Why Sola Scriptura is FALSE w/ Patrick Madrid
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 19 ก.ค. 2020
- Today's episode of Pints with Aquinas is all about why Sola Scriptura (Bible Only) is FALSE. And I speak with a man who's certainly well-qualified to have a discussion about it: The Pat Madrid.
In this episode, Pat and I will teach you:
- The meaning of Sola Scriptura
- Why Sola Scripture is false
- What is meant by the phrase "Catholic Tradition"
- and more!
SPONSORS
Hallow: hallow.onelink.me/Q25Y/80833e8
Covenant Eyes: www.covenanteyes.com/ (use promo code: mattfradd)
STRIVE: www.strive21.com/
GIVING
Patreon: / mattfradd
This show (and all the plans we have in store) wouldn't be possible without you. I can't thank those of you who support me enough. Seriously! Thanks for essentially being a co-producer coproducer of the show.
LINKS
Website: pintswithaquinas.com/
Merch: teespring.com/stores/matt-fradd
FREE 21 Day Detox From Porn Course: www.strive21.com/
SOCIAL
Facebook: / mattfradd
Twitter: / mattfradd
Instagram: / mattfradd
Website - mattfradd.com - บันเทิง
![หาทำ EP.41 : ผัดวุ้นเส้นที่รักกับนายกล้วยหอม “หลิง-ออม” [Eng Sub] | จือปาก](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/r2jrLOQRthI/mqdefault.jpg)
Please like, subscribe, and share to help get the message out!
0:00 Intro
2:30 Strive Sponsor Spot
4:01 Interview Begins
5:52 In defense of "Sola Scriptura"
9:23 Why should we reject sola scriptura?
12:20 "Sola Scriptura" supported by 2 Timothy 3:12-17
14:51 Hallow Sponsor Spot
16:00 What Counts as Scripture?
18:41 Revisiting the 2 Timothy Passage
20:51 What do Catholics even mean by "Tradition?"
32:05 Material Sufficiency vs Formal Sufficiency
36:39 Would any Catholics Reject Material Sufficiency?
41:08 Don't Catholics just teach "Sola Ecclesia?"
45:49 Does the Bible Get its Authority from the Church or From God?
50:01 New ways to talk to Protestants without talking about Tradition
54:51 Why we need Tradition: Patrick's fruitful argument in a Denny's
1:01:33 "Sola Scriptura" is wrong, whether Catholicism is true or not.
1:03:13 Soft-Sell Apologetics
1:04:24 What was it like debating James White?
1:09:50 Recollecting notable parts of the debate
1:11:59 The long lasting impact of the debate
1:14:36 Wrapping up
I’m watching this live, how did you get the timestamps up already 🤨
Crystal D “live” on TH-cam doesn’t actually mean “live” :P he had the conversation recorded and published it to the platform a week ago, but TH-cam was told not to show it until this date at this time. That’s also how he was able to add the clip at the beginning where he said he will accuse Madrid of being overly prickly! Haha
Hi Crystal D, this must have been pre-recorded as The Patrick Madrid Show is playing now on Relevant Radio and it's live. If you like Patrick Madrid I highly recommend Relevant Radio. 😊
Either way it was live or pre recorded, thanks Matt for this!! It is surly something you didn’t have to do and is greatly appreciated 👍👍
Jesus my Salvation Thanks for your opinion and the traffic on Matt’s page!
One of your protestant brothers here, coming to this video well after the fact it seems, but nonetheless still wanted to thank you for putting this out there. There were some really compelling arguments presented in this discussion that have given me much to think on. Thanks for the encouragement and for loving Christ as you do!
May God bless you for being so loving and open to what other denominations have to say about Christian teachings. I’ve had no luck discussing this matter with my Protestant friends. One of them even told me right on that Catholicism is a cult. May God have mercy on us and may the Holy Spirit teach us that God loves us all with all of our differences. I’ve heard conversion stories where God leads some to the Protestant church and some to Catholic or Orthodox Churches. We are the ones that don’t tolerate each other bc there is no love and humility in our hearts. God bless you.
Can I ask where you are on this today, friend?
MESSAGES GIVEN BY OUR LORD
1880 - 1883
I wish the first Friday after the feast of My Sacred Heart to be set apart as a festive day in honour of My Sacred Head as the Seat of Divine Wisdom, and that public adoration be offered to Me for all the outrages and sins which are continually being committed against Me.” “It should be dedicated as a festive day in its honour, and special reparation and atonement be then offered to Him. June 2, 1880
The Sacred Head was in a special manner the dwelling place of the Holy Ghost. Our Lord wished the great mystery of the Incarnation to be made very clear (or taught very carefully) to the children. Whitsuntide 1881
Our Lord impressed upon her - His Soul is not known, His Soul is not loved, and tells me not, by actual words. Juni 1883
Our Blessed Lord wishes His Sacred Head to receive special adoration. Aug. 17, 1882
Those who shall try by words or means to hinder or reject it, shall be as glass that is cast down, or as an egg that is thrown to the wall, that is that they shall be shattered and become as naught, and shall be dried up and wither as grass on the housetop. April 9, 1880
Even the devotion to the Sacred Heart is incomplete without this devotion to His Sacred Head. June 2, 1880
He would wish now to be crowned and acknowledged as the Wisdom of the Father, the true King of Kings. Juni 15, 1880
This morning at holy Mass when the Sacred Host was raised at the elevation, I saw as it were the whole court of heaven in prostrate adoration. May 27, 1880
Our dear Blessed Lord wishes His Sacred Head to be honoured as the “Shrine of the Powers of His Holy Soul’. Nov. 11, 1880
Around His Sacred Head shone a light of indescribable brilliancy and beauty: as it were a sun in which sparkled 12 magnificent crystal stones reflecting all the colours of the rainbow. May 23, 1880
“It will be the great devotion of the church in time to come. July 16, 1881
The crucifix is the Book of books and to me the Tree of Life and contains never ending volumes. June, 1880
It makes me tremble with terror at the dread punishments He has in store for all who shall hinder, or try to hinder the furtherance of this heavenly devotion, for their jaws He says shall be locked as were those of the lions in the den into which Daniel was cast, they shall be shattered and become as naught. May 9, 1880
The Sacred Head is the Shrine of the Powers of the Soul. The Head is also the Centre of all the senses of the body, and that this devotion is the completion, not only of the devotion of the Sacred Heart, but the crowning and perfection of all devotions; and he showed me how the adorable Trinity at His baptism revealed to the world this special devotion for His Sacred Humanity is the tabernacle of the thrice Holy Trinity; and that St. John has specially spoken of this devotion for the Most High revealed to him that he should be thus worshipped before the end of the world. April 9, 1880
PROMISES
Anyone who shall assist in furthering this Devotion shall be blessed a 1,000 fold; but woe to him that shall reject or go against My Wish in this respect, for they shall be scattered in My Wrath and shall know their place no more. June 2, 1880
Our Lord would crown and clothe with a peculiar glory all those who further this devotion to the Sacred Head. He would clothe with glory before angels and men in the courts of heaven those who clothed Him in glory on earth and would crown them in everlasting bliss. Sept. 10, 1880
We render a great homage to the ever Blessed Trinity by adoring our dear blessed Lord’s Sacred Head as the ‘Seat of Divine Wisdom.’ Annunciation 1881
Our Lord would bless all who practice or further this devotion in any way. July 16, 1881
Untold blessings are promised to those who shall try to further our Lord’s wishes in spreading the devotion. June 2, 1880
The more we practice devotion to the Sacred Head the more we must see of the working of the Holy Spirit of God in the human soul, and the better we will know and Love the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. June 2, 1880
The devotion and love to His Sacred Heart should be bestowed a hundred fold upon those who practice devotion to the Seat of Divine Wisdom. May, 1883
Our blessed Lord said that all that He had promised to those who should worthily love and honour His Sacred Head should be poured out upon those who honoured it themselves or were the means of others doing so. Oh Sacred Head, may Thy Wisdom ever guide us, and the Sacred Tongue ever bless us and plead for Mercy and Pardon, and may we never hear the curse pronounced against those who shall hinder or despise this devotion. June 2, 1880
To them that honour Me, I will give of My Might and I will be their God and they shall be My children and I will place My Sign upon their foreheads and My Seal upon their lips. June 2, 1880
He gave me to understand that this Wisdom and Light was the seal that marked the number of His elect and they shall see His Face and His Name shall be on their foreheads. May 23, 1880
Our Lord gave her to understand that St. John referred to His Sacred Head of the Seat of Divine Wisdom in the last two Chapters of Revelations and with this mark were sealed the numbers of His elect. May 23, 1880
Our Lord shows her the great blessings and graces he has in store for all who shall further His Divine Will to this end. May 9, 1880
Imprimatur, Edm. Can. Surmont, VG, England,
September 2, 1926
holywounds.net/head
Roots of luther/calvin/Oliver Cromwell-Henry viii/etc.......
Their fruits are notorious.......
Roots of hitler/Karl marx/lenin/stalin
Roots of montini/Wojtyla/Ratzinger...
Roots of Woodrow wilson/Franklin Delano rooseveldt/Etc
ALL SAME.........
ALSO research sponsors of these notorious men.......
Wake up so called educated world's zombies.
Take RCIA!!!!
As an extremely sophomoric Protestant exploring Catholicism, what I would instinctually want to hold to is not "*Sola* Scriptura" per se, but rather "Nihil Contra Scriptura" - a reverence for and conditional acceptance of tradition, *so long as* those traditions do not negate what is taught in scripture.
From a Protestant perspective, there seem to be many Catholic traditions that are, in fact, contradictory to scripture - especially when it comes to soteriology and Mariology. Still investigating the arguments from both sides; not taking a firm stance either way! (yet)
**EDIT**
Now, I am taking a firm stance. I'm taking our Lord and Savior at His word, following the fathers of the Church, and I made the decision to come home a few months ago. With God's grace, I will be confirmed as a Catholic on Easter Sunday this year.
I keep you in prayer.
God’s will be done in all our lives. 🙏
@enforcer4383 Yep, and I eventually had the truth lead me back to the Catholic Church. I'm in RCIA and hopefully will be confirmed on Easter Sunday!
Good for you, I'm a Protestant still searching. Feels like what it comes down to is "what is the Church that Jesus founded?" It seems like this Church has some God-given authority that we should respect. It could be the Catholic Church, or the body of believing Christians in each denominations, like Protestants claim, but in the latter, the authority-thing doesn't kinda make sense. The search continues for me.
God bless all here you lovely people..... it's so nice to read yr comments:
golden egg... in reply at 30 minutes, Patrick explains Tradition, maybe if you have time..... listen again sweetheart....
Two of the questions/thought processes I had when I was a Protestant that ultimately led me to rejecting the idea of Sola Scriptura and helped me convert to Catholicism were the following:
1. If I were to give a Bible to several thousand people to have them read and learn about Jesus, God, His will, etc, every one of them would have different interpretations of who God and Jesus are, and what God's will for us is. Those interpretations would also be entirely based on their own personal experiences, belief systems, and personal biases. How would we know whose interpretations are correct, and whose interpretations are wrong? Furthermore, there are many different versions and translations of the Bible. How do we know which one is closest to the original intent? The Bible doesn't teach how to correctly interpret itself, so we would need to compare said interpretations to things such as long standing tradition, historical documents, etc in order to know whether they are true or not.
2. The gospels are estimated to have been written over 40 years after Jesus' death, resurrection, and ascension. The Bible itself wasn't canonized and compiled until the late 300's. The printing press wasn't invented until the 1400's, and widespread literacy didn't happen until after that. How would the full truth of Christianity get passed on for over 1400 years without widespread access to the Bible?
Wow great explanation! Love it! Cheers YBIC
it does not mean it is not a work of truth. and by the way, interpretations of roman catholic traditions not only provide different interpretations, but is also a secondary source.
As a former Protestant, I felt as if I’ve been lied to for 23 years. Then studied the fathers, not cherry picking them like I was taught, and found the church those fathers were part of in Orthodoxy.
I feel you. I recently went back to the Catholic Church and my wife and kids are Catholic now too.
Why?
Why? Dude has lots of fancy terms but essentially it comes down to listening to what the magesterium and the pope have to say. As a result lots of hog-wash gets baptized as doctrine. Infant baptism is a great example. It was instituted because of the erroneous doctrine of purgatory/eternal conscious hell and literalism regarding the water baptism of everyone in every circumstance (while completely ignoring the thief on the cross). So now “good” Catholics want to sprinkle an unselfish aware infant in case it dies and goes to hell or purgatory.
Just cause someone sounds smart and uses big fancy Latin words doesn’t mean they are correct.
@bethemonsterorbedevoured7795 I read the apostalic fathers on what the early church (pre year 200) believed on baptism and the eucharist. I recommend you read St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Polycarp of Smyrna, St. Iranaeus, and St. Justin Martyr. They were taught by the apostles and the Catholic church believes what these 1st century Christians believed.
@vancouver8129 I think you should read the apostalic fathers (1st century Christians) and see that they are unanimous on baptism as salvivic. The Catholic Catechism- 1257 - states that God has bound salvation to the sacrament of baptism, but He Himself is not bound by his sacraments. The thief on the cross is not able to be baptized but God makes an exception in a very exceptional case. Everyone however is still bound by faith and baptismal sacrament as salvivic.
I knew that conversation with him about the James White debate would lead to an interview! Awesome job Matt! Keep up the awesome work!!
Credo In Unum Deum legendary!
It's so easy to fall into the trap of reading scripture in the lense of a 21st Century American as if it is only addressed to me or our generation, that we forget the historical and personal context behind them. They were first written and delivered as actual documents/letters addressed to an individual or particular church already established, to address issues that particular church was facing. And further instruct their leaders, like Timothy. I really liked how Patrick put 2 Timithothy 3:16-17 into perspective:
Paul tells Timothy that all scripture is God- breathed and sufficient for teaching. Teaching what? The Gospel of Jesus. Problem is the New Testament books were not put to paper and compiled as canon yet. The Gospel was an oral tradition, so the OT is sufficient in teaching Jesus as the Messiah because it proves to foreshadow Him, and He fullfills it.
So Paul is telling Timothy the Old Testament is sufficient to support teaching the Gospel of Christ. Teaching to who? Timothy by himself? Not at all, Timothy was charged with overseeing his community, it is them he must teach, and he can only do so by word-of-mouth and passing on the traditions that were taught to him. What traditions: the oral Gospel and practices (baptism, breaking bread on the Lord's day, summoning Apostles- later Bishops by Apostolic Succession for the laying on of Hands, etc.)
And this had to happen everywhere the Church expanded to. How were they all to understand the Old Testament the same in order to teach how they foreshadowed Christ? Left to their own devices and intepretation? Not at all. They needed the guidance of the Apostles by which Jesus gave them such authority. It was their teaching of Christ to men like Timothy, who were then commissioned to carry it forward to their local community.
We now refer to the authorized universal teaching and interpretaion of Scripture as the Magisterium. So that all Catholic Churches may teach The Gospel of Christ in communion with each other and without heresy growing within the Church without being immediately squashed.
That is Why the the Church's authority is organized threefold- Tradition, Scripture, and Magisterium. Tradition is how the Church began. Scripture was used to support the new traditions preached, The Gospel of Jesus, and practices He instituted And it's ability to be properly interpreted and taught rest with the Magisterium. All three building upon each other, not contradicting each other. Because without them, and with only the idea of Sola Scriptura and your own personal interpretation based on your own perspective, we wind up with tens of thousands of churches that can't agree with each other on Scripture, which leads to individuals shopping for a church that fits their own relevant truth, or starting a new church that will fit their own idea of truth because one doesnt already fit them. And that is backwards. Even Martin Luther said later in his life: "There is not an individual, however clownish he may be, who does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Ghost."
As Matt eloquently puts it: "the Bible is NOT an instruction manual for a church still in shrinkwrap. It presupposes a Church ALREADY in existence."
Sorry for the long one, and thanks for reading all the way through: God Bless and Peace Be With You All!
@@ACF1901 we need to remember that the books kf the Newst Testament were are the inspired Word of God. Filled with lessons for how we must act our faith, live our lives, and treat each other than we can directly apply today. But we must also remember to look at them from the perspective of a 1st century Jewish Christian/Gentike Christian, what they knew about the Old Testament, who was being addresses, by whom, when, and why.
So the bible in the book of Hebrews say : that the priesthood is obsolete, abolished! But the tradition of the Catholic roman church day that priesthood is still current.so should i follow SCRIPTURE or tradition? Jesus followed scripture he rebuke tradition of man .
So what should we follow Christ or tradition of church?
@@kronos01ful The answer is both, because they don’t actually contradict each other and I’m gonna lay out why. Check this out, cuz this is awesome:
That verse doesn’t say that priesthood altogether is obsolete. On the contrary, the wider scope of Hebrews illustrates that Jesus’ everlasting priesthood, with Him as the High Priest in Heaven, is what makes the Priesthood of the OLD COVENANT obsolete. Check this out, cuz this is awesome:
Hebrews 8:13, “When he speaks of a “new” covenant, he declares the first one obsolete. And what has become obsolete and has grown old is close to disappearing.”
The Old Covenant is passing away, along with the priesthood of the Old Covenant. but not priesthood altogether. Since the it was deficient in accomplishing what it signified, it had to be replaced:
Hebrews 7:12 “When there is a change of priesthood, there is necessarily a change of law as well.”
Jesus’s everlasting priesthood, makes the old priesthood obsolete, and the covenant is changed with it. The superiority of the new covenant was seen in the permanence of its priesthood, mentioned later in Ch. 7
Hebrews 7:22-24 “to that same degree has Jesus [also] become the guarantee of an [even] better covenant. Those priests were many because they were prevented by death from remaining in office, but he, because he remains forever, has a priesthood that does not pass away.
An [even] better covenant is better than the Mosaic covenant because it will be eternal, like the priesthood of Jesus upon which it is based. And it’s superiority is based on better promises, namely, in the immediacy of the people’s knowledge of God and in the forgiveness of sin.
Take that over to Luke 10:1-12, 17-20, where Jesus appointed 70 (or 72 based on the translation and ancient manuscript) of his followers on a mission, in pairs, paralleled with the Mission of the Twelve in Luke Ch. 9.
What’s interesting about the number of 70/72 Disciples that He sends out is that is the same number of Priestly elders that that Moses appoints during Exodus 24:
“Moses then went up with Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and seventy elders of Israel,”
then in Numbers 11:16-30 “Then the LORD said to Moses: Assemble for me seventy of the elders of Israel,” Moses appoints the 70 elders to help him administrate and minister to the massive amount of people in the Exodus. When He does, the Spirit comes down on the elders and they are annointed to lead the people of Israel. Two other mean outside the camp also received the Spirit (this is where the ambiguity comes whether there were 70 or 72 Elders). This is a Priestly Hierarchy of appointed leaders under Moses along with the Twelve leaders of the Twelve Tribes of Israel (same as the 12 Apostles and 70/72 Disciples Jesus appoints to go out on missions.
Where else is the number 70/72 significant? Genesis 11 in the Table of Nations- a catalog of where all the different peoples of the world came from. When you count up all the names of the nations you get 70, or 72 depending on the translation- 12 tribes of Israel and 70/72 Gentile Nations.
How many members of the Sanhedrin were there: 70/72 + 1 High Priest.
So what does Jesus intend for the 12 Apostles and 70/72 Disciples when he sends them out on their missions: His NEW Priesthood, the new Priestly Hierarchy of His Church, set up to change and make the old priesthood obsolete, with Jesus as the New High Priest, just as the letter to the Hebrews illustrates. Interesting that it is illustrated their letter, as they would know and recognize the structure of the Priestly Hierarchy so well.
This is so, because we know that the Old Testament foreshadow the New, and New Fullfills the old, with multitudes of parallels: In this case the parallel of the Mosaic Priestly Hierarchy to Jesus’ priestly Heirarchy is:
Moses/Jesus - The 1: Aaron/Peter - The 3: Aaron, Nahab, Abihu/ Peter, James, John - The 12: Pillars of the Tribes/ Apostles - The 70/72 - Priestly Elders/Disciples Sent Out
This is no coincidence. Jesus didn’t abolish the Priesthood, He set up a new one to replace the old with the New Covenant replacing the Old.
Sorry for the long answer, but it’s all just too awesome to not share!
Scripture is an artifact of revelation. Jesus revealed the New Covenant to his disciples. Paul confirmed and solidified this revelation. All revelation was recorded down on paper. Thus, SOLA SCRIPTURA.
There is absolutely no evidence that there were oral traditions from the first century possessing doctrines not found in written scripture.
It's all a fiction. Tradition for the Catholic is "we sorta can make stuff up as we go along as the fog of time somehow produces new doctrines out of thin air".
YEAH I just read it again. It doesn't make sense without further explanation. Of course, my other paragraphs should have clarified.
Matt, I really appreciate that you aren’t afraid to ask the tough questions. If we want to come to a deeper faith and be better able to defend that faith, we can’t be caught up in straw-man fallacies. In addition, I absolutely loved Patrick’s well-articulated and informative responses. Thank you for this - it really helped strengthen my faith in the Catholic Church. God bless.
Sola Scriptura perché non si può annunciare un Vangelo diverso da quello già annunciato dagli apostoli.
Galati 1:8
"quand'anche NOI o un angelo del cielo vi annunciasse il vangelo deve essere quello che avete ricevuto, sia anatema"
@enforcer4383Sola Scriptura because:
Galati 1:8
" But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."
I not speak english
The best thing about PWA interviews is the fact that Matt asks the questions that everyone is thinking.
Thanks Matt! Had this in the background while I was working. I'm glad you followed up the debate it's awesome to see how the world of apologetics has grown.
A minor thing. I absolutely love that Matt shows the question asked before AND after the sponsor ads. Most people don't do that and I end up forgetting the question. Such a cool dude
I’m just a little late in viewing this but thankfully it’s still here to view! I’m Protestant and I love watching debates and even conversations like this between Catholics. I appreciate both of these brothers and this subject matter of Sola Scriptura and Sacred Tradition is very important and I learned a lot by listening to this conversation. Also, I appreciate Patrick’s honesty and humility regarding his “prickly” demeanor in his 1993 debate with James White. As we become more seasoned we learn more effective ways of communicating and, as in Patrick’s case, debating. But that strong conviction and fervency is still there, which is a good thing! Thanks for this video!
I’ve recently come back to the Catholic Church. I wandered away years ago, attended a few different Protestant denominations, and eventually became convinced that the Catholic Church has the fullness of truth.
I love my Catholic Church and Catholic faith. I'm very home with my Church and my faith because these are the only things that make sense to me.
Wooooo! I love listening to the Patrick Madrid show. God bless you guys 🤙
Matt.This program with Patrick & yourself is terrific. Thank you.
Really good - I will have to listen again to unpack everything in this interview...
Proud to have gotten a chance to meet and shake Patrick 's hand. He is uncommon among uncommon men
11 children and 25 grandchildren God bless
How i wish ?
@Rod Manderson throw your hat in the ring and call alpha and omega ministry for a healthy debate and prove your point? I would love to hear or watch this event? Many have utterly failed against James White. Would live to watch!
I come from a family of 12.We were all born at home. The joy of a big family is immense.God is Great. My Mother never had any serious ill health. Was never once admitted to hospital. She died in her old age at 83 years old. God's blessings kept us going. Thank you Lord.
@Prasanth Thomas lol... cant get funnier than this? Is this why they brought Mr Madrid back to glorify his great victory? Lol Anyhow, why would you have 5 or 6 apologist on the same topic of sola scriptura against Dr White??? Because they won their case in the debate? Sorry but he has put on a clinic on different topics against catholics to establish the Truth of the Bible. Hes put out several challenges on his show but no takers!
@@ttshiroma He wont debate people who actually know what they are talking about anymore. Check out Sam Shamoun's channel, He has asked him to debate he won't do it anymore. He corrupts what the early fathers have said and basically his argument's boil down to but the bible doesn't say that. It doesn't use the word Priest ha! there for Catholicism is false lol Yeah I'm willing to listen to peoples viewpoints that are different from my own so I can understand where they are coming from but seriously he blatantly lies. You should read his sisters story of conversion from their faith to Catholicism he still berates and belittles her to this day her name is Patty Bonds. Anyway God Bless you and may you be lead to the fullness of truth :)
The protestant position is getting impossible for me. Just need to figure out what to do from here. Thanks for the content, very helpful!
Keep praying brother the Holy Spirit will guide you, the heart of being Catholic is a deeper union with Jesus. More practically speaking try and find a Traditional Latin Mass to attend and prayerfully observe what is going on. Next find a Catholic priest who is loyal to the teachings of Christ and His Church (vital or you could get bad advice) and explain to him your situation and ask him for guidance. Often priests from the FSSP are good people to ask spiritual advice from. Maybe that helps, maybe that doesn’t...feel free to ask any questions if need be! Blessings in Jesus.
try reading your Bible, meditating on the word and praying to God through Jesus, ask for understanding, He will open your eyes and lead you.
Alex Martinez yes amen to that, doing just that led me to the Catholic Church.
Read Matthew 15:1-9 and Mark 7:1-13
I came from Protestantism, and also found problems with its positions I could not reconcile.
But I now believe the Orthodox Church, not the Catholic Church or the Protestant churches (although I love my Catholic and Protestant brothers and sisters), is the one true Church, in which the Way is most fully expressed. Please consider exploring it. I believe it is the same Church that was founded by the Apostles, and it has remained substantively unchanged in over two thousand years.
My catechism has been one of the most enriching experiences of my life. You can approach as an enquirer, and would be invited to attend Divine Liturgy and to meet a priest regularly (one hour a week for over a year, in my case) to discuss your questions, and discuss materials you will be given to read.
I attend an Orthodox Church of America (OCA) church but there are also ethnic Orthodox churches such as Greek, Russian or Ethiopian.
The Catholic and Orthodox Churches were united for the first one thousand years of history, and it’s a tragedy that we diverged. We Orthodox pray daily for the rift to be healed, and it will be, one day.
Thank you Matt, what a Great guess and the way you started saying; “ open mind” also if you don’t mind I would like to add “Serious people who want to learn What we Catholics believe. Is so delightful to learn from Mr. Madrid gracias 🙏🏻
Romans 10:17 Consequently faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.
Great interview, great point about taking on to much and the analogy he gave on the napkin was very smart.
Wonderful! Thank you, I have to listen again to make sure I retain all this content.
I like to use the analogy of a hammer. Is the hammer “useful” in the construction of a house? Yes. Does it allow for the building to be “complete”. Yes. But is it “sufficient”, in that the hammer is all that is necessary to build the house? Of course not.
Yeah but who is wielding the hammer. Jesus Christ. We are the body but he is the Head. Jesus is the the AUTHORITY not the magesterium.
@@jaimearviso4642 God is the ultimate authority. Jesus, God, built ONE church. Jesus gave the church authority. People in the church have authority in a hierarchical manner. All of the above is from scripture. See How to be Christian's video th-cam.com/video/obEYGZVHlhM/w-d-xo.html
@@jaimearviso4642 Jesus established His Church,
What if I built a house out of hammers?
@@michaelibach9063 Hey bro, feel free to reread all my comments again.
The best moment in the debate was when Dr. White’s analogy of the pen was put to rest by Patrick Madrid. Dr White used that analogy in a few other debate encounters. His request to look on the moon and in the whole world for that pen end when Patrick said with the Bible in his hand,”this is the whole world “ no need to look any further. Lol
Excellent content!!! Thank you for this 🙏🏼
I'm a 54 year old protestant researching catholicism...... this was so understandable. I have been so confused on tradition. I get it now!! Thank you sooooo much!! Very clear!
I get now why the " bible alone" theory does not hold water.
Cool!!!
Try RCIA!!!!
🙏🙏🙏
It's so awesome to hear brothers and sisters of other denominations listening to Catholic reasoning with real curiosity. Thanks for sharing
It holds plenty of water. The Bible tells you what the Bible is: the Hebrew Scriptures and the teachings of the Apostles. Nothing else. Luke 1:1-4, Romans 1:5-6, Luke 10:14-15, Ephesians 3:7-10, Ephesians 4:11-16, 1 Corinthians 11:2.
The Letters tell us that Scriptures complete the man of God. 2 Tim 3: 14-17. Madrid has a long track record of dishonesty.
This was awesome!
Great session Matt. Thanks for the work you do in defense of the Faith
God Bless Patrick Madrid! Listen to his show on Relevant Radio- it’ll change your life!!!!
I listen to Jesus Christ and HE changed my life. Everyone can learn something from this video. Just take the wax out of your ears and "Give Peace a Chance" (John Lennon [RIP]. In the end, Jesus Christ will have the last WORD. I settle with that. Add nothing and take away nothing. That IS THE WORD. There is only ONE HEAVEN where all believers in Jesus Christ will go. Praying to the dead saints is a sin.
For those watching-I do appreciate the charitable telling of the content of Sola Scriptura, but I think Madrid’s arguments fall short of what the Reformers argued. First, on 2 Timothy 3, Protestants argue that it is sufficient to make the man of God complete-how? Madrid argues that we wouldn’t want to say it’s sufficient in an absolute sense, because then we’d have to exclude prayer as required to make a man complete. But this is simply false. Scripture is able to make someone complete not because it’s some magic book. Paul clearly means that it’s able to make us complete because it *tells us* all things necessary to make a person complete in obedience to God. One of those things Scripture teaches that we ought to do is pray.
Second, Madrid argued that the context of 2 Timothy 3 means that Paul’s talking only about the OT. But as Fradd rightly represented, Protestants would imply that 3:16 is a *priniciple* that grounds the usefulness of the OT-namely, that the writings are able to make us complete, therefore the OT is valuable and Timothy should pay attention to it.
To this, Madrid replies that the NT doesn’t tell you the *list* of writings in itself-therefore Sola Scriptura is self refuting, because the canon itself isn’t written in the New Testament. And this is where the heart of the disagreement is: Protestants *do* think the New Testament intrinsically bears witness to the canon. How is that?
The Reformed tradition has affirmed that there are intrinsic *indicia* in the canon that bears witness to its authority: apostolic origin, and divine glory. Now here’s the surprising thing: the Reformed *affirmed* that the church was necessary to *know* epistemically-that God spoke in and through these NT books. But they were authoritative independently of whether the church recognized or not because of their divine origin and the divine glory that shines through the meaning of the text. The church’s tradition therefore does not *make* Scripture authoritative, but recognizes what it is. Now how does one know (epistemic) they are apprehending that divine glory? As I mentioned above, there must be a viable link to the apostolic teaching (hence why all books in the NT were written in the first century), and there needs to be inter-subjective agreement in the community of the church. But it’s the books themselves-the Holy Spirit bearing witness in and through these books to divine glory-that commands the assent of the community.
Sola Scriptura, therefore, claims that Scripture alone is the final authority-because it is able to make us complete, and we know of nothing else that is. Interestingly, other things are necessary (we need to learn language from other sources than Scripture to understand Scripture!). But the claim isn’t that nothing but Scripture is necessary, but that Scripture is the final and ultimate authority for our knowledge of God. Relying on the canon handed down isn’t a violation of Sola Scriptura, because the Holy Spirit bore witness in and through and to the divine glory in Scripture, which commanded the assent of the tradition. Scripture completes us in this way when we rightly apprehend what it’s saying-what the intended affirmations were. And in order to know those affirmations, we read the Bible in community. That’s why the tradition is indispensable, but is the servant of the Word-of clarifying what it says-and not an equal. So we would agree that God revealed the canon through the church. But the church latched onto the books she did because God’s glory shone in the books themselves, illumines by the Spirit. So tradition is necessary in understanding the word-but that makes it a servant in helping us understand the ultimate authority, not an equal authority. Tradition orders us to understanding Scripture, which is the font of faith.
So ironically, *Protestants* are (so we believe, at least) recapturing the apostolic era of the relation of tradition to Scripture. We’d agree that tradition is indispensable-but as a servant of understanding and knowing the Word, which is the font of our faith, and not an equal twin pillar to it.
@@anglicanaesthetics 2 Timothy 3, First this has nothing to do with protestants. We are saved and live for Jesus just as much if not more than Catholics. You are saying we are totally lost and against God and that is a lie. You are being God now and judging. 2 Timothy 3 is about unbelievers during the end times. Paul had this to say to Timothy near the end. 2 Timothy 3: 10 "You, however, know all about my teaching, my way of life, my purpose, faith, patience, love, endurance. Look no works but Faith, patience, love, endurance". You have nothing worthwhile in your long boring comment. Of course, you now say Paul should not have been in the Bible and his letters are wrong. Many Catholics do because they do not conform to Catholic doctrine.
As for the Canon, so you are saying nothing in the NT should be in the Bible but the NT refers to the Canon in many places. The Apocrypha does not deserve to be in your OT because it is not Canon.
"The church’s tradition therefore does not make Scripture authoritative, but recognizes what it is."So you just said we should never talk about Jesus. His words are useless and have no authority of any kind. How can you say someone that never knew Christ personally is Apostolic and not the Apostles themselves. That is the most stupid thing I have heard in at least 2 months. Men having visions or so-called mystics telling them what to put down and yet you say the NT is not authoritative. You are one misled person.
@@anglicanaesthetics Please show me where Mary is the queen of heaven, she can heal the sick. that she is our intercessor to Jesus. Please use the so-called fathers you are talking about. Who brought up this lie about a purgatory? It sure isn't in the Bible.
@@bcalvert321 Where did I argue for any of those things? as an Anglican, I’m a Reformational Catholic (a Protestant, or what we believe Protestantism was supposed to be).
@@anglicanaesthetics You may be right and I apologize.
Praise the Lord for Matt and Patrick. Great interview as always.
Excellent conversation, i think Matt brought you many good questions and Madrid had very good answers. I admit I’m jealous of Matt, i have not met many open-minded protestants like Cameron, so this conversation, while thoroughly interesting, probably won’t be very applicable to me
Thanks for your work on this ... it is greatly appreciated.
I am blessed after listening to your balanced discussion. God bless your work.
Patrick Madrid is one of favorite apologist he is so intelligent and articulate! I listen to him in the morning in Relevant Radio in the morning 6am PST
Me too!! God bless you!!!
Thanks Matt for this talk, always enjoy Patrick Madrid.
Thank you both for remaining respectful! I came to faith by a lot of things coming together and me watching the Gospel of John (visual bible). At the end (still NOT believing) I prayed and God gave me the ability to believe, from that moment on I've been a follower of Christ Jesus with all my heart, soul, spirit and strength. The Holy Spirit truly filled me with the things of God and I have been exploring the Truth ever since. Jesus has called us to be born again and I have been born again. After coming to faith I rolled into a Pentecostal church but after a few years I found out that there is a massive amount of " human tradition" there, so I started looking for the truth in the Bible. I've been looking into Catholicism also but I just can't give into the FULL teachings of the catholic (Roman) church. I LOVE the way that God is honored in FULL Holiness and the way TRUE Catholics have a reverent fear of God. But there are a few critical things that are opposing Jesus Christ, including changing the 10 commandments, Maryism, ect (don't get me wrong, I LOVE Mary, she was the mother of my Savior, chosen by God to bear the most wonderful gift ever, she is BLESSED forever! Amen. But Jesus never asked us to pray to her, Jesus COMMANDED us to pray to the Father). If I look at the history of the ROMAN church, it's literally the combination of Christianity with pagan religions. I'm at a point now that I can say that every denomination is not 100% correct and I'm starting to believe that there is none that is 100% correct. We are not called to be catholic, or protestant or reformed etc, we are called to be born again and to follow Jesus Christ. It's that simple. God loves all those who honor and love His son, Jesus Christ. “If you love Me, keep My commandments." John 14:15. Here is His most valued command (besides the greatest command Matthew 22:37): "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another." John 13:34. I Love all those whom I am united with in Jesus Christ. In Jesus we are 1. "that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me." John 17:21. Peace I leave with you, the peace of the Prince of peace, Jesus Christ!
Starting at 15:52 -- The question is "What comprises Scripture?". The subsequent question is "Where does Scripture tell you which books belong in Scripture?" The answer given is that it doesn't. I'm having an "at long last" moment and am so relieved to hear this angle of the discussion. I'm a protestant and have been on a personal journey to understand either why I'm not Catholic or whether I should be. Sola Scriptura is easily my biggest stumbling block but I kept wondering why more hasn't been said, from the protestant side, about how Scripture became Scripture. Thank you very much for addressing this.
Try RCIA
Try RCIA
Patrick Madrid looks like a force ghost in this video.
Hey, listen, when you hit our age you will be clicking the "beautify" button, too.
There is a moral way to disprove theologies without resorting to slander and hate.
Objective or subjective. Pick one.
Ya, it’s called an ecumenical council
Awesome interview - thank you! Love Patrick Madrid!!
I truly appreciate you doing your best to accurately represent the Protestant position on this subject. As a Protestant myself, I feel you did your best to raise objections that I would have raised, and in fact, did raise while listening to the presentation. I still have questions though.
Jesus started Catholic church. Sign up for RCIA.
Did Paul transmit the gospel to the gentiles by reading and referring them to scriptures? Which scriptures when the new testament was not even written. All the letters he wrote were to those he had preached? Tradition means doing what you so others doing and you also pass on. It is the practice of faith. It is the tradition that was written down but not all of it. On this unwritten part we look to what others did and we also do
I keep you in prayer.
God’s will be done in all things. 🙏
MESSAGES GIVEN BY OUR LORD
1880 - 1883
I wish the first Friday after the feast of My Sacred Heart to be set apart as a festive day in honour of My Sacred Head as the Seat of Divine Wisdom, and that public adoration be offered to Me for all the outrages and sins which are continually being committed against Me.” “It should be dedicated as a festive day in its honour, and special reparation and atonement be then offered to Him. June 2, 1880
The Sacred Head was in a special manner the dwelling place of the Holy Ghost. Our Lord wished the great mystery of the Incarnation to be made very clear (or taught very carefully) to the children. Whitsuntide 1881
Our Lord impressed upon her - His Soul is not known, His Soul is not loved, and tells me not, by actual words. Juni 1883
Our Blessed Lord wishes His Sacred Head to receive special adoration. Aug. 17, 1882
Those who shall try by words or means to hinder or reject it, shall be as glass that is cast down, or as an egg that is thrown to the wall, that is that they shall be shattered and become as naught, and shall be dried up and wither as grass on the housetop. April 9, 1880
Even the devotion to the Sacred Heart is incomplete without this devotion to His Sacred Head. June 2, 1880
He would wish now to be crowned and acknowledged as the Wisdom of the Father, the true King of Kings. Juni 15, 1880
This morning at holy Mass when the Sacred Host was raised at the elevation, I saw as it were the whole court of heaven in prostrate adoration. May 27, 1880
Our dear Blessed Lord wishes His Sacred Head to be honoured as the “Shrine of the Powers of His Holy Soul’. Nov. 11, 1880
Around His Sacred Head shone a light of indescribable brilliancy and beauty: as it were a sun in which sparkled 12 magnificent crystal stones reflecting all the colours of the rainbow. May 23, 1880
“It will be the great devotion of the church in time to come. July 16, 1881
The crucifix is the Book of books and to me the Tree of Life and contains never ending volumes. June, 1880
It makes me tremble with terror at the dread punishments He has in store for all who shall hinder, or try to hinder the furtherance of this heavenly devotion, for their jaws He says shall be locked as were those of the lions in the den into which Daniel was cast, they shall be shattered and become as naught. May 9, 1880
The Sacred Head is the Shrine of the Powers of the Soul. The Head is also the Centre of all the senses of the body, and that this devotion is the completion, not only of the devotion of the Sacred Heart, but the crowning and perfection of all devotions; and he showed me how the adorable Trinity at His baptism revealed to the world this special devotion for His Sacred Humanity is the tabernacle of the thrice Holy Trinity; and that St. John has specially spoken of this devotion for the Most High revealed to him that he should be thus worshipped before the end of the world. April 9, 1880
PROMISES
Anyone who shall assist in furthering this Devotion shall be blessed a 1,000 fold; but woe to him that shall reject or go against My Wish in this respect, for they shall be scattered in My Wrath and shall know their place no more. June 2, 1880
Our Lord would crown and clothe with a peculiar glory all those who further this devotion to the Sacred Head. He would clothe with glory before angels and men in the courts of heaven those who clothed Him in glory on earth and would crown them in everlasting bliss. Sept. 10, 1880
We render a great homage to the ever Blessed Trinity by adoring our dear blessed Lord’s Sacred Head as the ‘Seat of Divine Wisdom.’ Annunciation 1881
Our Lord would bless all who practice or further this devotion in any way. July 16, 1881
Untold blessings are promised to those who shall try to further our Lord’s wishes in spreading the devotion. June 2, 1880
The more we practice devotion to the Sacred Head the more we must see of the working of the Holy Spirit of God in the human soul, and the better we will know and Love the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. June 2, 1880
The devotion and love to His Sacred Heart should be bestowed a hundred fold upon those who practice devotion to the Seat of Divine Wisdom. May, 1883
Our blessed Lord said that all that He had promised to those who should worthily love and honour His Sacred Head should be poured out upon those who honoured it themselves or were the means of others doing so. Oh Sacred Head, may Thy Wisdom ever guide us, and the Sacred Tongue ever bless us and plead for Mercy and Pardon, and may we never hear the curse pronounced against those who shall hinder or despise this devotion. June 2, 1880
To them that honour Me, I will give of My Might and I will be their God and they shall be My children and I will place My Sign upon their foreheads and My Seal upon their lips. June 2, 1880
He gave me to understand that this Wisdom and Light was the seal that marked the number of His elect and they shall see His Face and His Name shall be on their foreheads. May 23, 1880
Our Lord gave her to understand that St. John referred to His Sacred Head of the Seat of Divine Wisdom in the last two Chapters of Revelations and with this mark were sealed the numbers of His elect. May 23, 1880
Our Lord shows her the great blessings and graces he has in store for all who shall further His Divine Will to this end. May 9, 1880
Imprimatur, Edm. Can. Surmont, VG, England,
September 2, 1926
holywounds.net/head
I love this conversation and the debate with James White- so good! One minor point of correction at 26:05. Mormons (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) don’t believe in baptisms for the dead because of that one reference in the Bible. We don’t extrapolate an entire doctrine and temple practice because of an inference. Rather, it’s because we believe in modern Apostles and Prophets who have revealed this truth. The Biblical connection may be there, you can say it’s materially there (to use his language), but we practice it because of other revealed sources. Just my 2 cents. Love his work.
I pray for you.
Wow, the beautiful clarity of his mind ;), thanks so much
I can't wait :) I love Patrick Madrid
Me too! Love listening to his show in the morning :)
Pattrick Madrid's new look is extremely badass
I totally didn’t recognize him at first, badass look indeed.
@@edgarariza Same as me. I said at first: "whp is that guy? Where is Pattrick Ma... oh... oh dear..."
I thought he was going to be welding a motorcycle frame in the background
catholics cussing agian...
@Sanctus Paulus I dont like the new look. I love Patrick though!
It would be great if you had Prof. Edward Feser on the show. Great interview btw!
I have in me a book of Mr. Patrick Madrid 😊 can't wait for this episode 👍
Did you eat the entire thing? Great perseverance but you may need to see a doctor
@@renjithjoseph7135 😂
Off topic, what i notice is that it seems we can be in our own echochambers. i notice that with protestants because a big thing i use to hear when we had preachers walking around with big signs with this whole "But works don't save you!!!!" I asked myself for a long time is it possible their in their own denomination not willing to ask a priest or pastor in the Catholic church without feeling they need to attack them on things they not only do not agree with but also do not understand. I don't remember ever hearing that Works saves you from Catholics or the church but a lot of protestants attack works with that typical" Works don't save you!!!" I enjoy that you bring people on of different denominations and try to have a real conversation not just strawman and attack it yelling at them. Keep it up man :)
@59 mins, the sentence on the napkin is a brilliant way to make that point! Bravo !!
Yes!!!!
Scripture without church and magisterium is an incomplete understanding, much like faith without love and hope is incomplete.
Sorry that doesn't compute. Ideas stand independent of the ones giving them. That fact that Isaac Newton discovered gravity doesn't make him the ultimate authority on science. Gravity existed well prior to Newton.
The only difference though is Jesus, who was the "WAY, the TRUTH, and the LIFE". He was the WORD.
The Catholic magisterium is composed of fallible men.
@@jaimearviso4642 But there is the newton chair of physics.
@@isaacosahon4352 That doesn't mean he is the infallible ultimate authority on all things physics.
@@jaimearviso4642 Who is the ultimate authority on science?
@@jaimearviso4642 Please say it is God almighty. ...
I used to call myself protestant Christian but when I started to dip into Christianity vs Islam, I quickly realized what I've learned so far (i.e. sola scriptua) is just not sufficient.
Right now I don't call myself anything except Christian, no denomination whatsoever.
But I must say, I do think I am slowly bring drawn in to Catholicism .. on an intellectual level.
Thanks for this interview.
Think about coming home to the Catholic church! Sign up for RCIA to learn Catholicism from the Catholic church! God bless you!!!
If papacy is true, we should all be Catholic. Check out book Pope Peter and The Early Church Was Catholic by Heschmeyer. God bless you!!!
How do you intellectually justify claiming that Mary was a lifelong virgin born to another virgin, that the multiple references to Jesus' siblings all mean cousins, that Mary taken up into Heaven without dying, and that Mary now hears prayers and passes them on to Jesus. How is all this true without there being even one single word justifying it? It seems odd to me that someone would conclude that sola scriptura isn't supported by the Bible enough, but believe things about Mary that aren't even hinted at anywhere.
Doctrine you don't want to believe must be incontrovertibly proven beyond question in unambiguous language, while doctrine you like doesn't even have to be vaguely referenced in even an oblique way? That's the Catholic stance. Sola scriptura is hopelessly mired in circular logic, but saying the leader of the Catholic church is infallible because the Catholic church declared him infallible somehow isn't circular logic at all.
@@patrickbarnes9874
Patrick,
You asked a lot of questions with the built-in assumption that they can't be answered; I suggest you drop the skeptical posture and let the same Church that gave you the Bible, the Catholic Church, respond to your quandary. You'd be pleasantly surprised by your discovery and the peace that follows.
May God bless your discernment.
This is video is a lie. Where do you think Mary's worship comes from? Purgatory is a lie. They have nothing to prove this. They hate the Apostle Paul because he doesn't fit into their doctrine. Too much is saved by faith and not works for them.
Thank you! This is also what I have been pondering as I am transitioning back to Catholicism: Historically, the Deuterocanonical books were included in the Old Testament canon of the Christian Bible.
The early Church Fathers acknowledged the canonicity of these books, and they were widely used throughout the medieval period. It was only during the Protestant Reformation that Luther removed them.
Luther's selective removal of certain books from the Bible seems contradictory to the principle of "sola Scriptura" because it involves subjective judgment rather than an absolute reliance on Scripture as the sole authority.
It sounds contradictory to base one's theology solely on Scripture while simultaneously removing parts of Scripture.
The weakness of the napkin illustration is that the short sentence on the napkin has no context. But Scripture doesn't give us a list of simple sentences without any relation to each other. Each saying has a context, and the context helps the reader to interpret the meaning. Just pointing out that the napkin argument probably shouldn't have carried as much weight as it did
The example works perfectly!!! If you even figure out a short sentence….then why do you think you can figure out 1000s of sentences?
Sort of obvious
Point is there should be just one interpretation and in instance of questions, there has to be a persons, councils, an institution that will point to the correct one. How many protestants, Christian denomination / religion is there again? That’s how many interpretations you’ll get, claiming they are correct
@@johnyang1420, nah, the napkin example is inherently ambiguous. Several sentences would have helped make his meaning more precise.
Plus, suppose we stick with the single sentence. Is the congregation for the doctrine of the faith going to have a better time sorting out what he meant based upon the same evidence? Nope.
The mere fact that one would get an “authoritative” interpretation doesn’t mean that it would be the true interpretation.
The true interpretation might be, “we can’t say exactly, but at the very least he negating that he SAID they stole money.” Beyond that anyone would need more information.
I wonder how Scripture was cannonised by the Church if not through the lense of Tradition. Hence problematic verses in scripture can only be understood correctly by those that know the tradition of the church.
So God isn't clever enough to speak to His creation in your religion? Interesting!
I think John Calvin actually got that bit (and maybe only that bit) right. The Fathers recognized scripture by the Spirit in them resonating with the same Spirit that inspired the scripture. That's not the only reason, but that's a big part. And also why I believe the Bible to be the word of God. I have consistently experienced it as such. I'm just trying to figure out if the Orthodox Church also preserving the same by the Spirit...
Because the writings of the Apostles said what the canon was.
The Epistles describe themselves as Scriptures and specifically cite the words of Christ and the Apostles as those to obey to the exclusion of all else. So since the churches had in their possession those words of Christ and the Apostles, they then had all they needed on hand to complete the man of God as the Bible says. It's really not hard to put together. 2 Peter 3:16 specifically cites Apostolic letters as Scriptures; see also Luke 1:1-4, Romans 1:5-6, Luke 10:14-15, Ephesians 3:7-10, Ephesians 4:11-16, 1 Corinthians 11:2.
Patrick Madrid is one of the best apologists
He is good at explaining what he believes. My problem is only that I disagree with him often because his Catholic traditions and teachings I believe are contrary to what the Bible teaches. He is very good at explaining what he believes, and understands most of the Protestant positions as well.
Yes he is.
@@ghostl1124 Which protestant positions do you think he is a little shaky on?
Tess Chavit …never heard of him.
@@ghostl1124 I agree with you that the Catholic Church and the use the word tradition. This is very faulty, I will encourage my brothers and sisters to reevaluate the Catholic Church teaching.
Great discussion!
Its now years later... Ex roman catholic, now confessional lutheran here: just having fully listened to that debate you first mentioned; it had me pulling out my interlinear bible, leaving me with points in favor of sola scriptura left unanswered. This awesome video makes me want to write a proper response, still being in favor of sola scriptura from a very lutheran perspective. The truth of it is, reguardless of where we stand, we belong reading the bible to understand what it means, a vehichle for learning of how to be like christ and building a deeper relationship with the father so that the holy spirit may work through us.
The Epistles describe themselves as Scriptures and specifically cite the words of Christ and the Apostles as those to obey to the exclusion of all else. So since the churches had in their possession those words of Christ and the Apostles, they then had all they needed on hand to complete the man of God as the Bible says. It's really not hard to put together. 2 Peter 3:16 specifically cites Apostolic letters as Scriptures; see also Luke 1:1-4, Romans 1:5-6, Luke 10:14-15, Ephesians 3:7-10, Ephesians 4:11-16, 1 Corinthians 11:2.
I read the bible. I'm more catholic than ever lol
Jacob Schuler
Odd considering Catholicism is in direct conflict with the bible. If the Catholic Church actually canonized the bible like Catholics like to claim, they did a very poor job of selecting books which match their beliefs.
Chris Topher well said Chris
You should read Dr. John Bergsma's book 'How Scripture Made Me Catholic.' He's a former Presbyterian pastor.
Alex Lielbardis what about the teaching that Muslims and atheists can be saved , that contradicts scripture
Did Jesus tell us to read the bible which is to be canonized 350 years later? AND interpret it ANY way we please based on how we feel that particular day. Based on that logic I can belong to any church I want and the truth will preside in that church and that church alone. Heck. I might do just that. Everybody come to the church I just opened up all by myself. It's called the silly banana worship church and finally after 2000 years I finally interpreted scripture the right way and everyone else is dead wrong. Sound logic lol
Great interview w/ Patrick Madrid to help out our apologetics with our Protestant brothers ! YOU PICKED HIS BRAIN WELL! LOL
Thanks Matt & Pat for that great discussion. As a protestant, I'm inclined to agree with your argument against 'sola scriptura' on the bases that scripture doesn't tell us 'which' books are to be included, however, I don't therefore see any reason why the interpretive traditions of Rome should not be challenged such as the Assumption of Mary, Eucharist etc..
Can you explain perhaps why one shouldn't be allowed to challenge the doctrines that we protestants find unbiblical?
Matt, I wasn't expecting to see that lofi hip hop radio tab in your bookmarks 😆
Looks like “Pints with Ragnar Lothbrok” 🔥
Can we please get Madrid vs William Lane Craig debate on whatever they want to debate on?
Great episode, minus the uppercut you swung at that fine establishment known as Denny's! 😂 Catholic apologetics or flapjacks and coffee at 10pm? Why not both!
I think you should link to the debate with James White, in the description below the video. Thanks! 😍😍
th-cam.com/video/LlLlzDBHhhA/w-d-xo.html
Lots of respect for Patrick Madrid. Thanks Matt for bringing him on we need more like him to defend the faith at this time in the Church
@@JesusmySalvation So where in the Bible does it say that the Catholic Church is Mystery Babylon?
Jesus my Salvation so who made you God to judge? The Holy Spirit told you all these things and forgot to tell the rest of us Catholics. Be careful when you judge. From your words I conclude that you know nothing about the Catholic Church except what your father the Devil has told you as he is trying his best to destroy the Church but the gates of hell will mot prevail. On this rock (Peter) I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail and I believe Jesus not you.
Jesus my Salvation be careful you may Blaspheme the Holy Spirit with your revelations. It may have come from your father the devil
@@JesusmySalvation I pity you.
Jesus my Salvation Is English your first language? No offense, but your syntax is very much poor and it makes it very hard to understand you. Furthermore, you’re slipping into a relativistic framework of analysis which prevents you from grasping the verses which you’re citing. How do you *know* what Revelation calls the, “...whore of Babylon,” is the Catholic Church? Do you have an infallible witness to articulate this truth? Is that infallible witness the Holy Spirit? How do you know it is the Holy Spirit? It would seem to me that you are utilizing sacred scripture-something not defined with scripture itself mind you-to justify a preconception you had about the Catholic Church.
Have you ever read the Catechism? Have you ever read any serious Catholic apologetics? Did you even listen to this very video? You could spend literal decades researching the Catholic Church and its rich history, yet you write it off with such a shallow and contrived insult that it is baffling.
I encourage you to read St. Robert Bellarmine’s work “Church Militant”.
Thank you for reading.
Sola scriptura is logically false simply because we have 40,000 plus versions of Sola Scriptura. Just like we have and need a US Supreme Court as the final word we also need a final word on God’s word. A major difference is that Jesus created one Church not 40,000 and built His Church on the Rock, Pope Peter not Pope James White or any other self appointed Pope.
Is not adhering to sola scriptura a tradition in itself?
And I loved the napkin story at 56:00
And while I'm at it, the revelation at 47:00 about the divorce of a scriptural focus and a tradition focus in the church (after the Protestant reformation) was a bit of an eye opener for me. I loved Patrick's call for a reunification of the two.
Matt, it would be helpful (in the description) to put a link to the 1993 debate between Patrick Madrid and James White.
I would like to see Madrid debate Anthony Rogers on this topic.
What's the point?...Go and watch Patrick Madrid Vs James white debate video. There's nothing new Rogers will argue.
Madrid and Catholicism won.
Patrick Madrid is awesome! He loves 🌮 too! ❤️
30:10. The best explanation I’ve yet to hear on Sacred Traditions… I’ve always known it.. but couldn’t get it out in words as done here.
Great Program, inspiring 🇨🇦
Wow this was great! I do have a response to his “I never said you stole money” story. As cool of a story as that was, I don’t think the argument really worked the way he said it did. What makes the six word sentence on the napkin so ambiguous and hard to interpret is its brevity. If the sentence was given with more information or as part of a story, then the number of possible interpretations would start to narrow down. Therefore the Bible, being a set of documents that can be cross referenced and which provide context for each other, is actually easier to interpret for its greater volume. Just a thought.
Narrow the number of interpretations - yes.
Make it clear - no.
Mila what do you mean?
@@bigbrownhouse6999 Well, ironically me and you just heard a story about guy writing 'I never said you stole my money' on a napkin and we don't know what that meant, but let's disregard that story.
The story goes like that:
There're 2 friends. One of them is on trial, accused of stealing money- Let's call him Joe. Someone tells him that his friend is going around telling people that Joe stole the money. Joe confronts his friend about it:
J: I heard that you are going around tell people that I stole money. You know that I am innocent.
F: I never said you stole money.
And the friend storms of the scene.
I see at least 3 interpretations of what 'I never said you stole money means' :
1. Friend believes that Joe is innocent and doesn't tell people that Joe stole money.
2. Friend doesn't believe that Joe is innocent but doesn't tell people that Joe stole money.
3. Friend tells people that Joe took someone else's money but he never used a word 'stealing' while doing that.
Which one is the true meaning of those words ?
Mila it is not possible to tell which of those are correct with the information given. That was my point. The Bible contains information that helps you interpret the other parts. For example, if you have read the book of Leviticus, it helps you understand the gospels and Hebrews. If you have read genesis, it helps you understand Romans, because the Bible is a continuous story that references itself. Scripture interprets Scripture.
@@bigbrownhouse6999 To the some extend yes it helps. Bible is countinuous story but it's also teachings and letters, that have very little to do with the story itself. There are literal and symbolical interpretations to some of the teachings. Take for example teachings on eucharist, we have two passages on it in the Gospels it still doesn't help to decide which interpretation is correct. If you just rely on the Bible any of those can be correct. You will choose what you prefer not necessarily what is true. The story itself is almost secondary in the Bible.
I come to find the hardest Protestants to speak to are Assembly of God, Southern Baptist, Church of God. It seems that they have no idea how they separated, what doctrines their domination holds or even whom created their domination. It becomes a hate conversation and even thought as an non Christian and no different from an Islamic. I was waiting to see if they were going to burn me at the stake. Oh, don't pull out a rosary. How does one not understand their own religious history to decide which Christian Church to membership....
Hi. I'm sorry for your poor experience with these denominations. I've had my fare share of encounters with both AG and the Church of God member's who were uninformed/belligerent/and hostile. But I've also met more than my fare share of ministers belonging to their denominations, men and women who sincerely embody the Gospel of Jesus and work to reconcile the world, even through their own sufferings. It's easy to white wash, but remember that even after his missions trips, in Acts 23, Paul identifies as a Pharisee - clearly men from different backgrounds of belief, fisherman/pharisee's, can come together in Christ and despite my differences I'm grateful for my AG and Church of God and Baptist friends to tirelessly work to fulfill the Great Commission.
First, I love the show. I have been listening for the past year and have been challenged in many ways by it which has helped me grow in my faith as a Protestant. It has also helped clarify for me what Catholics believe and has served to knock down the unfair caricatures of the Catholic faith that Protestants are sometimes guilty of erecting. That said, I have a lot of questions concerning what Catholicism is really like and not what I want it to be. So, I am hoping that you, or the Pints with Aquinas community can help me answer these questions.
I am not too sure I understand Mr. Madrid too well. With his example near the end, when he wrote down those six words on the napkin, I can see that his point (or at least what I gathered) is that his language was essentially ambiguous and that it was hard to understand what exactly he meant by it. In other words, what Mr. Madrid wrote down could be interpreted several different ways. He then made the point, albeit implicitly, that the Bible is like this, but is, however, much more difficult to understand by virtue of it being written in another language which compounds the problem of interpretation (and there are many more challenges than just this but for now I will focus on this aspect). This argument seems to me to underscore the importance of having the help of the Catholic Church and Tradition in interpreting the Scriptures.
Now, if I understand Mr. Madrid correctly (and I am not claiming that I do), it seems that even very simple sentences that consist of no more than six words can be very ambiguous in their meaning. It seems that when we are presented with the challenge of interpreting what Mr. Madrid has said in a very simple sentence, we are at an impasse. He could mean several things by what he writes, and we are none the wiser as to what he is trying to say. My question is: if such simple sentences are so ambiguous, then how can complex ones be comprehensible? Moreover, if complex sentences are even harder to understand than simple sentences (I am assuming this is the case, it may not be the case in all circumstances: e.g. some writers are more dense than others in their writing and therefore simple sentences in some are harder to understand than complex sentences in others), how then can we understand what even one complex sentence, let alone many complex sentences, are saying? And if this is the case, if both simple sentences and complex sentences are so laden with ambiguity, what hope have we in interpreting any sentence meaningfully, not to mention written works comprised of hundreds if not thousands of different sentences? If we are at such an impasse with Mr. Madrid’s basic sentence, how then can we ever hope to tackle much more difficult prose? It seems that if we expand on Mr. Madrid’s napkin example, this is where it would lead. We would live in a world where understanding anyone would become extremely difficult, at least in written work.
I guess what I am trying to ask is: If I cannot even understand a single of sentence that Mr. Madrid wrote on a napkin, how can I ever understand what the Catholic Church is teaching in many sentences, even complex sentences, and in many arguments, in very astute language on very difficult topics in the books they write? How would I go about interpreting what they say to me? How do I know that their interpretation is correct if the Bible, written in Greek and Hebrew, is even more vague and indistinct than simple English? Wouldn't that monumental task of understanding the biblical writers and church fathers in their own right also apply to the Catholic leaders in the Church? If so, what hope is there for anyone, even the Church, in interpreting anything about the Bible or church fathers in an accurate manner if we cannot understand even the simplest of sentences correctly?
Again, I may not have understood Mr. Madrid or have listened to this episode very well. This also poorly written (and maybe even more poorly argued!), which may lead me to be missing something huge in my questioning, so, please, feel free to help me. Thanks for the show!
I have tried to read Thomas Aquila’s and failed dismally to grasp most of it. I see your point. Even if l thought l grasped it how can l be sure l really did. So it boils down to this for me. I trust that Jesus left a Church to teach me. If l don’t understand everything that Church teaches l still accept it because l trust the ChurchJesus founded. So , for instance, the concept of the Blessed Trinity is mind boggling but l believe, nevertheless. When l look at the Protestant/Evangelical/etc world l feel sure God would never leave us with such mixed messaging on important matters of salvation. SO, basically, I’ve submitted my intellect to the teaching the Catholic Church presents me with even though some of it is beyond me. The Eucharist is truly a mystery so l have to submit and forget about trying to bring everything down to the level of my human understanding. Hope this helps even if only a little. Blessings.
Oops Thomas Aquinas
I think I understand your frustration with the Napkin analogy: if one sentence is so ambiguous it would have 7 different an separate meanings, how is anyone suppose to correctly interpret scripture, even the Catholic Church itself, is that what you are asking? If so, I think I have a reasonable answer for you, but I just want to make sure I am understanding you right.
@@ajamusic7322 I would say that accurately summarizes my question. I would also add the question: how could we understand the Catholic Church in all of what they teach if we cannot understand the meaning of six words on a napkin? I suppose I was trying to make a reductio ad absurdem argument in saying that that example can be taken and applied elsewhere and not just to scripture interpretation.
@@larryluch8178 Those things are definitely beyond my comprehension as well. I suppose beyond any one persons comprehension for that matter. When it comes to matter of the Scriptures though, if the Scriptures were so unclear on things, as some Catholics may say (I could be wrong on that), why does Jesus treat the Pharisees as though they should know what the Scriptures actually say? He asks them "have you not read?" on multiple occasions, as if they were supposed to know what he was talking about from their reading of the Scriptures. I find it curious that no where does Jesus excuse them for lack of clarity in the sacred writings or concede that the Scriptures aren't clear on the matters than he is talking about. Even more interestingly, these matters seem very unclear to the Pharisees and even to his disciples! I am thinking of Luke 24:25-26 regarding the disciples and Mt. 12:3,5; 19:4; 21:16, 42; 22:31 (for the Sadducees); Mk. 2:25; 12:10, 26 (Sadducees again); Lk. 6:3 for the Pharisees. I am sure I have missed some but let me know what you think!
Fantastic conversation/debate about such an important piece of dogma
Love Patrick. But one thing, Patrick needs to update his photo on the Radio lol.
Hey Matt, thanks for this interview, as a protestant I think you were really fair and asked very good questions.
You should have Dr. Michael Kruger to talk about how the Canon of the NT came to be. That'd be really interesting.
So, respectfully, why are you not catholic?
@@markwilkie7633 Hi Mark,
Fundamentally, I’m not a Catholic because Catholicism stands on a “shaky” ground when it comes to authority. This very issue of Sola Scriptura is (to me) what determines what you believe about God and how to worship Him; I see the Bible as the very speaking of God, just like Jesus did (Matthew 22:31) which, by definition, is the highest authority.
So, for example, if you believe the Bible is the supreme authority for the church of God, there’s no way you’ll make the following statement an official teaching of the church:
“Taken up to heaven she (Mary) did not lay aside this salvific duty, but by her constant intercession continued to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation." (from "Lumen Gentium", 62)
And that is just one example, so in short terms, once you allow uninspired rules of faith to stand alongside the Bible (i.e. Tradition) and allow for a group of fallible people to authoritatively interpret the Bible for you, not only you’re reducing the authority of the Bible as if it was another man-made / non-inspired writ but also you are making the so called “magisterium” to be a higher authority than the speaking of God, since that interpretation cannot be questioned even if it nullifies the command of God.
So, I’d say the issue of authority and how one is justified before God are the most important differences between Catholics and Protestants.
@@bensdg1164 While my biggest problem with Sola Scriptura is its self defeating nature. As nowhere in scripture done we see it used by the apostles. And that is leaving aside the question of how do we know what books are inspired as there is no list contained in scripture of what books are inspired.
@@jeremysmith7176 “nowhere in scripture do we see it (Sola Scriptura) used by the apostles”
I’m not sure what you mean by “used it” but we do see the apostles working under the principle that the Scriptures were the ultimate authority for the church, which is what Sola Scriptura teaches, even when they had authority given by the Lord, for example, when the apostles were introducing doctrine, they didn’t come up with the teachings out of nowhere, rather they either received new revelation from God (which doesn’t happen anymore) or expanded on what had already been written (Romans chapters 3 & 4 are a good example of that).
We can also see Paul and Peter exhorting the churches to stand on the Written Word when false teachers enter the assembly, they knew that hard times were coming, so the apostles referred the church to the Scriptures because they are “breathed out by God” (2 Timothy 3.16) and “more fully confirmed” (2 Peter 1.19) since “men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1.21).
So, we put our trust in what we know for sure comes from God, on that which He will hold all men accountable to, even the “fathers of the church”.
“how do we know what books are inspired”
Both catholic and protestants have to deal with this issue and we both appeal to authority, the catholic says that the church (magisterium) tells him what those books are; we protestants say that God didn’t inspired the books for the church not to use them, but instead the church received the inspired books as the Holy Spirit guided them to do so. I’m sure you are aware of the early church acknowledging that books had been handed down by the apostles and were being copied and distributed before any official statement took place.
Why did the early church do that? I believe that His sheep hear His voice and follow Him.
Ben SDG what does the bible passage mean to you: “the church is the pillar and foundation of truth”
Just a quick thought, doesn't MP's critique of which books fall within the canon of scripture echo protestant critiques of which doctrines are deemed infallible?
To start off, it's important for us to make a clear differentiation between oral "tradition" and oral "transmission." A long-standing tradition may be rooted in common practices or beliefs without any concrete ties to facts, while transmission is the passing along of information. In some cases, biblical content was initially recorded through oral "transmission," but this is not because it was merely a "tradition." Generally, the information being transmitted explained details related to specific times, locations, and people. Most commonly, the Bible was transcribed into written form at nearly the same time, or closely after, the events being talked about.
John Wesley put Tradition as one of his fundamental practices for Biblical interpretation.
Maybe we should refer to Tradition as the Traditional Interpretation of the Apostles and Early church. Too often Protestants dismiss the word Tradition as tradition of men.
And after having rejected the Apostolic Tradition, they invent their own human tradition.
I've been looking into this and you guys are right
I'm leaving a Baptist Protestant church, and this was very useful. God bless you, men!
That’s probably the clearest explanation of what we mean by Tradition that I have heard.
Yet there is no way to trace "Tradition", since it isn't written down. Seems like a convenient way to slip in fallacies over the centuries.
@@douglasmcnay644 that’s pretty much the type of reasoning that atheists use to say there is no God, arguing from a lack of empirical evidence. Even still, much of Tradition is witnessed to in the writings of Christians through the centuries on the one hand, and on the other hand errors can be slipped into writings, especially in our understanding of particular words.
@@douglasmcnay644 Catholic church buddy!!! 2000 years!!!!
@@johnyang1420 Lies and heresies for 2 thousand years.
@@bcalvert321 Do you reject Pope Dionysius, Bishop of Rome's condemnation of the sabellians (modalism, today's oneness Pentecostals), which in it he also rejected proto-Arianism. Do you reject the Council of Nicea (325 AD)? which formally condemned arianism. Do you reject the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD when Pope Saint Leo the Great issued his Tome which formulated the Christological doctrine against the mono-physites?
Which version the various protestant sects do you belong to?
I agree with Archbishop Vigano when he says "Drop Vatican II and forget it." That council(?) distibguishes between the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church when Pope Pius XII teaches that the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church. See Humani Generis and Mystici Corporisn Christi. Maybe Vatican II makes that distinction to suggest that non-Catholics don't need to become Catholic when they're in that "new bigger Church." In his book "The Catholic Church and Salvation," Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton describes the between being a member of the Church, i.e., a Catholic, and being in the Church as a nonmember of it, e.g., someone who gets baptism of blood or baptism of desire. But I remember reading a deeply troubling tract from Catholic Answers, Inc. that tells us what to do if a Mualim who wants to know what Christian denomination to join. CA's advice seems to be to compare them to see what one youi prefer. I'd ask the Muslim to let me explain why I think he should be a Catholic.
@Prasanth Thomas Thank you for saying "baptism by desire" instead of "baptism of desire," since "baptism of desire is ambiguous. It could mean that desire is something to baptize. You pour water on someone who wants to get baptized. But the want won't get wet.
To me, today's ecumenism suggests the modernist heresy I remember Pope John Paul II Assisi meetings where pagans committed objective idolatry. Moderists would believe that God is revealing himself even to pagans. For modernists, revelation is a feeling instead of truth we get from outside us. So JPII and others who supported those meetings may have thought they needed to respect what the pagagans did because the pagans were expressing their feelings. That may explain why JPII kissed a copy of the Qu'ran.
I think Popes John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis sound much like modernists.
@Prasanth Thomas BoD means that sometimes when someone can't get water baptized, his wanting to get it can substitute for it. But the word "of" still makes the phrase "baptism of desire" ambiguous. The phrase "property of existence" is ambiguous, too, It can mean "property that is existence," "property that existence has," or both.
I never said you stole money. Lol! Patrick you are razor sharp and quick! God bless!
Christ's own words (John 5:46-47) "For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?". Thus one has to ask "Why did the Jews miss Jesus as Messiah?" Not because they didn't know / believe the words of Moses, but because they chose to follow "traditions of man" and other writings other than Scripture that led them to come to a view of the Messiah that wasn't accurate. Following Scripture will never lead you astray. Looking to other sources outside of the Bible definitely can. That being said, I love my Catholic Brothers and Sisters.
It's kinda interesting you posted this. I would reply to your post with this :If you had fully believed Jesus, you would believe that He didn't leave the New Testament. But He left His apostles who appointed successors. They had the authority to teach the Christian Community before the New Testament was composed and compiled.
You said something about "traditions of men". FYI, they are not bad provided they do not contradict the Word of God. And besides, the Traditions that we (Catholics) are commanded to follow are from the apostles themselves.
@@isaacosahon4352 The problem with "Traditions" is who decides what are "Traditions of Men" and What are "Godly Traditions". You have the vast majority of 1st century Jews following traditions that weren't from God...even though they were 100% convinced that they were. How can you be 100% sure that your traditions are from God and not from men?
I say this to say that I am willing to "die on the hill" of what Christ has said and what the eyewitness accounts have said about Christianity. I am not willing to die on the hill of any "tradition" that Christ hasn't taught or directly or indirectly inferred. Thus, I am 100% down with the Eucharist, Baptism, etc. I would 100% not be down with the fullness of what Catholics believe about Mary since we have zero words from Jesus or any of the 12 Apostles on the current concept of Mary.
@@brianmccaffrey1291 Thank God for your convinction regarding Baptism and the Eucharist. I appreciate your sincerity concerning the Church dogmas on Mary, which are: 1. Mother of God 2. Virgin 3. Sinless 4. Assumption. It was also an issue for me as well. But once I realised that the rule of faith is not in scripture alone, it became easier to understand these dogmas. Is it all 4 dogmas that you disagree with? If not, let me know the ones you disagree with.
@@brianmccaffrey1291 The problem with scripture alone is that scripture can be used correctly as well as incorrectly. The devil quoted Scripture to Christ to tempt Him. If we Catholics said traditions alone, you really should refute us because traditions can be used correctly as well as incorrectly.
The Traditions that Catholics are asked to follow are the Apostolic Traditions, which the Apostles or their students taught. Interpretations of Scripture should not contradict these Traditions and these Traditions should not go against scripture.
For instance, you have to show where the Marian dogmas of the Church contradict the Bible.
@@brianmccaffrey1291 You asked: Who decides "traditions of Men" and the "traditions of God "? My answer is Jesus gave the Apostolic Church the judicial authority to discern these things. And yes Jesus was against the Pharisees, but he did tell his followers to do what they say, but not what they do.....
1st of all you look like a Viking with cool hair! That is a big compliment btw lol! I was raised in a rural Southern Baptist church. Seeking the truth. Thanks for this video. I was shocked that anyone would question sola scripturura when I 1st heard that! The way I was raised I thought the Bible = Christianity. No more and no less. Thanks again!
Matt Fradd, this video is so good I want to share it with my Protestant family and friends. But the title is so off-putting I'm sure they won't even open the link. Is it possible for you to change the title to something less provocative? Maybe "A Conversation about Sola Scriptura w/ Patrick Madrid?"
Watch it with them!!!
@@johnyang1420 I live over 800 miles away from them.
I enjoyed the conversation, well done. The issue of sola scripture is not being addressed in context. The issue is about infallibility of the Catholic Church. If you hold to that belief then sola scripture is irrelevant. So all that a person needs to show, is that the Catholic Church erred and/or promulgated a false teaching then you would have to retreat to sola scripture. The question is “ can the Catholic Church differ and/or change Christian doctrine?
Find out if Jesus started Catholic church. Jesus did start Carholic church. Then trust what Catholic church teaches. Check out book Pope Peter by Joe Heschmeyer. God bless you!!!!
Check out “I never said you stole money” at 58:00.
You authority is yourself….
The Tradition and the Scripture are two legs on which the Church stands.
But in a way, the Holy Scripture is a part of the transmission ( Tradition ). The written transmissed message was once oral. The life comes chronologicaly before the written message.
Up
@@isiwaktu2525 what do you mean ?..
@@johannw7724 I agree and want people to read your comment and the admin pin up your comment.
Just a quick thought...MP's ref to Corinthians as some means of critiquing SS doesn't refute it. Those traditions could be the practices encoded in the law or scripture more generally. EG. A teaching extrapolated from scripture, such as the advice the apostles gave to the new believers.
Question: If the woman in Revelation 12 is the Virgin Mary and she is having labour pains (showing she is under the curse) how then is she sinless?
Genuinely curious protestant here: "In order to defend this position of sola scriptura, it is necessary for that defender to appeal to something outside of scripture aka the canon, in order to defend sola scriptura" -- but couldn't the claim that scripture alone is the primary authority make sense if scripture is self evidently authoritative? If it were, wouldn't traditions acknowledgement of scripture, though commendable, simply be an acknowledgement of truth? This topic reminds me of the Pharisees who explicitly believed there were two laws given in Sinai, one oral and one written - resulting in Jesus' condemnation of institutions that contradicted scripture (Korban). Though, I readily acknowledge that Jesus' operated within this Oral Tradition, lending it credence, and even believe tradition can help us understand scripture - but when push comes to shove is it unreasonable to say scripture is self evidently > tradition? Would love to be instructed/ refine this.
I think the problem with that is that the canon of scripture wasn't simply handed to us by God. There were many writings floating around, and different unofficial "canons" being used in different areas. Maybe you argue that the canon came about naturally by focusing on the writings of the apostles, but that's not historically accurate. There were writings claimed to be written by apostles which were discarded because they were determined to contain error, or weren't considered inspired, or whatever. There was a process of narrowing down the list, then making it official, which wasn't finished until several centuries later. Now that the Catholic Church has authoritatively determined which writings are part of the official canon, we can say that they are authoritative because we trust that God guided the Church in determining which writings should be considered the inerrant word of God. You could also say tradition helped guide the church in evaluating the writings to determine which were inspired. I think most Protestants take for granted that if it weren't for the Catholic Church determining the Canon, we might still have multiple collections of writings, with different groups arguing over which collection of writings are "self evidently authoritative".
@@misbehavens Hi, thoughtful reply. I'll reflect on this some more. I guess my knee jerk response is that the composition of the cannon as a whole - by the Catholic Church - wasn't complete until post Reformation. It was after Luther said "these are the books of OT & NT" that the council of Trent in 1546 came out with a complete OT cannon including the Deuterocanonical books. (And I don't necessarily think the Deuterocanonical books should not be a part of our OT. I think the council of trent may have had some good reasons to include those!)
And yet, prior to this date, many referred to the Scriptures of the OT! The issue was not that someone needed to decided what Canon was, it was progressively that others were adding or subtracting. For almost 1500 years, the church was so unanimous on OT canon, no one needed to contend otherwise. Canon was put forward not to establish scripture, but to defend it.
I think one could say the same thing about the NT. The first NT Canon was not composed by the early Catholic Church/Christian Church but by Marcion. Subsequent Canon were put forward not to establish what was not known, but to defend what was uncontested for years until Marcion came along and chopped up gospel accounts.
Perhaps more concisely: there was no need to pronounce judgment on what was not in dispute. Canon was put forward not as much as a declaration but as a preservation.
@J.W. H. I mean, why is there disagreement at all? The Fall.
Peter and Paul were at odds with one another, and apparently Peter was wrong. Why? Because canon wasn't set by an authority? No, Peter was that very authority!
Rather, Peter was wrong because he stood at odds with a self-evident implication of Christ's resurrection: gentile inclusion. Don't want to unpack why that's self evident, but it is very reasonable within the first century worldview - if one accepts Jesus' death/ressurection on a cross, not a given - to understand that Jesus' work as a passover lamb removes distinction.
Like Peter and Paul, conflict is inevitable, and besides the point. How we resolve that tension is the issue, and where did Peter and Paul go for resolution? Gospel truth, not church authority.
@@pngballar24 If you said the Canon was completed after post Reformation, then the Church was teaching under Tradition before Reformation and not under a book. Also who confirms those books are really the "Word of God"?and what version of the hundreds of versions of those books are the correct?
@@LuisSalazar-vu4jd Hi Luis, interesting idea. If the Church was teaching under tradition before the OT Canon was officially instituted, why did it appeal to scripture? Or are you suggesting scripture derives it's authority from early church tradition? I can't quite track. Seem's a bit circular to me. Wasn't tradition deriving its authority from Scripture?
Again, there's generally no need to formalize a stance on something that isn't in contention. Up until the Reformation, it seems "tradition" believed what constituted Scripture was in fact self-evident. Naturally, if Luther butchered Scripture, then it would make sense for the Council of Trent, among other things, to defend what had been self-evident up to that point.
Tradition does not ratify Scripture, it recognizes it.
John 12:48
He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
Who cares what Pat says?
@@R01202
You should, because these are not my words, but those of Christ.
@Life
Do you honestly believe that this is referring to Catholic traditions?
2 Thess 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
This is referring to the doctrine of Christ and the Apostles!
Catholic traditions were introduced in the second, third, and so-forth centuries. Study Ignatius of Antioch. He is responsible for changing the order of church services, bringing in the altar, the cup, etc. He taught to submit to only one bishop as on to Christ.
I can go on and on. Pray you have ears to listen to the facts and truth of biblical history.