Sola Scriptura Doesn't Make Any Sense | It's logically inconsistent
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 ก.ย. 2024
- We delve into the intricate and often overlooked complexities of the sola scriptura doctrine, a cornerstone of Protestant Christianity. At its heart, this video challenges viewers to ponder the ramifications and potential inconsistencies inherent in the belief that the Bible alone is the sole infallible authority on Christian doctrine.
Have you ever given an in-depth look at the doctrine of sola scriptura? Join us as we question, analyze, and delve into the historical, philosophical, and theological facets of the idea that the Bible alone is the sole infallible authority on Christian doctrine. Whether you're firmly rooted in your beliefs or just beginning to explore theological concepts, this exploration promises to provide a fresh perspective on one of Christianity's most discussed doctrines.
For more on Sola Scriptura check out these links:
• The (Rare) Word That R...
• Trent Horn on Sola Scr...
• Reasons to Doubt Sola ...
Hi! I’m a Protestant but have taken a liking to Eastern Orthodox teachings. I can agree to your point of Martin Luther capable of being a fallible credential. And I’m not here to disagree with you, as much as I am curious. If Sola Scriptura is inconsistent, what is the alternative? If you don’t mind, I would like to ask a series of questions in this to understand better, but hopefully not on TH-cam comments.
Of course! If you want, you can DM me on X eschaton369 or Instagram whatistruth777
I think you forgot that Protestants do understand that removing the deuterocanon as sacred scripture can be reasoned by appealing to the Masoretic text moreover, the NT never quoted the Apocrypha even though the Apocrypha is much earlier than the older books. There's also the fact there are other writers who don't think the Apocrypha is authoritative like Josephus, Jerome, or Augustine. There's also Melito's canon which resembles those of the Protestant bible.
I can safely say that the Protestants do have a strong basis for their own canonization but what they lack in infallible authority they can back them up with history.
I mean the NT doesn't directly quote a lot of books considered canon by Prots as well, so that's not really a strong argument.
Every protestant should see this.
I hope they would lol
In my life, I went from sola scriptura, to moving my trust in scholars who can read and interpret texts from the original language, studied early church history and classical literature, and are capable of arguing for its historical or sacred significance, or its problems with authenticity and contradictions. The conversation about the original texts, who wrote it, what it is about, and what we know happened in history at this time outside of the text, this is what I feel matters more. Truth was never handed to us by one person in history for everyone to easily read. I have never been able to read from the same Bible as another person and infer the same conclusions as them, sometimes even one verse at a time.
The problem with this is the end up with the same problem you had with sola scriptura. Scholars don’t have consensus, so then you choose the scholar you like the most and then it ends up back at being just your interpretation.
@@Esch-a-ton3Doesn’t that just apply to you as a Catholic as well? Scholars and the Catholic Church are the same in that they both seek to derive a conclusion from biblical scriptures, whatever that conclusion may be. While the commenter chose the conclusion that made the most sense to him, you chose the one you liked and made sense to you.
Hi,
Can you name the councils were the NT canon was decided on?
The authors wrote as they were "carried along" by the Spirit of God. The Spirit of God knows how to direct the compiling and interpreting too.
Jesus didn't leave a book, he left an organization that is itself a supernatural entity of which the Bible is just one output. To play devil's advocate Luther did not deny the authority of the Church in the Augsburg confession, he clarified the "priesthood of all believers" doctrine which states in fact that the supernatural status of the Eucharist is not determined by the recorded priesthood, but by the correct-belief (orthodoxy) of all of the participants of the Eucharist regardless of ordination.
I completely agree. However to the believers it isn't about logic, it is about circular argumentation where the doctrine and scripture reinforce each other and this cycle is further kept up by the religious community. So take an individual out of it of a certain period of time, which is probably going to be long, and you MIGHT get them deconverted...
Very interesting
Glad you think so!
great video
Thanks!
Wow.
Wow good or wow bad? Lol
Protestants
Sola Mea Sententia
Only My Opinion
Another problem with Sola Scriptora is that if the Bible alone is the only infallible source of authority, when one reads the Scriptures, how do you know they're correctly interpreting what they're reading? Heretics throughout the ages have pointed to Scripture to support their heresies, so how do you know that you're interpreting Scripture correctly, and not falling into heresy?
How do you know you're accurately interpreting history and that RC is right?
@spyer7124 Because the Church is an infallible authority, and can infallible interpret the Scriptures
@@WhiteWolf22303 yes but how did you infallibly learn that?
@@spyer7124 Because Christ, the Apostles, and the Early Church Fathers taught that the Church is an infallible source of authority
@@WhiteWolf22303 that's your opinion. I asked how you got *infallible* knowledge. How come eastern Orthodox disagree on the Pope?
This is the main reason why I plan on leaving Protestantism
Very glad to hear that!
New Covenant Whole Gospel: How many modern Christians cannot honestly answer the questions below?
Who is the King of Israel in John 1:49? Is the King of Israel now the Head of the Church, and are we His Body? Who is the “son” that is the “heir” to the land in Matthew 21:37-43? Why did God allow the Romans to destroy the Old Covenant temple and the Old Covenant city, about 40 years after His Son fulfilled the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34 in blood at Calvary?
What the modern Church needs is a New Covenant Revival (Heb. 9:10) in which members of various denominations are willing to re-examine everything they believe and see if it agrees with the Bible, instead of the traditions of men. We need to be like the Bereans. It will be a battle between our flesh and the Holy Spirit. It will not be easy. If you get mad and upset when someone challenges your man-made Bible doctrines, that is your flesh resisting the truth found in God's Word. Nobody can completely understand the Bible unless they understand the relationship between the Old Covenant given to Moses at Mount Sinai and the New Covenant fulfilled in blood at Calvary. What brings all local churches together into one Body under the blood of Christ? The answer is found below.
Let us now share the Old Testament Gospel found below with the whole world. On the road to Emmaus He said the Old Testament is about Him.
He is the very Word of God in John 1:1, 14. Awaken Church to this truth.
Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
Is the most important genealogy in the Bible found in Matthew 1:1 (Gal. 3:16)? Is God's Son the ultimate fulfillment of Israel (John 1:49)? Why has the modern Church done a pitiful job of sharing the Gospel with modern Orthodox Jews? Why would someone tell them they are God's chosen people and then fail to share the Gospel with them? Who is the seed of the woman promised in Genesis 3:15? What did Paul say about Genesis 12:3 in Galatians 3:8, 3:16? Who is the "son" in Psalm 2? Who is the "suffering servant" of Isaiah 53? Who would fulfill the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34? Who would fulfill the timeline of Daniel chapter 9 before the second temple was destroyed? Why have we not heard this simple Old Testament Gospel preached on Christian television in the United States on a regular basis?
Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:22-24, man-made Bible doctrines fall apart.
Let us now learn to preach the whole Gospel until He comes back. The King of Israel is risen from the dead! (John 1:49, Acts 2:36)
We are not come to Mount Sinai in Hebrews 12:18. We are come instead to the New Covenant church of Mount Zion and the blood in Hebrews 12:22-24.
1Jn 3:22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.
1Jn 3:23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.
1Jn 3:24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.
God is not now a “racist”. He has extended His love to all races of people through the New Covenant fulfilled by His Son’s blood at Calvary. The Apostle Paul warned against using “genealogies” in our faith in 1 Tim. 1:4, and Titus 3:9.
The following verses prove the Holy Spirit is the master teacher for those now in the New Covenant.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
Mar 1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.
Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
Act 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
1Jn 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
Watch the TH-cam videos “The New Covenant” by David Wilkerson, or Bob George, and David H.J. Gay.
Nay, the Old testament is confirmed by Jesus, confirming the Hebrew canon that they have had, and the New testament is from The Apostoles, they by the power of the Holy Spirit gave us the teachings of Jesus. So I'm not sure where the problem lays.
Same as Jesus had respect for Jewish authorities, He also knew they are not infallable, but the Scriptures are, and
the church doesn't have ultimate authority, only God does and the Bible is his Word or Logos if you will
There was no specific Hebrew cannon. Their was the law and the prophets. The saduccees rejected the prophets.
How do you know which epistles of the apostles are Scripture? Are the epistles we have in the canon the only things they wrote? Did the other 9 apostles write anything that's not included?
Who determined what was in the canon of Scripture and what wasn't? Luke said all the books the world couldn't contain all that was done.
Who decided what was included and what wasnt?
How do you know the Holy Spirit guided the apostles ?
You know because is says so in tbe scripture. God provided scripture tbrough the church. You had the church before scripture.
Ey, that was great! In the content and in such a fine presentation: images, music, voice, and particularly all non-native English speakers I think we really appreciate the transcription. Thanks for your work and keep doing it! Congratulations.
Thanks, Miguel!
I totally agree! A hot take of mine is that there shouldn't have been as many translations of the bible. It should only, at least officially, be written in the languages that the apostles wrote it in, or translated and interpreted only by those who are guided by the spirit. Sola scriptura and protestantism have been one of the worst things for christianity. Think of all the controversy from linguistic scholars of words in the bible. Many interpreting different meanings for words. This is because without guidance from god, mans interpretation is fallible. Also the solitary reading of the bible by average people is inherently anti social, and probably led to people not going to church, becoming lukewarm, and eventually becoming atheistic. Reliance on a priest for interpretation brings people together in a church setting among like-minded people.
Sola Scriptura and Sola Fida are both nonsense.