2 John 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
@joejohnston3 Absolutely. Every denomination that follows sola scriptura seem to claim biblical authority yet many many doctrines found in scripture are NOT found in protestant churches. Confession, true presence, warnings about taking the eucharist unworthily, no remarriage after divorce, celibacy, saints offering up the prayers of the living in heaven, Mary as the queen mother of heaven, the restoration of the davidic kingdom, binding and loosing, forgiveness and absolution or retention of sin, bringing disputes to the church to settle, and many prots do t believe baptism saves even though scripture says that it does. Prots like to think they're the biblical ones but as you can see they ignore the parts of the Bible they don't agree with. How is scripture the authority when you can interpret it as you see fit and ignore parts of it? Its actually pretty pathetic.
I really appreciate Jimmy's open-handed, yet well-reasoned approach to this topic! As a Protestant, I hear a lot of bad takes and outright misunderstandings of what sola scriptura is. Jimmy, though, really tries to critique it from the best possible light. I'm not convinced of the Roman Catholic position, but when I hear Jimmy, I'm certainly listening.
Recently on The Remnant Radio was The History of the Baptist Church. Oh my oh my. As a new Catholic and 37 year Protestant, I just shake my head after watching that Dean explain what Baptist are.
Once Sola Scriptura falls, the whole Reformational thesis falls. One question I like to ask learned Protestants: did Luther think he was in the True Church when he was a monk? Can't get a sufficient answer on that one.
the guy confused Church and Christendom, and was fully assured of being a Christian because he was German - he reasoned like a pagan and detested the Church because it did not coincide with the Christian society, with all those devout souls
What difference does it make what he believed, when he was a monk, any more than what you believed before or after you became whatever you claim to be? What is the your definition of Reformational Thesis? In regard to Sola Scriptura, it is a creation of man, as it has no Historical basis. It does have an implied Scriptural basis however, even if it didn't, it wouldn't matter. Sola Scriptura is a Methodology, akin to the Scientific Method; a means for establishing through Evidence that something is either Fallacious (False) or Truth (Factual). It simply acknowledges that the Word of GOD is Inerrant Truth, as GOD himself stated, as well as implied in Scripture. The Scientific Method is Sacrosanct in the Sciences and has been for over 600 years, since developed by Descartes. I wouldn't be surprised if Decartes (died - 3/31/1596) got that Inspiration and Idea from Luther (died - 11/10/1483) Read Descartes "Discourse on Method", in which he proposes a Proof for God' Existence. I know of no one who has Publicly Rejected the Scientific Method in it's long history so, why would Catholics Reject the very same methodology in a Religious context or do you silently reject the Scientific Method?
I don’t understand your question. Are you saying that because Martin Luther was once a monk, and then he stopped being a monk, that everything he did, and believed after being a monk was invalid?
@@Joe-rd8mq Of course not. The point is that he rebelled against church authority. Where even in Scripture is that allowed or sanctioned? On the contrary. I do see a plethora of passages exhorting us to submit to authority. Unless you think it's fine if our own individual interpretation differs from the Church's?
Ive noticed , as a catholic guy, that Protestants, the average devout evangelical, nondenominational adherent will use sola scriptura mentality to pass on snide remarks to us Catholics. The average guy gets these obnoxious ideas about Catholics from their own ministers. I get these snide remarks often now that I attend group gatherings from evangelical ministers here at my senior center. I’m sick of this crap of being insulted, denigrated by these Christians who look at themselves as outstandingly righteous.
I think it is critical for Catholics to point out that Sacred Tradition was written down EARLY in the Church fathers. I don't know why more Catholic apologists don't make this point. Seems negligent to let Protestants imagine or represent Catholic tradition as merely oral for many centuries.
The Catechism of St Pius X - usually connected with radical traditionalism, but it has nothing of particularly RadTrad - is a very synthetic compendium that explains it even better: *On Tradition.* 34 Q. What is meant by Tradition? A. _Tradition is the non-written word of God, which has been transmitted by word of mouth by Jesus Christ and by the apostles, and which has come down to us through the centuries by the means of the Church, without being altered._ 35 Q. Where are the teachings of Tradition kept? A. _The teachings of Tradition are kept chiefly in the Councils' decrees, the writings of the Holy Fathers, the Acts of the Holy See and the words and practices of the sacred Liturgy._
@@masterchief8179 Well stated. However, I think the answer "the writings of the Ante-Nicene fathers" is better answer to "where Tradition is found" for engaging Protestants, even though incomplete. Those writings are written, obviously, and much earlier than the other sources apparently, making them much more plausibly of apostolic origin. The first council (Nicaea) didn't happen until 325 when Constantine ruled. When was the earliest infallible papal act/decree and what was its subject matter? While the words and practices of the Liturgy might be helpful with regard to the Eucharist or Mary/saints, even the oldest liturgy preserved in writings (St James?) doesn't seem to pre-date 325.
@@tonyl3762 I got your points now. You were specifically talking about the best way to engage Protestants apologetically. I simply tried to give the shortest (correct) definition for it. But I agree with you.
Trent Horn has often made the point that the Greek word from which we get the English word tradition simply means 'that which is handed down' and by definition this includes the written word or scripture
@@BrianGondo Do you think that's a more persuasive/impactful fact for the Protestant in comparison to the fact that Catholic traditions were written down by successors of the apostles in the 1st and 2nd century??
* The problem with Sola Scriptura * ...is that it leaves you out of the pecking order. * Jesus gave us 12 apostles * ...of one accord. [harboring ONE SPIRIT].
Jimmy Akin is a Rock Star Catholic, so happy he converted, he's such a blessing to the Church! Love this conversation, it definately is fustrating when speaking with Protestants, they absolutely do not approve of "Authority" or "Tradition"... God bless both of you!
YES! More Catholics need to appeal to 2nd Timothy to show the authority of Apostolic Tradition and succession! Timothy and Titus are the prime examples of authoritative bishops after the apostles. Paul tells them to teach with all authority, letting no one disregard them or their youth.
Sola Scriptura did not apply to the earliest Christians because the scripture of the New Testament was not written, thus all Christological teaching was presented orally, or by writing that would later be codified as Scripture or not. Thus, Sola Scriptura is at best a temporal rule imposed on only some Christians and not all, namely, those in the early church, and is therefore, by Protestants’ own standards, an accretion. It’s false, and the steelman’d position of it is rarely what modern Protestants mean when they invoke it (ie the constant cry of “where does it say that in the Bible?”).
Excellent explanation on baptism,for in the scriptures there’s no place found that says baptism is strictly done by immersion or that infants can’t be baptized
The problem is, Protestants (depending on which one you talk to), define "biblical" in different ways. The more hardcore of them say a belief must be explicitly taught in the Bible, for example, this then results in Protestants who reject Sunday worship because it isn't explicitly in the Bible. Others will say, a teaching must have two verses in the Bible to form official doctrine. Why two and not three or four? I don't know, I can never get a straight answer. Others will say, a doctrine can be implicitly taught in the Bible and they will accept one verse as sufficient. Ok, ask that person to show a verse in the Bible where it says belief in the Trinity is necessary even implicitly. Crickets.
* there’s no place found that says baptism is strictly done by immersion * Buried with him by baptism into death. * or that infants can’t be baptized * He that believes and is baptized shall be saved.
@@thundershadow "We are looking to be led by voice (the spirit in the word)". We are supposed to be led by the people chosen by the Apostles and their followers. Hebrews 13:17 17 *Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account.* Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you.
@@alisterrebelo9013 * We are supposed to be led by the people chosen by the Apostles and their followers. * You are talking about law. I am talking about faith. Law governs the flesh... Faith governs the spirit. Faith is a law... but it is a spiritual law. It can't govern the flesh. Faith is at enmity with the flesh. Likewise law cannot govern the spirit. the bible says no law can generate the fruits of the spirit. SPIRITUALLY SPEAKING... We are led by the spirit of truth in God's word. That is the voice I am talking about. You Catholics don't know to make a difference where the difference is essential.
It's important to understand that protestantism is not a church; it's a method of exegesis, or a method of understanding the Bible which is derived from man-made traditions of the 16th century. This method is defined by two unexamined and contradictory premises: 1)Jesus did not establish any authority to interpret scripture 2) Each man is his own authoritative interpreter guided by the Holy Spirit A person is protestant not because he agrees on an authoritative interpretation of scripture, but because he rejects that any such authority was instituted by Christ. Therefore, protestantism concludes two categories of criteria necessary for salvation, a visible criteria, and an invisible implication: 1) A person must accept salvation through Jesus as thier denomination defines it 2) A person must not be Catholic That is to say, they disagree on everything except that spirit of rebellion against the authority established by Christ. This is why Protestantism, or the method of exegesis that rejects authority, must be rejected.
The Canon was highly problematic for me. An authoritative Magisterium had to be true for many books to be included and/or excluded from Scripture (which Jimmy only touched on)!
If the bible is infallible for teaching, then how does one account for language translation? This has to be taken into consideration as well. The J.W's are a classic example of using a word (Jehovah), and creating a whole new religion because of it.
It is infallible for _teaching_ not reading. In this case the translation is moot as the teacher could take this in account. There is a tougher one than translation and that is culture.
You have to be kidding! The Scripture is Infallible for teaching and isn't responsible for others distortion through deceit. If it isn't infallible for teaching then it good for nothing so why read it?
@@jemts5586 You _might_ have to read it to _learn_ it. There was a guy back quite a few centuries who had memorized it. I believe this walking concordance was the beginning of the concordance. "Brother John, where does St. Paul mention being taught?" "That would be Acts 22:3" (actually he wouldn't say that as chapter and verse hadn't been invented yet) The people of Easter Island cannot read their own language, but they do know what the "books" say from being taught and memorization. So, they can teach it but not read it.
@CatholicDefender-bp7my Protestantism did not end the Magisterium and Tradition. It merely multiplied and deconcentrated them, giving rise to a considerable number of second-rate traditions and teachings, as it divided the Church into multiple copies of lesser quality...
That’s because Jesus said heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will endure forever! Oh wait wait, wait wait, I said that wrong . On earth will pass away, but Catholic teachings and traditions will remain forever. 😂
@@JC_Forum_of_Christ Jesus SAID... That was oral speaking and teaching. That is called oral tradition. His spoken words will endure to his hearers forever. It was authoritative whether or not it was written down. Since the oral preaching of Jesus was authoritative when spoken we can conclude that NOT ONLY Scripture is authoritative.
another of the many reasons of sola scriptura failure, is Mary, the mother of God. For a protestant, she does not have that important of role, and for good reason, the Protestant bible eliminated certain books. The problem here, is the Catholic bible. If you ask most people what it means that Mary was "the handmaid of the lord ", using the bible, there is no real depth to that answer. However, the bible that had all the books intact, the answer is way more in-depth, and tells us the upmost importance of Mary and her role in the church. In the book of Judith (Catholic bible), Judith describes what a handmaid of the lord represents. Judith 11, verse 17 "Your servant is a devout woman, she honors the God of heaven, day and night". There not a woman that anyone of us will ever meet, will come close to that definition. In fact, there's no way she could be of sin (because perfect worship would only come from a spotless, pure person), her purity made her a perfect uncorrupted vessel , for a perfect person to be born. She would have had a unadulterated prayer life, based on this day and night devotion. We get a glimmer of how holy is Mary really is, but even a greater understanding, if only using sola scriptura, within the context of Catholicism.
If Mary is the mother of God, and God the Father is truly his father (as Jesus claims too many times in Scripture to count) then there must be some real sense in which it's correct to say that the Father chose Mary to be his wife; his human spouse. There's simply no way around it, unless one takes the position that Mary was not really the Lord's mother, but was just a storage container or gift box to contain him in temporarily--and the problem with *that* position is that Jesus seems to have grown and gestated within her womb just like any other baby, which is the sign of natural motherhood. The astonishing thing is the enthusiasm Protestants seem to feel for denigrating and insulting Jesus' mother--God's wife--as if they think Jesus and the Father themselves harbor similar negative opinions of her. "Ah, she's just a dirt bag like any other dirtbag," they seem to think God believes, and that they'll be praised and rewarded in heaven for insisting so. The true reason, of course, for Protestants' attitude toward the mother of God is that they don't worship the Jesus that actually exists, but an idol they've created in their imaginations. He's like a cartoon character, drawn in the bold outline and primary colors of a coloring book-- the natural consequence of Protestants' worshiping of a book instead of God. They worship that drawing, that limited and distorted picture of the man they glean from their own false opinions about the book, and not the man (i.e. the godman) himself, who reveals himself through his one, Catholic Church.
@@jimnewl quote---The astonishing thing is the enthusiasm Protestants seem to feel for denigrating and insulting Jesus' mother--God's wife--as if they think Jesus and the Father themselves harbor similar negative opinions of her. ". unquote THAT is a problem!!! Your comment then makes BOTH GOD and Mary adulterers!! ---quote---who reveals himself through his one, Catholic Church.. unquote The problem with that worthless opinion??? There is NOT one mentions of any church named "one, Catholic Church" anywhere in the Biblke!!!!! --matter of fact, the fisrt time Catholic is ever written, is by Ignatius of Antioch in 110AD!!!!!
@@mitchellosmer1293 In the Acts of the Apostles, it is noted that early Christians didn't even call themselves "Christians." I suppose that means the Apostles weren't Christians if they weren't Catholics. The Bible never uses the word "Trinity" either. We'll throw that out with the bathwater. Let's call it an "abortion," which is also never mentioned in the Bible. The Didache, however, does explicitly prohibit abortion, and it was written by the Apostles, possibly before they were even called "Christians." I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
@@ignatiusjackson235 quote---- In the Acts of the Apostles, it is noted that early Christians didn't even call themselves "Christians." I suppose that means the Apostles weren't Christians if they weren't Catholics..--- unquote Nope-- What religions were around before Jesus? 01: Early Pagan Religion in Mesopotamia. ... 02: The Rigveda and the Gods of Ancient India. ... 03: State Religion in Ancient Egypt. ... 04: From Myth to Religion: The Olympian Deities. ... 05: Household and Local Gods in Ancient Greece. ... 06: Feeding the Gods: Sacrificial Religion. ... 07: Prayers, Vows, Divination, and Omens. More items... >> CHRISTIAN The Greek word Χριστιανός (Christianos), meaning "follower of Christ", comes from Χριστός (Christos), meaning "anointed one", NOT my interpretation!!! According to Acts 11:26, the term "Christian" (Χρῑστῐᾱνός, Khrīstiānós), meaning "followers of Christ" in reference to Jesus's disciples, was first used in the city of Antioch by the non-Jewish inhabitants there. (Acts was written in Greek, presumably by St. Luke the Evangelist. The Gospel According to Luke concludes where Acts begins, namely, with Christ's Ascension into heaven. Acts was apparently written in Rome, perhaps between 70 and 84ce, though some think a slightly earlier date is also possible.) Therefor by 84AD, followers of Christ were called Christians!!! It DOES NOT say followers of Catholicism!!!! --QUOTE-----Let's call it an "abortion," which is also never mentioned in the Bible--unquote But it does!!!! Ex 20:13 Thou shalt NOT murder!!! ******Didache in British English (ˈdɪdəˌkiː ) noun. a treatise, perhaps of the 1st or early 2nd century ad, on Christian morality and practices. Also called: the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.** FACT: What is the didache and why is it important? The Didache is an early handbook of an anonymous Christian community, likely written before some of the New Testament books were written. It spells out a way of life for Jesus-followers that includes instruction on how to treat one another, how to practice the Eucharist, and how to take in wandering prophets. >>FACT: >Why is Didache not in the Bible? It didn't adhere to 4th-century orthodoxy as outlined by the Council of Nicaea. This may be one reason why the Didache was left out of the New Testament canon. In addition, the material it shares with Matthew may have made it redundant, and it may have seemed more Jewish than some 4th-century Christians wanted. IN ESSENCE--NOT BIBLICAL!!!! What are the issues with the Didache? Two primary issues have led to this modern characterization of the Didache as a somewhat singular witness to the early church: the question of date and the question of origin (or provenance).
You would also have to understand cultures of different places and times. It isn't enough to understand the words written you also need to understand the people they were being addressed to. Some people believe Jesus drank grape juice at the last supper but give no method of having grape juice available out of season in the 1st century.
Since the original Hebrew of the Old Testament lacked vowels, there were several possible readings (i.e. interpretations) for almost any sequence of consonantal characters. The correct readings of those characters were not, obviously, given in Scripture itself, but were passed on orally from teacher to student until such time as additions were made to written Hebrew that allowed the proper reading to be made clear. It was the TRADITION of the Hebrew rabbis and scribes that determined the meaning to be attributed to Holy Writ, and that tradition remains embedded in the Old Testament we possess today.
another reason for sola scriptura failure. In the story of Jonah and the Whale (which we all know) Jonah-boat-great fish-Nineveh. When I went online, so many in order to believe the story as literal, try to use non-biblical references to how a man could survive in a whales stomach for 3 days and 3 nights. In fact, all the pictures shows us a prophet inside a whales stomach, in the depths of the sea. However, this is where sola scriptura really fails. To say that "Jonah was swallowed by, and in the belly of a great fish,", means verbatim, verbatim "Jonah was surrounded by and in the center of a huge wave". So is someone is lying here? In Jonah's prayer, as soon as Jonah is swallowed, he is on the shoreline, and has complete understanding of his surroundings, and there is no mention of an actual fish. In Jonah's prayer chapter 4 "you threw me into the deep, the heart (belly) of the sea" what no fish? no the sea. The floods closed in (swallowed) around me. So what swallowed Jonah? evidently, it was the flood waters. "all you waves and billows passed over me"??? That totally tells us that Jonah is on the shoreline for this whole ordeal. 'Breakers and billows' are those tiny waves found on the shore, and they are 'passing over him', which tells us that Jonah's on the shoreline for this whole ordeal. He also says 'seaweed twining around my neck'... this sure does not sound like he's actually in a fish. So why is it, that the majority of so called "bible only" scholars miss this style of reading? In fact, this prayer is very closely related to psalm 69, and in fact, the prayer language is used quite often in the of the psalms. In fact, in the book of psalms the waves have teeth. The reason the Catholic church rock is because we can read it with varying difference, with mutual respect for others. In fact, we know through the church, that Jonah's prayer was a common prayer at that time.
As I work logically through Sola scriptura, practicality speaking, Protestants therefore can debunk shared claims from Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox beliefs and therefore hold different views like credo baptism, Once saved always saved, ecclesiological matters etc because the Bible “says otherwise” (their interpretation) Just a strange paradigm to me the shift. But I guess if it’s false then so much falls apart. But to their defense, God tucked away the “true” church only to have a coming out party at Martin’s house.
You've got to really parse Scripture closely, and throw out a few dozen verses, to adhere to SS. So, why SS? Does the Bible scream it out full throated? No. IMHO, the reason is simple: without an authoritative Church, what other choice is there? SS is less a doctrine than a description.
I disagree. In order to believe in SS, what you have to do is assume what you're trying to prove. This is the Protestant way, an inheritance from Luther himself who admits straight up that it was his doubts about his security that drove him to find doctrines in the Scriptures that seemed to him to provide it. His descendants do precisely the same thing with every one of their doctrines. Scripture must conform to their preconceived 'druthers or else Scripture is wrong and must be interpreted into conformity. They assume what they claim to prove.
Akin said that the term sola scriptura was used in a different way and they changed it. How can it be proven? Someone has any documamtation about any old sola definition?
@@jakehccc1 if it were not for the holy roman catholic church which rose to power after the conversion of constantine... we may not have the new testament canon as we know it today! we may have over a hundred gospels, apocalyptic and gnosis writings ! the roman catholic church established orthodoxy , either compiled, redacted or wrote or rewrote text based on later declared heretic marcion of sinope's collection of 11 letters of paul & one gospel ( and they added some more ) and either burned or destroyed what they deemed heretical.. and we only found and know of them again in the last 200 yrs.. and please do not forget that christianity started and flourish for almost 400 yrs without the new testament canon
@@billbrasky12 who do you think compiled, edited, redacted and imposed the new testament canon and also confiscated, burned & destroyed the hundreds of other gospels, acts and apocalyptic and gnostic writings ( every group or sect has their own sacred writings) the church deemed heretical? we are just lucky now that most of them are found again so that we could have a chance to read it and know how diverse early christianity really was
@ranilodicen4460 Because they weren't the CATHOLIC CHURCH..The demonic entity filled with blasphemous and heretical teachings was NOT around when the Bible was being compiled. The CC is a demonic institution filled with corruption and persecution of the saints. It values man's word over God's word..and they admit it. History aline shows the raoes, corruption, worldliness for power, politics of mankind and worldly riches and gain.. Wake up..I did by the grace of God.
Some of these arguments are amazing. I mean, just the advent of the printing press in 1400s, after which the Protestants began to really push Sola Scriptura is probably enough to refute it right there. Not to mention the process of arriving at the Canon. If Jesus wanted Sola Scriptura, surely He would have hurried his apostles along in this regard.
No discussion of theopneustos in a video like this? And does Jimmy think that oral tradition Paul commends to Timothy in 2 Tim included the Marian dogmas? If so, any way to prove that?
Thirty Nine Articles of Religion 6. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation. Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: , nor may be proved thereby, In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church. In other words, the Canon of Scripture, with the exeption of very few books that establish itself as inspired, is not required to be believed as an article of the Faith.
Without that canon there is no bible at all. Even a self established book is useless since nothing about it can be believed without an outside source confirming that it is inspired.
It seems to me that the enterprise of Sola Scriptura (really, Prima Scriptura) is simply the claim that only that which is God-breathed has ultimate authority over the Church and that which the Church must submit to. The Apostolic deposit (both oral and written) has this ultimate authority. And so that's what the Church must submit to. And the Apostolic deposit is only preserved to us in the writings of the New Testament. That collection of writings is the last will and testament of the New Covenant. Similar to how if a family member leaves a will. That will is what the family must appeal to. You cannot add to it. You can only do what it says. Basically, we need to listen to the Apostles. Their collection of writings is the last will and testament of the New Covenant. Nobody else has the same level of authority that they do, not even the Church. And even Catholics admit to this in principle when they say that, unlike the Apostles, the Church cannot give us new revelation. They can only preserve and protect what was already given. So, like with the example of the family will, the Church is only here as trustee to defend and protect this last will and testament of the Apostles. And again, like a trustee, they cannot write additions to the will. This implicitly concedes that the Church does not have the same level of authority as the Apostles did. So why is this such an issue?
The oral and written traditions Paul was referring to were the oral and written traditions amongst the Jews at the time. He was not referring to the oral and written traditions in the RCC we see today.
@@soteriology400 to be fair in 2 Thess 2:15, the oral and written traditions Paul was referring to were not those from the Jews. They were those from the Apostles. But yes you are right. You will not find all the RCC dogmas in the traditions Paul was speaking of.
@@theosophicalwanderings7696 The apostles and Paul were Jews. The apostles (other than Paul) shared the news with other Jews (exception, Peter with the Cornelius household in Acts 10, this was the official transition of the gospel going from the Jews to the Gentiles, then Paul, apostle to the Gentiles, came on the scene.). The oral traditions amongst the Jews, had rabbis repeating over and over the scriptures with the disciples. The other oral tradition, Jesus spoke, the apostles shared what He said with the Jews. Then Paul came on the scene to share with the Gentiles. This could be the only oral tradition he was referring too, repeating the things Christ said, down to the Gentiles. During this time, the Jews were a light unto the Gentiles, fulfilling Isaiah. As far as written tradition, it were Jews only (Romans 3:2). All of the epistles were written by those whom God considered to be Jews. This includes Luke, who was a Gentile, but was a Judaizer or Hellenistic Jew and knew the scriptures quite well (was considered a kinsmen, Romans 16:21). The written tradition was never handed to the Gentiles, this is why the closed canon is the way it is. Interesting though, Acts 17:10-12, was a tradition that was handed to the Greeks (Gentiles) but the RCC rejects it.
@@theosophicalwanderings7696 hello friend, your initial comment is very detailed, thanks ! Who approved the selection of writings that make up "scripture" or as we would call it, "the Bible" ?? You do understand that the scriptures did not somehow self-choose and assemble, yes ? If so then as Jimmy stated you must concede that the church was infalliby guided. As Jimmy Akin stated in the video, there were communities of Christians who were infallibly guided by God and the Holy Spirit to choose which writings went into the Bible. That was the church and it is still here today. Sorry, but there were no Protestant Christians running around in ancient Rome writing about sola scriptura !! As many here have already stated there is no evidence that sola scriptura existed anywhere in western or eastern Christendom before the 1500s. On the contrary it is complete innovation that came out of the reformation in western Europe fifteen hundred years after the apostles of Jesus lived !
@@theosophicalwanderings7696 Absolutely wrong ! The apostles are always appealing to the Old Testament to prove Christ was the savior. Philip and the Ethiopian.. Paul from scripture which is the Old Testament. Jesus calls the Old Testament, the word of God. Minus those seven books. Lol😂 And even in the book of Job Job says, I know my Redeemer lives, and will walk the Earth … That’s the tradition
Very interesting thank you for sharing this. Historian Brad Gregory wrote a great book called, “The Unintended Reformation”. Check it out ! In it he says the reformers decided they wanted to “chuck” the “Roman” system, which they viewed as corrupt. In doing so they unfortunately chucked the entire apostolic system of traditions including things, like the mass, most of the sacraments, the priesthood, etc. It’s very curious…according to Gregory, one of the first things reformers like Luther and Zwingli did was to re-write the prayers of the mass and the liturgy in general, to erase any references to the real presence of the Eucharist. Big mistake ! The reformers did all this going by their own personal understanding of scripture.
@@TheCordialCatholic hello yes I viewed prof. Gregory’s interview on your show. It was fantastic thank you for sharing that. I don’t recall if I had come across reference to his books beforehand. But after seeing that interview it helped me to understand his book about the reformation and Luther much better. I basically shared the interview with everyone I know. Thank you again for doing this ! PS I also very much enjoyed the interview with Brett Salkeld, about transubstantiation. (I think I spelled that right.) Got his book too ! Thank you again for taking on these extremely interesting topics of the faith and helping people like me understand these things better.
Communion How do you labor for the food that endures to eternal life? Believe in me! (John 6:27, 29) “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me [in faith] shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.” (John 6:35) “For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” (John 6:40) “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.” (John 6:47) When the crowd took offense at his gruesome talk, Jesus exposed their unbelief: “The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe” (John 6:63-64). don't stop on v53, John 6:60-61,63 KJV Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? [61] When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? [63] It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. -> you see, Jesus clarified on v63 that the WORDS HE SPAKE ARE SPIRIT, not LITERAL. -John 6:35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.--unquote Obviously you have NO understanding of that verse!!!! READ IT AGAIN!!! "he who comes to Me will not hunger"- his body "he who believes in Me will never thirst.-"--His blood!!! Whomever FOLLOWS Jesus will NOT hunger--due to His words!!! Whomever BELIEVES in Jesus will NOT THIRST--due to His words!!! >>>>th-cam.com/video/cmVWzhM8Bbk/w-d-xo.html The Atonement: The Strongest Refutation of Rome's Eucharistic Errors >>>>>>> Early church leaders knew nothing of transubstantiation. The eucharist hardly makes any exegetical since to start with. Tradition cannot be the will of God if it goes against the word of God. Jesus uses parallelism in this discourse to equate believing with eating his flesh. Note the parallel between verse 40 and verse 54: (Jn. 6:40) “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.” (Jn. 6:54) “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” .>>According to this parallel, beholding and believing (v.40) are equated with eating and drinking Christ’s flesh (v.54). This is further paralleled by verse 35: >>(Jn. 6:35) I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst. >>(Jn. 6:54) “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” >>>To “hunger” and “thirst” and parallel to the one who “eats” and “drinks.” But note what Jesus says satisfies our hunger: “He who comes to Me… he who believes in Me.” Jesus isn’t speaking about his literal flesh and blood any more than he is speaking about literal bread (Jn. 6:35) or literal water (Jn. 4:10-14). Indeed, Jesus uses the term sarx for his “body,” rather than the common term sōma (which was the common term used in the Lord’s Supper). Indeed, the “term ‘flesh’ is never used in the NT to refer to the Lord’s Supper.”[4] Hence, this seems “to caution against a sacramental or eucharistic understand of these verses.”[5] This is why Augustine of Hippo wrote regarding this passage: “Believe, and you have eaten.” >>Jesus works in metaphor’s, analogy and hyperbole. In Mark 8 Jesus uses bread language again anhesd calls out those confused thinking he’s being literal not realizing the spiritual message. >>The catholic reasoning system will have little influence on the born again believer who’s truly born of the spirit. Those like my self who exegete and derive revelation from the spirit see the heretical lie of transubstantiation. >>>Irenaeus of Lyons (AD 180) stated that the elements do not lose the nature of bread and wine (Against Heresies, 4.18.4-5; 5.2.2). >>>Tertullian (AD 200) said Jesus’ statement was figurative (Against Marcion, 3.19). >>>Clement of Alexandria (AD 200) called the bread and wine symbols of Jesus’ body (The Instructor, I.6). >>>Origen (AD 250) held his typical allegorical and spiritual view when referring to the elements in the Last Supper. >>>>Eusebius of Caesarea (AD 340) called the elements the body and blood of Christ, but also referred to them as symbolic of spiritual realities (On the Theology of the Church, 3.2.12). >>>Augustine (AD 350) believed that John 6:53 should be understood spiritually and symbolically-not literalistically (On Christian Doctrine 3.16.2). Gelasius I (5th century pope): “The sacrament which we receive of the body and blood of Christ is a divine thing. Wherefore also by means of it we are made partakers of the divine nature. Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease to be… Thus, as the elements pass into this, that is, the divine substance by the Holy Ghost, and none the less remain in their own proper nature.”
In a world of false prophets, "I just have a perplexing question for Jimmy's opponents" JM, White, Sproul and those certain they have been foreknown, predestined and saved:- what is the point trying to save those God has eternally forsaken? How do u feel towards others, like us Catholics? You know the ones fearful and trembling, Trying to work out their Salvation, Hoping that we won't fall away while keeping the faith, Trying to remember what we were taught from the beginning, Knowing that we must remain in Him for Him to remain in us, As "co labourers" with Christ, branches attached to the True Vine producing good fruit, While persevering to the very end, Painfully believing that with full knowledge and consent (freewill), we must live out the Sermon on the Mount If we are to be 'welcomed home as my good and faithful SERVANT ", But wait, not every we re told, who calls on name of the Lord, will be saved. Unlike self anointed elect, we must assume nothing. We believe Scripture in that everyone must face Jesus and his angels when we die. We re told the "book of Life" will be opened and all our WORKS revealed: our good works, Works of God in us and works of the flesh will be laid out to be accounted for. Lastly, is there any point of u praying for, or trying to evangelize all those apparently 'totally depraved' souls like me, who according to your reformed theology, were damned. Some even suggest, there must have been a random Predestination lottery of a capricious deity invented by John Calvin? I'm hoping you treat this as a serious question.
You: Gal 1:8 backs up SS. "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God's curse!" That is about the gospel that they PREACHED. The apostles considered their PRECHING as good as their writing.
@bridgefin you miss the point. We have what they preached written down... now we compare any new ideas... from the time of Paul till the present... compare the ideas to the teachings we have written down. Any contradiction between new ideas... no matter how old... we trust the written Gospel and anathema the tradition that conflicts.
@@davidboyer2290 You: We have what they preached written down. Me: Was it authoritative WHEN it was SPOKEN????? Before it was written down? If it was then SS is proven false. And that goes especially for Jesus and his preaching TO HIS audience!
1 Corinthians 11:16 But if anyone is inclined to be argumentative, we do not have such a custom, (tradition) nor do the churches of God. 1 Corinthians 7:40 She is more blessed, though in my opinion, if she remains as she is, and I (Paul) think that I too have the Spirit of God.
there is nothing by itself that says sola scriptura exists, but there is strong evidence in scripture that the word of God is pre-emanant. this is not a misadventure here and there, but clearly stated multiple times in scripture.
It amazes me some of these people with such intellect. We run in circles and do mental, jumping jacks to try to justify what they believe. Why can’t Faith just be simple? Jesus died on the cross to save us from sins. We have the Holy Spirit we can have discernment and wisdom, and knowledge granted to us directly from God. We don’t need anyone else to interject on our behalf except Christ.
@@Joe-rd8mqthat mode of thinking got us 40,000 denominations that can’t agree. Where does the Bible tell us which books are scripture? Christ clearly established his church.
@@Joe-rd8mq Ah, yes, I suppose that's why the Apostles kept running around baptising people and forgiving sins and distributing Holy Communion (as they were instructed by Christ to do), and why all of the early Church Fathers and their descendants continued to do the same for 1500+ years. Hmm....
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 04:11 *📜 The Protestant understanding of Sola Scriptura has evolved over time, with recent definitions emphasizing scripture as the sole infallible rule of faith.* 10:23 *💡 Catholicism views divine revelation as transmitted through both scripture and Apostolic tradition, interpreted authoritatively by the magisterium, while Protestantism generally asserts scripture as the sole authoritative source.* 18:52 *🤔 A key Protestant argument for Sola Scriptura is that scripture is the only reliable source of divine revelation left from the time of Christ and the apostles, discounting the necessity of tradition and authority.* 21:09 *🌊 Apostolic traditions, not explicitly recorded in scripture, can offer valuable insights into Christian practices, such as baptism, shedding light on scriptural ambiguities.* 24:52 *💡 The argument against sola scriptura often involves the claim that traditions can change over time, such as the Catholic Church's stance on the death penalty.* 25:34 *🧠 The challenge to sola scriptura is not about the existence of Apostolic traditions but rather distinguishing between authentic Apostolic traditions and later developments, a task assigned to the magisterium.* 28:20 *📜 The formation of the Canon of scripture involved the discernment of Apostolic tradition by the magisterium, using criteria such as widespread liturgical use and doctrinal consistency.* 34:43 *🛠️ Sola scriptura is a later development in Christian history, emerging after the availability of printed scriptures following Johannes Gutenberg's invention of the printing press.* 49:11 *📚 The rise of sola scriptura coincided with the accessibility of scriptures due to the invention of the printing press, allowing individuals outside wealthy or institutional circles to own and interpret scripture independently.* 49:53 *📜 Sola Scriptura couldn't have been implemented before widespread literacy and the printing press, indicating it wasn't God's plan forthe average Christian.* 51:32 *💡 The sufficiency of scripture is problematic as it's self-refuting and not explicitly mentioned in scripture itself.* 53:19 *🧠 Asserting Sola Scriptura as a presupposition or perligamanon is an attempt to evade proving it as a teaching, which is insufficient.* 55:03 *💬 Ecumenism should not compromise core doctrines, and unity should be within the framework of doctrine, not above it.* 58:32 *🛑 Relying solely on the Bible for Christian unity leads to division due to diverse interpretations and lacks an interactive source like the magisterium.* 01:06:18 *🔍 Problems with Sola Scriptura run deeper than practical issues; it conflicts with the apostolic paradigm and lacks support from Scripture for a post-apostolic age.*
I don’t agree with Jimmy Akin on Ignatius. The Greek word that has been translated to “bishop” is actually “overseer”. Paul was an overseer. There is no such thing as authority over others on what they have to believe. That is not found in scripture (seat of Moses demonstrated why this shouldn’t be, with the scribes and Pharisees). I also think the writings of Ignatius has been modified. I read with caution, and question things. I don’t see Jimmy Akin doing that.
Not very big on Jesus, are you? Jesus demands that you obey him, and obeying him requires that you understand what he's demanding--unless you want to take the position that he doesn't care how you interpret him, which does seem to be your (rather peculiar and impossible) argument. Understanding what the law intends requires an authority to determine what the words of the law mean. Otherwise, they mean both anything and nothing; otherwise, anyone could go before the judge and say, "Sorry, your honor, I thought your homicide law meant that I was to kill as many innocent people as possible," or that "it commanded me to eat licorice," or any other thing under the sun. So there must be an ultimate authority providing the true meaning of the words, which is precisely why Jesus left us one. He left us one and protected it by divine decree--the guardianship and guidance of the Holy Spirit--against error. He left us his holy Catholic Church and her magisterium.
Overseer... like the "See" of a particular diocese... I guess there's no jugyo in Korea or obispo in Spain if there are no bishops! 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 Seriously, bro. Etymology exists.
Scripture = Tradition 2 Thess 2:15 No apostles taught infant baptism. Faith proceeds baptism according to apostolic tradition found in Scripture. Romans 10:17 Faith comes by HEARING the Word of God. Faith does not come by you parents, but only by you hearing and believing the Word of God, then obeying that Word of God. Circumcision does NOT equal baptism. This is idiotic to claim. Colossians 2:11-12 compares the "cutting off" in and of itself. John the baptizer was the forerunner of Christian baptism, not mosaic circumcision. Circumcision was ONLY for boys, could circumcision be for girl babies too??? Uh....yes! So why not? Why not circumcise girl babies under the Law of Moses? Why only boys when baptism is for All? Catholicism is simply man made religion, a clear deviation from apostolic traditions. So all catholics are lost to hell just like protestants are.
Does scripture in any way give any doubt about the validity of scripture? No, it is reliable. Does scripture in any way give doubt to the validity of the Holy Spirit? No, the Spirit is reliable. Does scripture in any way give doubt on traditions, yes. The scriptures may not be completely, but the Spirit that indwells in you when you have faith is complete. And traditions created by men are unreliable.
These "traditions created by men" include those initiated by Jesus Christ, when He granted Peter the keys to the Kingdom and gave the Apostles the authority to forgive sins and Baptise in His name and distribute Holy Communion.
@@bridgefin Also, funny thing, the Greek word used for "Tradition" in the New Testament is synonymous with "Teaching," and Protestant Bibles are filled with selective editing, particularly where St. Paul explicitly tells the disciples to embrace this "Tradition/Teaching."
Matt 18:18-20 = Acts 15 Christ commanded His apostles to agree TOGETHER, at least two or more concerning ALL MATTERS! So Peter alone is not allowed by Jesus Christ! He specifically taught them to not act alone, Acts 15 it not Peter alone, but James AND Peter together to pass judgment. James binded on gentiles to abstain from blood and idolatry, fornication, Peter loosed circumcision. So a pope alone is NOT from Jesus Christ. So all you catholics are heretics according to the very command of Jesus Christ in scripture. No papacy, no catholicism.
Sorry, but in Matt 16:16 Christ states that the Church would be built on Peter. "Blessed on you Simon son of Jonah...For I say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church. And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bond in heaven and whatever you lose on earth shall be loosed in heaven". Jesus didn't tell all the apostles that they were all to receive the keys of heaven, only Peter. It's evident that Peter had a special position in the eyes of Christ. In John 21:14 Jesus asks Peter if he loves him and in reply to Peter stating yes Jesus states "Feed my Sheep".Peter clearly had a predominant role to play and Peter was the founder of the Roman Church and the first Pope. You can disagree with that premise, but to teach that Peter is not the Rock on which Christ built his church is unbiblical and ahistorical.
@@jeffreyworthington2772 what does Ephesians 2:19-22 say? What does 1 Peter 2:4-9 say? Two different passages, one Paul, the other PETER BOTH CLARIFY that ALL CHRISTIANS ARE ROCKS OF THE CHURCH!!!! So the individual occasion in Matt 16 is relevant to all Christians, it's a generalized statement. So my position has clear scriptural evidence, your fake church took centuries to invent. Catholicism is no better off than the protestants, you are all man made religions who overrule the apostolic authority.
Jesus never declared sola scriptura, it is a false doctrine. Stop rejecting the authority of the church. Jesus never gave authority to Mike Winger's opinion
You might be correct if this book fell out of the sky. But it didn't, it came with a Church and those who were taught if not by Jesus, then those that they taught, the bishops that the Apostles taught. Or the Bishops the Bishops taught. St. Paul comes to mind with his many letters to the different churches who were one. Some of which came up with incorrect teachings and were corrected in their own interpretation they had decided on.
@@soteriology400 It doesn't' mean anything. _Much in every way. First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God._ You have taken too little a slice of Scripture. Thats probably why that guy Roman wrote another 29 sentences and one before. Mark 1:33 What would you say are the signs or requirements of a cult?
@@dave_ecclectic "It doesn't mean anything". The bible we have today were written by Jews, not Gentiles. Vision and prophecy has already been sealed up (revelation 10:4) since the house of Israel will never be back again and no need for anymore prophecy. It was a pretty big deal at the time the writings were made. To answer your question, signs of a cult. When people elevate someone to the same status as Jesus. When people don't do their own homework to study the scriptures and just go by what they been told due to "authority". When a person thinks their church teachings are 100% correct on everything, denying fallibility of the fallen nature. When one thinks their church is the one true church and everyone else is a false church. Those are traits of a cult.
@@soteriology400 Luke was a Gentile. Luke Col 4:10-14 (not of the circumcised) I have no idea why you bring this up or how it is in connection with a single sentence. Your definition of a cult is your own, you won't find it anywhere. I mean you can't simply invent your own meaning of a word. As an example of how off the mark you are. _ everyone else is a false church_ This is not a requirement of a cult. This is a very short list and not anywhere complete, but all of them are false. Circumcisers, Gnosticism, Montanism, Sabellianism, Arianism, Pelagianism
It is just a fact of history that Christians stopped living a pure Christian life and the Holy Spirit is now not written in our hearts, but the Holy Spirit now comes to us through reading the scripture.
@@fantasia55 no, because doctor of the faith and Saint John Chrysostom said so: It were indeed meet for us not at all to require the aid of the written Word, but to exhibit a life so pure, that the grace of the Spirit should be instead of books to our souls, and that as these are inscribed with ink, even so should our hearts be with the Spirit. But, since we have utterly put away from us this grace, come, let us at any rate embrace the second best course. For that the former was better, God has made manifest, both by His words, and by His doings. Since unto Noah, and unto Abraham, and unto his offspring, and unto Job, and unto Moses too, He discoursed not by writings, but Himself by Himself, finding their mind pure. But after the whole people of the Hebrews had fallen into the very pit of wickedness, then and thereafter was a written word, and tables, and the admonition which is given by these. And this one may perceive was the case, not of the saints in the Old Testament only, but also of those in the New. For neither to the apostles did God give anything in writing, but instead of written words He promised that He would give them the grace of the Spirit: for "He," says our Lord, "shall bring all things to your remembrance." John 14:26 And that you may learn that this was far better, hear what He says by the Prophet: "I will make a new covenant with you, putting my laws into their mind, and in their heart I will write them," and, "they shall be all taught of God." And Paul too, pointing out the same superiority, said, that they had received a law "not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart." But since in process of time they made shipwreck, some with regard to doctrines, others as to life and manners, there was again need that they should be put in remembrance by the written word.
@weaponofchoice-tc7qs I didn't make that up: John Chrysostom did: It were indeed meet for us not at all to require the aid of the written Word, but to exhibit a life so pure, that the grace of the Spirit should be instead of books to our souls, and that as these are inscribed with ink, even so should our hearts be with the Spirit. But, since we have utterly put away from us this grace, come, let us at any rate embrace the second best course. For that the former was better, God has made manifest, both by His words, and by His doings. Since unto Noah, and unto Abraham, and unto his offspring, and unto Job, and unto Moses too, He discoursed not by writings, but Himself by Himself, finding their mind pure. But after the whole people of the Hebrews had fallen into the very pit of wickedness, then and thereafter was a written word, and tables, and the admonition which is given by these. And this one may perceive was the case, not of the saints in the Old Testament only, but also of those in the New. For neither to the apostles did God give anything in writing, but instead of written words He promised that He would give them the grace of the Spirit: for "He," says our Lord, "shall bring all things to your remembrance." John 14:26 And that you may learn that this was far better, hear what He says by the Prophet: "I will make a new covenant with you, putting my laws into their mind, and in their heart I will write them," and, "they shall be all taught of God." And Paul too, pointing out the same superiority, said, that they had received a law "not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart." But since in process of time they made shipwreck, some with regard to doctrines, others as to life and manners, there was again need that they should be put in remembrance by the written word.
@@georgwagner937 I'm confused. Are you trying to use that as an argument for Sola Scriptura, for which it is laughably insufficient, or are you referring to something completely unrelated?
2 Timothy 3 16-17 "all scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching for for training in righteousness so that the man of God may be adequate equipped for EVRY good work" Seems to me there is defense for sola scriptura within scripture
@@geogabegalan no but it does say every good work so if everything I need is in the bible why do I need to look at other things when the bible says it's all I need. Other Epistle say it's all I need and the very next chapter of 2 Timothy Paul writes to him preach the WORD and not to delve into myth that ruins the hearer
So what the RCC is saying that the Bible has not all the answers,thus is in error! Isn't that what the Muslims say ,that's why Muhammed was given the truth by an angel ,for scripture has some errors ,this Muslim tradition, even the Mormons say Joseph had an angel tell him the same scripture has errors this book of Mormon ,it's all the same not abiding by God's word in scripture!
It’s the rejection of Sola Scriptura that has caused Rome to embrace false doctrines such the papacy, the Marian dogmas and purgatory. None of these doctrines are taught in Scripture.
"The Bible is a Catholic Book...: True. But to be more specific, the Catholics and Jews gave us the Masoretic Old Testament, but the Early Church and the Eastern Orthodox gave us the Septuagint. I'm an Anglican so I have the liberty to choose the most reliable family text type. The Eastern Church got it right and Rome and the Protestants made an error. Go back to the Greek OT.
Hello friend, when St. Jerome translated the Vulgate--which became the standard Latin translation of the Bible used by the Catholic Church until the 1900s--he relied on the Septuagint and some Hebrew and Aramaic texts for the OT, and Greek and Latin manuscripts for the NT. The eariest complete Hebrew masoretic text of the OT and Pslams is contained in something called the Leningrad Codex which dates to about 1000 AD. Therefore St. Jerome could not have relied on Hebrew masoretic texts of the OT when writing the Vulgate because they did not exist ! In contrast the Catholic Church has always emphasized the Vulgate and the Greek Septuagint as the key texts of the OT and NT. For example see the history of the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus, which are most likely the oldest manuscripts in existence containing the Septuagint. These pre-date the Codex Leningrad by about 700 years !
Apostle John commanded people to not believe everyone, but TEST them to see if they are truthful or if they are false prophets in 1 John 4:1. Apostle Paul commanded us to Prove all things. So how do catholic people prove/test all things to see if their magisterium is not actually lying to them? Catholics don't allow anyone to test them. They use circular reasoning claiming "this is what the apostles handed down to us," even though they have no way of proving that because history from early writers proves catholicism was just another man made development. So catholicism wasn't from the apostles but from men long after the apostles died. John 10:35 Christ said scripture cannot be broken. Yet catholicism brakes scriptures, therefore catholicism is false.
Jesus Christ said " Heaven and earth shall pass away , but My Word shall never pass away." The catholic church and it's self made doctrines do not follow Jesus. The carnal catholic church shall pass away.
@@francissweeney7318and yet, here we still remain, as the Protestant smorgasbord continues to proliferate as one decides they must move across the street because their current church no longer preaches what they want to hear!!
@@ignatiusjackson235Only to the blind and deaf. The history of the catholic church is a sordid story of disobedience to God and unbridled pridefulness.
The first 10 minutes demonstrates that this will not be a robust and accurate grappling with sola scriptura or the sufficiency of scripture (yet again). sigh...
@@TheCordialCatholic 😆 you're welcome? The Catholic Apologetics world need to take some time dialoguing with good protestant thinkers about sola scriptura in an attempt to understand rather than refute. As someone discerning Catholicism, I want to hear the Catholic response to sola scriptura (it's not something I'm sure I believe), but they don't accurately represent sola scriptua and so the responses don't carry much weight.
And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, *which are able to make thee wise unto salvation* through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, *throughly furnished unto all good works* {2 Timothy 3:15-17} Thou through thy commandments hast made me wiser than mine enemies: for they are ever with me. I have more understanding than all my teachers: *for thy testimonies are my meditation* {Psalm 119:98-99} *Thy word* is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path. {Psalm 119:105} The entrance of thy words giveth light; *it giveth understanding unto the simple* {Psalm 119:130} The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, *making wise the simple* {Psalm 19:7} Jesus taught using sola scriptura! But he answered and said, "IT IS WRITTEN, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” {Matthew 4:4} Jesus said unto him, "IT IS WRITTEN again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.” {Matthew 4:7} Then saith Jesus unto him, "Get thee hence, Satan: for IT IS WRITTEN Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.” {Matthew 4:10} “For this is he, of whom IT IS WRITTEN, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.” {Matthew 11:10} And said unto them, "IT IS WRITTEN, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.” {Matthew 21:13} Then saith Jesus unto them, "All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for IT IS WRITTEN, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.” {Matthew 26:31} He answered and said unto them, "Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as IT IS WRITTEN, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me." {Mark 7:6} And he answered and told them, "Elias verily cometh first, and restoreth all things; and how IT IS WRITTEN of the Son of man, that he must suffer many things, and be set at nought. But I say unto you, That Elias is indeed come, and they have done unto him whatsoever they listed, as IT IS WRITTEN of him.” {Mark 9:12-13} “The Son of man indeed goeth, as IT IS WRITTEN of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born.” {Mark 14:21} And Jesus saith unto them, "All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for IT IS WRITTEN, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered." {Mark 14:27} “IT IS WRITTEN in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.” {John 6:45} “Search THE SCRIPTURES; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.” {John 5:39} And he said unto them, "Full well you reject *the commandment of God* that you may keep your own TRADITION." ... “Making *the word of God* of none effect through your TRADITION, which you have delivered: and many such like things you do.” {Mark 7:9&13} But he answered and said unto them, "Why do you also transgress *the commandment of God* by your TRADITION?” {Matthew 15:3} Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the TRADITION OF MEN, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. {Colossians 2:8} And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he [Jesus] expounded unto them *in all the scriptures* the things concerning himself. {Luke 24:27} *Tradition* in the context of men Greek παράδοσις / paradosis = 666 by counting the letter values of the Greek transliteration; P(80), A(1), R(100), A(1), D(4), O(70), S(200), I(10), S(200).
@@larrybedouin2921 You're in support of Sola scriptura, so which scripture should you be using, if Jesus himself was always referring to the old testament? I just thought that was an interesting idea for another point about the old law supposedly being abolished. Anyway, I'm sure that as a Jew, Jesus would've also followed oral traditions regarding practice and interpretation of scripture. Why would that be different now?
@@jemts5586 Jesus chastised the scribes and the Pharisees for their traditions. And he said unto them, "Full well you reject *the commandment of God* that you may keep your own TRADITION." ... “Making *the word of God* of none effect through your TRADITION, which you have delivered: and many such like things you do.” {Mark 7:9&13} “For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the *tradition of men* as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.” {Mark 7:8} Paul, Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the *tradition of men* after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. {Colossians 2:8}
Sola Scriptura... is the only thing that makes sense. It stands to reason that if we are judged by God's word he is expecting us to interpret that word. When God speaks in these latter days it is to all men (people) everywhere.
So Jesus was NOT authoritative when he SPOKE to his audiences? At that moment it was not Scripture. Without the help of the gospel writers is Jesus authoritative on his own? If he is then SS is disproved since God's oral word is also authoritative.
@@bridgefin * So Jesus was NOT authoritative when he SPOKE to his audiences? * It is points like that one that lead me to believe that Catholics and denominationalists do not really cognate what being under covenant means. You see it all the time when people say... we are in the covenant of grace neglecting that you have to enter into agreement (you have to sign the contract). Catholics baptize babies... when everyone knows that babies cannot enter into a legal agreement... they don't understand (trying to babtize a baby is in vain). That's why I said... Catholics do not baptize anyone. Because they do not do it by faith. So they believe in baptismal regeneration but they do not cognate that it is a burial and that is why there needed to be 'much water there'. No to them it is just as good to cut a corner and justify it by their tradition. Jesus preached against doing that... making void the word of God through your traditions. Now specifically... Jesus is the testator. His first coming was to do two things from a legal standpoint. To close out the first covenant... and to present the second covenant. Once it is codified you cannot abrogate it.
@@bridgefin * So Jesus was NOT authoritative when he SPOKE to his audiences? * Jesus having authority is not the same as people who don't have it claiming that they do.
@@bridgefin * At that moment it was not Scripture. * As a matter of faith... it was. The plan of salvation existed before the something needing salvation had been created. That is in Genesis.
@@bridgefin * Without the help of the gospel writers is Jesus authoritative on his own? * Again... the issue is not Jesus' authority. It is the range and scope of the authority that your catholic leaders usurp.
sola scriptura has to be rejected by the roman catholic church, because the bible clearly rejects roman catholic man-made doctrines and practices, such as the pope, doctrines of mariology, the establishment of a celibate priesthood, that salvation is not by Christ alone (the roman catholic church insists traditions (which are NOT traditions of the 1st or 4th century Christian church) (and including the wicked mass (which is an offer to re-sacrifice Christ) and the magisterium are also necessary salvation, prayers to the dead, purgatory and more. however the roman catholic apologists do abuse parts of the bible to twist false arguments to support their man-made doctrines, ect.
the establishment of your popes are NOT supported clearly by scripture. doctrines of mariology are not clearly in the bible at all. i believe these were the result of the roman empire putting pressure on the early 4th-5th century Christian church to adopt the pagan mother-son god relationship began in ancient sumer, and expanded to many provinces in the roman empire. Christianity taught obedience to authority, and the more converts thereof, would mean less rebellion to rome's authority. Christ's death on the cross as a total means of salvation is rejected by roman catholicism, as only a partial means of salvation, and that church "tradition" (roman catholic tradition is NOT the same as early church traditions) and the magisterium (which is NOT supported by scripture). the mass is a wicked ceremony, which rejects Christ's death on the cross as the sole means of salvation. your roman catholic priesthood was NOT fully established until the 12 century. purgatory is weakly supported by several referances in the n.t. and 2nd macabees which is correctly defined as apocrypha by luther, because there were no prophets at that time (prophets were the authors of the o.t., and the actors in that work, the jews reject the work itself. prayers to the dead are also based on 2nd macabees.@@TheCordialCatholic
@@manuelpompa-u5e The mass is remembering Jesus's sacrifice, so what do you mean it rejects it? The consumption of the bread and wine as body and blood is mentioned in the NT. "Do this in remembrance of me...". So, there *is* scriptural basis for the mass.
What is most problematic about people who never preach the Gospel but rather critique other Denominations Doctrines is that we live in a Culture that is powerfully becoming more Secular, hating GOD who are in a war against Christ and everything they stand for. All you do is divide Christian believers which is, exactly what Satan could hope for so, he can destroy Christian believers and in the process, The Church. He and you are doing a Great service to that end. The fact that you believe in Sola Scriptura or don't will have absolutely no impact on Salvation. If you remain a soldier of Satanic Objectives you can only be considered, a self serving enemy of Christ. I personally am tired and disgusted listening to alleged Christians who waste precious time and energy, telling us what they don't believe. A House Divided cannot and will not stand. Try serving Christ instead of Satan or you will have to answer to Christ at Judgment.
@@CatholicDefender-bp7my The two great evils with Catholic Responses; they never ever, directly answer a question and are masters at one line unintelligible, meaningless commentaries with no context only obfuscation and ambiguity.
@@CatholicDefender-bp7my I have no problem with people who disagree with anything I said and I didn't demand an agreement. I appreciate response as both parties to a conversation can have a chance to digest another perspective that we might not have considered, however, I do have a problem with statements that can be taken several different ways and are so obscure, I have no clue if they are in agreement or not. Ex: "No judgment there, huh?" What does that actually mean and how does it relate to anything I said? Actual questions always have question marks ending a question! A question, is a means of communicating that doesn't require a particular answer, because it's a Question and not a declaritive statement.
the bible clearly says that scripture alone is plausible, many, many times. you are a false teacher. you will have to answer to Christ for your false teachings.
the roman catholic church fails to live up to the standards of Christ. salvation is by faith through grace in Jesus Christ alone. anyone who denies Christ as the sole means of salvation is in real serious trouble.
Matt 18:18-20 = Acts 15 Christ commanded His apostles to agree TOGETHER, at least two or more concerning ALL MATTERS! So Peter alone is not allowed by Jesus Christ! He specifically taught them to not act alone, Acts 15 it not Peter alone, but James AND Peter together to pass judgment. James binded on gentiles to abstain from blood and idolatry, fornication, Peter loosed circumcision. So a pope alone is NOT from Jesus Christ. So all you catholics are heretics according to the very command of Jesus Christ in scripture. No papacy, no catholicism.
So excited to listen! Sola Scriptura was one of the first dominos to fall on my journey from Protestant to Catholic.
Me too!
@Robert Stephenson Amen brother! 👍
2 John 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
@@eddyrobichaud5832 Amen!
@robertstephenson6806 Well, only a few Apostles wrote anything down. Presumably, the other ones that didn't also taught their churches infallibly.
The scariest part of sola scriptura is the reader's interpretation of scripture is the hidden authority.
Hidden, right? Which is super scary!
Yes!!! And that's what I never understood as a Protestant!!
@joejohnston3 Absolutely. Every denomination that follows sola scriptura seem to claim biblical authority yet many many doctrines found in scripture are NOT found in protestant churches. Confession, true presence, warnings about taking the eucharist unworthily, no remarriage after divorce, celibacy, saints offering up the prayers of the living in heaven, Mary as the queen mother of heaven, the restoration of the davidic kingdom, binding and loosing, forgiveness and absolution or retention of sin, bringing disputes to the church to settle, and many prots do t believe baptism saves even though scripture says that it does. Prots like to think they're the biblical ones but as you can see they ignore the parts of the Bible they don't agree with. How is scripture the authority when you can interpret it as you see fit and ignore parts of it? Its actually pretty pathetic.
Ss is inadvertently disingenuous.
Which is its said that Protestantism always reduces to worship of the self.
I really appreciate Jimmy's open-handed, yet well-reasoned approach to this topic! As a Protestant, I hear a lot of bad takes and outright misunderstandings of what sola scriptura is. Jimmy, though, really tries to critique it from the best possible light. I'm not convinced of the Roman Catholic position, but when I hear Jimmy, I'm certainly listening.
This is exactly what we intended. Thanks so much for saying so, and for listening.
Jimmy and Trent are my favorite Catholic apologists. They are so good and clear in their explanations.
Recently on The Remnant Radio was The History of the Baptist Church. Oh my oh my. As a new Catholic and 37 year Protestant, I just shake my head after watching that Dean explain what Baptist are.
Shake your head? Please explain.
I’m not familiar with that program but John Smyth is credited with founding the Baptist faith in 1609 in Amsterdam. He was formerly an Anglican.
Was this Baptist successionism in practice?
Once Sola Scriptura falls, the whole Reformational thesis falls. One question I like to ask learned Protestants: did Luther think he was in the True Church when he was a monk? Can't get a sufficient answer on that one.
Amen! Great point!
the guy confused Church and Christendom, and was fully assured of being a Christian because he was German - he reasoned like a pagan and detested the Church because it did not coincide with the Christian society, with all those devout souls
What difference does it make what he believed, when he was a monk, any more than what you believed before or after you became whatever you claim to be? What is the your definition of Reformational Thesis?
In regard to Sola Scriptura, it is a creation of man, as it has no Historical basis. It does have an implied Scriptural basis however, even if it didn't, it wouldn't matter. Sola Scriptura is a Methodology, akin to the Scientific Method; a means for establishing through Evidence that something is either Fallacious (False) or Truth (Factual). It simply acknowledges that the Word of GOD is Inerrant Truth, as GOD himself stated, as well as implied in Scripture.
The Scientific Method is Sacrosanct in the Sciences and has been for over 600 years, since developed by Descartes. I wouldn't be surprised if Decartes (died - 3/31/1596) got that Inspiration and Idea from Luther (died - 11/10/1483) Read Descartes "Discourse on Method", in which he proposes a Proof for God' Existence.
I know of no one who has Publicly Rejected the Scientific Method in it's long history so, why would Catholics Reject the very same methodology in a Religious context or do you silently reject the Scientific Method?
I don’t understand your question. Are you saying that because Martin Luther was once a monk, and then he stopped being a monk, that everything he did, and believed after being a monk was invalid?
@@Joe-rd8mq Of course not. The point is that he rebelled against church authority. Where even in Scripture is that allowed or sanctioned? On the contrary. I do see a plethora of passages exhorting us to submit to authority. Unless you think it's fine if our own individual interpretation differs from the Church's?
Ive noticed , as a catholic guy, that Protestants, the average devout evangelical, nondenominational adherent will use sola scriptura mentality to pass on snide remarks to us Catholics. The average guy gets these obnoxious ideas about Catholics from their own ministers. I get these snide remarks often now that I attend group gatherings from evangelical ministers here at my senior center. I’m sick of this crap of being insulted, denigrated by these Christians who look at themselves as outstandingly righteous.
I totally agree! I was raised militant Irish catholic and we never took any nonsense from protestants
Thank you, I am getting the same. Please pray for them!
Pay the man. What you said is true. Protestants get these tired old lies from their holy man. No one comes up with anything new.
I think it is critical for Catholics to point out that Sacred Tradition was written down EARLY in the Church fathers. I don't know why more Catholic apologists don't make this point. Seems negligent to let Protestants imagine or represent Catholic tradition as merely oral for many centuries.
The Catechism of St Pius X - usually connected with radical traditionalism, but it has nothing of particularly RadTrad - is a very synthetic compendium that explains it even better:
*On Tradition.*
34 Q. What is meant by Tradition?
A. _Tradition is the non-written word of God, which has been transmitted by word of mouth by Jesus Christ and by the apostles, and which has come down to us through the centuries by the means of the Church, without being altered._
35 Q. Where are the teachings of Tradition kept?
A. _The teachings of Tradition are kept chiefly in the Councils' decrees, the writings of the Holy Fathers, the Acts of the Holy See and the words and practices of the sacred Liturgy._
@@masterchief8179 Well stated. However, I think the answer "the writings of the Ante-Nicene fathers" is better answer to "where Tradition is found" for engaging Protestants, even though incomplete. Those writings are written, obviously, and much earlier than the other sources apparently, making them much more plausibly of apostolic origin.
The first council (Nicaea) didn't happen until 325 when Constantine ruled. When was the earliest infallible papal act/decree and what was its subject matter? While the words and practices of the Liturgy might be helpful with regard to the Eucharist or Mary/saints, even the oldest liturgy preserved in writings (St James?) doesn't seem to pre-date 325.
@@tonyl3762 I got your points now. You were specifically talking about the best way to engage Protestants apologetically. I simply tried to give the shortest (correct) definition for it. But I agree with you.
Trent Horn has often made the point that the Greek word from which we get the English word tradition simply means 'that which is handed down' and by definition this includes the written word or scripture
@@BrianGondo Do you think that's a more persuasive/impactful fact for the Protestant in comparison to the fact that Catholic traditions were written down by successors of the apostles in the 1st and 2nd century??
The problem with Sola Scriptura is
Jesus gave us 12 apostles
* The problem with Sola Scriptura * ...is that it leaves you out of the pecking order. * Jesus gave us 12 apostles * ...of one accord. [harboring ONE SPIRIT].
@@thundershadow
One shepherd one flock • Bible
Jimmy Akin is a Rock Star Catholic, so happy he converted, he's such a blessing to the Church! Love this conversation, it definately is fustrating when speaking with Protestants, they absolutely do not approve of "Authority" or "Tradition"... God bless both of you!
Only the traditions they agree with, and they are their own authority.
YES! More Catholics need to appeal to 2nd Timothy to show the authority of Apostolic Tradition and succession! Timothy and Titus are the prime examples of authoritative bishops after the apostles. Paul tells them to teach with all authority, letting no one disregard them or their youth.
What exactly in 2 Timothy are you referring. 2 Timothy ?
Sola Scriptura did not apply to the earliest Christians because the scripture of the New Testament was not written, thus all Christological teaching was presented orally, or by writing that would later be codified as Scripture or not. Thus, Sola Scriptura is at best a temporal rule imposed on only some Christians and not all, namely, those in the early church, and is therefore, by Protestants’ own standards, an accretion. It’s false, and the steelman’d position of it is rarely what modern Protestants mean when they invoke it (ie the constant cry of “where does it say that in the Bible?”).
Excellent explanation on baptism,for in the scriptures there’s no place found that says baptism is strictly done by immersion or that infants can’t be baptized
The problem is, Protestants (depending on which one you talk to), define "biblical" in different ways. The more hardcore of them say a belief must be explicitly taught in the Bible, for example, this then results in Protestants who reject Sunday worship because it isn't explicitly in the Bible.
Others will say, a teaching must have two verses in the Bible to form official doctrine. Why two and not three or four? I don't know, I can never get a straight answer.
Others will say, a doctrine can be implicitly taught in the Bible and they will accept one verse as sufficient. Ok, ask that person to show a verse in the Bible where it says belief in the Trinity is necessary even implicitly. Crickets.
As followers of Christ, we are not looking to be permitted or inhibited... we are looking to be led by voice (the spirit in the word).
* there’s no place found that says baptism is strictly done by immersion * Buried with him by baptism into death. * or that infants can’t be baptized * He that believes and is baptized shall be saved.
@@thundershadow "We are looking to be led by voice (the spirit in the word)".
We are supposed to be led by the people chosen by the Apostles and their followers.
Hebrews 13:17
17 *Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account.* Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you.
@@alisterrebelo9013 * We are supposed to be led by the people chosen by the Apostles and their followers. * You are talking about law. I am talking about faith. Law governs the flesh... Faith governs the spirit. Faith is a law... but it is a spiritual law. It can't govern the flesh. Faith is at enmity with the flesh. Likewise law cannot govern the spirit. the bible says no law can generate the fruits of the spirit. SPIRITUALLY SPEAKING... We are led by the spirit of truth in God's word. That is the voice I am talking about. You Catholics don't know to make a difference where the difference is essential.
The BEST argument against sola scriptura is very simple:
40,000+ Protestant denominations! 🏁
Excellent interview!
After listening to the Ortlund◇Horn debate this is a great additional resource. Very complimentary
I’d hoped so! Glad you enjoyed it.
It's important to understand that protestantism is not a church; it's a method of exegesis, or a method of understanding the Bible which is derived from man-made traditions of the 16th century. This method is defined by two unexamined and contradictory premises:
1)Jesus did not establish any authority to interpret scripture
2) Each man is his own authoritative interpreter guided by the Holy Spirit
A person is protestant not because he agrees on an authoritative interpretation of scripture, but because he rejects that any such authority was instituted by Christ.
Therefore, protestantism concludes two categories of criteria necessary for salvation, a visible criteria, and an invisible implication:
1) A person must accept salvation through Jesus as thier denomination defines it
2) A person must not be Catholic
That is to say, they disagree on everything except that spirit of rebellion against the authority established by Christ. This is why Protestantism, or the method of exegesis that rejects authority, must be rejected.
@stevedoetsch …you nailed it!!
Brilliantly put.
The Canon was highly problematic for me. An authoritative Magisterium had to be true for many books to be included and/or excluded from Scripture (which Jimmy only touched on)!
Read a History of the Cannon and it will no longer be problematic.
You clearly haven't read a History of the Cannon. I suggest you do that for your own support.
If the bible is infallible for teaching, then how does one account for language translation? This has to be taken into consideration as well. The J.W's are a classic example of using a word (Jehovah), and creating a whole new religion because of it.
This is certainly a good point.
It is infallible for _teaching_ not reading. In this case the translation is moot as the teacher could take this in account.
There is a tougher one than translation and that is culture.
You have to be kidding! The Scripture is Infallible for teaching and isn't responsible for others distortion through deceit. If it isn't infallible for teaching then it good for nothing so why read it?
@@dave_ecclecticyou have to read it to teach it, no?
@@jemts5586 You _might_ have to read it to _learn_ it.
There was a guy back quite a few centuries who had memorized it. I believe this walking concordance was the beginning of the concordance.
"Brother John, where does St. Paul mention being taught?"
"That would be Acts 22:3" (actually he wouldn't say that as chapter and verse hadn't been invented yet)
The people of Easter Island cannot read their own language, but they do know what the "books" say from being taught and memorization. So, they can teach it but not read it.
Sola Scriptura is a recipe for endless theological litigation.
@CatholicDefender-bp7my Protestantism did not end the Magisterium and Tradition. It merely multiplied and deconcentrated them, giving rise to a considerable number of second-rate traditions and teachings, as it divided the Church into multiple copies of lesser quality...
47:30 Sola scriptura presupposes a intellectual or a fiscal superiority based on the price of just one book of scripture
That’s because Jesus said heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will endure forever!
Oh wait wait, wait wait, I said that wrong . On earth will pass away, but Catholic teachings and traditions will remain forever. 😂
@@JC_Forum_of_Christ
His words, not his writing.
@@bridgefin explain the difference. Did Jesus make a mistake?
@@JC_Forum_of_Christ
Jesus SAID... That was oral speaking and teaching. That is called oral tradition. His spoken words will endure to his hearers forever. It was authoritative whether or not it was written down. Since the oral preaching of Jesus was authoritative when spoken we can conclude that NOT ONLY Scripture is authoritative.
@@bridgefin Jesus condemned oral traditions…. There is no such thing… try to prove it… there might be traditions but they are from God above
another of the many reasons of sola scriptura failure, is Mary, the mother of God. For a protestant, she does not have that important of role, and for good reason, the Protestant bible eliminated certain books. The problem here, is the Catholic bible. If you ask most people what it means that Mary was "the handmaid of the lord ", using the bible, there is no real depth to that answer. However, the bible that had all the books intact, the answer is way more in-depth, and tells us the upmost importance of Mary and her role in the church. In the book of Judith (Catholic bible), Judith describes what a handmaid of the lord represents. Judith 11, verse 17 "Your servant is a devout woman, she honors the God of heaven, day and night". There not a woman that anyone of us will ever meet, will come close to that definition. In fact, there's no way she could be of sin (because perfect worship would only come from a spotless, pure person), her purity made her a perfect uncorrupted vessel , for a perfect person to be born. She would have had a unadulterated prayer life, based on this day and night devotion. We get a glimmer of how holy is Mary really is, but even a greater understanding, if only using sola scriptura, within the context of Catholicism.
If Mary is the mother of God, and God the Father is truly his father (as Jesus claims too many times in Scripture to count) then there must be some real sense in which it's correct to say that the Father chose Mary to be his wife; his human spouse. There's simply no way around it, unless one takes the position that Mary was not really the Lord's mother, but was just a storage container or gift box to contain him in temporarily--and the problem with *that* position is that Jesus seems to have grown and gestated within her womb just like any other baby, which is the sign of natural motherhood.
The astonishing thing is the enthusiasm Protestants seem to feel for denigrating and insulting Jesus' mother--God's wife--as if they think Jesus and the Father themselves harbor similar negative opinions of her. "Ah, she's just a dirt bag like any other dirtbag," they seem to think God believes, and that they'll be praised and rewarded in heaven for insisting so.
The true reason, of course, for Protestants' attitude toward the mother of God is that they don't worship the Jesus that actually exists, but an idol they've created in their imaginations. He's like a cartoon character, drawn in the bold outline and primary colors of a coloring book-- the natural consequence of Protestants' worshiping of a book instead of God. They worship that drawing, that limited and distorted picture of the man they glean from their own false opinions about the book, and not the man (i.e. the godman) himself, who reveals himself through his one, Catholic Church.
Christ died for Marys sins too
@@jimnewl quote---The astonishing thing is the enthusiasm Protestants seem to feel for denigrating and insulting Jesus' mother--God's wife--as if they think Jesus and the Father themselves harbor similar negative opinions of her. ". unquote
THAT is a problem!!!
Your comment then makes BOTH GOD and Mary adulterers!!
---quote---who reveals himself through his one, Catholic Church.. unquote
The problem with that worthless opinion??? There is NOT one mentions of any church named "one, Catholic Church"
anywhere in the Biblke!!!!!
--matter of fact, the fisrt time Catholic is ever written, is by Ignatius of Antioch in 110AD!!!!!
@@mitchellosmer1293 In the Acts of the Apostles, it is noted that early Christians didn't even call themselves "Christians." I suppose that means the Apostles weren't Christians if they weren't Catholics. The Bible never uses the word "Trinity" either. We'll throw that out with the bathwater. Let's call it an "abortion," which is also never mentioned in the Bible. The Didache, however, does explicitly prohibit abortion, and it was written by the Apostles, possibly before they were even called "Christians."
I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
@@ignatiusjackson235 quote---- In the Acts of the Apostles, it is noted that early Christians didn't even call themselves "Christians." I suppose that means the Apostles weren't Christians if they weren't Catholics..--- unquote
Nope--
What religions were around before Jesus?
01: Early Pagan Religion in Mesopotamia. ...
02: The Rigveda and the Gods of Ancient India. ...
03: State Religion in Ancient Egypt. ...
04: From Myth to Religion: The Olympian Deities. ...
05: Household and Local Gods in Ancient Greece. ...
06: Feeding the Gods: Sacrificial Religion. ...
07: Prayers, Vows, Divination, and Omens.
More items...
>>
CHRISTIAN
The Greek word Χριστιανός (Christianos), meaning "follower of Christ", comes from Χριστός (Christos), meaning "anointed one",
NOT my interpretation!!!
According to Acts 11:26, the term "Christian" (Χρῑστῐᾱνός, Khrīstiānós), meaning "followers of Christ" in reference to Jesus's disciples, was first used in the city of Antioch by the non-Jewish inhabitants there.
(Acts was written in Greek, presumably by St. Luke the Evangelist. The Gospel According to Luke concludes where Acts begins, namely, with Christ's Ascension into heaven. Acts was apparently written in Rome, perhaps between 70 and 84ce, though some think a slightly earlier date is also possible.)
Therefor by 84AD, followers of Christ were called Christians!!!
It DOES NOT say followers of Catholicism!!!!
--QUOTE-----Let's call it an "abortion," which is also never mentioned in the Bible--unquote
But it does!!!!
Ex 20:13 Thou shalt NOT murder!!!
******Didache in British English
(ˈdɪdəˌkiː ) noun. a treatise, perhaps of the 1st or early 2nd century ad, on Christian morality and practices. Also called: the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.**
FACT: What is the didache and why is it important?
The Didache is an early handbook of an anonymous Christian community, likely written before some of the New Testament books were written. It spells out a way of life for Jesus-followers that includes instruction on how to treat one another, how to practice the Eucharist, and how to take in wandering prophets.
>>FACT: >Why is Didache not in the Bible?
It didn't adhere to 4th-century orthodoxy as outlined by the Council of Nicaea. This may be one reason why the Didache was left out of the New Testament canon. In addition, the material it shares with Matthew may have made it redundant, and it may have seemed more Jewish than some 4th-century Christians wanted.
IN ESSENCE--NOT BIBLICAL!!!!
What are the issues with the Didache?
Two primary issues have led to this modern characterization of the Didache as a somewhat singular witness to the early church: the question of date and the question of origin (or provenance).
To have solo scriptura you would have to be fluent in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic.
Nothing wrong with that.
You would also have to understand cultures of different places and times. It isn't enough to understand the words written you also need to understand the people they were being addressed to.
Some people believe Jesus drank grape juice at the last supper but give no method of having grape juice available out of season in the 1st century.
@@dave_ecclectic If you are responding to me, you are preaching to the choir brother.
@@soteriology400
No, I was just adding to.
Since the original Hebrew of the Old Testament lacked vowels, there were several possible readings (i.e. interpretations) for almost any sequence of consonantal characters. The correct readings of those characters were not, obviously, given in Scripture itself, but were passed on orally from teacher to student until such time as additions were made to written Hebrew that allowed the proper reading to be made clear. It was the TRADITION of the Hebrew rabbis and scribes that determined the meaning to be attributed to Holy Writ, and that tradition remains embedded in the Old Testament we possess today.
Gotta love Jimmy Akin.
another reason for sola scriptura failure. In the story of Jonah and the Whale (which we all know) Jonah-boat-great fish-Nineveh. When I went online, so many in order to believe the story as literal, try to use non-biblical references to how a man could survive in a whales stomach for 3 days and 3 nights. In fact, all the pictures shows us a prophet inside a whales stomach, in the depths of the sea. However, this is where sola scriptura really fails. To say that "Jonah was swallowed by, and in the belly of a great fish,", means verbatim, verbatim "Jonah was surrounded by and in the center of a huge wave". So is someone is lying here? In Jonah's prayer, as soon as Jonah is swallowed, he is on the shoreline, and has complete understanding of his surroundings, and there is no mention of an actual fish. In Jonah's prayer chapter 4 "you threw me into the deep, the heart (belly) of the sea" what no fish? no the sea. The floods closed in (swallowed) around me. So what swallowed Jonah? evidently, it was the flood waters. "all you waves and billows passed over me"??? That totally tells us that Jonah is on the shoreline for this whole ordeal. 'Breakers and billows' are those tiny waves found on the shore, and they are 'passing over him', which tells us that Jonah's on the shoreline for this whole ordeal. He also says 'seaweed twining around my neck'... this sure does not sound like he's actually in a fish. So why is it, that the majority of so called "bible only" scholars miss this style of reading? In fact, this prayer is very closely related to psalm 69, and in fact, the prayer language is used quite often in the of the psalms. In fact, in the book of psalms the waves have teeth. The reason the Catholic church rock is because we can read it with varying difference, with mutual respect for others. In fact, we know through the church, that Jonah's prayer was a common prayer at that time.
As I work logically through Sola scriptura, practicality speaking, Protestants therefore can debunk shared claims from Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox beliefs and therefore hold different views like credo baptism, Once saved always saved, ecclesiological matters etc because the Bible “says otherwise” (their interpretation) Just a strange paradigm to me the shift. But I guess if it’s false then so much falls apart. But to their defense, God tucked away the “true” church only to have a coming out party at Martin’s house.
You've got to really parse Scripture closely, and throw out a few dozen verses, to adhere to SS. So, why SS? Does the Bible scream it out full throated? No. IMHO, the reason is simple: without an authoritative Church, what other choice is there? SS is less a doctrine than a description.
I disagree. In order to believe in SS, what you have to do is assume what you're trying to prove.
This is the Protestant way, an inheritance from Luther himself who admits straight up that it was his doubts about his security that drove him to find doctrines in the Scriptures that seemed to him to provide it. His descendants do precisely the same thing with every one of their doctrines. Scripture must conform to their preconceived 'druthers or else Scripture is wrong and must be interpreted into conformity. They assume what they claim to prove.
Akin said that the term sola scriptura was used in a different way and they changed it. How can it be proven? Someone has any documamtation about any old sola definition?
Jimmy is the man.
we owe the new testament to the catholic church
I don't understand that. Please explain?
@@jakehccc1
if it were not for the holy roman catholic church which rose to power after the conversion of constantine...
we may not have the new testament canon as we know it today! we may have over a hundred gospels, apocalyptic and gnosis writings ! the roman catholic church established orthodoxy , either compiled, redacted or wrote or rewrote text based on later declared heretic marcion of sinope's collection of 11 letters of paul & one gospel ( and they added some more ) and either burned or destroyed what they deemed heretical..
and we only found and know of them again in the last 200 yrs..
and please do not forget that christianity started and flourish for almost 400 yrs without the new testament canon
thats a lie
@@billbrasky12
who do you think compiled, edited, redacted and imposed the new testament canon and also confiscated, burned & destroyed the hundreds of other gospels, acts and apocalyptic and gnostic writings ( every group or sect has their own sacred writings) the church deemed heretical?
we are just lucky now that most of them are found again so that we could have a chance to read it and know how diverse early christianity really was
@ranilodicen4460
Because they weren't the CATHOLIC CHURCH..The demonic entity filled with blasphemous and heretical teachings was NOT around when the Bible was being compiled.
The CC is a demonic institution filled with corruption and persecution of the saints. It values man's word over God's word..and they admit it.
History aline shows the raoes, corruption, worldliness for power, politics of mankind and worldly riches and gain..
Wake up..I did by the grace of God.
Some of these arguments are amazing. I mean, just the advent of the printing press in 1400s, after which the Protestants began to really push Sola Scriptura is probably enough to refute it right there. Not to mention the process of arriving at the Canon. If Jesus wanted Sola Scriptura, surely He would have hurried his apostles along in this regard.
I find this very imprecise.
Jimmy, how do you know they went by “experience” in deciding if the Gentiles needs to become a Jew first or not? What are you basing that off of?
No discussion of theopneustos in a video like this? And does Jimmy think that oral tradition Paul commends to Timothy in 2 Tim included the Marian dogmas? If so, any way to prove that?
That’s a great question.
Thirty Nine Articles of Religion
6. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: , nor may be proved
thereby, In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and
New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.
In other words, the Canon of Scripture, with the exeption of very few books that establish itself as inspired, is not required to be believed as an article of the Faith.
Without that canon there is no bible at all. Even a self established book is useless since nothing about it can be believed without an outside source confirming that it is inspired.
It seems to me that the enterprise of Sola Scriptura (really, Prima Scriptura) is simply the claim that only that which is God-breathed has ultimate authority over the Church and that which the Church must submit to. The Apostolic deposit (both oral and written) has this ultimate authority. And so that's what the Church must submit to. And the Apostolic deposit is only preserved to us in the writings of the New Testament. That collection of writings is the last will and testament of the New Covenant. Similar to how if a family member leaves a will. That will is what the family must appeal to. You cannot add to it. You can only do what it says.
Basically, we need to listen to the Apostles. Their collection of writings is the last will and testament of the New Covenant. Nobody else has the same level of authority that they do, not even the Church. And even Catholics admit to this in principle when they say that, unlike the Apostles, the Church cannot give us new revelation. They can only preserve and protect what was already given. So, like with the example of the family will, the Church is only here as trustee to defend and protect this last will and testament of the Apostles. And again, like a trustee, they cannot write additions to the will. This implicitly concedes that the Church does not have the same level of authority as the Apostles did.
So why is this such an issue?
The oral and written traditions Paul was referring to were the oral and written traditions amongst the Jews at the time. He was not referring to the oral and written traditions in the RCC we see today.
@@soteriology400 to be fair in 2 Thess 2:15, the oral and written traditions Paul was referring to were not those from the Jews. They were those from the Apostles.
But yes you are right. You will not find all the RCC dogmas in the traditions Paul was speaking of.
@@theosophicalwanderings7696 The apostles and Paul were Jews. The apostles (other than Paul) shared the news with other Jews (exception, Peter with the Cornelius household in Acts 10, this was the official transition of the gospel going from the Jews to the Gentiles, then Paul, apostle to the Gentiles, came on the scene.). The oral traditions amongst the Jews, had rabbis repeating over and over the scriptures with the disciples. The other oral tradition, Jesus spoke, the apostles shared what He said with the Jews. Then Paul came on the scene to share with the Gentiles. This could be the only oral tradition he was referring too, repeating the things Christ said, down to the Gentiles. During this time, the Jews were a light unto the Gentiles, fulfilling Isaiah. As far as written tradition, it were Jews only (Romans 3:2). All of the epistles were written by those whom God considered to be Jews. This includes Luke, who was a Gentile, but was a Judaizer or Hellenistic Jew and knew the scriptures quite well (was considered a kinsmen, Romans 16:21). The written tradition was never handed to the Gentiles, this is why the closed canon is the way it is. Interesting though, Acts 17:10-12, was a tradition that was handed to the Greeks (Gentiles) but the RCC rejects it.
@@theosophicalwanderings7696 hello friend, your initial comment is very detailed, thanks ! Who approved the selection of writings that make up "scripture" or as we would call it, "the Bible" ?? You do understand that the scriptures did not somehow self-choose and assemble, yes ? If so then as Jimmy stated you must concede that the church was infalliby guided. As Jimmy Akin stated in the video, there were communities of Christians who were infallibly guided by God and the Holy Spirit to choose which writings went into the Bible. That was the church and it is still here today. Sorry, but there were no Protestant Christians running around in ancient Rome writing about sola scriptura !! As many here have already stated there is no evidence that sola scriptura existed anywhere in western or eastern Christendom before the 1500s. On the contrary it is complete innovation that came out of the reformation in western Europe fifteen hundred years after the apostles of Jesus lived !
@@theosophicalwanderings7696
Absolutely wrong ! The apostles are always appealing to the Old Testament to prove Christ was the savior. Philip and the Ethiopian.. Paul from scripture which is the Old Testament. Jesus calls the Old Testament, the word of God. Minus those seven books. Lol😂
And even in the book of Job Job says, I know my Redeemer lives, and will walk the Earth …
That’s the tradition
Very interesting thank you for sharing this. Historian Brad Gregory wrote a great book called, “The Unintended Reformation”. Check it out ! In it he says the reformers decided they wanted to “chuck” the “Roman” system, which they viewed as corrupt. In doing so they unfortunately chucked the entire apostolic system of traditions including things, like the mass, most of the sacraments, the priesthood, etc. It’s very curious…according to Gregory, one of the first things reformers like Luther and Zwingli did was to re-write the prayers of the mass and the liturgy in general, to erase any references to the real presence of the Eucharist. Big mistake ! The reformers did all this going by their own personal understanding of scripture.
Yes! I’ve had Brad on the show before. He was fantastic!
@@TheCordialCatholic hello yes I viewed prof. Gregory’s interview on your show. It was fantastic thank you for sharing that. I don’t recall if I had come across reference to his books beforehand. But after seeing that interview it helped me to understand his book about the reformation and Luther much better. I basically shared the interview with everyone I know. Thank you again for doing this ! PS I also very much enjoyed the interview with Brett Salkeld, about transubstantiation. (I think I spelled that right.) Got his book too ! Thank you again for taking on these extremely interesting topics of the faith and helping people like me understand these things better.
Yes, as they should. Blasphemous Heretical doctrines of demons
Communion
How do you labor for the food that endures to eternal life? Believe in me! (John 6:27, 29) “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me [in faith] shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.” (John 6:35) “For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” (John 6:40) “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.” (John 6:47)
When the crowd took offense at his gruesome talk, Jesus exposed their unbelief: “The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe” (John 6:63-64).
don't stop on v53, John 6:60-61,63 KJV
Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? [61] When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? [63] It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. -> you see, Jesus clarified on v63 that the WORDS HE SPAKE ARE SPIRIT, not LITERAL.
-John 6:35
Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.--unquote
Obviously you have NO understanding of that verse!!!!
READ IT AGAIN!!! "he who comes to Me will not hunger"- his body
"he who believes in Me will never thirst.-"--His blood!!!
Whomever FOLLOWS Jesus will NOT hunger--due to His words!!!
Whomever BELIEVES in Jesus will NOT THIRST--due to His words!!!
>>>>th-cam.com/video/cmVWzhM8Bbk/w-d-xo.html
The Atonement: The Strongest Refutation of Rome's Eucharistic Errors
>>>>>>>
Early church leaders knew nothing of transubstantiation.
The eucharist hardly makes any exegetical since to start with.
Tradition cannot be the will of God if it goes against the word of God.
Jesus uses parallelism in this discourse to equate believing with eating his flesh. Note the parallel between verse 40 and verse 54:
(Jn. 6:40) “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”
(Jn. 6:54) “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
.>>According to this parallel, beholding and believing (v.40) are equated with eating and drinking Christ’s flesh (v.54). This is further paralleled by verse 35:
>>(Jn. 6:35) I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.
>>(Jn. 6:54) “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
>>>To “hunger” and “thirst” and parallel to the one who “eats” and “drinks.” But note what Jesus says satisfies our hunger: “He who comes to Me… he who believes in Me.” Jesus isn’t speaking about his literal flesh and blood any more than he is speaking about literal bread (Jn. 6:35) or literal water (Jn. 4:10-14). Indeed, Jesus uses the term sarx for his “body,” rather than the common term sōma (which was the common term used in the Lord’s Supper). Indeed, the “term ‘flesh’ is never used in the NT to refer to the Lord’s Supper.”[4] Hence, this seems “to caution against a sacramental or eucharistic understand of these verses.”[5] This is why Augustine of Hippo wrote regarding this passage: “Believe, and you have eaten.”
>>Jesus works in metaphor’s, analogy and hyperbole. In Mark 8 Jesus uses bread language again anhesd calls out those confused thinking he’s being literal not realizing the spiritual message.
>>The catholic reasoning system will have little influence on the born again believer who’s truly born of the spirit. Those like my self who exegete and derive revelation from the spirit see the heretical lie of transubstantiation.
>>>Irenaeus of Lyons (AD 180) stated that the elements do not lose the nature of bread and wine (Against Heresies, 4.18.4-5; 5.2.2).
>>>Tertullian (AD 200) said Jesus’ statement was figurative (Against Marcion, 3.19).
>>>Clement of Alexandria (AD 200) called the bread and wine symbols of Jesus’ body (The Instructor, I.6).
>>>Origen (AD 250) held his typical allegorical and spiritual view when referring to the elements in the Last Supper.
>>>>Eusebius of Caesarea (AD 340) called the elements the body and blood of Christ, but also referred to them as symbolic of spiritual realities (On the Theology of the Church, 3.2.12).
>>>Augustine (AD 350) believed that John 6:53 should be understood spiritually and symbolically-not literalistically (On Christian Doctrine 3.16.2).
Gelasius I (5th century pope): “The sacrament which we receive of the body and blood of Christ is a divine thing. Wherefore also by means of it we are made partakers of the divine nature. Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease to be… Thus, as the elements pass into this, that is, the divine substance by the Holy Ghost, and none the less remain in their own proper nature.”
I've taken notes lol
In a world of false prophets, "I just have a perplexing question for Jimmy's opponents" JM, White, Sproul and those certain they have been foreknown, predestined and saved:- what is the point trying to save those God has eternally forsaken?
How do u feel towards others, like us Catholics? You know the ones fearful and trembling,
Trying to work out their Salvation,
Hoping that we won't fall away while keeping the faith,
Trying to remember what we were taught from the beginning,
Knowing that we must remain in Him for Him to remain in us,
As "co labourers" with Christ, branches attached to the True Vine producing good fruit,
While persevering to the very end,
Painfully believing that with full knowledge and consent (freewill), we must live out the Sermon on the Mount
If we are to be 'welcomed home as my good and faithful SERVANT ",
But wait, not every we re told, who calls on name of the Lord, will be saved.
Unlike self anointed elect, we must assume nothing. We believe Scripture in that everyone must face Jesus and his angels when we die. We re told the "book of Life" will be opened and all our WORKS revealed: our good works, Works of God in us and works of the flesh will be laid out to be accounted for.
Lastly, is there any point of u praying for, or trying to evangelize all those apparently 'totally depraved' souls like me, who according to your reformed theology, were damned. Some even suggest, there must have been a random Predestination lottery of a capricious deity invented by John Calvin? I'm hoping you treat this as a serious question.
Gal 1:8 backs up SS. Authority rests in the Gospel given from the beginning. Any angel or olpope that speaks against the Gospel is anathema.
You: Gal 1:8 backs up SS. "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God's curse!" That is about the gospel that they PREACHED. The apostles considered their PRECHING as good as their writing.
@bridgefin you miss the point. We have what they preached written down... now we compare any new ideas... from the time of Paul till the present... compare the ideas to the teachings we have written down.
Any contradiction between new ideas... no matter how old... we trust the written Gospel and anathema the tradition that conflicts.
@@davidboyer2290
You: We have what they preached written down.
Me: Was it authoritative WHEN it was SPOKEN????? Before it was written down? If it was then SS is proven false. And that goes especially for Jesus and his preaching TO HIS audience!
"While it EASIER to live as a Protestant, it easier to die as a Catholic".
Martin Luther
Nice quotation!
1 Corinthians 11:16 But if anyone is inclined to be argumentative, we do not have such a custom, (tradition) nor do the churches of God.
1 Corinthians 7:40 She is more blessed, though in my opinion, if she remains as she is, and I (Paul) think that I too have the Spirit of God.
there is nothing by itself that says sola scriptura exists, but there is strong evidence in scripture that the word of God is pre-emanant. this is not a misadventure here and there, but clearly stated multiple times in scripture.
Where?
It amazes me some of these people with such intellect. We run in circles and do mental, jumping jacks to try to justify what they believe. Why can’t Faith just be simple? Jesus died on the cross to save us from sins. We have the Holy Spirit we can have discernment and wisdom, and knowledge granted to us directly from God. We don’t need anyone else to interject on our behalf except Christ.
@@Joe-rd8mqthat mode of thinking got us 40,000 denominations that can’t agree. Where does the Bible tell us which books are scripture? Christ clearly established his church.
@@Joe-rd8mqTell that to the Apostles.
@@Joe-rd8mq Ah, yes, I suppose that's why the Apostles kept running around baptising people and forgiving sins and distributing Holy Communion (as they were instructed by Christ to do), and why all of the early Church Fathers and their descendants continued to do the same for 1500+ years. Hmm....
going after Pope Gavin new definition?
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
04:11 *📜 The Protestant understanding of Sola Scriptura has evolved over time, with recent definitions emphasizing scripture as the sole infallible rule of faith.*
10:23 *💡 Catholicism views divine revelation as transmitted through both scripture and Apostolic tradition, interpreted authoritatively by the magisterium, while Protestantism generally asserts scripture as the sole authoritative source.*
18:52 *🤔 A key Protestant argument for Sola Scriptura is that scripture is the only reliable source of divine revelation left from the time of Christ and the apostles, discounting the necessity of tradition and authority.*
21:09 *🌊 Apostolic traditions, not explicitly recorded in scripture, can offer valuable insights into Christian practices, such as baptism, shedding light on scriptural ambiguities.*
24:52 *💡 The argument against sola scriptura often involves the claim that traditions can change over time, such as the Catholic Church's stance on the death penalty.*
25:34 *🧠 The challenge to sola scriptura is not about the existence of Apostolic traditions but rather distinguishing between authentic Apostolic traditions and later developments, a task assigned to the magisterium.*
28:20 *📜 The formation of the Canon of scripture involved the discernment of Apostolic tradition by the magisterium, using criteria such as widespread liturgical use and doctrinal consistency.*
34:43 *🛠️ Sola scriptura is a later development in Christian history, emerging after the availability of printed scriptures following Johannes Gutenberg's invention of the printing press.*
49:11 *📚 The rise of sola scriptura coincided with the accessibility of scriptures due to the invention of the printing press, allowing individuals outside wealthy or institutional circles to own and interpret scripture independently.*
49:53 *📜 Sola Scriptura couldn't have been implemented before widespread literacy and the printing press, indicating it wasn't God's plan forthe average Christian.*
51:32 *💡 The sufficiency of scripture is problematic as it's self-refuting and not explicitly mentioned in scripture itself.*
53:19 *🧠 Asserting Sola Scriptura as a presupposition or perligamanon is an attempt to evade proving it as a teaching, which is insufficient.*
55:03 *💬 Ecumenism should not compromise core doctrines, and unity should be within the framework of doctrine, not above it.*
58:32 *🛑 Relying solely on the Bible for Christian unity leads to division due to diverse interpretations and lacks an interactive source like the magisterium.*
01:06:18 *🔍 Problems with Sola Scriptura run deeper than practical issues; it conflicts with the apostolic paradigm and lacks support from Scripture for a post-apostolic age.*
👍🙏
I don’t agree with Jimmy Akin on Ignatius. The Greek word that has been translated to “bishop” is actually “overseer”. Paul was an overseer. There is no such thing as authority over others on what they have to believe. That is not found in scripture (seat of Moses demonstrated why this shouldn’t be, with the scribes and Pharisees). I also think the writings of Ignatius has been modified. I read with caution, and question things. I don’t see Jimmy Akin doing that.
Not very big on Jesus, are you? Jesus demands that you obey him, and obeying him requires that you understand what he's demanding--unless you want to take the position that he doesn't care how you interpret him, which does seem to be your (rather peculiar and impossible) argument.
Understanding what the law intends requires an authority to determine what the words of the law mean. Otherwise, they mean both anything and nothing; otherwise, anyone could go before the judge and say, "Sorry, your honor, I thought your homicide law meant that I was to kill as many innocent people as possible," or that "it commanded me to eat licorice," or any other thing under the sun.
So there must be an ultimate authority providing the true meaning of the words, which is precisely why Jesus left us one. He left us one and protected it by divine decree--the guardianship and guidance of the Holy Spirit--against error. He left us his holy Catholic Church and her magisterium.
@@jimnewl Magisterium came in the 1800’s (during the era of cults). Hebrews 11:6, John 1:1 refutes such a concept .
@@CatholicDefender-bp7myYou haven’t even thought through what I wrote.
Overseer... like the "See" of a particular diocese... I guess there's no jugyo in Korea or obispo in Spain if there are no bishops! 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Seriously, bro. Etymology exists.
@@soteriology400 Not only did we "think through" what you wrote. We *see* theough what you wrote! 😂
🎉
👍
Scripture = Tradition
2 Thess 2:15
No apostles taught infant baptism.
Faith proceeds baptism according to apostolic tradition found in Scripture.
Romans 10:17 Faith comes by HEARING the Word of God.
Faith does not come by you parents, but only by you hearing and believing the Word of God, then obeying that Word of God.
Circumcision does NOT equal baptism. This is idiotic to claim.
Colossians 2:11-12 compares the "cutting off" in and of itself.
John the baptizer was the forerunner of Christian baptism, not mosaic circumcision. Circumcision was ONLY for boys, could circumcision be for girl babies too??? Uh....yes! So why not? Why not circumcise girl babies under the Law of Moses? Why only boys when baptism is for All?
Catholicism is simply man made religion, a clear deviation from apostolic traditions. So all catholics are lost to hell just like protestants are.
Does scripture in any way give any doubt about the validity of scripture? No, it is reliable.
Does scripture in any way give doubt to the validity of the Holy Spirit? No, the Spirit is reliable.
Does scripture in any way give doubt on traditions, yes.
The scriptures may not be completely, but the Spirit that indwells in you when you have faith is complete.
And traditions created by men are unreliable.
These "traditions created by men" include those initiated by Jesus Christ, when He granted Peter the keys to the Kingdom and gave the Apostles the authority to forgive sins and Baptise in His name and distribute Holy Communion.
You: And traditions created by men are unreliable.
Me: One of those traditions is the canon of Scripture without which there is no bible.
@@bridgefin Also, funny thing, the Greek word used for "Tradition" in the New Testament is synonymous with "Teaching," and Protestant Bibles are filled with selective editing, particularly where St. Paul explicitly tells the disciples to embrace this "Tradition/Teaching."
Matt 18:18-20 = Acts 15
Christ commanded His apostles to agree TOGETHER, at least two or more concerning ALL MATTERS!
So Peter alone is not allowed by Jesus Christ! He specifically taught them to not act alone, Acts 15 it not Peter alone, but James AND Peter together to pass judgment. James binded on gentiles to abstain from blood and idolatry, fornication, Peter loosed circumcision.
So a pope alone is NOT from Jesus Christ. So all you catholics are heretics according to the very command of Jesus Christ in scripture.
No papacy, no catholicism.
Sorry, but in Matt 16:16 Christ states that the Church would be built on Peter. "Blessed on you Simon son of Jonah...For I say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church. And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bond in heaven and whatever you lose on earth shall be loosed in heaven". Jesus didn't tell all the apostles that they were all to receive the keys of heaven, only Peter. It's evident that Peter had a special position in the eyes of Christ. In John 21:14 Jesus asks Peter if he loves him and in reply to Peter stating yes Jesus states "Feed my Sheep".Peter clearly had a predominant role to play and Peter was the founder of the Roman Church and the first Pope. You can disagree with that premise, but to teach that Peter is not the Rock on which Christ built his church is unbiblical and ahistorical.
@@jeffreyworthington2772 what does Ephesians 2:19-22 say?
What does 1 Peter 2:4-9 say?
Two different passages, one Paul, the other PETER BOTH CLARIFY that ALL CHRISTIANS ARE ROCKS OF THE CHURCH!!!!
So the individual occasion in Matt 16 is relevant to all Christians, it's a generalized statement. So my position has clear scriptural evidence, your fake church took centuries to invent. Catholicism is no better off than the protestants, you are all man made religions who overrule the apostolic authority.
Jesus never declared sola scriptura, it is a false doctrine. Stop rejecting the authority of the church. Jesus never gave authority to Mike Winger's opinion
I reject the traditions of men! Test all things through scripture! Period!
The cannon of scripture is a tradition.
@@sjordaan04 And there is no bible without that canon.
Having someone decide for me an interpretation sounds a lot like a cult.
You might be correct if this book fell out of the sky.
But it didn't, it came with a Church and those who were taught if not by Jesus, then those that they taught, the bishops that the Apostles taught. Or the Bishops the Bishops taught.
St. Paul comes to mind with his many letters to the different churches who were one. Some of which came up with incorrect teachings and were corrected in their own interpretation they had decided on.
@@dave_ecclectic Thoughts on Romans 3:2?
@@soteriology400
It doesn't' mean anything.
_Much in every way. First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God._
You have taken too little a slice of Scripture. Thats probably why that guy Roman wrote another 29 sentences and one before.
Mark 1:33
What would you say are the signs or requirements of a cult?
@@dave_ecclectic "It doesn't mean anything". The bible we have today were written by Jews, not Gentiles. Vision and prophecy has already been sealed up (revelation 10:4) since the house of Israel will never be back again and no need for anymore prophecy. It was a pretty big deal at the time the writings were made.
To answer your question, signs of a cult. When people elevate someone to the same status as Jesus. When people don't do their own homework to study the scriptures and just go by what they been told due to "authority". When a person thinks their church teachings are 100% correct on everything, denying fallibility of the fallen nature. When one thinks their church is the one true church and everyone else is a false church. Those are traits of a cult.
@@soteriology400
Luke was a Gentile.
Luke Col 4:10-14 (not of the circumcised)
I have no idea why you bring this up or how it is in connection with a single sentence.
Your definition of a cult is your own, you won't find it anywhere. I mean you can't simply invent your own meaning of a word.
As an example of how off the mark you are.
_ everyone else is a false church_ This is not a requirement of a cult.
This is a very short list and not anywhere complete, but all of them are false.
Circumcisers, Gnosticism, Montanism, Sabellianism, Arianism, Pelagianism
It is just a fact of history that Christians stopped living a pure Christian life and the Holy Spirit is now not written in our hearts, but the Holy Spirit now comes to us through reading the scripture.
a fact, because you say so?
@@fantasia55 no, because doctor of the faith and Saint John Chrysostom said so:
It were indeed meet for us not at all to require the aid of the written Word, but to exhibit a life so pure, that the grace of the Spirit should be instead of books to our souls, and that as these are inscribed with ink, even so should our hearts be with the Spirit. But, since we have utterly put away from us this grace, come, let us at any rate embrace the second best course.
For that the former was better, God has made manifest, both by His words, and by His doings. Since unto Noah, and unto Abraham, and unto his offspring, and unto Job, and unto Moses too, He discoursed not by writings, but Himself by Himself, finding their mind pure. But after the whole people of the Hebrews had fallen into the very pit of wickedness, then and thereafter was a written word, and tables, and the admonition which is given by these.
And this one may perceive was the case, not of the saints in the Old Testament only, but also of those in the New. For neither to the apostles did God give anything in writing, but instead of written words He promised that He would give them the grace of the Spirit: for "He," says our Lord, "shall bring all things to your remembrance." John 14:26 And that you may learn that this was far better, hear what He says by the Prophet: "I will make a new covenant with you, putting my laws into their mind, and in their heart I will write them," and, "they shall be all taught of God." And Paul too, pointing out the same superiority, said, that they had received a law "not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart."
But since in process of time they made shipwreck, some with regard to doctrines, others as to life and manners, there was again need that they should be put in remembrance by the written word.
@weaponofchoice-tc7qs I didn't make that up: John Chrysostom did:
It were indeed meet for us not at all to require the aid of the written Word, but to exhibit a life so pure, that the grace of the Spirit should be instead of books to our souls, and that as these are inscribed with ink, even so should our hearts be with the Spirit. But, since we have utterly put away from us this grace, come, let us at any rate embrace the second best course.
For that the former was better, God has made manifest, both by His words, and by His doings. Since unto Noah, and unto Abraham, and unto his offspring, and unto Job, and unto Moses too, He discoursed not by writings, but Himself by Himself, finding their mind pure. But after the whole people of the Hebrews had fallen into the very pit of wickedness, then and thereafter was a written word, and tables, and the admonition which is given by these.
And this one may perceive was the case, not of the saints in the Old Testament only, but also of those in the New. For neither to the apostles did God give anything in writing, but instead of written words He promised that He would give them the grace of the Spirit: for "He," says our Lord, "shall bring all things to your remembrance." John 14:26 And that you may learn that this was far better, hear what He says by the Prophet: "I will make a new covenant with you, putting my laws into their mind, and in their heart I will write them," and, "they shall be all taught of God." And Paul too, pointing out the same superiority, said, that they had received a law "not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart."
But since in process of time they made shipwreck, some with regard to doctrines, others as to life and manners, there was again need that they should be put in remembrance by the written word.
@@georgwagner937 I'm confused. Are you trying to use that as an argument for Sola Scriptura, for which it is laughably insufficient, or are you referring to something completely unrelated?
2 Timothy 3 16-17 "all scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching for for training in righteousness so that the man of God may be adequate equipped for EVRY good work"
Seems to me there is defense for sola scriptura within scripture
Does say ONLY Scripture which is kind of the point.
@@TheCordialCatholic I'm not following you
i would really like to continue this conversation what do you mean by what you said?@@TheCordialCatholic
@@rogaldorn2885
It doesn't say, "all scripture is the ONLY THING that is God-breathed...".
@@geogabegalan no but it does say every good work so if everything I need is in the bible why do I need to look at other things when the bible says it's all I need. Other Epistle say it's all I need and the very next chapter of 2 Timothy Paul writes to him preach the WORD and not to delve into myth that ruins the hearer
Allways rcc and their word plays and salads , The Bible is Gods Word , said and done!
So what the RCC is saying that the Bible has not all the answers,thus is in error! Isn't that what the Muslims say ,that's why Muhammed was given the truth by an angel ,for scripture has some errors ,this Muslim tradition, even the Mormons say Joseph had an angel tell him the same scripture has errors this book of Mormon ,it's all the same not abiding by God's word in scripture!
It’s the rejection of Sola Scriptura that has caused Rome to embrace false doctrines such the papacy, the Marian dogmas and purgatory. None of these doctrines are taught in Scripture.
They are in the Bible, right next to the word Trinity.
hello friend good point. And I suppose the many different teachings of the 30,000 Protestant denominations in America are in the Bible, correct 😂😂
@@HoMegasTaxiarches no.
Sola Scriptura is not taught in the Bible as well.
@@gch8810 what is Sola Scriptura?
Chronic misrepresentation of ss, as always.
"The Bible is a Catholic Book...: True. But to be more specific, the Catholics and Jews gave us the Masoretic Old Testament, but the Early Church and the Eastern Orthodox gave us the Septuagint. I'm an Anglican so I have the liberty to choose the most reliable family text type. The Eastern Church got it right and Rome and the Protestants made an error. Go back to the Greek OT.
Hello friend, when St. Jerome translated the Vulgate--which became the standard Latin translation of the Bible used by the Catholic Church until the 1900s--he relied on the Septuagint and some Hebrew and Aramaic texts for the OT, and Greek and Latin manuscripts for the NT. The eariest complete Hebrew masoretic text of the OT and Pslams is contained in something called the Leningrad Codex which dates to about 1000 AD. Therefore St. Jerome could not have relied on Hebrew masoretic texts of the OT when writing the Vulgate because they did not exist ! In contrast the Catholic Church has always emphasized the Vulgate and the Greek Septuagint as the key texts of the OT and NT. For example see the history of the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus, which are most likely the oldest manuscripts in existence containing the Septuagint. These pre-date the Codex Leningrad by about 700 years !
Isn't the OT essentially the Torah (which wasn't written in Greek)? Why wouldn't the Hebrew be more accurate?
Apostle John commanded people to not believe everyone, but TEST them to see if they are truthful or if they are false prophets in 1 John 4:1.
Apostle Paul commanded us to Prove all things. So how do catholic people prove/test all things to see if their magisterium is not actually lying to them? Catholics don't allow anyone to test them. They use circular reasoning claiming "this is what the apostles handed down to us," even though they have no way of proving that because history from early writers proves catholicism was just another man made development. So catholicism wasn't from the apostles but from men long after the apostles died.
John 10:35 Christ said scripture cannot be broken. Yet catholicism brakes scriptures, therefore catholicism is false.
Jesus Christ said " Heaven and earth shall pass away , but My Word shall never pass away." The catholic church and it's self made doctrines do not follow Jesus. The carnal catholic church shall pass away.
“On this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.” Jesus Christ
@@johng7681 The catholic church is clearly not His church.
@@francissweeney7318and yet, here we still remain, as the Protestant smorgasbord continues to proliferate as one decides they must move across the street because their current church no longer preaches what they want to hear!!
@@francissweeney7318 Except it clearly is.
@@ignatiusjackson235Only to the blind and deaf. The history of the catholic church is a sordid story of disobedience to God and unbridled pridefulness.
The first 10 minutes demonstrates that this will not be a robust and accurate grappling with sola scriptura or the sufficiency of scripture (yet again). sigh...
Thanks for watching the first 10 minutes at least. 🤪
@@TheCordialCatholic 😆 you're welcome? The Catholic Apologetics world need to take some time dialoguing with good protestant thinkers about sola scriptura in an attempt to understand rather than refute.
As someone discerning Catholicism, I want to hear the Catholic response to sola scriptura (it's not something I'm sure I believe), but they don't accurately represent sola scriptua and so the responses don't carry much weight.
@@pigetstuckWhere are you at now, friend?
@@lyterman I don't understand your question.
@@pigetstuck You said you were discerning Catholicism and trying to find good resources on Sola Scriptura. Where are you at with that?
And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, *which are able to make thee wise unto salvation* through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, *throughly furnished unto all good works*
{2 Timothy 3:15-17}
Thou through thy commandments hast made me wiser than mine enemies: for they are ever with me.
I have more understanding than all my teachers: *for thy testimonies are my meditation*
{Psalm 119:98-99}
*Thy word* is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.
{Psalm 119:105}
The entrance of thy words giveth light; *it giveth understanding unto the simple*
{Psalm 119:130}
The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, *making wise the simple*
{Psalm 19:7}
Jesus taught using sola scriptura!
But he answered and said, "IT IS WRITTEN, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.”
{Matthew 4:4}
Jesus said unto him, "IT IS WRITTEN again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.”
{Matthew 4:7}
Then saith Jesus unto him, "Get thee hence, Satan: for IT IS WRITTEN Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.”
{Matthew 4:10}
“For this is he, of whom IT IS WRITTEN, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.”
{Matthew 11:10}
And said unto them, "IT IS WRITTEN, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.”
{Matthew 21:13}
Then saith Jesus unto them, "All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for IT IS WRITTEN, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.”
{Matthew 26:31}
He answered and said unto them, "Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as IT IS WRITTEN, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me."
{Mark 7:6}
And he answered and told them, "Elias verily cometh first, and restoreth all things; and how IT IS WRITTEN of the Son of man, that he must suffer many things, and be set at nought.
But I say unto you, That Elias is indeed come, and they have done unto him whatsoever they listed, as IT IS WRITTEN of him.”
{Mark 9:12-13}
“The Son of man indeed goeth, as IT IS WRITTEN of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born.”
{Mark 14:21}
And Jesus saith unto them, "All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for IT IS WRITTEN, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered."
{Mark 14:27}
“IT IS WRITTEN in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.”
{John 6:45}
“Search THE SCRIPTURES; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.”
{John 5:39}
And he said unto them, "Full well you reject *the commandment of God* that you may keep your own TRADITION."
...
“Making *the word of God* of none effect through your TRADITION, which you have
delivered: and many such like things you do.”
{Mark 7:9&13}
But he answered and said unto them, "Why do you also transgress *the commandment of God* by your TRADITION?”
{Matthew 15:3}
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the TRADITION OF MEN, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
{Colossians 2:8}
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he [Jesus] expounded unto them *in all the scriptures* the things concerning himself.
{Luke 24:27}
*Tradition* in the context of men
Greek παράδοσις / paradosis = 666
by counting the letter values of the Greek transliteration;
P(80), A(1), R(100), A(1), D(4), O(70), S(200), I(10), S(200).
Which scriptures was Jesus referring to when je said, "It is written"? Surely not the New testament.
@@jemts5586
What difference could that possibly make?!
@@larrybedouin2921
You're in support of Sola scriptura, so which scripture should you be using, if Jesus himself was always referring to the old testament? I just thought that was an interesting idea for another point about the old law supposedly being abolished.
Anyway, I'm sure that as a Jew, Jesus would've also followed oral traditions regarding practice and interpretation of scripture. Why would that be different now?
@@jemts5586
Jesus chastised the scribes and the Pharisees for their traditions.
And he said unto them, "Full well you reject *the commandment of God* that you may keep your own TRADITION."
...
“Making *the word of God* of none effect through your TRADITION, which you have
delivered: and many such like things you do.”
{Mark 7:9&13}
“For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the *tradition of men* as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.”
{Mark 7:8}
Paul,
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the *tradition of men* after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
{Colossians 2:8}
Sola Scriptura... is the only thing that makes sense. It stands to reason that if we are judged by God's word he is expecting us to interpret that word. When God speaks in these latter days it is to all men (people) everywhere.
So Jesus was NOT authoritative when he SPOKE to his audiences? At that moment it was not Scripture. Without the help of the gospel writers is Jesus authoritative on his own? If he is then SS is disproved since God's oral word is also authoritative.
@@bridgefin * So Jesus was NOT authoritative when he SPOKE to his audiences? * It is points like that one that lead me to believe that Catholics and denominationalists do not really cognate what being under covenant means. You see it all the time when people say... we are in the covenant of grace neglecting that you have to enter into agreement (you have to sign the contract). Catholics baptize babies... when everyone knows that babies cannot enter into a legal agreement... they don't understand (trying to babtize a baby is in vain). That's why I said... Catholics do not baptize anyone. Because they do not do it by faith. So they believe in baptismal regeneration but they do not cognate that it is a burial and that is why there needed to be 'much water there'. No to them it is just as good to cut a corner and justify it by their tradition. Jesus preached against doing that... making void the word of God through your traditions. Now specifically... Jesus is the testator. His first coming was to do two things from a legal standpoint. To close out the first covenant... and to present the second covenant. Once it is codified you cannot abrogate it.
@@bridgefin * So Jesus was NOT authoritative when he SPOKE to his audiences? * Jesus having authority is not the same as people who don't have it claiming that they do.
@@bridgefin * At that moment it was not Scripture. * As a matter of faith... it was. The plan of salvation existed before the something needing salvation had been created. That is in Genesis.
@@bridgefin * Without the help of the gospel writers is Jesus authoritative on his own? * Again... the issue is not Jesus' authority. It is the range and scope of the authority that your catholic leaders usurp.
sola scriptura has to be rejected by the roman catholic church, because the bible clearly rejects roman catholic man-made doctrines and practices, such as the pope, doctrines of mariology, the establishment of a celibate priesthood, that salvation is not by Christ alone (the roman catholic church insists traditions (which are NOT traditions of the 1st or 4th century Christian church) (and including the wicked mass (which is an offer to re-sacrifice Christ) and the magisterium are also necessary salvation, prayers to the dead, purgatory and more. however the roman catholic apologists do abuse parts of the bible to twist false arguments to support their man-made doctrines, ect.
Where does the Bible reject these things?
the establishment of your popes are NOT supported clearly by scripture. doctrines of mariology are not clearly in the bible at all. i believe these were the result of the roman empire putting pressure on the early 4th-5th century Christian church to adopt the pagan mother-son god relationship began in ancient sumer, and expanded to many provinces in the roman empire. Christianity taught obedience to authority, and the more converts thereof, would mean less rebellion to rome's authority. Christ's death on the cross as a total means of salvation is rejected by roman catholicism, as only a partial means of salvation, and that church "tradition" (roman catholic tradition is NOT the same as early church traditions) and the magisterium (which is NOT supported by scripture). the mass is a wicked ceremony, which rejects Christ's death on the cross as the sole means of salvation. your roman catholic priesthood was NOT fully established until the 12 century. purgatory is weakly supported by several referances in the n.t. and 2nd macabees which is correctly defined as apocrypha by luther, because there were no prophets at that time (prophets were the authors of the o.t., and the actors in that work, the jews reject the work itself. prayers to the dead are also based on 2nd macabees.@@TheCordialCatholic
@@manuelpompa-u5e The mass is remembering Jesus's sacrifice, so what do you mean it rejects it? The consumption of the bread and wine as body and blood is mentioned in the NT. "Do this in remembrance of me...". So, there *is* scriptural basis for the mass.
What is most problematic about people who never preach the Gospel but rather critique other Denominations Doctrines is that we live in a Culture that is powerfully becoming more Secular, hating GOD who are in a war against Christ and everything they stand for. All you do is divide Christian believers which is, exactly what Satan could hope for so, he can destroy Christian believers and in the process, The Church. He and you are doing a Great service to that end. The fact that you believe in Sola Scriptura or don't will have absolutely no impact on Salvation. If you remain a soldier of Satanic Objectives you can only be considered, a self serving enemy of Christ. I personally am tired and disgusted listening to alleged Christians who waste precious time and energy, telling us what they don't believe. A House Divided cannot and will not stand. Try serving Christ instead of Satan or you will have to answer to Christ at Judgment.
@@CatholicDefender-bp7my The two great evils with Catholic Responses; they never ever, directly answer a question and are masters at one line unintelligible, meaningless commentaries with no context only obfuscation and ambiguity.
@@CatholicDefender-bp7my
I have no problem with people who disagree with anything I said and I didn't demand an agreement. I appreciate response as both parties to a conversation can have a chance to digest another perspective that we might not have considered, however, I do have a problem with statements that can be taken several different ways and are so obscure, I have no clue if they are in agreement or not. Ex: "No judgment there, huh?" What does that actually mean and how does it relate to anything I said? Actual questions always have question marks ending a question! A question, is a means of communicating that doesn't require a particular answer, because it's a Question and not a declaritive statement.
There is no doubt that the bible, the word of God is the only source of truth from God Himself!!!
@weaponofchoice-tc7qs
The catholic church has nothing to do with Jesus.
the bible clearly says that scripture alone is plausible, many, many times. you are a false teacher. you will have to answer to Christ for your false teachings.
the roman catholic church fails to live up to the standards of Christ. salvation is by faith through grace in Jesus Christ alone. anyone who denies Christ as the sole means of salvation is in real serious trouble.
Where does the Roman Catholic Church deny Christ as the sole means of salvation?
ambiguity is the roman catholic crede. legalistic argument stacked on top of legalistic argument to bury the truth. sola scriptura forever!
Matt 18:18-20 = Acts 15
Christ commanded His apostles to agree TOGETHER, at least two or more concerning ALL MATTERS!
So Peter alone is not allowed by Jesus Christ! He specifically taught them to not act alone, Acts 15 it not Peter alone, but James AND Peter together to pass judgment. James binded on gentiles to abstain from blood and idolatry, fornication, Peter loosed circumcision.
So a pope alone is NOT from Jesus Christ. So all you catholics are heretics according to the very command of Jesus Christ in scripture.
No papacy, no catholicism.