rejecting Catholicism.
Cameron wasn't a brilliant one, I listen to his debate with Matt fradd about Eucharist and Matt uses the typology and Cameron just brush it aside as if it wasn't in the bible coz he told Matt to go back to the bible when Matt using typology uses the bible verses. But I love Cameron still as his doing his best to understand what the Catholic position is. And that very good coming from a protestants side.
Mark uses the same four verbs in the feeding of 5,000 as he does in upper room (Mark 6:41, 14:22). Bread of Life discourse in John 6 is right after the feeding of the 5,000. Get Brant Pitre’s book on the Eucharist
Apostolic Succession is the only True Church 🇻🇦
Or Secession? That is the question 🤔
@@doctorisout “Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me.” Luke 10:16
Many churches have apostolic succession.
@@thyikmnnnn Apostolic Succession of Peter 🇻🇦
@@varginabrown852 Who said that Apostolic succession only passes through Peter ?
(Spoilers) He succeeded. :)
I think every case for Catholicism has to at least argue that Jesus would have established an infallible authority on earth to guide his Church, and squash sola scriptura. While a Catholic can get quite far with John 6 and various other passages about the eucharist, a decent case can be made for a metaphorical view, so to push this over the line, you have to argue from outside scripture to the tradition, however that will require first getting the protestant to abandon sola scriptura.
How can we justify the new testament at all without an infallible authority to determine what it is?
@@Qwerty-jy9mj that infallible authority is the Holy Spirit.
@@anthonywhitney634
Yeah, that's what guided the councils.
@@anthonywhitney634 Yea, but every single one of the 30 thousand denominations will say they are being guided by the Holy Spirit when they interpret the bible so how do you have an objective measure to see what’s true?
I try to watch these videos because I’m considering conversion. Cameron talks about talking about things more than he talks about things. When they finally talk, he interrupts. I spent an hour and they just “set up” the talk pretty much. 😭
Always be patient!
Suan shines more with his method of apologetics with others who understand his philosophical language on how he frame his arguments. Just go watch some of his videos on his channel to see what I mean.
With all respect to Cameron, a smart guy, but I feel like I’m watching Suan having to dumb himself down painfully as to not extrapolate the fullness of some of his typical arguments.
No disrespect meant at all.
Scott Hahn for example, a more normie friendly apologist but still highly intelligent would have an easier time convincing Cameron.
Exactly what I was thinking. I like Cameron but this was pretty frustrating to watch lol.
I loved this! The interesting thing is that the mindset of "follow truth wherever it leads" is a fundamentally protestant/evangelical mindset. One of the chief objections the reformers brought to the Catholic church of their day was that the magisterium demanded full epistemological submission, such that no evidence could be interpreted in such a way as to contradict the magisterium because it is impossible to understand scripture rightly or truth correctly apart from the magisterium. Therefore, it is impossible for the magisterium to be corrected. It is not "follow truth wherever it leads," it is "follow the magisterium wherever it leads." As one old dead guy put it (I don't remember the name, and this is not quite exact), we should believe white to be black and black to be white if the magisterium says so.
All in love though. I'm thankful for both of these guys!
Also where does Cameron actually draw the line in the “openness” of views that Protestantism actually allows? Would Unitarians or Mormon’s be heterodox? What authority do they actually appeal to?
His Word is the standard. Mormons were never Christians. Unis are heretical
My thoughts exactly. There are most certainly defined boundaries of Protestantisms: the trinity, hypostatic union of Christ, sufficiency (in some form) and authority of scripture, ordinances of the church, some physical manifestation of gathering, and lots of confessional traditions which serve as guideposts towards correct and incorrect theology. Protestantisms isn't as open and flexible as people make it out to be and Catholicism isn't nearly as closed as it is far too often portrayed. Catholicism umpires more balls and strikes on particular matters and then moves on to others and tends to only do so at when particular questions of great consequence arise (nature of Christ, authority of scripture/tradition, etc.).
@@spiderpam they appeal to the same bible.
@@michaelbaumert4501 Cameron also assume that Catholicism has a lower prior probability whatever that even means. His argumentation being since it’s more rigid in its doctrine it has more to prove? Yet Cameron seems to think Protestantism is some fluid belief system completely disregarding some of their wacky denominations and traditions. If I’m a Calvinist I must believe in predestination, if I’m a Pentecostal I must believe in tongues, I don’t think Cameron realizes how rigid some Protestant traditions are.
@@Dioliolio Mormons do not *just* appeal to the Bible and they absolutely do not hold to Sola Scriptura. If you knew this, you'd also know they claim apostolic succession. As for Unitarians, if you watch a lot of them, they get hung up on the point of philosophy and not comprehending 3 in 1. They then force it back onto the text. There are many Unitarians who have become Trinitarians that I know based on Scriptural arguments alone.
Did I heard it right Suan was formerly Baptist?
Wow, I'm saddened by the comments here. "Cameron doesn't understand this, this flew over his head, Suan is too deep for Cameron, Cameron was so defensive". Is it really that hard to admit that neither side got their best points off? Seems like they were just establishing a connection with the short time they had. It reminds me of those stereotypical atheist comments that just assume their worldview is true "well, only rational thinkers think this way and that way, and obviously God doesn't exist, therefore Christianity is false." I'm honestly neutral towards both sides, but jeez, most of the Catholics in these comments seem so insecure that they feel the need to take the gauntlet from Suan and put Cameron down themselves. Seems like if one of their apologists don't score enough points, they'll just say that the other side isn't deep enough to understand.
Cameron is very brilliant. He has heard every argument and counter argument for and against the Catholic church. He has discussed with great theologians like Scott Hahn but still he is unconvinced because his intellectual prowess stands in his way. Is this not the reason why many bright people are atheists? It will take Devine intervention for him to convert.
Let me ask you, Cameron, if you do not accept the Catholic interpretation of John 6, to what specifically was Jesus referring to when he said you must eat his body and drink his blood?
@Myrddin Gwynedd He was referring to the spiritual meaning, I would have thought that was obvious 🤷♂️
@@brando3342 So Jesus meant to say eating his body is spiritual, and drinking his blood is spiritual, and only that? So in context, what would consuming his body and drinking his blood look like, spiritually? Is it merely believing in him, or is it synonymous with a ritual?
@@myrddingwynedd2751
It’s a symbolic expression in physical action. Same way Jesus told us not just to give people spiritual bread, but also feed them with material bread. The bread is bread, the word is spiritual food.
@@brando3342 Okay, what does eating the flesh of Christ and blood of Christ look like symbolically?
@@myrddingwynedd2751 Bread and wine….
It worked.
Cameron is still stuck in a Sola Scriptura mode of thought
You mean Christ is sufficient for Cameron.
One of the most frustrating parts of this dialogue is the way in which they talk about the Eucharist as if there are only 2 views : Completely symbolic or Transubstantiation.
I'm waiting for Cameron to interview some more Protestants objecting to Catholicism and Orthodoxy besides Jerry Walls. Like Jordan B. Cooper, Gavin Ortlund, David King, William Webster, James White, Eric Svendsen, Robert Zins, et al.
Peterson will most likely convert to Orthodoxy, if he hasn't already
@@Qwerty-jy9mj Ooops, I meant Jordan B. Cooper. Changing that Now.
Any true believer will come out of Catholicism. If not, there was no real conversion.
The True believers are in the Catholic Church. the fact you are so closeminded and bigoted against the Catholic Church to such a fundamental degree is all the reason one needs to not take you seriously.
It's seems Cameron's presupposition is the idea that catholicism is true if it has the fight doctrines. But what catholics believe is that catholicism is true because its the church Jesus established and therefore it's doctrines should be adhered to. I don't know why he still thinks this.
But Christ is the Truth. Therefore, all His doctrines are true
@@jmjaquinas7298 what???
@@rohan7224 yes, 2 main takeaways after watching the video. Cameron's view of what is true is "let's start with the bible and see what church got it right" is just assuming solo scriptura is true and the second- Cameron somewhere in the middle of later half says something very telling "if I can't understand it I can't believe it"- why not, just believe. I believe that was with divine simplicity.
Cameron says he wants the truth, but he likes not being fixed to one thing, one interpretation of scripture. But the truth is a singular thing, a narrow path that paradoxically sets you free, and Cameron knows this. So I'd say that it's not really the multiplicity of protestant doctrines that Cameron really likes or the singleness of Catholic doctrines that he fears, but rather that he would need to be as certain as he could possibly be that Catholicism is the truth, before ever committing to it, because it would be a once and for all decision like getting married. I totally respect that.
Just when it was gooood
Well it worked LMAO
Catholicism is true because classical theism is true.
Someone can be a classical theist and not a Catholic. I've known protestants who leaned toward classical theism, and from what I understand there's a decent chance it's compatible w/ Orthodoxy.
@@vaskaventi6840 I can understand Orthodoxy, but protestants who remain protestant after grasping CT are only protestants for a short time. In my experience at least.
Hey @Capturing Christianity, have I missed your interview with Yujin Nagasawa, was is it cancelled? Was really looking forward to that interview :(
Nobody can be converted in a single conversation.
Saul? ;p
@@Miatpi Even Saul had witnessed Steven's martyrdom and heard from several Christians.
@@Miatpi lol
Scott Hahn, Steve Ray, and Keith Nester have the best stories of converting to Catholicism.
A big red flag for me was when Suan was mentioning a passage from Ezekiel and Cameron asked the question, "What's the context?" Incredibly, not only was Suan unable to give a coherent response (he actually looked down at his Bible in an effort to find the answer), but he then dismissed the relevance of the question by stating, "I don't think it necessarily takes away from its significance for the case for the Eucharist because still he's eating a scroll." Right-so the immediate context is immaterial? I mean this kindly, but that's poor hermeneutics. Failure to understand the immediate context of a passage is probably the biggest cause of erroneous interpretation bar none. You really shouldn't even *_attempt_* to make a case for a doctrine based on a text that you haven't first studied in its context.
Furthermore, Cameron was right on to be skeptical about Suan's point. The idea of eating the scroll was clearly metaphorical (after all scrolls don't actually taste like honey; furthermore, this incident occurred in a prophetic vision, is surrounded by other metaphors and similes [e.g., Ezek. 2:6; 3:7-9, 12], and appears to echo other clearly metaphorical texts which use similar language, e.g., Job 23:12; Ps. 119:103; Jer. 15:16), which means there's nothing unreasonable or strange about God's command. Metaphors frequently express straightforward ideas in "odd" ways (e.g., saying God is a rock [Ps. 18:2]). If anything, this supports the metaphorical interpretation of the New Testament passages relevant to the Eucharist, because it shows that eating God's words is an Old Testament metaphor for understanding and internalising them. Given that Jesus was steeped in the Old Testament, He may well have been drawing on this concept in John 6, a passage which is filled with Old Testament allusions (e.g., the prophet like Moses [cf. Deut. 18:15-22; John 6:14], references to Yahweh walking on the sea [cf. Job 9:8/Ps. 77:19; John 6:16-21], the manna episode [cf. Exodus 16; John 6:32-33] etc.).
Well said 👌
Passage in john 6 and you give the wrong typology I think you just copy paste your Comment. Go listen to apologist and know which bible verse in the Old Testament being use about John 6. Goodness you Dudes. Don't spread misinformation that's bad
@@basicin4mationvlog293 Your reply is confusing. Why would you think I copy and pasted my comment from somewhere else? I can assure you I didn't. Also, I don't understand what you mean when you say I "give the wrong typology." I didn't reference typology at all in my comment. Did you actually read what I wrote? If you are interested in meaningful and productive dialogue please respond to the actual points I made rather than an unfair caricature of them. Thanks.
You make several good points here, but none of them amount to a counterargument against the literal dimension of John 6. The figurative dimension is right, as is the literal one. As I explain above, the OT figure (old manna) is not greater than its NT fulfillment (new manna = Jesus). Both are literal and figurative food.
@@andrewdalton5988 My comment was hardly an argument against the Catholic understanding of John 6. It was a rebuttal to Suan's usage of Ezekiel 3, which clearly has nothing to do with transubstantiation.
Scott’s wife wasn’t open eitherrrr
Annihilationism, yikes!
Cameron is all over the place. Why are classical Christian apologists so inconsistent on theology?
Cause they aren’t classic Christian apologists. That would make them Catholic
@@bigk4026 classic apologetics isn’t just a Catholic thing. RC Sproul did classic apologetics and he was reformed.
@@Particularly_John_Gill
Then he should have known his theology proposed something metaphysically impossible
What's wrong with annihilationism? It's either that or purgatorial universalism
IT worked
Why would a Protestant be converted to Catholicism and not to Orthodoxy like Hank Hanegraff?
Catholicism is the true Church, thats why...
Because autistic obsession with the filioque doesnt attract people?
papal authority
Because people excuse butchering creeds and no respect for the faith and creeds that came before them.
Are you asking this question psychologically or theologically? Because either would make an interesting discussion, but it's two different discussions.
I think the biggest issue with this video is actually the title. If it had been "Criteria For Conversion with Suan Sonna" or even just "A Pre-Apologetics Chat With Suan Sonna," it wouldn't have been disappointing.
But "A Brilliant Catholic Apologist Tries To Convert Me" just isn't even what happened! It led me, at least, to expect an exhaustive apologia...so, 2/3rds of the way through the video, I found myself muttering, "Yeesh, guys! Stop all the throat-clearing and get STARTED already!"
Cameron, you're great. Suan, you're great too! Nothing wrong with you guys hanging out and setting expectations for a later discussion. It's just that the title was, frankly, clickbait-y.
I’m Catholic and this was underwhelming from Suan. I’ll look forward to when Trent is on.
As someone who has converted from Protestantism, and as I explained early in the video, conversion is not a purely intellectual process. There's a lot more going on, and so I didn't want to go in "guns blazing" with arguments.
I haven’t been able to watch the entire video, but Suan’s expertise, from what I’ve seen of him, is specifically the Papacy. And it doesn’t seem to me that issue is the major/only issue Cameron has. But I just don’t see how Cameron can see that the Eucharist should be taken metaphorically. The only source I can think of, if he has already not looked into it, is Brent Pitre’s The Jewish Roots of the Eucharist.
@@intellectualcatholicism Suan what did you think of Camerons paradigm regarding "silver bullet arguements"? Do you think he would hold this view in regards to the ressurection?
@@youngrupee That's a good question that I should have asked.
@@EpoRose1 Good recommendations.
Blessed are those who believe, despite low prior probability...
Hi guys. This is a huge problem that I have with Roman Catholicism:
The universal requirement to celibacy was imposed upon the Roman Catholic clergy with force in 1123. Said requirement has wreaked havoc in the Roman Catholic Church and has ruined the lives of countless victims (mainly teen age boys) over the course of the last 900 years.
In fact, in the New Testament, Ministers, Bishops, & etc, are required to be married.
And apparently, currently, more than half of Roman Catholic priests and bishops are homosexual. This is a huge problem. It would be very helpful to do a program addressing this issue.
Oh man, the priest who abuse are mostly homosexuals. Dispensing celibacy wouldn't have much effect.
Plus, eastern rite Catholic allowed married man to become priest.
1. Its just a discipline, it could be changed
2. All the evidence I have seen points to the fact that child abuse is just as common in protestant churches and even worse in public schools (at least in the US)
Just because a good, moral and consistent action can lead to some people committing a crime, doesn't mean the original good, moral and consistent action somehow isn't still good, moral or consistent now. Just like if not allowing someone to kill a cat causes someone to go on a mass killing spree of people, not allowing them to kill a cat is still right. Furthermore, when you say so many are homosexual, if you allowed them not to be celibate, they would just. Also, not half of the priesthood are homosexual. You're actually crazy if you genuinely believe that. Only between 1 and 2% of the regular population are homosexual, let alone Christians, let alone practicing Christians, let alone priests! You simply just made up a statistic to support your position. That shows two things, that you think your position is so weak that it requires made up evidence to support it and second, that there is no evidence for the claim. Furthermore, even if it were true, it still doesn't prove your main point of falsify the Church teaching.
The Celibacy is for one thing not universal, and secondly it's just rubbish that celibacy make people pedophiles. Thirdly, from where do you get your statistics on the homosexuality among clerics ("more than half" is a very bold statement). Not that I quite see any problem with a homosexual as cleric, as long as they - like all priests - admit to the sexual moral teachings of the Catholic church.
@@Miatpi Well said.
…They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again… - St. Ignatius of Antioch’s Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110].
Ignatius was a follower of the Apostle John himself.
I think another under the radar blocker to Cameron’s converting to Catholicism is having to “give up” friends / family. Inevitably when one converts they lose touch with people they have known for a long time.
Jesus Said “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." The opening statement of Suan, you must accept the Magisterium should be a red herring to ALL! Cameron wake up!!!!!!!!! You do not need these corrupt men.
Look what happened.
Great discussion! I love both you guys! With respect, Cameron, it is fallacious to exclude the literal dimension of the Bread of Life discourse in John 6 simply because its figurative dimension is rightly observed. Both dimensions are present. You are setting up a false dichotomy.
Explaining the fourth petition of the Lord’s Prayer, “give us this day our daily (ἐπιούσιος) bread,” the Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms the figurative dimension to “bread” (cf. CCC 2828-2835) and its eucharistic meaning (cf. CCC 2835-2837). Bread is a figure of “all appropriate goods and blessings, both material and spiritual” (CCC 2830). So, Cameron, you rightly express Catholic teaching when you observe how, in the Bread of Life discourse, too, Jesus speaks in figures about the life-giving “Word of God accepted in faith” (cf. CCC 2835).
However, this observation does nothing to militate against the literal dimension of the text, which is also present. Indeed, awareness of the Old Testament backstory to which Jesus alludes, namely, the manna that fell from heaven during the first Exodus (Exod 16; Num 11), requires the literal dimension. Again, it is right to regard this manna as a sign of God’s life-giving Word. But it is not for that reason less than literal, physical food.
Here is the main point: the typological sign (old manna) is not greater than its typological fulfillment (new manna). Rather, the “true bread from heaven” (John 6:32) is the “bread of God [which] is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world” (John 6:33f). Since the old manna was literal food, it is no surprise that the new manna is literal food also (cf. John 6:55). Indeed, it would be unfitting if the OT sign were greater than its NT fulfillment.
Hope that helps! God bless you!
Its obvious why jesus partook of our flesh and blood. The literal bread feeds on Jesus physical needs as our own. The breaking of the bread is his body like ours will feel pain and suffering. Hebrews chapter 2 v 14 confirms he took on the same flesh and blood as us. The wine obviously is the cup of his baptism of fire and fulfill his father's will in Gethsemane. Simple transubsatation is nonsense.
Jesus’ clarification on the Eucharist came at the last Supper. Clarifies John 6. Protestants tend to push aside the supernatural which causes them to deny the real presence.
YT's ad to watch this video: "Donate to the Freedom from Religion Fund by Ron Reagan, lifelong atheist...not afraid of burning in hell"
It can be shown, from the Vatican library, a doctoral thesis, that proves the Apostles and early fathers were keeping the seventh day Sabbath. This was approved by the Vatican and was the last time a Protestant was granted access to their library.
Look up Samuele R. Bacchiochi, his paper is free.
Samuele R. Bacchiocchi was a Seventh-day Adventist author and theologian, best known for his work on the Sabbath in Christianity, particularly in the historical work From Sabbath to Sunday, based on his doctoral thesis from the Pontifical Gregorian University
This was not the last time a Protestant was granted access to the Vatican library. Since that fact is false, why should we trust your other statements?
@Cameron Have you ever listened to Scott Hahn? He has different conversion stories online, and one on Matt Fradd’s channel. While your intellectual side is so obviously strong, don’t forget the imaginative and emotional side of faith. Faith isn’t the probability something is true, it’s believing without seeing. Stepping out on a limb and using your mind at its fullest capacity to try and understand his divine nature that isn’t bound to probabability. Even tho we could never fully grasp it, it’s a covenant that’s being fulfilled and it’s beautiful, not mathematical. My point about Scott Hahn is the way he explains how the New is revealed in the Old and the Old is fulfilled in the New. Bigger picture❤️
One of the things that I struggle to understand is the denial of the Real Presence in the Eucharist. I don't know of any apostolic Christian Church that denies this, and most of mainline Protestantism believes some form of this. When exactly does the Holy Spirit protect the Church from error? The Church got this wrong from the beginning?
I notice that Suan doesn't have the time to "convinced " Cameron. Just as 21 Suan is so brilliant in his age. How much more in 10 from now. Could be a leading apologist. I wish Suan study islam and focus on that too.
1) Purgatory doesn't exist. The blood of Jesus is enough. 1 Corinthians 3 talks about the white throne judgement, and not about the purification of sins but about the quality of works we did as a Christian in the name of God.
2) Mother Mary needs a savior. She is also a sinner saved by Jesus Christ.
Luke 1:46-47 (KJV) "And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,
And my spirit hath rejoiced in God *my Saviour* "
3) the book of maccabees has a serious contradiction of using money for atonement. That's a false doctrine. Only blood can atone for your sins not money. That was the message of the old as well as the new testaments.
4) there is no praying for the dead in the Bible. It doesn't work like that. There is no indirect verse of praying for the dead too.
Therefore Catholicism is dead wrong.
1) Maccabees 12:46: It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.
2) the Catholic Church also believes that Jesus Christ is her Savior. Being the mother of God, she was considered highly favored by Him and He granted her the grace to be conceived sinless.
3) “Make friends quickly with your accuser, while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison; truly I say to you, you will never get out till you have paid the last penny (Matthew 5:25-26)”
4) The book of Revelation shows the saints worshipping God, singing hymns, playing instruments, making requests to Christ to avenge their martyrdom, and offering prayers for the saints on earth (Rev. 4:10, 5:8, 6:9-11).
Revelation 8:3-4: “Another angel came and stood on the altar, having a golden censer, and many incenses were given to him, in order that he will give it with the prayers of all the saints on the golden altar before the throne. And the smoke of the incenses went up with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God.”
@@sophial9379 1) Nobody can escape sins by prayer. Only Maccabees teaches this nonsense, this kind of concept is not found in any of the old testament books(non apocryphal) as well as new testament books. Go head and try to find it. That's why Maccabees is not in the canon because it is not inspired and it teaches false doctrines. So deal with this false doctrine.
2) My question is really simple why should Mary be born sinless? Can't God directly make Jesus Christ be born sinless free from the original sin?? And Mary herself admits that she need a savior, if she was already saved and sinless why she says that Jesus Christ is her savior cause she doesn't need Jesus if she wasn't a sinner. Jesus himself says he only came for the sinners not the righteous.
Luke 5:32 (KJV) "I came *not to call the righteous* , but sinners to repentance."
So if Mary is truly a saint free from all sins why did she say Jesus Christ was her savior??
3) If that verse in Mathew refers to purgatory in spiritual world but not the prison in this world then just take a look at the starting of the verse it says
"Make friends quickly with your accuser"
So if the context of this is spiritual and not earthly world, then the accuser in the spiritual world is the devil or satan. Should we then become friends with Satan??????????????????????
Clearly not, because this verse you quoted refers to earthly accusers and earthly prison.
4) None of the verses in revelations says that we should pray for the saints in heaven or they pray for us. The saints in heaven prayed to Jesus Christ and obviously we are going to be praising and worshipping God in heaven there is no doubt in this. But none of your quotes says that we can pray for the saints in heaven nor the saints in heaven pray for us.
So Nope Catholicsm is dead wrong.
Camerons point about the magisterium and his objections were weird.
Join us! Jesus and the community loves you! Fun bonus: even if you don't the same applies and we won't condemn you to hell… unlike others. 👀
I like the analogy of the magisterium being like the answer key for a test so that you know where you have to end up, and then you just have to figure out how to get there, however, that assumes that the magisterium is right, and that's where I have the problem, I don't think it is right about certain things.
I think the analogy of a referee is probably the best. It’s not so much the Magisterium decides the play of the game (religious life) but what you can’t do (when you are falling into error).
@@stcolreplover yeah, but again, the problem is whether or not they are making calls based on the correct rules. In real life, the rules of a game are way more concrete than many aspects regarding Christianity. And I'm not aware of any scripture that really gives that authority to a body of people today. And if the magisterium is wrong about something, then anyone who has placed it as an authority and is actually following what it says is in error by extension. So I would need evidence that is extremely straight forward about such a body, evidence that an alternative interpretative of is less likely.
@@miltonwetherbee5489 … there is so much that is bizarre with this statement I don’t know where to begin. Obviously the Church precedes Scripture. Holy Scripture is primarily about the story of Christ, Not a laying out of theology or christian doctrine.
Both of two alternatives can be wrong, but ONLY one can be right.
Eastern orthodoxy
@@Kenji17171 Your prelates at the Council of Florence humbly submitted to the true church.
@@gussetma1945 how
@@Kenji17171 In the age of internet, all you have to do is put Council of Florence into a search engine and all will be revealed to you.
My 17 year old sister lay dying of brain cancer when she was visited by Jesus who incidentally showed her the holes in his hands and offered her salvation which she shared with me. I told my sweet sister I hear you Nancy but I can’t do all of that religious stuff. We were protestants and our father was an active alcoholic pastor adored by the church and loathed by his children. My little sister‘s response to my conflict was so peaceful and so simple and I would offer it to you now. She said, you don’t understand Carol, it’s all about simple trusting faith. We’ve made it so complicated but it really is simple trusting faith in Christ. By the way, I am now a Catholic and that was not my idea. Lol oh, and I found the truth of Jesus our Lord in India when I had gone to see some magical man guru. The hound of heaven has his eyes on us. Jesus Christ is philosophically, metaphysically, and substantially real but I don’t believe we can get that in our brain. As Jesus said to Peter when he asked him Peter who do you say that I am and Peter correctly answered that he was the Lord, he told Peter flesh and blood had not revealed this to him but only the spirit of God. My sense is salvation it’s self is a gift sometimes more than a choice. Now there’s an interesting topic for conversation. Love you guys.
Cameron, annihilationism is not necessarily opposed to the Catholic Dogma.
Cameron....
Jesus is on your tail...leading you to His beautiful Church..it's only a matter of time before you give Him your yes!
God bless you on your journey! 💠
How does the Catholic Church respond to the fact that all the Chruch Fathers, at least those who spoke to the subject, were young-earth Creationists? This was the total consensus of all the Early Church fathers, the fathers who wrote on the matter; there were no decenters. While Origin and Augustine were hyper young Earthers, that is, they believed God created all things instantly, yet they believed He did so only a few thoughts years ago.
I know I will get the comment, "They did not believe this." When this comment is made, it reveals they never looked into the subject themselves; they simply believe what they have been told about what the early Church fathers taught. I am ok with this; we all have assumptions, but when the premise is exposed as false, how one responds reveals what they really believe; do they continue in blind faith, or do they look into the matter themselves? I am not saying that the age of the earth should cause division among Christians, there are good Old Earth creation models I think YEC people should consider as sound, but it does show that few Cahthloics really care what the Church taught for the first 1500 years of Church history.
As Protestants, we have the liberty to disagree with what the Church taught for the first 1500 years of Church history, but do Catholics? If the view has changed, who changed it? When was this teaching suppressed? And why does it seem too few Catholics know that this change occurred? Who is correct, the Popes of the first 1500 years of Church history or the ones for the past few hundred? I do consider Catholics brothers and sisters in Christ, but these questions should be looked into and considered.
Thank you and God bless
Cameron's point about Protestantism having a wider range of options to choose from on various doctrines is a really good one. I've never thought of that before, but that's a huge issue for me. I can't sign on to any view that is too strict on eternal hell.
Isn’t that making ourselves God? Picking and choosing what best makes sense to us? Our ways are not God’s ways. God’s ways are not mans ways. When you say what you choose for yourself, you are making yourself God of your own personal religion...
That’s not a point in favor of Protestantism.
@@amybeckerle6440 I'm not sure how favoring one interpretation over another makes you a God. Both traditions are interpretive. Protestants just seem to have a wider range of views on some issues though.
I understand the emotional appeal in this argument, but it isn't rational to assume that the less restrictive doctrinal system is necessarily better. To be sure, it isn't rational to assume that the more restrictive doctrinal system is necessarily better either. One should embrace whichever doctrinal system aligns with the biblical evidence. If Catholicism is true, then Protestantism is simplistic, such that it allows many heterodox teachings to be regarded as orthodox. Indeed, without a Protestant magisterium, it is very difficult (if not impossible) to know which ideas are heretical. For example, a recent fad has many Protestants supporting subordinationism (condemned long ago as heresy by the Catholic magisterium). But modern Protestants argue about whether such a belief warrants excommunication. If christology is up for grabs, what isn't?
@@AlexADalton picking and choosing from various “doctrines” is exactly that. Deciding you are God over your own faith, to which differs from that of the person sitting next to you in church.
Jesus showed us the way. Jesus established His church. If you don’t like the church established by Him, you’re choosing your own religion.
The “wider range of options with Protestantism “ is alarming! Bob woke up and felt called by God to preach His word so he started a church. Bill decided the same. Both disagree on the teachings on the Bible. Whose church is right? This is the mess you get in to. Follow the truth... from Jesus, given to Peter... it will set you free!
I notice you Suan! You’re an amazing apologist and I’m sure a pretty awesome dude!! You as well Cameron! Love this dialogue! 😊🤙🏻
When I talk to atheists they always seem to mean it in the Bayesian sense, I only hear about the other alternatives from apologists trying to dismiss the saying.
Also, it isn't trivial, many people forget to include the priors, it's a common enough fault in human thinking that it deserves a catch phrase.
I just think apologists don't want to admit they were wrong here so they say, "oh I developed this cool way of interpreting this saying that the atheist don't understand, and on my super cool reading it's true but the atheists are too stupid to understand my cool interpretation". I think it's quite the opposite, it's obvious to most people what it meant and apologists were the ones not getting it.
This episodes feels like I'm watching a movie because of the HD camera
Praying for your conversion 🙏
Now we just need to convert Cameron to the true faith, the Reformed tradition within Protestantism (although Anglicanism or Lutheran would be good too).
Please let your guest speak more. Thanks.
What's the name of the Saint for depression?
St Dymphna
@@nicholasolsen4634 Thanks. God bless.
Also very interesting that he says, “my wife says she is not open to Catholicism, so I...”
Isn't the husband responsible for the faith leadership of his family?
Not saying this is so black and white, or simple. 😂(pain will follow)
In reference to bayesian probabilities, comparing two alternative hypotheses, wouldnt the value of the individual probabilities matter more than the number of claims? I.e. 1 claim at 0.0000001% likelyhood vs 5 claims at 10% likelihood. I guess the probabilities of each of the claims of the two hypotheses have to be accurately quantified. Sometimes the claims are linked so it gets real complicated real fast. I.e. If claim a is true then b,c, and y are true (or at least very close to 100%!). Just some thoughts!