@@poppy63765 Dont make he change his mind because of these stupid discussions whether you are baptist, catholic, presbyterian, orthodox or whatever. The only thing that matters is that he needs to turn to Christ.
Oh my word. People. Watch a whole video before you critique it. Im halfway in and there are some things i dont agree with (though so far overall good). But as a matter of intellectual integrity, you need to listen to a whole argument and try to represent what youre critiquing to earn the right to critique it. That really goes for any position you critique, theological or not. It's a matter of virtue. We Christians ought to be the best at doing this.
If the whole video was one argument, maybe. But as there are multiple points made anyone can respond to whichever point they want whenever they want. Probably best to try and get the point in it's entirety, but only if you're responding to the point. If you're responding to a single sentence made, then no, you're not required to watch their entire video collection before responding.
It's not exactly fair to put zoomer who has had like 3 informal debates with Trent who has been doing it for years. Trent talking with Jordan Cooper would be good though.
As a former Protestant, now Catholic, I appreciate the good-faith arguments made in your videos. I take these arguments seriously and give them careful consideration.
clown arguments. Just how the pharisees didnt realise the scriptures point to christ, so to the new testament to the Only Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. The problem is not the Bible being unclear but protestants taking ridiculous interpretations unfounded in the early church. With something as complicated as God and his plan for us, of course u can misinterpret it.
As long as you follow Christ and put your faith in Him, it's all good. I'm Reformed myself, but just like you and Redeemed Zoomer I have a pretty ecumenical approach. We should acknowledge the differences, while realising that we agree on most of the important issues, while disagreeing on the less important teachings.
Am I the only one from India who watch your Channel? I myself a Presbyterian, who follows Reform Presbyterian tradition. And i like teaching like this, even i follow ligonier ministry which sound similar like this. Thanks God for his miraculous work. God bless u man.
I'm from India aswell, and also follow Presbyterian traditions, we don't have a lot of Presbyterian churches here, they used to be but they joined with the mainline Anglican denomination here
May I recommend Matthew Everhard? I much prefer him over Ligionier since Ligionier sometimes conflicts with Presbyterian tradition with its heavy Baptist influence. They also sort of endorse Lordship Salvation, which conflates law and gospel. However, there are good teachers at Ligionier. I like Sinclair Ferguson and others.
You don’t understand the orthodox position. We don’t say the Bishop/Priests are infallible, we say the Apostolic Teaching is infallible. This comes in two forms oral tradition and written tradition (Bible). The oral tradition passes down the teachings that aren’t committed to writing and shows us the correct interpretation of those writings. If the entire early church agrees on a doctrine: 1. It demonstrates a work of the Holy Spirit in guiding his church 2. Shows what teaching was passed down to them orally. 3. Shows how these men would have interpreted scripture, when determining if certain books were consistent with other books, when determining the cannon. You can’t find Calvinism in the early church no matter how hard you look at Augustine, which should be a clue that the Apostles didn’t teach it.
But he did understand. 12:28 I agree with the one who said you strawmanned RZs position. The evidence is right there on the timestamp. He agreed with you.
Okay I just started watching. Nobody thinks anyone’s a better communicator than God. But CLEARLY, thanks to there being many churches with different ideologies, not everyone is able to understand God so well 😂
There is also the possibility that some things don't really matter that much and we think our specific overanalyzing ought to be followed by everybody else.
@@philippbrogli779 Some issues are definitely not salvific and are found in the Bible. That's not what causes a schism though. I personally am Catholic and think highly of other christians because I see they're sincere about their beliefs. It's sad that the church is divided, but that is the reality. All we can do is pray that God sees the sincerity of His sheep, whatever religion they belong to.
@@wissamboustany3431 There have been times where the Catholic church said that people who did belief certain Marian doctrines are anathematized. I don't know if those are cause for schisms, but it is certainly not helping in church divisions. And if we look why the Anglican church split from the roman church then this is also not for core Gospel reasons.
As a cradle Orthodox who fell away from faith and came back to Christianity… I’ve been kind of placed in this double world where I’m in love with the Orthodox church but I also have deep respect for my Protestant brothers and sisters, I can very much empathize with your Sola Scriptura argument. It actually makes sense. I love the zeal that Protestant denominations possess for Christ. And as believers, one of the most important things is to keep our zeal for Him. I think one of the reasons God has allowed for split offs and denominations within the Church is to KEEP zeal within believers. I think God kind of loves how we aim to figure Him out. It is one of the ways we are able to show Him how much we love Him. Otherwise, partly, we might become who the Pharisees were, and only go about the motions of religion rather than possessing a deep love for Christ. Praise the Lord.
"I love the zeal that Protestant denominations possess for Christ" What do you mean about this? , do you mean in contrast to how maria(ant saints)-centered the orthodox church is?
@@khole15he means that in Catholicism and Orthodoxy especially in the US where Orthodox churches often double as ethnic community centers, there are MANY people who are atheists and agnostics going through the motions.
Hey, Eastern Orthodox guy here. The same reason we don’t believe in sola scriptura is why we venerate saints, it’s not to say that the Bible isn’t of high authority, the church fathers are how we can interpret things. They are not an end all be all, but rather a lens that we view things through. We don’t worship the saints and the theotokos, but we do look at them as exemplary people we should model ourselves after. This may not be fully shared among all orthodox, but that is my understanding of it and it is what I believe, I really do enjoy your content and I appreciate your message☦️
The Presbyterians also interpret through the church fathers though. It is about which church fathers' teaching each church holds to that creates division. You will see books and teachings on saints of the church that were exemplary and sing about and cherish Mary (singing is not done as much though to keep the focus on Christ)..
@@chiukidSure, but don't you think that the church the apostles built is the way Christ intended it? So how can any church make changes to doctrine without ecumenical council?
@leooivio The ecumenical councils are very important to us too. They are very good to confirm the Bible teachings but we do not see the men holding them to be infallible. Some of our councils are different towards the later ones but were held by R. Catholics as true councils at the time they were held. We just haven't been able to move past it. You can see how Rome created much confusion in the past. I wonder what they would make of everything now if they were here with all this information.
“We believe in the Bible alone which we received from the early Church Tradition but decided only to accept their authority on this specific canon of books and reject most everything else”. Cornelius needed help to interpret what he was reading. Bishops and Presbyters are appointed in Book of Acts
"I'm just going to rewrite the argument into something no one has stated in an effort to make it as ludicrous as possible. Everything within these quotation marks is accurate and definitely happened."
@@OrthodoxAlex The entire foundational basis of the question is faulty, because ultimately you're looking for an ordained magisterial 'authority', because this is the lens through which your own view of church is built (not necessarily a criticism, everyone has a lens through which we look at things, just an honest observation). And, therefore, when you look at the argument of another tradition, you can only try and fit them into that framework. But Protestantism has never claimed magisterial authority vested in a particular group of men to declare the authority of the Scriptures. Rather, the Scriptures are inherently authoritative merely by their very existence as works of the Spirit - the Church community (as an entire church, not the magisterium) simply attests to, and affirms that authority by their acceptance and recognition of that (growing) canon. They are not the source of the authority - they do not create the Bible's authority. They affirm and attest to it. This is how it worked in Scripture itself - the writers of Scripture, and the receivers of Scripture, affirmed its status as Scripture long before the existence of a magisterial council that said so (indeed, where else would such a magisterial council gather the basis for such a ruling if it were not based in the prior practice of the church - even they were merely reflecting practice, not inventing it).
@samueltomjoseph4775 look at history and learn about the councils. Guess who lost each of the councils and got kicked out (or decided to leave) as the minority and anathematized opinion? Not the Catholics but the others like Eastern Orthodox.
Hello Redeemed Zoomer, You have several misunderstandings regarding the critique done towards _Sola_ _Scriptura,_ and I'm going to try and clarify that. The problem with Sola Scriptura isn't the principle in itself. As you said it yourself, all Christians inherently believe in it, since scripture is part of our infallible Tradition. The problem comes with who is legitimately allowed/capable to transmit the meaning of the scriptures. Sola Scriptura makes most protestants think that anybody can, however, we know this is false for two reasons: 1- the multitude of various interpretations of the scriptures 2- the fact that the scriptures themselves deny that anybody can understand them. Christ created the Church and appointed/anointed people to guide it in truth through the Holy Spirit (who is infallible). If we need guidance on how to understand scriptures, it is logical that we follow what the bishops say first. And this is confirmed by St Philip in Acts, chapter 8: 30- Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked. 31- “How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. The fact that not everybody can interpret the scriptures doesn't make God a bad communicator, it makes us bad listeners. Because even when God clearly and soundly dispensed orders to the Israelites, they still departed from him. That's why we have the Holy Spirit to guide the Church. Because humans are imperfect and rebellious to God in nature. And that's why it is a bad idea that anybody take it onto themselves to read and teach what the scriptures tell us. Now, does it mean that no believers has the right to question authorities? No. And there are countless examples of that happening when heresies arose. Most people didn't know how to read, but through the Tradition of the Church, taught in liturgical services and religious education, people could recognize what was contrary to the message of scriptures. So yes, even though bishops aren't infallible because of sin, what has been decreed by the Church, (who is supposed to be guided by the Holy Spirit in all things as Christ said to the apostles), is then true. Otherwise, you would make Christ (his promise in the scriptures) be a lie. I hope I have been clear enough.
1 Though many people interpret it in different ways there is only one true way, 2 take a random verse, Romans 1:26 for example it's not hard to discern homosexuality is condemned there. It is true that many misunderstand but that doesn't mean sola scriptura isn't accurate
@@anthonycordato7118 No true scotsman based on nothing, prots always think they have the only best interpration, based on nothing, they will interpret like 15 verses from the Bible and look there it is
@@anthonycordato7118 that's just illogical, and if God wanted us to all follow a book he would of made it clear so the truth was evident. God didn't want us to follow a book, he wanted us to follow his church, the living word of God, that has the Holy Spirit to interpret scripture.
@@anthonycordato7118 Yes, and the one true way to interpret the verse that you gave is through the tradition that confirms that the Church always believed that it was condemning homosexuality. Now, if you apply _Sola_ _Scriptura,_ and say that the Tradition is below the "right" interpretation of scriptures, you end up with people telling you that the greek word translated into homosexuality actually means pedophilia. Your only way to rebuke them is to go back to the Tradition.
@@anthonycordato7118 No. 1 is simply false. There are many ways to interpret any text and more than one can be correct. The four ways in which a text can be interpreted are usually said to be literal, allegorical, moral and anagogical. So one verse can tell you something about a historic event, which is also an allegory for a different historic event, is also an example of a moral action and also tells us something about a more spiritual concept like the afterlife. All of these would be considered different interpretations and all of them would be correct at the same time.
Hello Zoomer, I am a Christian currently going through Catholic initiation. I may be incorrect as i am no pastor or priest, but it is my understanding that the pope is only infallible when he declares the word of God from the Holy See. When it comes to "one true church," I am still unsure of my views surrounding it, but the way I see it, the Catholic church does have the strongest roots to the Early Church fathers. I do agree that the Bible is the highest authority, but I also think the church does have authority appointed by the Lord to apply the Bible to current circumstance. Let me end this by saying I have nothing but love for all my brothers and sisters in Christ, and I wish no bad feelings to anybody who disagrees, I just want to share my point of view. Thanks for the very informative video
The Lord be with you on this journey back home. One correction, however: The pope doesn't declare the "word of God" from the Holy See because he is not God. The Magisterium is an interpreter/teacher guided by the Holy Spirit away from error but not of any divine nature. The pope alone or with the College of Bishops (the Roman Pontiff) defines teaching on faith or morals based on 3 conditions, if they: 1. speak from the office of the seat of St. Peter, 2. teach on matters concerning faith or morals, and 3. declare the teaching to be held by the whole Church.
@@botanicamelancholia sorry, but the papist cult you call home is just that: a papist cult. Those three conditions are nothing more than a desperate escape from when popes speak falsehood, much like what your present alleged vicar is doing now.
Hey Wesley. The only root the Roman Catholic organization has to the early church is geographical location and association to people. The reason people are easily caught in the trap of "hey, Roman Catholic church is the true church!" is that the visible church and the invisible church are conflated together. We must remember that even Paul himself said that false teachers will rise up from among the ranks of the church itself. The visible church will contain wheat and tares. But the invisible church will be protected, and it is comprised of all true believers, whatever denomination they are from. I will even assert that there are true Christians in the Roman Catholic cult, who believe the Bible and not the dogmas of the RCC. What the Roman Catholic organization is today isn't the same with the early church. You would encounter many Catholics say that what the RCC believes has always been held by all Christians in the early church, but that is not the case. For instance, many early church fathers ascribe venial faults to Mary and do not consider her immaculately conceived or sinless. Even Augustine, conversing with an Arian, said that he wouldn't appeal to the councils that existed during their time to prove Christ's deity, but to that which was common to them both, the Scriptures, when it comes to demonstrating what the truth is. Your true home is Christ, not an earthly organization. The visible church you must find is that which proclaims the truth of the Scriptures, not the one that adds so many dogmas found nowhere in the Bible, especially *de fide* dogmas that if you do not agree with will damn you according to the RCC (e.g. the Marian dogmas). As for the invisible church, that is the true church, and you become a member of it the instant you are born again from above and regenerated and made into a new creature and justified by God's will.
@juilianbautista4067 thank you for the information. I am still very inexperienced when it comes to church heraldry, so I appreciate input like this which encourages me to learn more. God be with you, friend
Some thoughts from a catholic: Basically, if you accept that there are sacred (=infallible) traditions, you have to believe in the infallibility of the church. Jesus did not reject religious tradition as a whole because he told his disciples to obey the Jewish leaders because they sat on something called “Moses’ seat” (Matt. 23:2-3). This was not an actual chair but a term that referred to a Jewish tradition, not found in Scripture (!), about the Jewish leaders’ teaching authority. In fact, prior to his Ascension into heaven Jesus never commanded the apostles to write anything down. Instead, their mission was to preach the gospel, and the word of God continued to be passed down in oral tradition even after the New Testament was written. The most striking argument against sola scriptura is the simple fact, that both Catholics and Protestants accept the canon of Scripture which is a Sacred Tradition. The canon of Scripture was first declared in Rome in A.D. 382 and was later defined at two Catholic councils in North Africa (Hippo in A.D. 393 and Carthage in A.D. 397). However, if you are a Christian who denies the authority of the Catholic Church, then by what authority can you say Christians must accept the canon of Scripture found in today’s Bibles? Some say it’s just obvious the books of the Bible all belong there and we don’t need any Church to prove they do, but is it really so obvious? Paul’s letter to Philemon doesn’t teach any specific doctrine, and the third letter of John doesn’t even mention the name of Jesus Christ. Conversely, other writings that were popular in the early Church, like the Didache or the letter of Clement, are not in the canon of Scripture. Others say “the church” determined the canon, but we aren’t obligated to follow what any church might teach today. But if that group of early Christians did not have Christ’s authority, then we have no reason to continue following their doctrinal decisions, including their decisions about the canon. The Protestant theologian R.C. Sproul famously suggested that the best we can say is that the canon of Scripture is “a fallible list of infallible books.” This means any Christian who feels moved by the Holy Spirit could claim that the table of contents in the Bible needs to be revised, or even that some portions of the Bible should be removed. In fact, 500 years ago Martin Luther and other Protestant Reformers did just that. Luther called the letter of James “an epistle of straw” because it contradicted his theology, so he moved it to the back of the Bible. Even though Luther and the other Reformers kept the letter of James, they removed the deuterocanonicals, from the Old Testament. These books, like Sirach, Tobit, and Maccabees (among others), were part of the Bible Jesus used and were considered inspired Scripture in the early Church. One reason the Reformers rejected books was because they teach Catholic doctrines like the existence of purgatory and the need to pray for the dead. Catholics agree we should not believe anything that contradicts God’s word, in either its written form (the Bible) or its oral form (Tradition). If an alleged tradition contradicts Scripture, then the tradition must be of human rather than divine origin. But if a document that claims to be Scripture (such as a forged or heretical gospel) contradicts Sacred Tradition, then it, too, must be of human origin. God speaks through the written word, but only through Scared Tradition can we know which writings are the word of God and which ones are not. Sacred Tradition also protects the Church from false interpretations of the Bible. My Protestant friends would sometimes debate other religious people who denied basic Christian doctrines like the deity of Christ. They would point out Bible passages that they say proved Jesus is God, only to hear the other person say, “Yes, but that’s not how I interpret those passages.” I thought it was ironic when one of my Protestant friends said, “But my interpretation of these passages is the same one Christians have held for 2,000 years!” This was a perfect example of how God’s word speaks in Scripture through the written word (or what the Bible says), but also through oral Tradition (or teachings about what the Bible means). But whose tradition should we look to for guidance on interpreting the Bible? Protestants can’t even agree among themselves on what the Bible taught concerning issues such as whether babies should be baptized or if salvation can be lost. It’s no wonder that in his second letter St. Peter taught, “no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation” (2 Pet. 1:20). If anyone has read this far, I recommend watching Trent Horn, who can argue better than I ever will. My arguments above are all from him.
Have you read or listened to a well-informed Protestant take on these issues, or have you only heard Trent's take on the issue? I'm asking because what you've written sounds like you've only really heard one side of the argument. Trent is a good spokesman for your side, but his arguments frequently rely on assumptions that Catholics make, but Protestants don't. Treating some traditions as sacred is not the same thing as treating them as infallible. And the Protestant understanding of how the canon came about differs from the Catholic one. We don't think that the church decided what books were scripture. We think that the church recognised it. The fact that the Greek and Roman churches have different Old Testament canons proves that the issue wasn't settled at any council before 1054. A good understanding of the Protestant view of the canon should probably start from an understanding of what scripture is. The New Testament is the collection of books that can be traced back to the Apostles and those authorised by them. Books like 1 Clement and the Didache were rejected because they were not from the Apsotles. The Old Testament is the collection of books that Christ and the Apostles regarded as scripture. There isn't a single instance in the New Testament of anybody citing part of the Apocrypha as scripture, and I've yet to see anybody produce any historical evidence that the Jews accepted them as scripture. Which leaves the Apocrypha either in the category of not scripture, or in the category of "possibly scripture, but we can't prove it". Hence the historic Protestant position has always been to treat these books as useful, but not authoritative. And Sacred Tradition does not protect the Church from false interpretations of the Bible. If you genuinely believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the same institution that Christ founded, then you have to accept that there was a period of about one generation where the majority of its members (including a majority of Bishops) denied the deity of Christ by accepting the Arian heresy. And, of course, there is the problem of working out which traditions are sacred. The Council of Hieria and the Second Council of Nicea both claimed to be ecumenical councils. One council condemned veneration of icons, the other said that the practice was compulsory. Whichever council you think was correct, you have to accept that a council of well over 300 Bishops chose to explicitly endorse something that another council of well over 300 Bishops condemned as incompatible with the faith.
@@stephengray1344 Thanks for responding! I'm still pretty new to Christianity, and Trent Horn has been a huge influence (Redeemed Zoomer actually pretty much started my conversion to Christianity). Thanks for providing the insights from a Protestant perspective - always eager to learn more about the different views.
@@stephengray1344 1. Nicaea I 325 Pope Sylvester I, 314-335 Emperor Constantine, 306-337 Decisions: Condemned Arianism, which denied the divinity of Christ (elements of Arianism have reappeared in our own time); defined the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son; fixed the date for Easter; began formulation of Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. 2. Constantinople I 381 Pope Damasus I, 366-384 Emperor Theodosius, 379-395 Decisions: Recondemned Arianism; condemned Macedonianism, which denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit; completed the formulation of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. 3. Ephesus 431 Pope Celestine I, 422-432 Emperor Theodosius II, 408-450 Decisions: Condemned Nestorianism, which denied the unity of the divine and human in Christ; defined that Mary is the Mother of God (Theotokos), a doctrine denied by the Nestorians and by most of today’s Protestants; condemned Pelagianism, which held that man could earn his own salvation through his natural powers. 4. Chalcedon 451 Pope Leo the Great, 440-461 Emperor Marcian, 450-457 Decisions: Condemned Monophysitism (also called Eutychianism), which denied Christ’s human nature. 5. Constantinople II 553 Pope Vigilius, 537-555 Emperor Justinian I, 527-565 Decisions: Condemned the Three Chapters, writings tainted by Nestorianism and composed by Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyr, and Ibas of Edessa. 6. Constantinople III 680 Pope Agatho, 678-681 Emperor Constantine IV, 668-685 Decisions: Condemned Monothelitism, which held Christ had but one will, the divine (this heresy arose as a reaction to the monophysite heresy); censured Pope Honorius I for a letter in which he made an ambiguous but not infallible statement about the unity of operations in Christ (an episode commonly used by anti-Catholic writers as an argument against papal infallibility, but for the real meaning, see Catholicism and Fundamentalism, pages 227-229). 7. Nicaea II 787 Pope Hadrian I, 772-795 Emperor Constantine VI, 780-797 Decisions: Condemned iconoclasm (which was mainly confined to the East), a heresy that held that the use of images constituted idolatry; condemned Adoptionism, which held that Christ was not the Son of God by nature but only by adoption, thereby denying the hypostatic union.
@@stephengray1344 The Old Testament books were written well before Jesus’ Incarnation, and all of the New Testament books were written by roughly the end of the first century A.D. But the Bible as a whole was not officially compiled until the late fourth century, illustrating that it was the Catholic Church who determined the canon-or list of books-of the Bible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, the Bible is not a not a self-canonizing collection of books, as there is no table of contents included in any of the books. Although the New Testament canon was not determined until the late 300s, books the Church deemed sacred were early on proclaimed at Mass, and read and preached about otherwise. Early Christian writings outnumbered the 27 books that would become the canon of the New Testament. The shepherds of the Church, by a process of spiritual discernment and investigation into the liturgical traditions of the Church spread throughout the world, had to draw clear lines of distinction between books that are truly inspired by God and originated in the apostolic period, and those which only claimed to have these qualities. The process culminated in 382 as the Council of Rome, which was convened under the leadership of Pope Damasus, promulgated the 73-book scriptural canon. The biblical canon was reaffirmed by the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), and then definitively reaffirmed by the ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442. Finally, the ecumenical Council of Trent solemnly defined this same canon in 1546, after it came under attack by the first Protestant leaders, including Martin Luther.
@@stephengray1344 The reason for this is that while the New Testament canon was essentially universally agreed upon by the fourth century, minor variations in the Old Testament persisted through the Great Schism (c. 1054). These differences, as you can see, were relatively minor and nothing close to the later difference between the Protestant Old Testament and the Catholic/Orthodox Old Testament. Another reason for the difference is that the Eastern Orthodox do not hold the same legalism as the Catholic Church when it comes to inspiration and canonical status. For them, it is a bit more fluid of an understanding; canonical simply means that something is acceptable to be read in liturgy. Even today there are some slight differences between the Eastern Orthodox Churches in regard to what each Church considers canonical (i.e. to be used in liturgy). For example, some Eastern Orthodox Churches do not read from the book of Revelation at divine liturgy. Hence they would not call it canonical, but they would still consider it to be divinely inspired and morally binding. In this fluid approach the Eastern Orthodox are very similar to ancient Judaism. In Western Christianity the Catholic Church makes no distinction between canonical and inspired. We also have with exactness defined what books and parts of books we accept. In eastern Christianity the Orthodox Churches have have not made such exact definitions and see the differences amongst themselves as so minor as to not require any further action.
Church Tradition guided by the Holy Spirit CREATED the Biblical Canon. Why would the definitive interpretation of this text not also largely fall under the purview of the Church? As for Sola Scriptura ... it's a myth. The Protestant Bible removes seven Old Testament deuterocanonical Books from the Canon and Luther wanted to remove Books from the New Testament that went against his view on Sola Fides, like the Epistle of James. It sounds more like Luther was interested in creating a Church and Bible to match his own preconceptions rather than seeking truth or trying to purge Catholicism of corruption, which many Catholics were pursuing at that time.
Why does the modern Roman Catholic Old Testament Canon contain more books than the canon that Melito of Sardis defined, who died 180 AD. He was a bishop, is he a proto Protestant?
@@Quisl He is a Bishop that presented one canon. He is not the sole authority on determining the Canon. That was something the entire Church did. And when they did create the official Canon, it included all the Books of the Septuagint.
Fellow Catholic, I think you want to clean up your terminology here, since we didn't make the scriptures inspired, we compiled them infallibly, and then infallibly promulgated them, because we shouldn't feel the need to say that in response to Tradition being below Scripture that Tradition is above Scripture, rather they are both sources of Divine revelation and truth. If what you mean by created the canon is that it made the table of contents, then say promulgated or compiled. Hope that was helpful you seem like a cool guy.
@@patrickgroyper83 No worries. I get what you are saying and perhaps compiled is a clearer term, but even then I'd say humans have an intrinsic role in the literal creation of the Scripture itself. Humans were divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit in the creation of the Scripture, but it is still surely human words with some human flaws such as minor issues with numbers or dates. The more important aspect is the infallible morality and message spread in the Bible by the Holy Spirit. So if humanity in partnership with the Spirit both wrote and compiled the Sacred Scripture, I think it makes complete sense that Human Tradition guided by the Holy Spirit in Christ's Church would have preeminence in interpreting the texts.
The Protestants didn't remove books from the canon. The Catholics added them. The first council you recognise as ecumenical to refer to the Apocrypha/Deuterocanon as canonical was the Council of Trent - which happened *after* the Reformation. And Luther's desire to exclude James works in favour of the Protestant understanding - since despite disliking the book, he didn't even try to remove it.
It was exactly for the third reason that I chose to be Protestant. When I converted I was researching what denomination to be, I realized that I was using the Scriptures to judge the doctrines of the Churches and, thus, I had already implicitly accepted the notion of Sola Scriptura. I needed to choose a starting point and for me it was obvious that it would be the Word of God and the writings of the Apostles. Then i became member of the Presbyterian Church and it has been a great experience.
Roman Catholic here! I have a few counterpoints: 1. yes everyone sins, including those whose hands wrote the pages of the Bible. Not every word Paul ever said was true, yet his letter is considered infallible. Similarly, individuals within the Church are not without error, yet the teachings that the Church as a whole has accepted and passed down (particularly through the Apostles’ successors) are certainly just as real. 2. The phrase “Word of God” was used by Paul to describe oral teaching 3. What do you base the infallibility of the Bible on? Just because it’s a long lasting influential l book? My faith requires no book for me to believe in Him. And therefore, 4. I certainly do not “basically believe in sola scriptura already” 5. The Canon of Scripture is certainly more important than mentioned. Can anyone explain to me why, for Protestants, 2 Peter is considered to be infallible while 1 Maccabees is removed entirely? 6. I think you are taking too lightly the fact that the Church (call it the “early church” if you insist. I have no issue being grouped with the orthodox in this time period) put this book together and provided it for us through the Holy Spirit. At what point do you just stop believing in the Church that canonized the scripture? And even begin contradicting it? So many more thoughts, but I think that makes clear my opposition. Believing the Jesus set this structure up is not “arguing like a Pharisee”
Lot of thoughtful points here (even those I don't agree with), but just a thought here that I think is pretty important: _"Not every word Paul ever said was true, yet his letter is considered infallible."_ I'm not sure anyone who truly believes Scripture is infallible (Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox) can truly, meaningfully say that Paul has said anything false about theology and doctrine. If, for example, an Old Testament writer describes something about the natural world that is outside of their human understanding (like a questionable reference to the number of legs a locust has, or a debateably limited view on how exactly the orbit of the Sun works), that's something that I don't think breaches a fairly conservative understanding of infallibility. It's also possible for Scripture to perfectly and infallibly record the words of men committing error (or even Satan and his lies, e.g. the New Testament accurately recording Satan plainly lying to Christ during His tempation in the wilderness). But if a Prophet or Apostle states in infallible Scripture, 'The Lord is thus in His Nature', or tells the Church in Corinth something about the nature of how the Church should be run, I struggle to see how a theological or doctrinal position asserted by them can be questioned by someone affirming infalliblity. All that ramble to say: I believe it is the substantive theological and doctrinal statements of the Church's magesterium that Zoomer (and other Protestants) likewise deny the infallibility of, not merely inconsequential passing matters of human knowledge wherein you could say, 'Well the Prophets/Apostles said incorrect things but we still take them as authoritative'. Well, no, not really - we absolutely take the Prophets/Apostles as both correct and authoritative in theology and doctrine, something we (Protestants) are unable to say entirely about the Church magesterium throughout the ages.
@@Mic1904 I certainly don’t think anything Paul wrote is up for debate! I just mean to say the perfect culmination of his hand and the Holy Spirit is in spite of an imperfect human nature. He was part of the debates at Jerusalem, for example, and potentially argued for the wrong side at times. He surely committed some errors throughout his Christian life. But his letters are infallible despite that. The Church works in the same way. The individual’s are sinful and errant, yet the Church teaching that comes through the power of the Holy Spirit is infallible
@@Kauahdhdhd Just because a Catholic disagrees with a Protestant's beliefs doesn't make it "refuted". Protestants have "refuted" the unbiblical idea of papal infallibility a thousand times over and yet it is still believed by many.
@@Kauahdhdhdyou making extreme argument everyone gets caught lying or being hypocritical - but saying he doesn't make coherent argument let me know you being bias
Stay catholic or orthodox homie. RZ makes great content but he dosnt really understand the Catholic or orthodox position. A decent amount of his identity is tied up with being Presbyterian, as a result he can’t approach it in good faith. For example, he cites Agustin’s a lot but conveniently forgets his quotes in favour of Rome and church authority
As a Catholic, this is quite a good balance between the strength and detail of the arguments presented with the comprehensiveness of the video. While I'm thoroughly unconvinced and I think that all three contentions have holes in them, I think it was a good video overall. Zoomer is a smart guy, despite the fact that I think he's definitely wrong, and I respect him for his intellectual work. My primary critiques would be these: 1. In regards to the first contention, the sinfulness of man has nothing to do with the ability to be a medium for divine revelation. The Gospel authors were sinners, yet they have no problem writing down the Word of God. Why should we think that the sinfulness of man would make things like an extraordinary magisterium impossible? Obviously, as Zoomer knows, Catholics aren't saying that the Pope is always infallible, but that he has the charism of infallibility when doing certain acts which are allowed to him in virtue of his office. Would it really be impossible for sinful men to occupy an office to make infallible statements? I hardly think so. 2. In regards to the second contention, I think Redeemed Zoomer still has to grant that a certain type of tradition, let's call it Sacred Tradition, is used as a "messenger" to relay to the people that the Sacred Scriptures are such and such books. Zoomer seems to try to make a distinction between the revelation that is brought by Sacred Tradition, namely the canon of Scripture, and Sacred Tradition itself. I think, however, that this would be like trying to make a distinction between the revelation that is brought by Sacred Scripture, namely all of the teachings within the Bible and their exact formulations, and Sacred Scripture itself. It seems like Protestants are claiming that Sacred Scripture is only infallible in virtue of what is contained within it and who its author is. But this is precisely the same thing Catholics claim about Sacred Tradition. Catholics think that Sacred Tradition is infallible only in virtue of what is contained within it and who its author is. I don't see how a Protestant can then say that Sacred Scripture is infallible, yet Sacred Tradition is not. Furthermore, Zoomer still has to formulate the standard by which Sacred Scripture is accepted. Simply saying that it is a matter of tradition leaves things very vague. It seems like it would be better to say how we know something is part of Sacred Tradition or not. And, while I don't want to accuse Redeemed Zoomer of dishonesty, I do think that he may have left this out for a reason: giving a standard for Sacred Tradition will open the floodgates and allow other things that are similarly witnessed to by the Early Church to become as certain as the canon of Scripture, therefore completely knocking down certain Protestant doctrines. 3. In regards to the third contention, I find that there is a bit of a misunderstanding with regards to what "authority" and "tradition" mean in this context. As Zoomer makes his argument, detailing how Councils appeal to earlier Councils which eventually appeal to the Bible, he's shown already that Sola Scriptura is not a doctrine of the Early Church. Why would Chalcedon or Ephesus need to appeal to an earlier Ecumenical Council if Sola Scriptura were true? Why not just go back to the Bible directly and attempt to re-argue the Christology? But to the more important point, I think that the appealing of Councils to earlier Councils and eventually the Bible is completely harmonious with an affirmation of Sacred Tradition. Much of Sacred Tradition that Catholics (and EOs) pull from is *the interpretation of Scripture* because it elucidates the doctrines within Sacred Scripture. Ephesus appealing to Nicaea is precisely how authoritative Sacred Tradition is supposed to work -- we appeal to the interpretation of those that have gone before us in the Faith, and we know the views they hold to be orthodox because of their agreement with the rest of the Church in their time and in the later history of the Church. Furthermore, the first commentaries of the earliest Saints like Polycarp, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, etc. will obviously not appeal to earlier traditions because they received them directly from the teaching of the Apostles and those taught by the Apostles. They appeal to the written word as well, but it would be incorrect to say that there isn't a substantial portion of the their writings for which they cite no New Testament Scripture, but rather simply give their teaching, as they would do if they had been instructed by word of mouth.
I haven't read your whole comment but I hope RZ did. I am Catholic too but I just want to say it's funny how the Catholic responses are always entire essays and books into a single comment. It's not just you, this whole comment section is filled many passionate Catholics professing the truth.
You say "Would it really be impossible for sinful men to occupy an office to make infallible statements?" But the main concern is "Would it be possible for sinful men to occupy an office to make fallible statements?" Reality is yes, and so is the pope.
Undergraduate theologian here: From what I've gathered, you have done so well, but I have a few rebuttals: 1) you said even if one uses scriptures as a Catholic to justify one's beliefs, one agrees with sola scriptura. Scripture, yes. Sola scriptura (only scripture), not quite, that is too big a leap. Theologians in the Catholic tradition (e.g. Aquinas and Przywara) do not just look at scripture but ancient Greek metaphysics, and previous scholars like Augustine and Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite 2) where does the Scripture justify/preach sola scriptura? (As one of my lecturers used to say) Gonna write the other one later, got to dash...
Notice that the Jews were deemed "more noble" because they questioned Paul and Silas by checking the Scripture (which would have been the Torah). The writer commends them for using scripture, which they would have interpreted by themselves, to judge an apostle. The Acts 17:11 (Read from 10 - 12 to get the whole context) KJV: These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. AMP: Now these [Jews] were better disposed and more noble than those in Thessalonica, for they were entirely ready and accepted and welcomed the message [concerning the attainment through Christ of eternal salvation in the kingdom of God] with inclination of mind and eagerness, searching and examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.
Right. I think it’s best to frame the situation like this: There’s only one apostolic deposit of faith; the debate is what constitutes that deposit (ie what we’ve received from Jesus and the Apostles). Protestants are arguing that only “the scriptures” are representative of the deposit of faith. They can’t include a specific canon of scripture however, because that would mean we’ve received something that’s extra-biblical. So the assertion is that all we’ve received from the Apostles are “the scriptures” but that the same apostles did not pass on a specific canon of scriptures, even though according to Protestants there *is* a specific canon of scriptures and it isn’t the Catholic one. It doesn’t work.
The "Where does the Bible say Sola Scriptura?" Argument is such a crutch, and one that does not work. The Bible need not say Sola Scriptura in order to prove its primacy. The obligation of proof is one you to prove that the Magesterium or tradition is at all equivalent to the Bible
sola scriptura does not mean to only use scripture. It means scripture is the sole infallible authority on earth. that means we check everything with scripture and if something contradicts scripture then we throw it out. Those same theologians were probably quite sure that whatever they were preaching from greek metaphysics did not contradict the word of God. “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” Scripture comes directly from God to the writer. Scripture can make the man of God COMPLETE, equipped for every good work. If that statement from scripture is true, then we can see that the man of God can be made complete and prepared for every good work through scripture alone. There is no preparation for good works that the church can teach that the scripture is lacking. This is not to say that the church is bad or that it holds no authority, of course not. Every church doctrine must be checked with scripture
@@traviswilson36he does more memes and yelling than actually explaining his point. Ive warched so many interviews of Orthodox priests who are so compassionate and loving. Its nothing like the chad orthobro that kyle presents. Pray for him.
@@ajp642 Fr, as a Catholic who enjoys hearing from the Orthodox side, Kyle's completely unwatchable, he speaks to fast and basically has the same repetitive strawman talking points against Catholicism. Though I do enjoy some of his content against atheists.
The argument against sola scriptura is that people can interpret the Bible to however they seem fit. They can justify progressivism and abortion using the Bible. The reason for having the pope, the Catholic Church, preists, bishops, church teachings is so that we follow the right correct path to having a relationship with Jesus Christ. There has to be guidlines, rules within a church, a way of living that is universal. We see all these denominations in Christianity that all interpret the Bible according to them. And sure you can believe in many Catholic Church teachings and use the Bible. Church teaching is based on the word of god. People need church teaching to lead themselves a Christian life.
No, they can't interpret the bible how they seem fit. Once again, it's the greatest and only infallible authority. Not the only authority in general. So, we still believe in proper biblical hermeneutics as well as church leaders and history. Where as people who don't have sola scriptura have to bite the bullet if their church makes a stance on something even if it isn't biblical.
@@lccr1000 But what's the difference between the mormons interpretation of infallible scripture, and say a Presbyterians interpretation of infallible scripture? Absolutely nothing! In the eyes of Sola scriptura, both positions are justified because they both claim to hold to the infallible word of God.
Non-religious myself. How do you determine the Bible to be the highest authority if it requires the subjective understanding of us all individually? Why leave interpretation up to to the average reader where they can come to the wrong conclusions? Seems to me people will still look for guidance from scholars and pastors. To interpret the word is to supersede the direct written word, and to value the interpretation of trusted authorities in the church is only a step further from the direct written word. Authority can only come from conscious beings, not inanimate objects.
It's not a subjective truth people just wanna be different and God's word is not where you should be, I myself am an extremely traditional Presbyterian but in the end there is only one true way to understand God's word whether I am right or wrong thus making it infallible
@@anthonycordato7118 I can see the coherency in this argumentation, I just don't think concluding that an inanimate object is the ultimate authority makes any sense. If there is only one truth, and no one can ever truly understand that truth, how does it have authority over us? How can you possibly live in accordance with that truth? Why even choose to reach conclusions about reality and make corresponding ethical decisions from word you can never truly understand?
You are absolutely right. Furthermore, the compilation of the Bible only makes sense if the Church has the authority to make it. To believe that the Bible is inspired by God is necessary to believe that, at some point, the Church has had the authority to discern and compile it.
So does the reading of the Church fathers. There are plenty of debates that talk about wether the fathers were more Catholic/Orthodox or Protestant in their theology. Does that mean that we need an infallible authority to interpret an another infallible authority that interprets yet another infallible authority. This seems ridiculous but if you would follow logic then you would end up with endless amount of infallible interpreters. Every single text requires subjective interpretation, I can read the cathecism of the Catholic church and I could come up with a different interpretation of the cathecism than you.
@@markoj.7675 Yeah I'm not in infinite regress territory. Simply follows to me that a conscious being on Earth would need to be able to establish authority. An inanimate book cannot do that. I agree that catechisms have plenty of room for interpretation as well, and frankly that's the point.
The Bible is not self-interpreting you absolutely need a normative authority to prevent heresy. Sola scriptura turns the Bible into a subjective text. There is thousands of different denominations interpreting the Bible differently and coming to their own mutually exclusive conclusions. We see cults popping with their own interpretations of the Bible. All claim to be guided by the holy Spirit.
If normative authority could prevent heresy, we'd be chatting in the Garden of Eden, not debating Sola Scriptura on TH-cam, because Adam and Eve had normative authority straight from God telling them not to eat of the tree. Sola Scriptura does not make the Bible subjective. Our fallible human interpretations bring subjectivity into the mix, but that applies as much to the Pope as to Aunt Tilly in her pew. What happens when you designate a given Earthly org chart as the "one true church" with a monopoly on authority to interpret scripture is that errors and heresies become entrenched, widely propagated, and almost impossible to correct.
Mathew 18 refutes your point. Christ himself demonstrates that the Church is the normative authority when it comes to settling matters. Whoever doesn't submit to Her final judgement is out.
Matthew 18 certainly establishes the judicial authority of the local congregation in settling disputes between believers. Whether it establishes a single organization with worldwide authority on the interpretation of scripture is quite debatable.
@@JonBrase The Church started of as a local congregation but aggregated to a global entity. Unless you want to make the argument that Christ's church is just the local church in Jerusalem.
The normative authority is good hermeneutical standards of said scriptures. Not specific people or a specific Church. No, sola scriptura does not turn the Bible into a subjective text. The doctrine of sola scriptura is not talking about how we interpret the Bible. It just says the Bible is the highest authority and only infallible authority. That doesn't lead to subjectivism. What leads to subjectivism most of the time is bad hermeneutical standards and a lack of education. When people lack a knowledge of how to interpret scripture, it leads to a bunch of unnecessary division. That doesn't mean that having these standards will automatically give people 100% agreement. But it does minimize heresy and major disagreements. We can test their interpretations by hermeneutic principles and looking to the text to see if their understanding is correct. It is the same in interpreting a text, a letter, a book, or any other thing that has one meaning. We understand principles in understanding these things, but with the Bible, we throw out these standards for some reason. Sola scriptura isn't the problem. It is a lack of education in how to interpret the Bible accurately, to extract the meaning from the text itself and not commit eisegeses
The fact that not everybody can interpret the scriptures doesn't make God a bad communicator, it makes us bad listeners. Edit: Above is a snippet from another comment.
From an Orthodox perspective, no one is denying the Bible's sole purpose and authority. We as Orthodox use the bible in our liturgy, most of our prayers are from the bible and most of what we do is from the bible. Sola Scriptura is using the bible as our ONLY authority, with nothing else to base it off of. The Orthodox church uses the bible for our worship and most of what we do is in the bible, however we only interpret it through the eyes of tradition/the church. This is because the church was the one that gave us the bible, so we need to look at what the people who wrote it/have apostolic succession. That is why us Orthodox keep tradition central as well, and we don't interpret the bible because our interpretations can be different and could lead to heresies. Father Josiah Trentham has an excellent response to this in an interview. th-cam.com/video/oi0l2M5u5Cc/w-d-xo.html
@@A1.sauce4345 That is what I meant it as. The Bible is the only infallible authority. (making it the only authority in the sense that no one can go above it) When I say "Sola Scriptura is using the bible as our ONLY authority, with nothing else to base it off of" meaning it is the only authority that is deemed infallible.
This video concept is genius brother. You are blessed. Thankfully your love of god in our generation is going bring many more to the kingdom of heaven.
It would be awesome if you debated a catholic or an orthodox about the typical particularities of protestantism (sola fide, sola scriptura, once saved always saved)
The Protestant claims "every good work" 'implies' sufficiency (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Let us look at this text- in making the man equipped for every good work, the scriptures are "profitable". One may complain endlessly that the text does not fit the Protestant narrative, but at the end of the day it's there in black and white- scripture is "profitable". And so there should obviously be other things that are profitable. And scripture tells us what they are: 1. St Paul makes reference to oral Tradition 3 times in his 2nd letter to Timothy, alone! (cf. 2 Tim. 1:13-14; 2:2; 3:14). 2. And on top of this, in Ephesians 4, we learn the Christian believer is equipped, built up, brought into unity and mature manhood, and even preserved from doctrinal confusion by means of the teaching function of the Church! This is a FAR STRONGER STATEMENT THAN 2 Timothy 3 for the perfecting of the saints, AND IT DOES NOT EVEN MENTION SCRIPTURE! “And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ” (Eph. 4:11-15). 3. But most significantly for the Protestant, if 2 Timothy 3 "proves" the sole-sufficiency of Scripture, then, by that same flawed logic, Ephesians 4 would likewise prove the sufficiency of pastors and teachers for the attainment of Christian perfection! See what illogical rabbit warrens, the Protestants hatred of the Catholic Church, causes them to go down.
1:38 all the arguments used against sola scripture could’ve been used by the phariseees themselves?! Dude…I hate to break it to you, but the Pharisees and scribes were THE MOST sola scriptura and Jesus literally taught them to follow the spirit of the law rather than the letter.
Exactly! This is why I get mad when prots say Catholics and Orthodox are pharisees because they supposedly have "traditions of men", when it's the prots who have the closest theological position to the pharisees.
What? Jesus issue with the Pharisees was that they were Hypocrites who “made the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered“ Mark 7:13 Adding tradition to scripture was the problem
@@kylefoster2777 Yes, you’re right. Part of that tradition which they kept, which Jesus had an issue with was that the Pharisees prided themselves on strictly observing the law of Moses and avoiding anything associated with the Gentiles. Their teachings reduced religion to the observance of rules.
The pharisees were not sola scriptura? They added tradition to interpret scripture and the addition of oral torah superseded written torah. You really should read how they interpreted the law.
@@ashari7545I apologize for the misunderstanding. When I said THE MOST sola scriptura I didn’t mean to say they were the same as sola scriptura adherents today. Just that they are in a lot of ways, very similar. The Pharisees, like adherents of sola scriptura, held the written law in high regard and placed substantial emphasis on interpreting and adhering to its commandments. While acknowledging the Pharisees’ reliance on both written and oral traditions, it’s noteworthy that this nuanced approach mirrors the way sola scriptura proponents prioritize scripture while allowing for additional teachings. This emphasizes the shared commitment to scripture, even though the Pharisees also valued oral traditions, making it a complex comparison to the strict principles of sola scriptura.
First of all, Tchaikovsky was literally the best composer in the world and he was a member of the orthodox church so take that protestants Second of all, day 9 of pretty please asking to be unbanned from the server 😢 Edit: y'all rly hating on Tchaikovsky cuz he gay, damn 🤣🤣🤣 This entire comment was a joke tho, like damn. There is a reason i said "member of the orthodox church" and not "orthodox christian" cuz i know he ain't the best.
You've quickly become one of my favorite TH-cam channels. I love seeing a channel that uses logic to explain the truths of the gospel. Keep on keeping on man. You're doing God's work.
I tend to find most arguments for sola scriptura mirror arguments for materialism or scientism, which is why I think they just don’t work. In both cases the proponent is attempting to limit or narrow the boundaries of a given source of knowledge.
I see a lot of Catholics in the comments making the same arguments predicted in this video, which is pretty hilarious. Someone said "Jesus started the Catholic church so it has to be true," as if God hadn't also started Judaism. That's the argument that pharisees used against Christianity.
I love your explanations of protestant beliefs it is better than most. Big props! I disagree with lots of ur points but still love what your doing. My family were Presbyterian for generations I come from a long line of ministers actually but God called my mother to His Church which I believe fully to be the Catholic Church and I was born/raised Catholic with my moms extended family still all protestant. I could never be protestant today as I fully believe the Catholic Church is the most biblically accurate and the true church but I still have a connection to the church of my ancestors and it pains me to see crazy people corrupt it. I am glad there's still people like you in the Presbyterian Church to fight back.
Great video. I think it is the best argumentation and articulation of what I have heard historical Protestantism bring forth with sola scriptura. Still disagree with it since I am a Catholic but I understand where you’re coming from and respect it. I love how close we are to the same conclusions but end up on different sides. So glad that your channel is being used to unite the Christian body. It is so desperately needed and I praise the Lord that I feel like Christians are being able to understand each others differences more. It’s truly great!
Proud and happy protestant here!! So glad im not catholic or orthodox. All of my family is Christian. We love the Lord. Thanks for this video. God bless😊❤
16:00 "According to sola scriptura, sola scriptura is true." also >assuming that all groups claiming to be the One True Church have equal historical authority
Also, note, the Epistles were all intended as ORAL tradition. Epistle literally means letter, but these were open letters, to be read out loud. In fact people couldn't read silently back in the day, the first recording of anyone reading silently is in St. Augustine's Confessions when he recounts being perplexed at St. Ambrose's "eyes moving across the page, comprehending, but without a sound made." Before the Gospel was written, it was acted out. Before the Sermon on the Mount was written it was spoken. Almost all Hebrew Scripture was oral for thousands of years before it was written down. Infallible Tradition is absolutely a thing, as is infallible Authority, as is infallible Scripture.
Are you really suggesting that no one in the ancient world had an inner monologue? History is against you. In the fifth century BC, two plays show characters reading on stage: in Euripides' Hippolytus, Theseus reads in silence a letter held by his dead wife; in Aristophanes' The Knights, Demosthenes looks at a writing-tablet sent by an oracle and, without saying out loud what it contains, seems taken aback by what he has read. According to Plutarch, Alexander the Great read a letter from his mother in silence in the fourth century BC, to the bewilderment of his soldiers. Claudius Ptolemy, in the second century AD, remarked in On the Criterion (a book that Augustine may have known) that sometimes people read silently when they are concentrating hard, because voicing the words is a distraction to thought. Julius Caesar, standing next to his opponent Cato in the Senate in 63 BC, silently read a little billet-doux sent to him by Cato's own sister.
@@DrGero15 I don't think this is what he's referring to. I'm not sure but I guess he's talking about scripture specifically being read out loud, with the first reason as of why, being that most people couldn't read and would need someone to read it for them, and that people shouldn't make their own conclusions by reading alone without being able to be corrected by the people more educated on it. No idea how historically proven this is though.
@@kottekanin4006 He said " In fact people couldn't read silently back in the day, the first recording of anyone reading silently is in St. Augustine's Confessions" That is utter nonsense.
15:30 The way we know which churches split off (heterodox) and which are faithful to the apostolic teaching (orthodox) is by reading the works of the apostles and early church fathers. There is a very limited breadth of information in the new testament that would give us clues to this. Trying to decide between, say, the Roman church and the Orthodox church based on the new testament epistles would be difficult indeed; in fact, it would be like trying to tell the future just from the N.T. epistles. Fortunately, Christians did not spontaneously forget how to write after the death of John the Theologian, but continued to write during the period of time in which the Scriptures were formally assembled into the several canons (most of them quite similar to each other), and they continued to write afterwards. So we don't have to guess at what they believed; we can read them. Orthodoxy is what Christ taught, the apostles preached, and the fathers have maintained.
One reason why there must be an infallible authority to give the cannon of scripture is that different “authorities” can and have come up with different biblical cannons. As you mentioned protestants have a 66 book Bible and Catholics have 73. If God guided both authorities, how can this difference be possible. My explanation is that one authority must be infallible to provide the correct teaching to the church on all matters and the other must be a false (or flawed) authority.
Because neither authority has (or *can*, due to sin) be perfectly responsive to the guidance of God. They are both flawed (but not necessarily false) authorities. Scripture can be recognized by its consistency with other scripture (but human sinfulness may impede this recognition). What sets the flawed authority of Protestant churches aside from the flawed authority of the RCC is that Protestants don't claim not to be flawed: "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us".
@@JonBrase I’m not saying that Catholic authority is “perfectly responsive to the guidance of God”. I’m saying that the Holy Spirit will not allow church authority to commit errors in doctrines of faith and morals. If it did allow this, it would be allowing the church to be led astray thus violating Jesus’ promise that the gates of hell will not prevail against it. Only an infallible authority can truly claim to be safe from errors of this nature occurring against it.
@@kylef5723 Church authority being led astray only violates the promise that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church if the Church is in fact, as Catholics claim, identifiable with a single human org chart with exclusive authority to interpret scripture. If that's not the case, then the corruption of church authority in any particular denomination is not fatal to the Church.
My favourite argument against "sola scriptura" is "Which scriptura ☠️?" Oh and btw RZ; sola scriptura means ONLY scripture, not scripture over tradition which is still important. I believe in the second as an Orthodox.
You say Protestants take sin more seriously yet us catholics take it so seriously we believe in mortal sins and also that confessing your sin verbally to a priest is important and necessary. Love this channel as I believe any Christianity is better than no Christianity and as long as you believe in Christ you can be saved. But I would love you to have any discussion or debates with a Catholic apolagist
This was very interesting. I'm protestant and believe in this idea of Sola Scriptura, but i didn't know all of these details. Now i'm even happier to be protestant.
The most important argument for the Sola Scripture that Zoomer forgot to mention is that Jesus himself argued the same way. When Jesus said "you have HEARD", that is referring to the Oral Tradition like Talmud that Pharisees emphasized. When Jesus said "it is written", he is referring to the Old Testament. Jesus fought the temptation by Satan the same way, "It is written". That was one of the main reasons why the early Reformers argued for the Sola Scriptura.
@@thomasc9036 wow I never thought about that, even though Jesus' temptation is one of my favorite stories in the bible. I have a new way of looking at it now
@@thomasc9036 This goes against your point And he answered and said unto them, , that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be* one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 8 He saith unto them*, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 9 *, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. 10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. 11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
@@thomasfleming8169 Jesus didn't speak English, so he didn't say Sola Scriptura. 1 Corinthians 4:6 Read it. It specifically says to not go beyond what is "written".
See, there is a big issue with your basic point. I started my journey toward Orthodoxy and Catholicism through Sola Scriptura. Not Protestantism, but Sola Scriptura specifically. Sola Scriptura did not teach me Sola Fide as taught by the Reformers, but it did teach me that we are saved through our fidelity (fides / pisteos) to Christ. It did not teach me that infant baptism was wrong, but showed me that infants may be baptized. It didn't show me that church authority was a farce, but that it was established in Scripture. It didn't show me that Marian veneration and perpetual virginity was intrinsically wrong, but actually baked into the Christian worldview. It didn't show me that intercession of the Saints was wrong, but that some of the holiest people in the Bible did it and it was never spoken against. It didn't show me that Communion was a symbol, but that Christ really emphasized the Real Presence. It also showed me Confession, the power of Relics, the possibility of iconographic use in liturgical rites, the need to also respect oral tradition from the Apostles, and the need to follow my Bishops (overseers / episkopos) In other words - I was told to be Orthodox or Catholic BY Sola Scriptura. The only thing there that seems odd for Scripture-alone at first blush would be veneration of Mary, but the Reformers also saw that in Scripture and agreed with it at least to some extent. The question I posed to my own father, a Non-Denominational who HATES my beliefs, was, "Which Protestant sect believes the most critical parts of my theology?" to which he called me a heretic and said I was going to hell. Those critical parts to the theology were: - Communion being the real (spiritual) body and blood of Christ - Acceptance of fidelity and faithfulness (again, pisteos) rather than "faith alone" in the sense that modernity has twisted the word "faith" to mean - Acceptance of Christ as having full humanity and divinity, being the Theanthropos, making Mary the Birth-Giver of God (yes, this is critical, because crypto-Nestorianism is horrendous) - An understanding of man's will that is compatible with God as Love and not God as a maniacal individual who consigns the overwhelming majority of mankind to utter and absolute torture for all eternity - Acceptance of the historical Christian moral framework - Acceptance of the communion of the Saints both living and reposed - Acceptance of the full extended Canon as used by the Early Church (either the 73 or 79 book are fine). So, which denomination has all that? Lutheranism has abandoned some of those doctrines. The Reformed tradition specifically is not compatible with a God who is Love and is not a monstrosity, and most of the other confessions are even more removed from that basis. The high-church, traditional Anglicans are closest, having some sense of the Real Presence, full acceptance of small-o orthodox Christology, acceptance of freewill, some acceptance of the communion of Saints, and a respect for the Deuterocanon. But...well...they've gone off the rails morally speaking for the most part and have rendered unto Caesar that which is God's (by making the Church bound to the head of the English state). Perhaps the crypto-Orthodox or crypto-Catholic Anglicans are best, but they're already on their way to becoming Orthodox or Catholic!
Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths. Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the Lord, and depart from evil. (Proverbs 3:5-7) Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. (2nd Thessalonians 2:15) Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us. (2nd Thessalonians 3:6)
Methodist in RCIA right now. Don’t agree with your argument and think it would be insufficient for a QED, but it is a pretty good case, and I appreciate the thought you put into it. Love your channel!
If you look at archeological sites and older church buildings from the first century, the layout was of a Catholic Church (though without pews as those were not invented yet).
@@carlose4314 and the Jews were Christians, so they just used the Jewish worship spaces to spread the teachings of Christ along with the OT prophets The Eastern Orthodox have done a better job of preserving the worship space than the Catholics have
It's news to me that we've been able to identify first century church buildings. The written sources from that period (mostly the New Testament) fairly consistently depict the church as meeting in homes (or, in Jerusalem, in the Temple precinct). I would have thought that dedicated church buildings would have been extremely rare until Constantine legalised Christianity.
@@stephengray1344 Jews had synagogues before Nero started persecuting Christians, and Jews being the first Christians, gathered in them to worship God in the liturgy, as was custom
The Holy Catholic Church makes it clear that doctrine DOES NOT go against scripture. Every time you find something you think goes against scripture, you are wrong, and you will realize it with enough true hearted, Christ-centered prayer and contemplation, research, and information-vetting. The whole reason "papal infallibility" is a thing is because The Holy Spirit gives the authority to the Pope. It is so sad to me how Protestants and other Schismatics can have enough "faith" to believe in the word of God, but not enough faith to realize the church he personally created and gave to them for the saving of their own souls.
We don't believe this organization you refer to as the church is what Jesus was actually talking about. We protestants could make a similar lamentation directed at our beloved Catholics and Orthodox brothers and sisters: "they have the faith to believe in The Lord Jesus, but not faith to believe in His Word enshrined in the Holy Scriptures. Why?"
@@christafarion9 My guy. Lol. Catholics also believe scripture is divinely inspired. If you thought otherwise you are mistaken. Sola scriptura is so easily confuted it is laughable. You cannot interpret less clear scripture with more clear scripture. Jesus Christ created a church that is right in front of your eyes, but apparently you do not see it. Take James 2:14-26 from scripture itself: “14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. 18 But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.” Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. 19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that-and shudder. 20 You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless[d]? 21 Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,”[e] and he was called God’s friend. 24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone. 25 In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? 26 As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.” Good luck theologizing your way out of plain proclaimations. And here’s 1 Peter 3:8-22, another clear refutation of typical prot ideas around baptism, “Finally, all of you, be like-minded, be sympathetic, love one another, be compassionate and humble. 9 Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult. On the contrary, repay evil with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing. 10 For, “Whoever would love life and see good days must keep their tongue from evil and their lips from deceitful speech. 11 They must turn from evil and do good; they must seek peace and pursue it. 12 For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous and his ears are attentive to their prayer, but the face of the Lord is against those who do evil.”[a] 13 Who is going to harm you if you are eager to do good? 14 But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. “Do not fear their threats[b]; do not be frightened.”[c] 15 But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, 16 keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander. 17 For it is better, if it is God’s will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil. 18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit. 19 After being made alive,[d] he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits- 20 to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also-not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God.[e] It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand-with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.” Good luck telling yourself you don’t need a pope but then kowtowing to your Protestant pastors’ theological belief system. Come home to the one true church Christ created, that is where God wants you.
I've come to the conclusion that this channel is wholesome. Thanks for doing what you do. Also, would love to hear your thoughts on the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches and Doug Wilson? You'd vibe with our denomination's prioritization of kingdom building and theologically conservative ecumenicalism. If, God forbid, you ever get excommunicated from the PCUSA, you should absolutely check out the CREC.
@@cabellero1120 Mindless? It wasn't us that gatekept the Bible for centuries, tricking the masses into thinking they could pay their way to salvation by giving money to the Roman Church.
As a Catholic I appreciate your good faith arguments, but I believe that Sola Scriptura ultimately falls flat for a multitude of reasons. 1. Where in the Bible does it say that Scripture is the ONLY infallible authority, because how would you otherwise deduce that it is infallible in the first place? (You wouldn't have an infallible source to prove it.) 2. This also opens up the problem that people ultimately have different interpretations of Scripture (i.e. different denominations). Whose interpretation is right? By which standards do we judge this? 3. How do you reconcile Mt 16:18-19? If the Bible is the only infallible authority on faith, what about the Church described in these verses? Peter was the first Pope and all Popes can be traced back directly to him. etc., etc. I'd strongly recommend that you watch some videos from the Counsel of Trent on this as he puts it much better than I ever could in a simple comment. P.S.: I don't deny that the Bible is the infallible word of God, but I don't believe it is our ONLY authority.
As if Catholics and Ortodox do agree on everything. And big tomes cathehisis tomes are not solution as well. Some liberals can get around them such as scholar Raymond Brown who wrote book where he said that Christmas sroties are fiction. Or John Dominic Crossan who wrote that body of Jesus was eaten by dogs. (He left the catholic faith eventually) So even in Catholic and Ortodox spheres there can be heretics or just mistaken people.
Ye, imagine trying to follow just one thing and ending up following nobody, if you belive in the Bible but only in the ways you want you can do the same thing in history and we already know that isn't good, if anything that modern protestants teach was true we would have it in the Bible AND AS A TRADITION ON THE EARLY CHURCH, no church is infallible and nobody said that but your interpretation is even more fallible, at that point why don't we keep doing the strawman show until we all believe whatever we want regardless of Jesus teachings
@@derrickcarson no? There was just a handful of people who just don't bother actually reading what's officially released from the vatican. Everyone who actually read the response was in perfect unity. Maybe you had a hard time understanding it idk
Bro, I used WAY more then scripture to decide if I was going to join Orthodox or Catholics. Your arguments are high school level circular reasoning. I give you a C+ for effort.
I'm Catholic - just wanted to help clear up your first point. (Don't know if you'll see this, but I'm going to give it a whirl.) As you probably understand, Catholics and Orthodox don't deny that Church leaders are marred by sin. Where it gets interesting is where you say that because they sin, they can't teach infallibly, and this is based on the assumption that sin effects every part of us. I'm not sure I can deny that assumption, but I still think the argument doesn't hold up. The reason for this is that the men who wrote the Bible were able to do so infallibly, despite being sinners, because they were inspired by God in their writing, who protected them from error and directed them towards truth. At least this is how Catholics understand biblical infallibility, maybe Protestants have a different view of biblical infallibility that doesn't work like this, I don't know. But anyway, in the Catholic view, popes, magisterial councils, and Sacred Tradition can also be inspired by God when teaching on dogmatic issues. And I think that at least some of this is backed up even by the Bible, for instance, when Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would act as a counselor to the Apostles (and presumably their successors, although Protestants may contest this), Catholics read this as that God will guide the Apostles' teachings, thus making their authority infallible. In other words, we don't understand magisterial councils, ex-cathedra statements, and Church Traditions as merely "words of men." We believe that they, too are inspired by God, and thus the "I trust the Word of God over the words of men" argument just doesn't work for us, because the Bible is not the only Word of God.
I’m a Catholic and want to say you bring up a lot of good points that really made me think. I do think some of your understanding on the Catholic Church isn’t entirely accurate but I don’t want to discredit you because I know I don’t know everything either. I wanna say keep up the good work and keep on growing brother. God Bless You.
Well my problems whit this idea: 1. Is biggest irony is that nowhere in bible is something like sola scriptura, (i not mean like Jesus never said something like "bible is your biggest Authority") so its tradition 2. Nobody belive it before Martin Luther and (offcorse Martin was sanest from them , becouse switzerland guy said "before me was anyone wrong about God ") and 3. Church is older that biblie, (i know scriptures of old testament are older) but then Guy named Jesus was born 4 . Martin, John Calvin, and others were just people, no saints, and still their teachings are treated like something from bible, like predistination, yes biblie says that names in book of life were writen before foundention of Earth, but still nothing like God saing those i save and those not
@@lccr1000 It's not the literal word of God, it's the divinely inspired word of God. The letters written by Paul to the early Church weren't written by God (duh). They were inspired by God. Like nature inspires us to create laws that reflects the nature of the universe.
hey redeemed zoomer, I love the videos. can you make a video on how the original Hebrew/Latin/Koine Greek texts became the Bible that we know today? I've been researching a particular Bible translation into my native language from the 18th century, and it seems the work done was very thorough and the result is very easy to read even now. But I still wonder, are the translations infallible?
The only people who believe that Bible translations are infallible are groups who insist on using one particular translation. The most obvious examples would be Medieval Catholicism (which treated the Latin Vulgate this way) and the King James Onlyists who exist at the extreme fringes of some varieties of English-speaking Protestantism.
No. And no one should interpret the Bible however they want either. That's where hermeneutics come in. Just like logic and science, there are good principles for interpreting a text, book, talk, youtube comment, etc etc etc. We draw meaning from the constitution itself based on context, language, the authors, and what the text flat out says. We have to do the same for the Bible. Sadly, we don't teach our congregation how to do this. Hence all this unnecessary division.
@@gospelfreak5828 Did John the Baptist have teachers who had schooled him in the methods of historic reference and basis to interperate the historical grounding of which the texts were written in? Where did he get his degree? I do agree that people can read all kinds of things into the text, but the pharisees knew the text forwards, sideways and backwards, didn't meant they UNDERSTOOD the text because they read their own interpretations into it. And consider the chief priest was a Sadducee who didn't even BELEIVE in a resurrection, angels or spirits. Understanding comes from the Author and his helper is given to all who call upon him. The question is how much we rely on Men to help us understand God's word, and how much we rely on GOD to understand his word.
@@kriegjaeger John was a Prophet from God, and the last person with the title Prophet other than Jesus whom was the last Prophet (not to say prophecy is dead). He probably didn't have education, but it doesn't matter because God directly spoke through Him like Elijah, Isaiah, or Jeremiah. I am not saying every biblical person was educated in this way. But if you want to interpret the Bible correctly on certain things, you should be educated on them so to be less likely to commit an error in understanding the text. Most of scripture I would say can be understood without this education, which is why the Bible can resonate with all kinds of people through all cultures and generations. Knowing the text does not mean understanding. Correct. Hence why we have methods for understanding a passage, so we don't fall for the same mistake they did in not understanding certain things in scripture (though I think they understood most things, just not the messiah and then adding traditions to the Law that were never supposed to be accepted as Law, yet they tried to make it the same quality as Law. Sounds familiar). He didn't believe in the resurrection. That is correct. The Sadducees were more liberal in their thinking. What is the point? People get it wrong? People getting things wrong fits well with my view. God has given us logic, reasoning, science, etc for a reason. Same goes for hermeneutics. God gives us understanding of these things through these means. The Holy Spirit isn't some sort of cheat code to be lazy. We have to put in the work to understand the scriptures.
The anology is not fitting as the lay American does not have a person Helper who knows all things who is able to open their minds and interpret the constitution for them . Christians do, He is called the Holy Spirit , the Spirit of Truth. “But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you” 1 John 2:27
@@jaum571 Whoops, gotta bless the gæs cuz that's what the infallible Pope said nowadays🤷🏻♂️ Even though he said in 2021 that "the church cannot bless sin" and the Cathecism Paragraph #2357 said "Under no circumstances can they be approved" talking about alphabetism
@@jaum571 Protestants can't even agree on the Eucharist. The only overlap in all Protestants is belief in the Bible and Jesus Christ, but even then there's varying opinions on the correct beliefs of those essentials. Protestantism refutes itself, as it has done since its origins and continues to do so.
Redeemed Zoomer you should do an interview/discussion with Trent Horn on the authority of the Bible vs. the authority of the Church, Sola Scriptura, or Sola Fide
Why? Maybe Matt Fradd, but why are you trying to put someone who has been in like 3 debates/discussions with someone whose profession is debating this topic in a situation that will likely devolve into a debate?
@@JP-rf8rr It was just a suggestion. It could boost his publicity and give us good content. I don't think it would necessarily turn into a debate, they could come with predetermined questions. Just an idea
@@VeritasVivet Compared to Trent Horn, a debate and theology wizard, absolutely not! RZ is smart but he has no serious training. I'd rather see Trent Horn vs. Jordan Cooper. Or like the other guy said, a discussion between Matt Frad and RZ.
Not offended, but I just want to say that a libertarian that knows what libertarianism is about could tell you that the government has a purpose and can’t be totally dismantled. Libertarian politics and Christian values are not opposed.
Bach composed music for a Roman Catholic Holy Mass at a mature stage of his life. He probably wouldn't have done that if he didn't see any truth in Catholicism. Only God knows if he converted eventually.
Sola Scriptura is like: My own understaning of scriptures. The Bible was gave to us by the church and tradition. Personal interpretation is a heavy heresy, it needs someone from the church to explain it (Acts 8:30-31; 2 Peter 1:20). I can't trust a man who has no apostolic succession, removed 7 books (and wanted to remove James, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation) because it didn't fit his heretical theology. The funniest thing is that he preferred to follow the AUTHORITY OF THE JEWS to define his own bible, even though the OWN SCRIPTURE in Revelation 22:18-19 forbids it. Protestantism is an illusion, it has no authority because if it did it wouldn't have more than 30,000 denominations. Jesus founded ONE church and gave it authority (Matthew 16:18-19), and we have the APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION LIST. "The gates of hell shall not prevail!". Go back to the Holy Orthodox Church.
1. The Bible IS a tradition in the Catholic Church, they don't just separate the Bible and the rest of the traditions. 2. Catholics acknowledge that leaders can make mistakes, it has happened before. As for papal infallibility, it is only applicable under certain circumstances, and shouldn't contradict the churches previous teachings. 3. Oral teachings from the Pharisees often contradicted the OT, and ignored prophecies within it. 4. The Bible is not the oldest tradition of the church, but the teachings of those who were connected directly to the Apostles and their early successors.
I bet you are under 25 years of age, seems to me orthodoxy is the new hipster version of Christianity, a counter culture relligion for kids who are fed up with american degeneracy (whic i am also), this does however NOT make the orthodox church the truth, Jesus is the truth, and the only way to salvation , you do NOT need any chuch to be saved
@cheese-bg1xq You've clearly never listened to or read any Catholic documents on LGBTQ issues in the Church. He acknowledges they exist, and that it may not be a choice, and that they can still be Catholics. However, he also still classifies all forms of gay relations as sinful, gay marriage is sinful. No, gay unions are not blessed, if you actually read what was in Fiducia Supplicans it more allows to bless the people within it, not the Union itself.
Hello RZ, I'm Catholic and there are some things that I'd like to say about Sola Scriptura (I was a Protestant before becoming Catholic). 1) In the beginning of the video, you say something like "people who say you can't understand the Bible unless you read the Church Fathers make it sound like they're better at communicating the Word of God than God Himself". Well, actually this claim presupposes that anyone can read the Bible and come to the same conclusion (I guess we can all agree that God wants us to believe the exact same things the first Christians believed), which is sadly not the case. If God meant the Bible to be read for anyone without the INfallible guidance of a Church, then He would've made sure to make the Bible so blantanly simple and clear that there wouldn't be room for any confusion, but the Bible isn't simple (at all), it's a pretty extensive collection of books, it comprises many different cultural contexts in which the authors lived, and talks about so many topics, that it's humanly impossible for someone to read the Bible and come to the exact same conclusions as someone else. And this might no be a problem unless you believe the words of Jesus, when He promises that the Holy Spirit will guide us to ALL truths (not just some truths here and some truths there), when He told Peter that not even the GATES OF HELL will prevail against the Church, and that He will be with us until the end of the world. When you see protestantism, you see the opposite regarding the promise of Jesus: many different denominations with different understandings about sacraments, salvation, what things are considered sinful (for instance, I firmly believe contraception is a mortal sin because that's what the Church has always taught, and many protestants commit that grave sin because it's not explicitly mentioned in the Bible), in other words, there must be one place, and only one place in which we can find the FULLNESS of the Gospel, otherwise Jesus lied. 2) You constantly mention that religion leaders are fallible because they sin too much. I agree with that, they're sinners, but that's entirely irrelevant when it comes to Church infallibility. Jesus promised that He was going to guide the Church until He comes back through the Holy Spirit, and this guidance has nothing to do with the holiness of the leaders, it has to do with teachings about doctrine (which includes the sacraments of course). We can't be comfortable with many different doctrines because they're contradictory among protestants, Paul commanded us to be One Body. You also said something like "I hope you're not saying that counsels are better at saying what God said in his own Word". Well, I believe God is actually speaking through the counsel as well as He did in the Bible, because one of the tasks of the Church is to clear up doctrine, which God does through the Church and then we can fully agree on everything. The Holy Spirit can guide the church at any particular moment just as He did when the authors wrote the Bible. 3) (This is the weirdest one) You agreed with us Catholics that we have to rely on tradition to know what books belong to the Bible, and gave the example thay you can bring something infallible through fallible means. The problem is, if tradition is fallible, then why do I have to trust it to know what books actually belong to the Bible? You still need a Church that infallibly declares what books must be in the Bible, but if you grant that Church its infallibility regarding the Canon of Scripture, you have to grant that infallibility to all of the Church teachings (why would you trust Her at certain things but not others?). Sorry for my English, I'm not an English native speaker.
"The pillar and foundation of Truth." Isn't just casual authority. You're acting like the Church, the mystical body of Christ isn't distinct from its particular Patriarchs and Bishops. The particular men are fillable, as I'm certain St. Paul was often wrong even after his conversation, but when God chose him for His mouthpiece, Paul was infallible. By the same logic that brought us to the dogma of the hypostatic union, we can also infer that the Bishops that were the biblical authors were necessarily infallible when writing the Bible. Paul wrote his Epistles, the Holy Spirit wrote the Epistles through Paul, but Paul did write them. The text we both agree is infallibily written, the author of it was infallible when writing it because his pen was guided by the Spirit. These things proceed necessarily from each other, otherwise you'd have to say 1. The Bible isn't infallible because the worldly authors were tainted by sin, and hence anything they wrote couldn't be immaculate translation of God's Word. Or 2. You deny that God wrote the text through men. That the Holy Spirit literally came down, picked up a pen and started writing, and dropped it on Paul's desk, which defeats the point of Pentecost, or the Incarnation for that matter. Any time you deny the place of Gods Holy Spouse, whether its Mary as the spouse of the Spirit, or the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church as the Bride if Christ, you immediately lose all legitimacy in believing in any dogma or traditions. Sola Scriptura is Utterly self defeating.
Hey RZ, fan of the content and Catholic here, I think that the first point you made about sin and infallibility is a weak point and bad argument, because it doesn't really logically follow that sin makes someone wrong, for example, we all know that Paul rebuked Peter for refusing to eat with the gentile converts, and in that case Peter was not making a doctrinal statement about gentiles, but instead was not living up to the rules he set in place. As Catholics we can both affirm the moral failing of the hierarchy while still affirming that the church never erred on a point of doctrine, think of the Pornocracy or the Borgia Popes, despicable behavior, completely unbecoming of a lay Catholic, let alone the Pope, yet even they did not bind the Church to error. Essentially what I am trying to say is infallible =/= sinless, and I would be hard pressed to find a Catholic who knows his faith who would say such a thing.
In theory, the Catholic Church could come out right now and "infallibly proclaim as dogma" things that blatantly contradict scripture. In such a case, who would be right? If your answer is scripture, then you believe in Sola Scriptura.
Second comment, 2nd point, RZ on the point of the Pharisees, the thing about that is Christ was able to prove that He was above the pharisees and their authority, 1. because He is God and can do what He wants, and 2. He had miracles to back His statements up. In the modern context, some basic Church history can show how from the first few centuries Christians believed in an unerring Church, and in order to prove that you would have an extraordinary mission against the contemporary church, you should have miracles to back up your claim, but none to my knowledge of the early Protestant reformers did any miracles. So you can't really say that Jesus vs. Pharisees is the same as Protestants vs. Catholics/Orthodox. Not to mention the arguments for why the current Church is given more authority and more protections from error than the Jewish Temple.
“You’re basically saying that councils are better at communicating than God himself through his own word” Horrible strawman. We’re instead saying that councils are better at INTERPRETING the word than Pastor Jim Bob who believes sola scriptura
From BILLY BOB'S NON-DENOM: Hey, Zoomer, we love you and great video! Just curious why you take a swing at us? Non-denom: No roots in any church? Our first point of reference is the early church, and we don't get anchored to corrupt national religious leaders. Every non-denom church is free to use its own judgement to take doctrinal cues from other past or present church leaders. The main virtue of non-denom is HUMILITY because we have excused ourselves from picking which groups are wrong and bad and which are ok, and only consider individual teachings on a case by case basis. The primary value of non-denominationalism is that we get to spend less time fighting with other Christians because EACH local church is supposed to be Bereans who read the Bible and can accept wisdom from any denomination so long as it matches up with Scripture. It's like final form Sola Scriptura! As always, we love you and a great video overall, your content is a huge blessing and I pray that you are strengthened and encouraged in private and in your ministry here!
As someone who is starting the process of converting to Catholicism, I have to ask this: How can you trust the Bible you have, when seven books have been taken out of it? What authority would allow for that? Also, if those seven books didn't belong, why were they there to begin with? Once you start realizing how much Protestants took away from Christianity, such as the Eucharist, it's hard to think they're right about much of what they say.
You lost me at the church building and songs. I was in a Methodist church all my life. I love the church and buildings and the songs. (African Methodists are a different level of lit though) BUT the church was dead. Our youth group leader who was allowed to stay encouraged relationships, there was no difference between the conversations in the church. I found a church on campus that you would call “box church” however for the first time I met people who were living the Word. They were not perfect but they believed God. We prayed for people on the streets, we had connect groups and actually walked together in Christ, I was held accountable for my sins, I was healed. The church LIVED. Strong Christians can stay in a church like that but not when you’re weak or a young Christian. I’ll always love the Methodist Church and they got so many things absolutely right however I truly became a believer in a boxy church. I know they have so many issues too, believe me. But for new Christians they were stricter than the Methodists in terms of your actual every day life.❤
Where did the Bible come from? On whose authority do you know which books are included or not? As you admitted, the document could be infallible without the church being infallible, true. But we don’t believe the entire church and everyone in it is always infallible. Your stance on sin is also, wait for it, Catholic. TLDR; misunderstand infallibility. Big props to you for trying to think deeply about all this stuff; it’s urgent and important to try to follow Christ to consider these things. Happy to walk on the journey with you and thanks for your perspective. Side note: if sola scriptura were actually accepted in practice by most Protestants, there would be no reason for the common practice of Protestant “statements of faith” and church shopping would be far lesser.
I absolutely love Redeemed Zoomer's content and think he's done 10x more good than harm, but 16:08 has to be one of the worst arguments he's ever made. He says that: "multiple churches claim to be the true church, so none of them are, and therefore Protestantism is correct." By this logic, you can claim that: "Multiple religions claim to be true, so none of them are true, and atheism is correct." or "There are multiple philosophical positions you can take, so none of them are true, and nihilism is correct." Also, at 16:23, he says that they have "equally credible historical claims." Which comes out of nowhere. What has convinced him that all of the churches that claim to be "the one true church" have equal amounts of evidence? Wouldn't the "one true church" be the biblically accurate one? He agrees that the filioque is biblical, so wouldn't Catholicism have more evidence than Eastern Orthodoxy? Based on his other videos, I believe that he thinks Catholicism is more biblical than Orthodoxy, so why is he saying this? I like the Minecraft gameplay format, but these videos could use some editing. I think that if you want to paint these arguments in the best light you should have the option to cut stuff out. That's why I think the other videos that utilize editing are much more persuasive. They are scripted and every word counts, instead of being 30 mins of partially scripted unfiltered thoughts. Btw, If RZ ever sees this then keep up the good work bro. 👍 God bless. ✝
hey zoomer you’re one of the reasons im seriously considering turning to christ.
have a blessed day bro.
Do it my friend. Best thing that’s ever happened to me was Christ.
@@poppy63765 Dont make he change his mind because of these stupid discussions whether you are baptist, catholic, presbyterian, orthodox or whatever. The only thing that matters is that he needs to turn to Christ.
It’s the best decision you can ever make my friend. Putting your faith in Christ is the only joy that lasts eternally
@@closetevangelism amen
Praying for you🙏🙏
Oh my word. People. Watch a whole video before you critique it. Im halfway in and there are some things i dont agree with (though so far overall good). But as a matter of intellectual integrity, you need to listen to a whole argument and try to represent what youre critiquing to earn the right to critique it. That really goes for any position you critique, theological or not. It's a matter of virtue. We Christians ought to be the best at doing this.
No
he dosent mention martin luther and taking out 8 books
@@lukadapro7112Is the apocrypha biblical, as the video says?
@@boldey If he did i didnt notice where did he discuss them?
If the whole video was one argument, maybe. But as there are multiple points made anyone can respond to whichever point they want whenever they want.
Probably best to try and get the point in it's entirety, but only if you're responding to the point. If you're responding to a single sentence made, then no, you're not required to watch their entire video collection before responding.
Christ is King
So true
🗿
@@YaBoiOlivah 💀
Of what country? I'm pretty sure his kingdom isn't recognized by most countries.
Sorry to be cynical, but why do people post things like this? Did you think we forgot? Is it for likes? The sense of community?
A debate with trent horn on protestantism vs catholicism or on sola scriptura would be cool
That would be a great debate!
That would be completely unfair. RZ wouldn't stand a chance.
It's not exactly fair to put zoomer who has had like 3 informal debates with Trent who has been doing it for years.
Trent talking with Jordan Cooper would be good though.
That would be a slaughter, RZ is young and hasn't really found his footing in debates yet. Trent has been doing this stuff for years.
Watch Trents debate with Gavin Ortlund on sola scriptura. He already debated that
As a former Protestant, now Catholic, I appreciate the good-faith arguments made in your videos.
I take these arguments seriously and give them careful consideration.
i congratulate you for findinh the one true faith
@mr.ocelotguy8995 thank you kind sir
clown arguments. Just how the pharisees didnt realise the scriptures point to christ, so to the new testament to the Only Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. The problem is not the Bible being unclear but protestants taking ridiculous interpretations unfounded in the early church. With something as complicated as God and his plan for us, of course u can misinterpret it.
As long as you follow Christ and put your faith in Him, it's all good.
I'm Reformed myself, but just like you and Redeemed Zoomer I have a pretty ecumenical approach. We should acknowledge the differences, while realising that we agree on most of the important issues, while disagreeing on the less important teachings.
@jobzeelenberg5900
What do you think are our points of agreement that fall under essential doctrine?
Am I the only one from India who watch your Channel? I myself a Presbyterian, who follows Reform Presbyterian tradition. And i like teaching like this, even i follow ligonier ministry which sound similar like this. Thanks God for his miraculous work. God bless u man.
May The Lord Bless you and save more of your fellow countrymen.
I'm from India aswell, and also follow Presbyterian traditions, we don't have a lot of Presbyterian churches here, they used to be but they joined with the mainline Anglican denomination here
Are there Presbyterian Churches in India?
May I recommend Matthew Everhard? I much prefer him over Ligionier since Ligionier sometimes conflicts with Presbyterian tradition with its heavy Baptist influence. They also sort of endorse Lordship Salvation, which conflates law and gospel. However, there are good teachers at Ligionier. I like Sinclair Ferguson and others.
@@donambrosini4585 There are, but there aren't a lot.
You don’t understand the orthodox position. We don’t say the Bishop/Priests are infallible, we say the Apostolic Teaching is infallible. This comes in two forms oral tradition and written tradition (Bible). The oral tradition passes down the teachings that aren’t committed to writing and shows us the correct interpretation of those writings. If the entire early church agrees on a doctrine:
1. It demonstrates a work of the Holy Spirit in guiding his church
2. Shows what teaching was passed down to them orally.
3. Shows how these men would have interpreted scripture, when determining if certain books were consistent with other books, when determining the cannon.
You can’t find Calvinism in the early church no matter how hard you look at Augustine, which should be a clue that the Apostles didn’t teach it.
I don't think he has a basic knowledge of church history to tell you the truth.
@@truegravee Don't y'all have beards to grow or something?
Tbf you straw manned his position. He never made the claim that the bishops are infallible. He said your church is infallible
@@Brainboxreview which it is especially when it was the church that gave us biblical canon, not Jesus
But he did understand. 12:28
I agree with the one who said you strawmanned RZs position. The evidence is right there on the timestamp. He agreed with you.
Okay I just started watching. Nobody thinks anyone’s a better communicator than God. But CLEARLY, thanks to there being many churches with different ideologies, not everyone is able to understand God so well 😂
@@youngalek4434 I mean, who can't trust a Swiss man with a beautiful beard, am I right!
@@youngalek4434 I can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic or not 😂 I don’t believe Calvin was right about determinism though
There is also the possibility that some things don't really matter that much and we think our specific overanalyzing ought to be followed by everybody else.
@@philippbrogli779 Some issues are definitely not salvific and are found in the Bible. That's not what causes a schism though. I personally am Catholic and think highly of other christians because I see they're sincere about their beliefs. It's sad that the church is divided, but that is the reality. All we can do is pray that God sees the sincerity of His sheep, whatever religion they belong to.
@@wissamboustany3431 There have been times where the Catholic church said that people who did belief certain Marian doctrines are anathematized. I don't know if those are cause for schisms, but it is certainly not helping in church divisions. And if we look why the Anglican church split from the roman church then this is also not for core Gospel reasons.
As a cradle Orthodox who fell away from faith and came back to Christianity… I’ve been kind of placed in this double world where I’m in love with the Orthodox church but I also have deep respect for my Protestant brothers and sisters, I can very much empathize with your Sola Scriptura argument. It actually makes sense. I love the zeal that Protestant denominations possess for Christ. And as believers, one of the most important things is to keep our zeal for Him. I think one of the reasons God has allowed for split offs and denominations within the Church is to KEEP zeal within believers. I think God kind of loves how we aim to figure Him out. It is one of the ways we are able to show Him how much we love Him. Otherwise, partly, we might become who the Pharisees were, and only go about the motions of religion rather than possessing a deep love for Christ. Praise the Lord.
ddont leave orthodoxy bro ☦
"I love the zeal that Protestant denominations possess for Christ"
What do you mean about this? , do you mean in contrast to how maria(ant saints)-centered the orthodox church is?
@@khole15he means that in Catholicism and Orthodoxy especially in the US where Orthodox churches often double as ethnic community centers, there are MANY people who are atheists and agnostics going through the motions.
@@vercingetorix5708 true, they also focus on maria and saints more
Hey, Eastern Orthodox guy here. The same reason we don’t believe in sola scriptura is why we venerate saints, it’s not to say that the Bible isn’t of high authority, the church fathers are how we can interpret things. They are not an end all be all, but rather a lens that we view things through. We don’t worship the saints and the theotokos, but we do look at them as exemplary people we should model ourselves after. This may not be fully shared among all orthodox, but that is my understanding of it and it is what I believe, I really do enjoy your content and I appreciate your message☦️
The Presbyterians also interpret through the church fathers though. It is about which church fathers' teaching each church holds to that creates division. You will see books and teachings on saints of the church that were exemplary and sing about and cherish Mary (singing is not done as much though to keep the focus on Christ)..
@@chiukidSure, but don't you think that the church the apostles built is the way Christ intended it? So how can any church make changes to doctrine without ecumenical council?
@leooivio The ecumenical councils are very important to us too. They are very good to confirm the Bible teachings but we do not see the men holding them to be infallible. Some of our councils are different towards the later ones but were held by R. Catholics as true councils at the time they were held. We just haven't been able to move past it. You can see how Rome created much confusion in the past. I wonder what they would make of everything now if they were here with all this information.
“We believe in the Bible alone which we received from the early Church Tradition but decided only to accept their authority on this specific canon of books and reject most everything else”.
Cornelius needed help to interpret what he was reading.
Bishops and Presbyters are appointed in Book of Acts
"I'm just going to rewrite the argument into something no one has stated in an effort to make it as ludicrous as possible. Everything within these quotation marks is accurate and definitely happened."
@@Mic1904 okay fair enough, where do you get your authority on canonicity of scripture from?
@@OrthodoxAlex The entire foundational basis of the question is faulty, because ultimately you're looking for an ordained magisterial 'authority', because this is the lens through which your own view of church is built (not necessarily a criticism, everyone has a lens through which we look at things, just an honest observation). And, therefore, when you look at the argument of another tradition, you can only try and fit them into that framework. But Protestantism has never claimed magisterial authority vested in a particular group of men to declare the authority of the Scriptures. Rather, the Scriptures are inherently authoritative merely by their very existence as works of the Spirit - the Church community (as an entire church, not the magisterium) simply attests to, and affirms that authority by their acceptance and recognition of that (growing) canon. They are not the source of the authority - they do not create the Bible's authority. They affirm and attest to it. This is how it worked in Scripture itself - the writers of Scripture, and the receivers of Scripture, affirmed its status as Scripture long before the existence of a magisterial council that said so (indeed, where else would such a magisterial council gather the basis for such a ruling if it were not based in the prior practice of the church - even they were merely reflecting practice, not inventing it).
@@OrthodoxAlexok, why don't you pick the Ethiopian Canon or the orthodox Canon or the oriental Canon? How do you know which was the true church?
@samueltomjoseph4775 look at history and learn about the councils. Guess who lost each of the councils and got kicked out (or decided to leave) as the minority and anathematized opinion? Not the Catholics but the others like Eastern Orthodox.
Hello Redeemed Zoomer,
You have several misunderstandings regarding the critique done towards _Sola_ _Scriptura,_ and I'm going to try and clarify that.
The problem with Sola Scriptura isn't the principle in itself. As you said it yourself, all Christians inherently believe in it, since scripture is part of our infallible Tradition. The problem comes with who is legitimately allowed/capable to transmit the meaning of the scriptures. Sola Scriptura makes most protestants think that anybody can, however, we know this is false for two reasons:
1- the multitude of various interpretations of the scriptures
2- the fact that the scriptures themselves deny that anybody can understand them.
Christ created the Church and appointed/anointed people to guide it in truth through the Holy Spirit (who is infallible). If we need guidance on how to understand scriptures, it is logical that we follow what the bishops say first. And this is confirmed by St Philip in Acts, chapter 8:
30- Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked.
31- “How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.
The fact that not everybody can interpret the scriptures doesn't make God a bad communicator, it makes us bad listeners. Because even when God clearly and soundly dispensed orders to the Israelites, they still departed from him. That's why we have the Holy Spirit to guide the Church. Because humans are imperfect and rebellious to God in nature. And that's why it is a bad idea that anybody take it onto themselves to read and teach what the scriptures tell us. Now, does it mean that no believers has the right to question authorities? No. And there are countless examples of that happening when heresies arose. Most people didn't know how to read, but through the Tradition of the Church, taught in liturgical services and religious education, people could recognize what was contrary to the message of scriptures. So yes, even though bishops aren't infallible because of sin, what has been decreed by the Church, (who is supposed to be guided by the Holy Spirit in all things as Christ said to the apostles), is then true. Otherwise, you would make Christ (his promise in the scriptures) be a lie.
I hope I have been clear enough.
1 Though many people interpret it in different ways there is only one true way,
2 take a random verse, Romans 1:26 for example it's not hard to discern homosexuality is condemned there. It is true that many misunderstand but that doesn't mean sola scriptura isn't accurate
@@anthonycordato7118 No true scotsman based on nothing, prots always think they have the only best interpration, based on nothing, they will interpret like 15 verses from the Bible and look there it is
@@anthonycordato7118 that's just illogical, and if God wanted us to all follow a book he would of made it clear so the truth was evident.
God didn't want us to follow a book, he wanted us to follow his church, the living word of God, that has the Holy Spirit to interpret scripture.
@@anthonycordato7118 Yes, and the one true way to interpret the verse that you gave is through the tradition that confirms that the Church always believed that it was condemning homosexuality.
Now, if you apply _Sola_ _Scriptura,_ and say that the Tradition is below the "right" interpretation of scriptures, you end up with people telling you that the greek word translated into homosexuality actually means pedophilia.
Your only way to rebuke them is to go back to the Tradition.
@@anthonycordato7118 No. 1 is simply false. There are many ways to interpret any text and more than one can be correct. The four ways in which a text can be interpreted are usually said to be literal, allegorical, moral and anagogical. So one verse can tell you something about a historic event, which is also an allegory for a different historic event, is also an example of a moral action and also tells us something about a more spiritual concept like the afterlife. All of these would be considered different interpretations and all of them would be correct at the same time.
Hello Zoomer, I am a Christian currently going through Catholic initiation. I may be incorrect as i am no pastor or priest, but it is my understanding that the pope is only infallible when he declares the word of God from the Holy See. When it comes to "one true church," I am still unsure of my views surrounding it, but the way I see it, the Catholic church does have the strongest roots to the Early Church fathers. I do agree that the Bible is the highest authority, but I also think the church does have authority appointed by the Lord to apply the Bible to current circumstance. Let me end this by saying I have nothing but love for all my brothers and sisters in Christ, and I wish no bad feelings to anybody who disagrees, I just want to share my point of view. Thanks for the very informative video
The Lord be with you on this journey back home. One correction, however: The pope doesn't declare the "word of God" from the Holy See because he is not God. The Magisterium is an interpreter/teacher guided by the Holy Spirit away from error but not of any divine nature. The pope alone or with the College of Bishops (the Roman Pontiff) defines teaching on faith or morals based on 3 conditions, if they:
1. speak from the office of the seat of St. Peter,
2. teach on matters concerning faith or morals, and
3. declare the teaching to be held by the whole Church.
@@botanicamelancholia thank you for the clarification. God be with you
@@botanicamelancholia sorry, but the papist cult you call home is just that: a papist cult. Those three conditions are nothing more than a desperate escape from when popes speak falsehood, much like what your present alleged vicar is doing now.
Hey Wesley. The only root the Roman Catholic organization has to the early church is geographical location and association to people. The reason people are easily caught in the trap of "hey, Roman Catholic church is the true church!" is that the visible church and the invisible church are conflated together. We must remember that even Paul himself said that false teachers will rise up from among the ranks of the church itself. The visible church will contain wheat and tares. But the invisible church will be protected, and it is comprised of all true believers, whatever denomination they are from. I will even assert that there are true Christians in the Roman Catholic cult, who believe the Bible and not the dogmas of the RCC.
What the Roman Catholic organization is today isn't the same with the early church. You would encounter many Catholics say that what the RCC believes has always been held by all Christians in the early church, but that is not the case. For instance, many early church fathers ascribe venial faults to Mary and do not consider her immaculately conceived or sinless. Even Augustine, conversing with an Arian, said that he wouldn't appeal to the councils that existed during their time to prove Christ's deity, but to that which was common to them both, the Scriptures, when it comes to demonstrating what the truth is.
Your true home is Christ, not an earthly organization. The visible church you must find is that which proclaims the truth of the Scriptures, not the one that adds so many dogmas found nowhere in the Bible, especially *de fide* dogmas that if you do not agree with will damn you according to the RCC (e.g. the Marian dogmas).
As for the invisible church, that is the true church, and you become a member of it the instant you are born again from above and regenerated and made into a new creature and justified by God's will.
@juilianbautista4067 thank you for the information. I am still very inexperienced when it comes to church heraldry, so I appreciate input like this which encourages me to learn more. God be with you, friend
Some thoughts from a catholic:
Basically, if you accept that there are sacred (=infallible) traditions, you have to believe in the infallibility of the church. Jesus did not reject religious tradition as a whole because he told his disciples to obey the Jewish leaders because they sat on something called “Moses’ seat” (Matt. 23:2-3). This was not an actual chair but a term that referred to a Jewish tradition, not found in Scripture (!), about the Jewish leaders’ teaching authority. In fact, prior to his Ascension into heaven Jesus never commanded the apostles to write anything down. Instead, their mission was to preach the gospel, and the word of God continued to be passed down in oral tradition even after the New Testament was written.
The most striking argument against sola scriptura is the simple fact, that both Catholics and Protestants accept the canon of Scripture which is a Sacred Tradition. The canon of Scripture was first declared in Rome in A.D. 382 and was later defined at two Catholic councils in North Africa (Hippo in A.D. 393 and Carthage in A.D. 397). However, if you are a Christian who denies the authority of the Catholic Church, then by what authority can you say Christians must accept the canon of Scripture found in today’s Bibles? Some say it’s just obvious the books of the Bible all belong there and we don’t need any Church to prove they do, but is it really so obvious? Paul’s letter to Philemon doesn’t teach any specific doctrine, and the third letter of John doesn’t even mention the name of Jesus Christ. Conversely, other writings that were popular in the early Church, like the Didache or the letter of Clement, are not in the canon of Scripture. Others say “the church” determined the canon, but we aren’t obligated to follow what any church might teach today. But if that group of early Christians did not have Christ’s authority, then we have no reason to continue following their doctrinal decisions, including their decisions about the canon. The Protestant theologian R.C. Sproul famously suggested that the best we can say is that the canon of Scripture is “a fallible list of infallible books.” This means any Christian who feels moved by the Holy Spirit could claim that the table of contents in the Bible needs to be revised, or even that some portions of the Bible should be removed.
In fact, 500 years ago Martin Luther and other Protestant Reformers did just that. Luther called the letter of James “an epistle of straw” because it contradicted his theology, so he moved it to the back of the Bible. Even though Luther and the other Reformers kept the letter of James, they removed the deuterocanonicals, from the Old Testament. These
books, like Sirach, Tobit, and Maccabees (among others), were part of the Bible Jesus used and were considered inspired Scripture in the early Church. One reason the Reformers rejected books was because they teach Catholic doctrines like the existence of purgatory and the need to pray for the dead.
Catholics agree we should not believe anything that contradicts God’s word, in either its written form (the Bible) or its oral form (Tradition). If an alleged tradition contradicts Scripture, then the tradition must be of human rather than divine origin. But if a document that claims to be Scripture (such as a forged or heretical gospel) contradicts Sacred Tradition, then it, too, must be of human origin. God speaks through the written word, but only through Scared Tradition can we know which writings are the word of God and which ones are not.
Sacred Tradition also protects the Church from false interpretations of the Bible. My Protestant friends would sometimes debate other religious people who denied basic Christian doctrines like the deity of Christ. They would point out Bible passages that they say proved Jesus is God, only to hear the other person say, “Yes, but that’s not how I interpret those
passages.” I thought it was ironic when one of my Protestant friends said, “But my interpretation of these passages is the same one Christians have held for 2,000 years!”
This was a perfect example of how God’s word speaks in Scripture through the written word (or what the Bible says), but also through oral Tradition (or teachings about what the Bible means). But whose tradition should we look to for guidance on interpreting the Bible? Protestants can’t even agree among themselves on what the Bible taught concerning issues such as whether babies should be baptized or if salvation can be lost. It’s no wonder that in his second letter St. Peter taught, “no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation” (2 Pet. 1:20).
If anyone has read this far, I recommend watching Trent Horn, who can argue better than I ever will. My arguments above are all from him.
Have you read or listened to a well-informed Protestant take on these issues, or have you only heard Trent's take on the issue? I'm asking because what you've written sounds like you've only really heard one side of the argument. Trent is a good spokesman for your side, but his arguments frequently rely on assumptions that Catholics make, but Protestants don't.
Treating some traditions as sacred is not the same thing as treating them as infallible. And the Protestant understanding of how the canon came about differs from the Catholic one. We don't think that the church decided what books were scripture. We think that the church recognised it. The fact that the Greek and Roman churches have different Old Testament canons proves that the issue wasn't settled at any council before 1054. A good understanding of the Protestant view of the canon should probably start from an understanding of what scripture is. The New Testament is the collection of books that can be traced back to the Apostles and those authorised by them. Books like 1 Clement and the Didache were rejected because they were not from the Apsotles. The Old Testament is the collection of books that Christ and the Apostles regarded as scripture. There isn't a single instance in the New Testament of anybody citing part of the Apocrypha as scripture, and I've yet to see anybody produce any historical evidence that the Jews accepted them as scripture. Which leaves the Apocrypha either in the category of not scripture, or in the category of "possibly scripture, but we can't prove it". Hence the historic Protestant position has always been to treat these books as useful, but not authoritative.
And Sacred Tradition does not protect the Church from false interpretations of the Bible. If you genuinely believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the same institution that Christ founded, then you have to accept that there was a period of about one generation where the majority of its members (including a majority of Bishops) denied the deity of Christ by accepting the Arian heresy. And, of course, there is the problem of working out which traditions are sacred. The Council of Hieria and the Second Council of Nicea both claimed to be ecumenical councils. One council condemned veneration of icons, the other said that the practice was compulsory. Whichever council you think was correct, you have to accept that a council of well over 300 Bishops chose to explicitly endorse something that another council of well over 300 Bishops condemned as incompatible with the faith.
@@stephengray1344 Thanks for responding! I'm still pretty new to Christianity, and Trent Horn has been a huge influence (Redeemed Zoomer actually pretty much started my conversion to Christianity). Thanks for providing the insights from a Protestant perspective - always eager to learn more about the different views.
@@stephengray1344 1. Nicaea I
325
Pope Sylvester I, 314-335
Emperor Constantine, 306-337
Decisions: Condemned Arianism, which denied the divinity of Christ (elements of Arianism have reappeared in our own time); defined the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son; fixed the date for Easter; began formulation of Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.
2. Constantinople I
381
Pope Damasus I, 366-384
Emperor Theodosius, 379-395
Decisions: Recondemned Arianism; condemned Macedonianism, which denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit; completed the formulation of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.
3. Ephesus
431
Pope Celestine I, 422-432
Emperor Theodosius II, 408-450
Decisions: Condemned Nestorianism, which denied the unity of the divine and human in Christ; defined that Mary is the Mother of God (Theotokos), a doctrine denied by the Nestorians and by most of today’s Protestants; condemned Pelagianism, which held that man could earn his own salvation through his natural powers.
4. Chalcedon
451
Pope Leo the Great, 440-461
Emperor Marcian, 450-457
Decisions: Condemned Monophysitism (also called Eutychianism), which denied Christ’s human nature.
5. Constantinople II
553
Pope Vigilius, 537-555
Emperor Justinian I, 527-565
Decisions: Condemned the Three Chapters, writings tainted by Nestorianism and composed by Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyr, and Ibas of Edessa.
6. Constantinople III
680
Pope Agatho, 678-681
Emperor Constantine IV, 668-685
Decisions: Condemned Monothelitism, which held Christ had but one will, the divine (this heresy arose as a reaction to the monophysite heresy); censured Pope Honorius I for a letter in which he made an ambiguous but not infallible statement about the unity of operations in Christ (an episode commonly used by anti-Catholic writers as an argument against papal infallibility, but for the real meaning, see Catholicism and Fundamentalism, pages 227-229).
7. Nicaea II
787
Pope Hadrian I, 772-795
Emperor Constantine VI, 780-797
Decisions: Condemned iconoclasm (which was mainly confined to the East), a heresy that held that the use of images constituted idolatry; condemned Adoptionism, which held that Christ was not the Son of God by nature but only by adoption, thereby denying the hypostatic union.
@@stephengray1344 The Old Testament books were written well before Jesus’ Incarnation, and all of the New Testament books were written by roughly the end of the first century A.D. But the Bible as a whole was not officially compiled until the late fourth century, illustrating that it was the Catholic Church who determined the canon-or list of books-of the Bible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, the Bible is not a not a self-canonizing collection of books, as there is no table of contents included in any of the books.
Although the New Testament canon was not determined until the late 300s, books the Church deemed sacred were early on proclaimed at Mass, and read and preached about otherwise. Early Christian writings outnumbered the 27 books that would become the canon of the New Testament. The shepherds of the Church, by a process of spiritual discernment and investigation into the liturgical traditions of the Church spread throughout the world, had to draw clear lines of distinction between books that are truly inspired by God and originated in the apostolic period, and those which only claimed to have these qualities.
The process culminated in 382 as the Council of Rome, which was convened under the leadership of Pope Damasus, promulgated the 73-book scriptural canon. The biblical canon was reaffirmed by the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), and then definitively reaffirmed by the ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442.
Finally, the ecumenical Council of Trent solemnly defined this same canon in 1546, after it came under attack by the first Protestant leaders, including Martin Luther.
@@stephengray1344 The reason for this is that while the New Testament canon was essentially universally agreed upon by the fourth century, minor variations in the Old Testament persisted through the Great Schism (c. 1054). These differences, as you can see, were relatively minor and nothing close to the later difference between the Protestant Old Testament and the Catholic/Orthodox Old Testament.
Another reason for the difference is that the Eastern Orthodox do not hold the same legalism as the Catholic Church when it comes to inspiration and canonical status. For them, it is a bit more fluid of an understanding; canonical simply means that something is acceptable to be read in liturgy. Even today there are some slight differences between the Eastern Orthodox Churches in regard to what each Church considers canonical (i.e. to be used in liturgy). For example, some Eastern Orthodox Churches do not read from the book of Revelation at divine liturgy. Hence they would not call it canonical, but they would still consider it to be divinely inspired and morally binding. In this fluid approach the Eastern Orthodox are very similar to ancient Judaism.
In Western Christianity the Catholic Church makes no distinction between canonical and inspired. We also have with exactness defined what books and parts of books we accept. In eastern Christianity the Orthodox Churches have have not made such exact definitions and see the differences amongst themselves as so minor as to not require any further action.
May the lord Jesus bless all who are watching
Church Tradition guided by the Holy Spirit CREATED the Biblical Canon. Why would the definitive interpretation of this text not also largely fall under the purview of the Church? As for Sola Scriptura ... it's a myth. The Protestant Bible removes seven Old Testament deuterocanonical Books from the Canon and Luther wanted to remove Books from the New Testament that went against his view on Sola Fides, like the Epistle of James. It sounds more like Luther was interested in creating a Church and Bible to match his own preconceptions rather than seeking truth or trying to purge Catholicism of corruption, which many Catholics were pursuing at that time.
Why does the modern Roman Catholic Old Testament Canon contain more books than the canon that Melito of Sardis defined, who died 180 AD. He was a bishop, is he a proto Protestant?
@@Quisl He is a Bishop that presented one canon. He is not the sole authority on determining the Canon. That was something the entire Church did. And when they did create the official Canon, it included all the Books of the Septuagint.
Fellow Catholic, I think you want to clean up your terminology here, since we didn't make the scriptures inspired, we compiled them infallibly, and then infallibly promulgated them, because we shouldn't feel the need to say that in response to Tradition being below Scripture that Tradition is above Scripture, rather they are both sources of Divine revelation and truth. If what you mean by created the canon is that it made the table of contents, then say promulgated or compiled. Hope that was helpful you seem like a cool guy.
@@patrickgroyper83 No worries. I get what you are saying and perhaps compiled is a clearer term, but even then I'd say humans have an intrinsic role in the literal creation of the Scripture itself. Humans were divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit in the creation of the Scripture, but it is still surely human words with some human flaws such as minor issues with numbers or dates. The more important aspect is the infallible morality and message spread in the Bible by the Holy Spirit. So if humanity in partnership with the Spirit both wrote and compiled the Sacred Scripture, I think it makes complete sense that Human Tradition guided by the Holy Spirit in Christ's Church would have preeminence in interpreting the texts.
The Protestants didn't remove books from the canon. The Catholics added them. The first council you recognise as ecumenical to refer to the Apocrypha/Deuterocanon as canonical was the Council of Trent - which happened *after* the Reformation. And Luther's desire to exclude James works in favour of the Protestant understanding - since despite disliking the book, he didn't even try to remove it.
It was exactly for the third reason that I chose to be Protestant. When I converted I was researching what denomination to be, I realized that I was using the Scriptures to judge the doctrines of the Churches and, thus, I had already implicitly accepted the notion of Sola Scriptura. I needed to choose a starting point and for me it was obvious that it would be the Word of God and the writings of the Apostles. Then i became member of the Presbyterian Church and it has been a great experience.
It's also how Catholics argue against Sola Scriptura, they cite Scripture.
@@christafarion9 not true
@@JosephMatthew1030 care to back up your point?
Roman Catholic here! I have a few counterpoints:
1. yes everyone sins, including those whose hands wrote the pages of the Bible. Not every word Paul ever said was true, yet his letter is considered infallible. Similarly, individuals within the Church are not without error, yet the teachings that the Church as a whole has accepted and passed down (particularly through the Apostles’ successors) are certainly just as real.
2. The phrase “Word of God” was used by Paul to describe oral teaching
3. What do you base the infallibility of the Bible on? Just because it’s a long lasting influential l book? My faith requires no book for me to believe in Him. And therefore,
4. I certainly do not “basically believe in sola scriptura already”
5. The Canon of Scripture is certainly more important than mentioned. Can anyone explain to me why, for Protestants, 2 Peter is considered to be infallible while 1 Maccabees is removed entirely?
6. I think you are taking too lightly the fact that the Church (call it the “early church” if you insist. I have no issue being grouped with the orthodox in this time period) put this book together and provided it for us through the Holy Spirit. At what point do you just stop believing in the Church that canonized the scripture? And even begin contradicting it?
So many more thoughts, but I think that makes clear my opposition. Believing the Jesus set this structure up is not “arguing like a Pharisee”
Lot of thoughtful points here (even those I don't agree with), but just a thought here that I think is pretty important:
_"Not every word Paul ever said was true, yet his letter is considered infallible."_
I'm not sure anyone who truly believes Scripture is infallible (Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox) can truly, meaningfully say that Paul has said anything false about theology and doctrine. If, for example, an Old Testament writer describes something about the natural world that is outside of their human understanding (like a questionable reference to the number of legs a locust has, or a debateably limited view on how exactly the orbit of the Sun works), that's something that I don't think breaches a fairly conservative understanding of infallibility. It's also possible for Scripture to perfectly and infallibly record the words of men committing error (or even Satan and his lies, e.g. the New Testament accurately recording Satan plainly lying to Christ during His tempation in the wilderness). But if a Prophet or Apostle states in infallible Scripture, 'The Lord is thus in His Nature', or tells the Church in Corinth something about the nature of how the Church should be run, I struggle to see how a theological or doctrinal position asserted by them can be questioned by someone affirming infalliblity.
All that ramble to say: I believe it is the substantive theological and doctrinal statements of the Church's magesterium that Zoomer (and other Protestants) likewise deny the infallibility of, not merely inconsequential passing matters of human knowledge wherein you could say, 'Well the Prophets/Apostles said incorrect things but we still take them as authoritative'. Well, no, not really - we absolutely take the Prophets/Apostles as both correct and authoritative in theology and doctrine, something we (Protestants) are unable to say entirely about the Church magesterium throughout the ages.
@@Mic1904 I certainly don’t think anything Paul wrote is up for debate! I just mean to say the perfect culmination of his hand and the Holy Spirit is in spite of an imperfect human nature. He was part of the debates at Jerusalem, for example, and potentially argued for the wrong side at times. He surely committed some errors throughout his Christian life. But his letters are infallible despite that. The Church works in the same way. The individual’s are sinful and errant, yet the Church teaching that comes through the power of the Holy Spirit is infallible
man im considering catholiscism or orthodoxy, but its good to hear some opposition. great video zoomer
Stay Protestant. Listen to Gavin Ortlund. He debunks Catholic and Orthodox claims while still respecting them
@@Kauahdhdhd Just because a Catholic disagrees with a Protestant's beliefs doesn't make it "refuted". Protestants have "refuted" the unbiblical idea of papal infallibility a thousand times over and yet it is still believed by many.
@@Kauahdhdhdyou making extreme argument everyone gets caught lying or being hypocritical - but saying he doesn't make coherent argument let me know you being bias
Stay catholic or orthodox homie. RZ makes great content but he dosnt really understand the Catholic or orthodox position. A decent amount of his identity is tied up with being Presbyterian, as a result he can’t approach it in good faith. For example, he cites Agustin’s a lot but conveniently forgets his quotes in favour of Rome and church authority
@@kabeperry6774 someone getting caught blatantly lying in a debate, to try and make their point seem true, is a very big issue.
As a Catholic, this is quite a good balance between the strength and detail of the arguments presented with the comprehensiveness of the video. While I'm thoroughly unconvinced and I think that all three contentions have holes in them, I think it was a good video overall. Zoomer is a smart guy, despite the fact that I think he's definitely wrong, and I respect him for his intellectual work.
My primary critiques would be these:
1. In regards to the first contention, the sinfulness of man has nothing to do with the ability to be a medium for divine revelation. The Gospel authors were sinners, yet they have no problem writing down the Word of God. Why should we think that the sinfulness of man would make things like an extraordinary magisterium impossible? Obviously, as Zoomer knows, Catholics aren't saying that the Pope is always infallible, but that he has the charism of infallibility when doing certain acts which are allowed to him in virtue of his office. Would it really be impossible for sinful men to occupy an office to make infallible statements? I hardly think so.
2. In regards to the second contention, I think Redeemed Zoomer still has to grant that a certain type of tradition, let's call it Sacred Tradition, is used as a "messenger" to relay to the people that the Sacred Scriptures are such and such books. Zoomer seems to try to make a distinction between the revelation that is brought by Sacred Tradition, namely the canon of Scripture, and Sacred Tradition itself. I think, however, that this would be like trying to make a distinction between the revelation that is brought by Sacred Scripture, namely all of the teachings within the Bible and their exact formulations, and Sacred Scripture itself. It seems like Protestants are claiming that Sacred Scripture is only infallible in virtue of what is contained within it and who its author is. But this is precisely the same thing Catholics claim about Sacred Tradition. Catholics think that Sacred Tradition is infallible only in virtue of what is contained within it and who its author is. I don't see how a Protestant can then say that Sacred Scripture is infallible, yet Sacred Tradition is not. Furthermore, Zoomer still has to formulate the standard by which Sacred Scripture is accepted. Simply saying that it is a matter of tradition leaves things very vague. It seems like it would be better to say how we know something is part of Sacred Tradition or not. And, while I don't want to accuse Redeemed Zoomer of dishonesty, I do think that he may have left this out for a reason: giving a standard for Sacred Tradition will open the floodgates and allow other things that are similarly witnessed to by the Early Church to become as certain as the canon of Scripture, therefore completely knocking down certain Protestant doctrines.
3. In regards to the third contention, I find that there is a bit of a misunderstanding with regards to what "authority" and "tradition" mean in this context. As Zoomer makes his argument, detailing how Councils appeal to earlier Councils which eventually appeal to the Bible, he's shown already that Sola Scriptura is not a doctrine of the Early Church. Why would Chalcedon or Ephesus need to appeal to an earlier Ecumenical Council if Sola Scriptura were true? Why not just go back to the Bible directly and attempt to re-argue the Christology? But to the more important point, I think that the appealing of Councils to earlier Councils and eventually the Bible is completely harmonious with an affirmation of Sacred Tradition. Much of Sacred Tradition that Catholics (and EOs) pull from is *the interpretation of Scripture* because it elucidates the doctrines within Sacred Scripture. Ephesus appealing to Nicaea is precisely how authoritative Sacred Tradition is supposed to work -- we appeal to the interpretation of those that have gone before us in the Faith, and we know the views they hold to be orthodox because of their agreement with the rest of the Church in their time and in the later history of the Church. Furthermore, the first commentaries of the earliest Saints like Polycarp, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, etc. will obviously not appeal to earlier traditions because they received them directly from the teaching of the Apostles and those taught by the Apostles. They appeal to the written word as well, but it would be incorrect to say that there isn't a substantial portion of the their writings for which they cite no New Testament Scripture, but rather simply give their teaching, as they would do if they had been instructed by word of mouth.
I haven't read your whole comment but I hope RZ did.
I am Catholic too but I just want to say it's funny how the Catholic responses are always entire essays and books into a single comment.
It's not just you, this whole comment section is filled many passionate Catholics professing the truth.
You say "Would it really be impossible for sinful men to occupy an office to make infallible statements?"
But the main concern is "Would it be possible for sinful men to occupy an office to make fallible statements?" Reality is yes, and so is the pope.
Best video on protestant apologetecs EVER. I loved this video it really shaped how I thought or believed
Undergraduate theologian here:
From what I've gathered, you have done so well, but I have a few rebuttals:
1) you said even if one uses scriptures as a Catholic to justify one's beliefs, one agrees with sola scriptura. Scripture, yes. Sola scriptura (only scripture), not quite, that is too big a leap. Theologians in the Catholic tradition (e.g. Aquinas and Przywara) do not just look at scripture but ancient Greek metaphysics, and previous scholars like Augustine and Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite
2) where does the Scripture justify/preach sola scriptura? (As one of my lecturers used to say)
Gonna write the other one later, got to dash...
Notice that the Jews were deemed "more noble" because they questioned Paul and Silas by checking the Scripture (which would have been the Torah).
The writer commends them for using scripture, which they would have interpreted by themselves, to judge an apostle.
The Acts 17:11 (Read from 10 - 12 to get the whole context)
KJV: These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
AMP: Now these [Jews] were better disposed and more noble than those in Thessalonica, for they were entirely ready and accepted and welcomed the message [concerning the attainment through Christ of eternal salvation in the kingdom of God] with inclination of mind and eagerness, searching and examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.
The Lord Jesus also used scripture to rebuke the tradition of divorce (see Matt 19:2-9)
Right. I think it’s best to frame the situation like this: There’s only one apostolic deposit of faith; the debate is what constitutes that deposit (ie what we’ve received from Jesus and the Apostles). Protestants are arguing that only “the scriptures” are representative of the deposit of faith. They can’t include a specific canon of scripture however, because that would mean we’ve received something that’s extra-biblical. So the assertion is that all we’ve received from the Apostles are “the scriptures” but that the same apostles did not pass on a specific canon of scriptures, even though according to Protestants there *is* a specific canon of scriptures and it isn’t the Catholic one. It doesn’t work.
The "Where does the Bible say Sola Scriptura?" Argument is such a crutch, and one that does not work. The Bible need not say Sola Scriptura in order to prove its primacy. The obligation of proof is one you to prove that the Magesterium or tradition is at all equivalent to the Bible
sola scriptura does not mean to only use scripture. It means scripture is the sole infallible authority on earth. that means we check everything with scripture and if something contradicts scripture then we throw it out. Those same theologians were probably quite sure that whatever they were preaching from greek metaphysics did not contradict the word of God.
“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”
Scripture comes directly from God to the writer. Scripture can make the man of God COMPLETE, equipped for every good work.
If that statement from scripture is true, then we can see that the man of God can be made complete and prepared for every good work through scripture alone. There is no preparation for good works that the church can teach that the scripture is lacking. This is not to say that the church is bad or that it holds no authority, of course not. Every church doctrine must be checked with scripture
Calling it now: Kyle will be making a video in the next week responding to this w/ based memes.
"Redeemed zoomer is wrong! Read rock and sand by father josiah trenham. Read the church fathers!"
Im calling it right now lmao
Kyle is not funny and beyond annoying with his endless cuts. Unwatchable
@@traviswilson36he does more memes and yelling than actually explaining his point.
Ive warched so many interviews of Orthodox priests who are so compassionate and loving. Its nothing like the chad orthobro that kyle presents. Pray for him.
@@ajp642 Fr, as a Catholic who enjoys hearing from the Orthodox side, Kyle's completely unwatchable, he speaks to fast and basically has the same repetitive strawman talking points against Catholicism. Though I do enjoy some of his content against atheists.
@@ajp642 Orthobros are kind of like cage stage Calvinists. 😂
The argument against sola scriptura is that people can interpret the Bible to however they seem fit. They can justify progressivism and abortion using the Bible.
The reason for having the pope, the Catholic Church, preists, bishops, church teachings is so that we follow the right correct path to having a relationship with Jesus Christ.
There has to be guidlines, rules within a church, a way of living that is universal.
We see all these denominations in Christianity that all interpret the Bible according to them. And sure you can believe in many Catholic Church teachings and use the Bible. Church teaching is based on the word of god.
People need church teaching to lead themselves a Christian life.
No, they can't interpret the bible how they seem fit. Once again, it's the greatest and only infallible authority. Not the only authority in general. So, we still believe in proper biblical hermeneutics as well as church leaders and history. Where as people who don't have sola scriptura have to bite the bullet if their church makes a stance on something even if it isn't biblical.
Iron sharpens iron!
My guy, a false interpretation of scripture isn't Sola Scriptura, it is straight up lying.
@@lccr1000 But what's the difference between the mormons interpretation of infallible scripture, and say a Presbyterians interpretation of infallible scripture? Absolutely nothing!
In the eyes of Sola scriptura, both positions are justified because they both claim to hold to the infallible word of God.
@@lccr1000OK, but when two people interpret the Bible completely differently, how do you know who's correct?
Non-religious myself. How do you determine the Bible to be the highest authority if it requires the subjective understanding of us all individually? Why leave interpretation up to to the average reader where they can come to the wrong conclusions? Seems to me people will still look for guidance from scholars and pastors. To interpret the word is to supersede the direct written word, and to value the interpretation of trusted authorities in the church is only a step further from the direct written word. Authority can only come from conscious beings, not inanimate objects.
It's not a subjective truth people just wanna be different and God's word is not where you should be, I myself am an extremely traditional Presbyterian but in the end there is only one true way to understand God's word whether I am right or wrong thus making it infallible
@@anthonycordato7118 I can see the coherency in this argumentation, I just don't think concluding that an inanimate object is the ultimate authority makes any sense. If there is only one truth, and no one can ever truly understand that truth, how does it have authority over us? How can you possibly live in accordance with that truth? Why even choose to reach conclusions about reality and make corresponding ethical decisions from word you can never truly understand?
You are absolutely right. Furthermore, the compilation of the Bible only makes sense if the Church has the authority to make it. To believe that the Bible is inspired by God is necessary to believe that, at some point, the Church has had the authority to discern and compile it.
So does the reading of the Church fathers. There are plenty of debates that talk about wether the fathers were more Catholic/Orthodox or Protestant in their theology. Does that mean that we need an infallible authority to interpret an another infallible authority that interprets yet another infallible authority. This seems ridiculous but if you would follow logic then you would end up with endless amount of infallible interpreters. Every single text requires subjective interpretation, I can read the cathecism of the Catholic church and I could come up with a different interpretation of the cathecism than you.
@@markoj.7675 Yeah I'm not in infinite regress territory. Simply follows to me that a conscious being on Earth would need to be able to establish authority. An inanimate book cannot do that. I agree that catechisms have plenty of room for interpretation as well, and frankly that's the point.
The Bible is not self-interpreting you absolutely need a normative authority to prevent heresy.
Sola scriptura turns the Bible into a subjective text. There is thousands of different denominations interpreting the Bible differently and coming to their own mutually exclusive conclusions. We see cults popping with their own interpretations of the Bible. All claim to be guided by the holy Spirit.
If normative authority could prevent heresy, we'd be chatting in the Garden of Eden, not debating Sola Scriptura on TH-cam, because Adam and Eve had normative authority straight from God telling them not to eat of the tree.
Sola Scriptura does not make the Bible subjective. Our fallible human interpretations bring subjectivity into the mix, but that applies as much to the Pope as to Aunt Tilly in her pew. What happens when you designate a given Earthly org chart as the "one true church" with a monopoly on authority to interpret scripture is that errors and heresies become entrenched, widely propagated, and almost impossible to correct.
Mathew 18 refutes your point. Christ himself demonstrates that the Church is the normative authority when it comes to settling matters. Whoever doesn't submit to Her final judgement is out.
Matthew 18 certainly establishes the judicial authority of the local congregation in settling disputes between believers. Whether it establishes a single organization with worldwide authority on the interpretation of scripture is quite debatable.
@@JonBrase The Church started of as a local congregation but aggregated to a global entity. Unless you want to make the argument that Christ's church is just the local church in Jerusalem.
The normative authority is good hermeneutical standards of said scriptures. Not specific people or a specific Church.
No, sola scriptura does not turn the Bible into a subjective text. The doctrine of sola scriptura is not talking about how we interpret the Bible. It just says the Bible is the highest authority and only infallible authority. That doesn't lead to subjectivism. What leads to subjectivism most of the time is bad hermeneutical standards and a lack of education. When people lack a knowledge of how to interpret scripture, it leads to a bunch of unnecessary division. That doesn't mean that having these standards will automatically give people 100% agreement. But it does minimize heresy and major disagreements. We can test their interpretations by hermeneutic principles and looking to the text to see if their understanding is correct. It is the same in interpreting a text, a letter, a book, or any other thing that has one meaning. We understand principles in understanding these things, but with the Bible, we throw out these standards for some reason. Sola scriptura isn't the problem. It is a lack of education in how to interpret the Bible accurately, to extract the meaning from the text itself and not commit eisegeses
The fact that not everybody can interpret the scriptures doesn't make God a bad communicator, it makes us bad listeners.
Edit: Above is a snippet from another comment.
fr
Yeah, but the Bible IS hard to interpret.
From an Orthodox perspective, no one is denying the Bible's sole purpose and authority. We as Orthodox use the bible in our liturgy, most of our prayers are from the bible and most of what we do is from the bible. Sola Scriptura is using the bible as our ONLY authority, with nothing else to base it off of. The Orthodox church uses the bible for our worship and most of what we do is in the bible, however we only interpret it through the eyes of tradition/the church. This is because the church was the one that gave us the bible, so we need to look at what the people who wrote it/have apostolic succession. That is why us Orthodox keep tradition central as well, and we don't interpret the bible because our interpretations can be different and could lead to heresies. Father Josiah Trentham has an excellent response to this in an interview. th-cam.com/video/oi0l2M5u5Cc/w-d-xo.html
thats not sola scriptura. sola scriptura is the bible as the only infallible authority not authority
@@A1.sauce4345 That is what I meant it as. The Bible is the only infallible authority. (making it the only authority in the sense that no one can go above it) When I say "Sola Scriptura is using the bible as our ONLY authority, with nothing else to base it off of" meaning it is the only authority that is deemed infallible.
This video concept is genius brother. You are blessed. Thankfully your love of god in our generation is going bring many more to the kingdom of heaven.
It would be awesome if you debated a catholic or an orthodox about the typical particularities of protestantism (sola fide, sola scriptura, once saved always saved)
Get this man a debate with trent horn
Not all protestants believe "once saved always saved" that is just a Reformed/Calvinist doctrine.
I think he did with Jay Dyer
@@noahedlen8053 That wasn't even meant to be a debate though, pretty sure that was an ambush or some misunderstanding, it seemed pretty unfair to RZ.
@@justevan877 That's like facing the final boss at the start of the game lol
Genuinely beautiful video. Jesus gets the glory, hallelujah
Make a series about the Five Solas!
He has
Has he? Where can I find it, my brother in Christ? @@MakimaDog
The Protestant claims "every good work" 'implies' sufficiency (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Let us look at this text- in making the man equipped for every good work, the scriptures are "profitable". One may complain endlessly that the text does not fit the Protestant narrative, but at the end of the day it's there in black and white- scripture is "profitable". And so there should obviously be other things that are profitable. And scripture tells us what they are:
1. St Paul makes reference to oral Tradition 3 times in his 2nd letter to Timothy, alone! (cf. 2 Tim. 1:13-14; 2:2; 3:14).
2. And on top of this, in Ephesians 4, we learn the Christian believer is equipped, built up, brought into unity and mature manhood, and even preserved from doctrinal confusion by means of the teaching function of the Church! This is a FAR STRONGER STATEMENT THAN 2 Timothy 3 for the perfecting of the saints, AND IT DOES NOT EVEN MENTION SCRIPTURE! “And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ” (Eph. 4:11-15).
3. But most significantly for the Protestant, if 2 Timothy 3 "proves" the sole-sufficiency of Scripture, then, by that same flawed logic, Ephesians 4 would likewise prove the sufficiency of pastors and teachers for the attainment of Christian perfection! See what illogical rabbit warrens, the Protestants hatred of the Catholic Church, causes them to go down.
1:38 all the arguments used against sola scripture could’ve been used by the phariseees themselves?! Dude…I hate to break it to you, but the Pharisees and scribes were THE MOST sola scriptura and Jesus literally taught them to follow the spirit of the law rather than the letter.
Exactly!
This is why I get mad when prots say Catholics and Orthodox are pharisees because they supposedly have "traditions of men", when it's the prots who have the closest theological position to the pharisees.
What? Jesus issue with the Pharisees was that they were Hypocrites who “made the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered“
Mark 7:13
Adding tradition to scripture was the problem
@@kylefoster2777 Yes, you’re right. Part of that tradition which they kept, which Jesus had an issue with was that the Pharisees prided themselves on strictly observing the law of Moses and avoiding anything associated with the Gentiles. Their teachings reduced religion to the observance of rules.
The pharisees were not sola scriptura? They added tradition to interpret scripture and the addition of oral torah superseded written torah. You really should read how they interpreted the law.
@@ashari7545I apologize for the misunderstanding. When I said THE MOST sola scriptura I didn’t mean to say they were the same as sola scriptura adherents today. Just that they are in a lot of ways, very similar. The Pharisees, like adherents of sola scriptura, held the written law in high regard and placed substantial emphasis on interpreting and adhering to its commandments. While acknowledging the Pharisees’ reliance on both written and oral traditions, it’s noteworthy that this nuanced approach mirrors the way sola scriptura proponents prioritize scripture while allowing for additional teachings. This emphasizes the shared commitment to scripture, even though the Pharisees also valued oral traditions, making it a complex comparison to the strict principles of sola scriptura.
Incredible! You have a beautiful gift. Thank you!!
Full on respect, I greatly appreciate your work, its people like you we need, but I'll stay orthodox. God bless you all
First of all, Tchaikovsky was literally the best composer in the world and he was a member of the orthodox church so take that protestants
Second of all, day 9 of pretty please asking to be unbanned from the server 😢
Edit: y'all rly hating on Tchaikovsky cuz he gay, damn 🤣🤣🤣
This entire comment was a joke tho, like damn. There is a reason i said "member of the orthodox church" and not "orthodox christian" cuz i know he ain't the best.
Gee I wonder what happened
What did you do? Also I would agree with that as a Protestant
Total coincidence that his noteworthy and famous works are secular stories about fantasylands.
What did you get banned for lmfao
@@NotAGoodUsername360 Who says what's noteworthy? Perhaps you aren't familiar with is Organ Works?
You've quickly become one of my favorite TH-cam channels. I love seeing a channel that uses logic to explain the truths of the gospel. Keep on keeping on man. You're doing God's work.
I love the song at the end of the video.
Your musical skills are very impressive!
I tend to find most arguments for sola scriptura mirror arguments for materialism or scientism, which is why I think they just don’t work. In both cases the proponent is attempting to limit or narrow the boundaries of a given source of knowledge.
What do you mean by this?
I see a lot of Catholics in the comments making the same arguments predicted in this video, which is pretty hilarious.
Someone said "Jesus started the Catholic church so it has to be true," as if God hadn't also started Judaism. That's the argument that pharisees used against Christianity.
Love what you are doing, man. God bless you. I was wondering if there was any big projects you are excited for? Of course probably the reconquista!
I love your explanations of protestant beliefs it is better than most. Big props! I disagree with lots of ur points but still love what your doing. My family were Presbyterian for generations I come from a long line of ministers actually but God called my mother to His Church which I believe fully to be the Catholic Church and I was born/raised Catholic with my moms extended family still all protestant. I could never be protestant today as I fully believe the Catholic Church is the most biblically accurate and the true church but I still have a connection to the church of my ancestors and it pains me to see crazy people corrupt it. I am glad there's still people like you in the Presbyterian Church to fight back.
It's not just the most Biblically accurate, it's the only one that's Biblically accurate.
Great video. I think it is the best argumentation and articulation of what I have heard historical Protestantism bring forth with sola scriptura. Still disagree with it since I am a Catholic but I understand where you’re coming from and respect it. I love how close we are to the same conclusions but end up on different sides. So glad that your channel is being used to unite the Christian body. It is so desperately needed and I praise the Lord that I feel like Christians are being able to understand each others differences more. It’s truly great!
Prayed for wisdom last night, get this banger dropped today. Christ is King!
Proud and happy protestant here!! So glad im not catholic or orthodox. All of my family is Christian. We love the Lord. Thanks for this video. God bless😊❤
Why are you so glad to not be Catholic or Orthodox?
16:00 "According to sola scriptura, sola scriptura is true."
also >assuming that all groups claiming to be the One True Church have equal historical authority
Nice catch. I said something similar, but this is more blunt.
Also, note, the Epistles were all intended as ORAL tradition. Epistle literally means letter, but these were open letters, to be read out loud. In fact people couldn't read silently back in the day, the first recording of anyone reading silently is in St. Augustine's Confessions when he recounts being perplexed at St. Ambrose's "eyes moving across the page, comprehending, but without a sound made." Before the Gospel was written, it was acted out. Before the Sermon on the Mount was written it was spoken. Almost all Hebrew Scripture was oral for thousands of years before it was written down. Infallible Tradition is absolutely a thing, as is infallible Authority, as is infallible Scripture.
🗿
Are you really suggesting that no one in the ancient world had an inner monologue? History is against you.
In the fifth century BC, two plays show characters reading on stage: in Euripides' Hippolytus, Theseus reads in silence a letter held by his dead wife; in Aristophanes' The Knights, Demosthenes looks at a writing-tablet sent by an oracle and, without saying out loud what it contains, seems taken aback by what he has read.
According to Plutarch, Alexander the Great read a letter from his mother in silence in the fourth century BC, to the bewilderment of his soldiers.
Claudius Ptolemy, in the second century AD, remarked in On the Criterion (a book that Augustine may have known) that sometimes people read silently when they are concentrating hard, because voicing the words is a distraction to thought.
Julius Caesar, standing next to his opponent Cato in the Senate in 63 BC, silently read a little billet-doux sent to him by Cato's own sister.
@@DrGero15 I don't think this is what he's referring to. I'm not sure but I guess he's talking about scripture specifically being read out loud, with the first reason as of why, being that most people couldn't read and would need someone to read it for them, and that people shouldn't make their own conclusions by reading alone without being able to be corrected by the people more educated on it. No idea how historically proven this is though.
@@kottekanin4006 He said " In fact people couldn't read silently back in the day, the first recording of anyone reading silently is in St. Augustine's Confessions" That is utter nonsense.
@@DrGero15 I agree, which is why I assume he’s talking about scripture reading in church specifically.
15:30 The way we know which churches split off (heterodox) and which are faithful to the apostolic teaching (orthodox) is by reading the works of the apostles and early church fathers. There is a very limited breadth of information in the new testament that would give us clues to this. Trying to decide between, say, the Roman church and the Orthodox church based on the new testament epistles would be difficult indeed; in fact, it would be like trying to tell the future just from the N.T. epistles. Fortunately, Christians did not spontaneously forget how to write after the death of John the Theologian, but continued to write during the period of time in which the Scriptures were formally assembled into the several canons (most of them quite similar to each other), and they continued to write afterwards. So we don't have to guess at what they believed; we can read them.
Orthodoxy is what Christ taught, the apostles preached, and the fathers have maintained.
One reason why there must be an infallible authority to give the cannon of scripture is that different “authorities” can and have come up with different biblical cannons. As you mentioned protestants have a 66 book Bible and Catholics have 73. If God guided both authorities, how can this difference be possible. My explanation is that one authority must be infallible to provide the correct teaching to the church on all matters and the other must be a false (or flawed) authority.
The 6 books in questions were already in question long before the Reformation.
Because neither authority has (or *can*, due to sin) be perfectly responsive to the guidance of God. They are both flawed (but not necessarily false) authorities. Scripture can be recognized by its consistency with other scripture (but human sinfulness may impede this recognition).
What sets the flawed authority of Protestant churches aside from the flawed authority of the RCC is that Protestants don't claim not to be flawed: "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us".
@@JonBrase I’m not saying that Catholic authority is “perfectly responsive to the guidance of God”. I’m saying that the Holy Spirit will not allow church authority to commit errors in doctrines of faith and morals. If it did allow this, it would be allowing the church to be led astray thus violating Jesus’ promise that the gates of hell will not prevail against it. Only an infallible authority can truly claim to be safe from errors of this nature occurring against it.
@@kylef5723 Church authority being led astray only violates the promise that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church if the Church is in fact, as Catholics claim, identifiable with a single human org chart with exclusive authority to interpret scripture. If that's not the case, then the corruption of church authority in any particular denomination is not fatal to the Church.
My favourite argument against "sola scriptura" is "Which scriptura ☠️?" Oh and btw RZ; sola scriptura means ONLY scripture, not scripture over tradition which is still important. I believe in the second as an Orthodox.
Almost, sola is lone, and basically means that nothing else should accompany scriptures.
Not a Protestant, just wanted to specify the heterodoxy
Yeah, he's misguided.
Hes misguided that he favors Gods word more than the pope? Intreasting opnion of yours...@@Madokaexe
He said traditions important. Just not as important as the word of God.
@@mattbl0x410 I'm an orthodox Christian we don't bow down to any pope.
You say Protestants take sin more seriously yet us catholics take it so seriously we believe in mortal sins and also that confessing your sin verbally to a priest is important and necessary. Love this channel as I believe any Christianity is better than no Christianity and as long as you believe in Christ you can be saved. But I would love you to have any discussion or debates with a Catholic apolagist
This was very interesting. I'm protestant and believe in this idea of Sola Scriptura, but i didn't know all of these details. Now i'm even happier to be protestant.
The most important argument for the Sola Scripture that Zoomer forgot to mention is that Jesus himself argued the same way. When Jesus said "you have HEARD", that is referring to the Oral Tradition like Talmud that Pharisees emphasized. When Jesus said "it is written", he is referring to the Old Testament.
Jesus fought the temptation by Satan the same way, "It is written". That was one of the main reasons why the early Reformers argued for the Sola Scriptura.
@@thomasc9036 wow I never thought about that, even though Jesus' temptation is one of my favorite stories in the bible. I have a new way of looking at it now
@@thomasc9036
This goes against your point
And he answered and said unto them, , that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be* one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
8 He saith unto them*, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
9 *, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
When did Jesus say SOLA scriptura?
@@thomasfleming8169 Jesus didn't speak English, so he didn't say Sola Scriptura.
1 Corinthians 4:6 Read it. It specifically says to not go beyond what is "written".
See, there is a big issue with your basic point.
I started my journey toward Orthodoxy and Catholicism through Sola Scriptura. Not Protestantism, but Sola Scriptura specifically.
Sola Scriptura did not teach me Sola Fide as taught by the Reformers, but it did teach me that we are saved through our fidelity (fides / pisteos) to Christ. It did not teach me that infant baptism was wrong, but showed me that infants may be baptized. It didn't show me that church authority was a farce, but that it was established in Scripture. It didn't show me that Marian veneration and perpetual virginity was intrinsically wrong, but actually baked into the Christian worldview. It didn't show me that intercession of the Saints was wrong, but that some of the holiest people in the Bible did it and it was never spoken against. It didn't show me that Communion was a symbol, but that Christ really emphasized the Real Presence.
It also showed me Confession, the power of Relics, the possibility of iconographic use in liturgical rites, the need to also respect oral tradition from the Apostles, and the need to follow my Bishops (overseers / episkopos)
In other words - I was told to be Orthodox or Catholic BY Sola Scriptura.
The only thing there that seems odd for Scripture-alone at first blush would be veneration of Mary, but the Reformers also saw that in Scripture and agreed with it at least to some extent.
The question I posed to my own father, a Non-Denominational who HATES my beliefs, was, "Which Protestant sect believes the most critical parts of my theology?" to which he called me a heretic and said I was going to hell.
Those critical parts to the theology were:
- Communion being the real (spiritual) body and blood of Christ
- Acceptance of fidelity and faithfulness (again, pisteos) rather than "faith alone" in the sense that modernity has twisted the word "faith" to mean
- Acceptance of Christ as having full humanity and divinity, being the Theanthropos, making Mary the Birth-Giver of God (yes, this is critical, because crypto-Nestorianism is horrendous)
- An understanding of man's will that is compatible with God as Love and not God as a maniacal individual who consigns the overwhelming majority of mankind to utter and absolute torture for all eternity
- Acceptance of the historical Christian moral framework
- Acceptance of the communion of the Saints both living and reposed
- Acceptance of the full extended Canon as used by the Early Church (either the 73 or 79 book are fine).
So, which denomination has all that? Lutheranism has abandoned some of those doctrines. The Reformed tradition specifically is not compatible with a God who is Love and is not a monstrosity, and most of the other confessions are even more removed from that basis.
The high-church, traditional Anglicans are closest, having some sense of the Real Presence, full acceptance of small-o orthodox Christology, acceptance of freewill, some acceptance of the communion of Saints, and a respect for the Deuterocanon. But...well...they've gone off the rails morally speaking for the most part and have rendered unto Caesar that which is God's (by making the Church bound to the head of the English state). Perhaps the crypto-Orthodox or crypto-Catholic Anglicans are best, but they're already on their way to becoming Orthodox or Catholic!
Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths. Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the Lord, and depart from evil. (Proverbs 3:5-7)
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. (2nd Thessalonians 2:15)
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us. (2nd Thessalonians 3:6)
Such a good and informative video
Methodist in RCIA right now. Don’t agree with your argument and think it would be insufficient for a QED, but it is a pretty good case, and I appreciate the thought you put into it. Love your channel!
If you look at archeological sites and older church buildings from the first century, the layout was of a Catholic Church (though without pews as those were not invented yet).
In the first century they used the layout of the Jewish temple
@@TocnaelStarcraft Because the Church is the new temple.
@@carlose4314 and the Jews were Christians, so they just used the Jewish worship spaces to spread the teachings of Christ along with the OT prophets
The Eastern Orthodox have done a better job of preserving the worship space than the Catholics have
It's news to me that we've been able to identify first century church buildings. The written sources from that period (mostly the New Testament) fairly consistently depict the church as meeting in homes (or, in Jerusalem, in the Temple precinct). I would have thought that dedicated church buildings would have been extremely rare until Constantine legalised Christianity.
@@stephengray1344 Jews had synagogues before Nero started persecuting Christians, and Jews being the first Christians, gathered in them to worship God in the liturgy, as was custom
The Holy Catholic Church makes it clear that doctrine DOES NOT go against scripture. Every time you find something you think goes against scripture, you are wrong, and you will realize it with enough true hearted, Christ-centered prayer and contemplation, research, and information-vetting.
The whole reason "papal infallibility" is a thing is because The Holy Spirit gives the authority to the Pope.
It is so sad to me how Protestants and other Schismatics can have enough "faith" to believe in the word of God, but not enough faith to realize the church he personally created and gave to them for the saving of their own souls.
We don't believe this organization you refer to as the church is what Jesus was actually talking about.
We protestants could make a similar lamentation directed at our beloved Catholics and Orthodox brothers and sisters: "they have the faith to believe in The Lord Jesus, but not faith to believe in His Word enshrined in the Holy Scriptures. Why?"
@@christafarion9 My guy. Lol. Catholics also believe scripture is divinely inspired. If you thought otherwise you are mistaken. Sola scriptura is so easily confuted it is laughable. You cannot interpret less clear scripture with more clear scripture. Jesus Christ created a church that is right in front of your eyes, but apparently you do not see it.
Take James 2:14-26 from scripture itself: “14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
18 But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. 19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that-and shudder.
20 You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless[d]? 21 Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,”[e] and he was called God’s friend. 24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.
25 In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? 26 As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.”
Good luck theologizing your way out of plain proclaimations.
And here’s 1 Peter 3:8-22, another clear refutation of typical prot ideas around baptism, “Finally, all of you, be like-minded, be sympathetic, love one another, be compassionate and humble. 9 Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult. On the contrary, repay evil with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing. 10 For,
“Whoever would love life
and see good days
must keep their tongue from evil
and their lips from deceitful speech.
11 They must turn from evil and do good;
they must seek peace and pursue it.
12 For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous
and his ears are attentive to their prayer,
but the face of the Lord is against those who do evil.”[a]
13 Who is going to harm you if you are eager to do good? 14 But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. “Do not fear their threats[b]; do not be frightened.”[c] 15 But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, 16 keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander. 17 For it is better, if it is God’s will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil. 18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit. 19 After being made alive,[d] he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits- 20 to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also-not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God.[e] It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand-with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.”
Good luck telling yourself you don’t need a pope but then kowtowing to your Protestant pastors’ theological belief system.
Come home to the one true church Christ created, that is where God wants you.
I've come to the conclusion that this channel is wholesome. Thanks for doing what you do.
Also, would love to hear your thoughts on the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches and Doug Wilson? You'd vibe with our denomination's prioritization of kingdom building and theologically conservative ecumenicalism. If, God forbid, you ever get excommunicated from the PCUSA, you should absolutely check out the CREC.
Being protestant rocks! Jesus is king always❤! God bless…
Protestant was a mindless, empty rebellion
A sociopolitical movement..
It Doesn't rock
@@cabellero1120 Mindless? It wasn't us that gatekept the Bible for centuries, tricking the masses into thinking they could pay their way to salvation by giving money to the Roman Church.
As a Catholic I appreciate your good faith arguments, but I believe that Sola Scriptura ultimately falls flat for a multitude of reasons.
1. Where in the Bible does it say that Scripture is the ONLY infallible authority, because how would you otherwise deduce that it is infallible in the first place? (You wouldn't have an infallible source to prove it.)
2. This also opens up the problem that people ultimately have different interpretations of Scripture (i.e. different denominations). Whose interpretation is right? By which standards do we judge this?
3. How do you reconcile Mt 16:18-19? If the Bible is the only infallible authority on faith, what about the Church described in these verses? Peter was the first Pope and all Popes can be traced back directly to him.
etc., etc.
I'd strongly recommend that you watch some videos from the Counsel of Trent on this as he puts it much better than I ever could in a simple comment.
P.S.: I don't deny that the Bible is the infallible word of God, but I don't believe it is our ONLY authority.
Who else finds it funny that all the sola scriptura followers disagree on everything
As if Catholics and Ortodox do agree on everything.
And big tomes cathehisis tomes are not solution as well. Some liberals can get around them such as scholar Raymond Brown who wrote book where he said that Christmas sroties are fiction. Or John Dominic Crossan who wrote that body of Jesus was eaten by dogs. (He left the catholic faith eventually)
So even in Catholic and Ortodox spheres there can be heretics or just mistaken people.
Ye, imagine trying to follow just one thing and ending up following nobody, if you belive in the Bible but only in the ways you want you can do the same thing in history and we already know that isn't good, if anything that modern protestants teach was true we would have it in the Bible AND AS A TRADITION ON THE EARLY CHURCH, no church is infallible and nobody said that but your interpretation is even more fallible, at that point why don't we keep doing the strawman show until we all believe whatever we want regardless of Jesus teachings
Lol, you guys can't even agree with the interpretation of the message that "infallible" pope wad trying to relay regarding blessing ssm/ssa
@@derrickcarson no? There was just a handful of people who just don't bother actually reading what's officially released from the vatican. Everyone who actually read the response was in perfect unity. Maybe you had a hard time understanding it idk
@justevan877 sounds like a lot of other Catholics had a hard time too. Go figure!
Bro, I used WAY more then scripture to decide if I was going to join Orthodox or Catholics. Your arguments are high school level circular reasoning. I give you a C+ for effort.
I'm Catholic - just wanted to help clear up your first point. (Don't know if you'll see this, but I'm going to give it a whirl.)
As you probably understand, Catholics and Orthodox don't deny that Church leaders are marred by sin. Where it gets interesting is where you say that because they sin, they can't teach infallibly, and this is based on the assumption that sin effects every part of us. I'm not sure I can deny that assumption, but I still think the argument doesn't hold up. The reason for this is that the men who wrote the Bible were able to do so infallibly, despite being sinners, because they were inspired by God in their writing, who protected them from error and directed them towards truth. At least this is how Catholics understand biblical infallibility, maybe Protestants have a different view of biblical infallibility that doesn't work like this, I don't know. But anyway, in the Catholic view, popes, magisterial councils, and Sacred Tradition can also be inspired by God when teaching on dogmatic issues. And I think that at least some of this is backed up even by the Bible, for instance, when Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would act as a counselor to the Apostles (and presumably their successors, although Protestants may contest this), Catholics read this as that God will guide the Apostles' teachings, thus making their authority infallible.
In other words, we don't understand magisterial councils, ex-cathedra statements, and Church Traditions as merely "words of men." We believe that they, too are inspired by God, and thus the "I trust the Word of God over the words of men" argument just doesn't work for us, because the Bible is not the only Word of God.
I’m a Catholic and want to say you bring up a lot of good points that really made me think. I do think some of your understanding on the Catholic Church isn’t entirely accurate but I don’t want to discredit you because I know I don’t know everything either. I wanna say keep up the good work and keep on growing brother. God Bless You.
Well my problems whit this idea:
1. Is biggest irony is that nowhere in bible is something like sola scriptura, (i not mean like Jesus never said something like "bible is your biggest Authority") so its tradition
2. Nobody belive it before Martin Luther and (offcorse Martin was sanest from them , becouse switzerland guy said "before me was anyone wrong about God ") and
3. Church is older that biblie, (i know scriptures of old testament are older) but then Guy named Jesus was born
4 . Martin, John Calvin, and others were just people, no saints, and still their teachings are treated like something from bible, like predistination, yes biblie says that names in book of life were writen before foundention of Earth, but still nothing like God saing those i save and those not
My guy, if the Bible is (it is) the literal word of God, it cannot be anything other than the highest authority.
@@lccr1000 till i Remember Jesus said given to me was All Authority on heaven and earth, than he give some of IT too apostoles, and they teached
Matthew 15 Jesus blatantly condemned Tradition superseding the authority of Scripture.
@@ThetaMinistries read IT again, he condamn traditions who go against ten comandmandments, he talk about disrespect to parents
@@lccr1000 It's not the literal word of God, it's the divinely inspired word of God. The letters written by Paul to the early Church weren't written by God (duh). They were inspired by God. Like nature inspires us to create laws that reflects the nature of the universe.
hey redeemed zoomer, I love the videos. can you make a video on how the original Hebrew/Latin/Koine Greek texts became the Bible that we know today? I've been researching a particular Bible translation into my native language from the 18th century, and it seems the work done was very thorough and the result is very easy to read even now. But I still wonder, are the translations infallible?
The original languages are Hebrew Aramaic and Greek (don’t know which one but you probably got that right) it was then translated into Latin
The only people who believe that Bible translations are infallible are groups who insist on using one particular translation. The most obvious examples would be Medieval Catholicism (which treated the Latin Vulgate this way) and the King James Onlyists who exist at the extreme fringes of some varieties of English-speaking Protestantism.
Real question,
Should people be able to interpret the constitution however they want?
Explain your answer
@@youngalek4434 Who frequently have terrible takes I might add.
No. And no one should interpret the Bible however they want either. That's where hermeneutics come in. Just like logic and science, there are good principles for interpreting a text, book, talk, youtube comment, etc etc etc. We draw meaning from the constitution itself based on context, language, the authors, and what the text flat out says. We have to do the same for the Bible. Sadly, we don't teach our congregation how to do this. Hence all this unnecessary division.
@@gospelfreak5828
Did John the Baptist have teachers who had schooled him in the methods of historic reference and basis to interperate the historical grounding of which the texts were written in?
Where did he get his degree?
I do agree that people can read all kinds of things into the text, but the pharisees knew the text forwards, sideways and backwards, didn't meant they UNDERSTOOD the text because they read their own interpretations into it.
And consider the chief priest was a Sadducee who didn't even BELEIVE in a resurrection, angels or spirits.
Understanding comes from the Author and his helper is given to all who call upon him. The question is how much we rely on Men to help us understand God's word, and how much we rely on GOD to understand his word.
@@kriegjaeger John was a Prophet from God, and the last person with the title Prophet other than Jesus whom was the last Prophet (not to say prophecy is dead). He probably didn't have education, but it doesn't matter because God directly spoke through Him like Elijah, Isaiah, or Jeremiah. I am not saying every biblical person was educated in this way. But if you want to interpret the Bible correctly on certain things, you should be educated on them so to be less likely to commit an error in understanding the text. Most of scripture I would say can be understood without this education, which is why the Bible can resonate with all kinds of people through all cultures and generations.
Knowing the text does not mean understanding. Correct. Hence why we have methods for understanding a passage, so we don't fall for the same mistake they did in not understanding certain things in scripture (though I think they understood most things, just not the messiah and then adding traditions to the Law that were never supposed to be accepted as Law, yet they tried to make it the same quality as Law. Sounds familiar).
He didn't believe in the resurrection. That is correct. The Sadducees were more liberal in their thinking. What is the point? People get it wrong? People getting things wrong fits well with my view.
God has given us logic, reasoning, science, etc for a reason. Same goes for hermeneutics. God gives us understanding of these things through these means. The Holy Spirit isn't some sort of cheat code to be lazy. We have to put in the work to understand the scriptures.
The anology is not fitting as the lay American does not have a person Helper who knows all things who is able to open their minds and interpret the constitution for them .
Christians do, He is called the Holy Spirit , the Spirit of Truth.
“But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you” 1 John 2:27
Catholic here. My favorite Catholic composer is Joseph Haydn and his 2 hour long piece "Die Schöpfung" (The Creation) which was all about Genesis.
Did Redeemed Zoomer just compare Protestant music to Orthodox chants?😅😅
Me when 40000 different denominations
all with the same core beliefs and no "blessing for gay marriage" thing
@@jaum571 Whoops, gotta bless the gæs cuz that's what the infallible Pope said nowadays🤷🏻♂️ Even though he said in 2021 that "the church cannot bless sin" and the Cathecism Paragraph #2357 said "Under no circumstances can they be approved" talking about alphabetism
@@jaum571 Protestants can't even agree on the Eucharist. The only overlap in all Protestants is belief in the Bible and Jesus Christ, but even then there's varying opinions on the correct beliefs of those essentials. Protestantism refutes itself, as it has done since its origins and continues to do so.
@@roneldell5137 Bergoglio is not a Catholic, and therefore is a pretender to the chair of Peter. Bergoglio is a Lutheran in belief.
@@comicsans1689 Then who is the real Pope now then?
Thanks in part to your videos I've decided to leave my non-denominational church for the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. Eastern Orthodoxy.
Redeemed Zoomer you should do an interview/discussion with Trent Horn on the authority of the Bible vs. the authority of the Church, Sola Scriptura, or Sola Fide
Come on, you and I both know RZ would get destroyed 😂
Why?
Maybe Matt Fradd, but why are you trying to put someone who has been in like 3 debates/discussions with someone whose profession is debating this topic in a situation that will likely devolve into a debate?
@@TheMacDonald22 LOL. Trent is a fantastic debater, but I think RZ could fare well.
@@JP-rf8rr It was just a suggestion. It could boost his publicity and give us good content. I don't think it would necessarily turn into a debate, they could come with predetermined questions. Just an idea
@@VeritasVivet Compared to Trent Horn, a debate and theology wizard, absolutely not!
RZ is smart but he has no serious training. I'd rather see Trent Horn vs. Jordan Cooper. Or like the other guy said, a discussion between Matt Frad and RZ.
Not offended, but I just want to say that a libertarian that knows what libertarianism is about could tell you that the government has a purpose and can’t be totally dismantled. Libertarian politics and Christian values are not opposed.
"Protestants have the best music, think of the most incredible composers such as Bach, Handel, and Alan Jackson."
Bold take Zoomer.
@@pilum3705 that was his son goober, JC Bach not the OG, JS Bach
Especially when Mozart was a Catholic. And even Beethoven was at least nominally Catholic.
Also every baptist gospel singer.
Bach composed music for a Roman Catholic Holy Mass at a mature stage of his life. He probably wouldn't have done that if he didn't see any truth in Catholicism. Only God knows if he converted eventually.
@@Rivian_Jedi Vivaldi was an ordained priest
Sola Scriptura is like: My own understaning of scriptures.
The Bible was gave to us by the church and tradition.
Personal interpretation is a heavy heresy, it needs someone from the church to explain it (Acts 8:30-31; 2 Peter 1:20). I can't trust a man who has no apostolic succession, removed 7 books (and wanted to remove James, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation) because it didn't fit his heretical theology. The funniest thing is that he preferred to follow the AUTHORITY OF THE JEWS to define his own bible, even though the OWN SCRIPTURE in Revelation 22:18-19 forbids it. Protestantism is an illusion, it has no authority because if it did it wouldn't have more than 30,000 denominations. Jesus founded ONE church and gave it authority (Matthew 16:18-19), and we have the APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION LIST. "The gates of hell shall not prevail!". Go back to the Holy Orthodox Church.
1. The Bible IS a tradition in the Catholic Church, they don't just separate the Bible and the rest of the traditions.
2. Catholics acknowledge that leaders can make mistakes, it has happened before. As for papal infallibility, it is only applicable under certain circumstances, and shouldn't contradict the churches previous teachings.
3. Oral teachings from the Pharisees often contradicted the OT, and ignored prophecies within it.
4. The Bible is not the oldest tradition of the church, but the teachings of those who were connected directly to the Apostles and their early successors.
Darn, guess he got us boys, im going from orthodox to LGBT affirming protestant rock band church
I bet you are under 25 years of age, seems to me orthodoxy is the new hipster version of Christianity, a counter culture relligion for kids who are fed up with american degeneracy (whic i am also), this does however NOT make the orthodox church the truth, Jesus is the truth, and the only way to salvation , you do NOT need any chuch to be saved
😭😭😭
Did you even wacth the video?
@cheese-bg1xq fake news
@cheese-bg1xq You've clearly never listened to or read any Catholic documents on LGBTQ issues in the Church. He acknowledges they exist, and that it may not be a choice, and that they can still be Catholics. However, he also still classifies all forms of gay relations as sinful, gay marriage is sinful. No, gay unions are not blessed, if you actually read what was in Fiducia Supplicans it more allows to bless the people within it, not the Union itself.
Hello RZ, I'm Catholic and there are some things that I'd like to say about Sola Scriptura (I was a Protestant before becoming Catholic).
1) In the beginning of the video, you say something like "people who say you can't understand the Bible unless you read the Church Fathers make it sound like they're better at communicating the Word of God than God Himself". Well, actually this claim presupposes that anyone can read the Bible and come to the same conclusion (I guess we can all agree that God wants us to believe the exact same things the first Christians believed), which is sadly not the case. If God meant the Bible to be read for anyone without the INfallible guidance of a Church, then He would've made sure to make the Bible so blantanly simple and clear that there wouldn't be room for any confusion, but the Bible isn't simple (at all), it's a pretty extensive collection of books, it comprises many different cultural contexts in which the authors lived, and talks about so many topics, that it's humanly impossible for someone to read the Bible and come to the exact same conclusions as someone else. And this might no be a problem unless you believe the words of Jesus, when He promises that the Holy Spirit will guide us to ALL truths (not just some truths here and some truths there), when He told Peter that not even the GATES OF HELL will prevail against the Church, and that He will be with us until the end of the world. When you see protestantism, you see the opposite regarding the promise of Jesus: many different denominations with different understandings about sacraments, salvation, what things are considered sinful (for instance, I firmly believe contraception is a mortal sin because that's what the Church has always taught, and many protestants commit that grave sin because it's not explicitly mentioned in the Bible), in other words, there must be one place, and only one place in which we can find the FULLNESS of the Gospel, otherwise Jesus lied.
2) You constantly mention that religion leaders are fallible because they sin too much. I agree with that, they're sinners, but that's entirely irrelevant when it comes to Church infallibility. Jesus promised that He was going to guide the Church until He comes back through the Holy Spirit, and this guidance has nothing to do with the holiness of the leaders, it has to do with teachings about doctrine (which includes the sacraments of course). We can't be comfortable with many different doctrines because they're contradictory among protestants, Paul commanded us to be One Body. You also said something like "I hope you're not saying that counsels are better at saying what God said in his own Word". Well, I believe God is actually speaking through the counsel as well as He did in the Bible, because one of the tasks of the Church is to clear up doctrine, which God does through the Church and then we can fully agree on everything. The Holy Spirit can guide the church at any particular moment just as He did when the authors wrote the Bible.
3) (This is the weirdest one) You agreed with us Catholics that we have to rely on tradition to know what books belong to the Bible, and gave the example thay you can bring something infallible through fallible means. The problem is, if tradition is fallible, then why do I have to trust it to know what books actually belong to the Bible? You still need a Church that infallibly declares what books must be in the Bible, but if you grant that Church its infallibility regarding the Canon of Scripture, you have to grant that infallibility to all of the Church teachings (why would you trust Her at certain things but not others?).
Sorry for my English, I'm not an English native speaker.
The Bible is a record of human communication with God, not the word of God in itself.
good point.
8:45 but the Pharisees weren’t promised the guidance of the Holy Spirit
"The pillar and foundation of Truth." Isn't just casual authority. You're acting like the Church, the mystical body of Christ isn't distinct from its particular Patriarchs and Bishops. The particular men are fillable, as I'm certain St. Paul was often wrong even after his conversation, but when God chose him for His mouthpiece, Paul was infallible.
By the same logic that brought us to the dogma of the hypostatic union, we can also infer that the Bishops that were the biblical authors were necessarily infallible when writing the Bible. Paul wrote his Epistles, the Holy Spirit wrote the Epistles through Paul, but Paul did write them. The text we both agree is infallibily written, the author of it was infallible when writing it because his pen was guided by the Spirit. These things proceed necessarily from each other, otherwise you'd have to say 1. The Bible isn't infallible because the worldly authors were tainted by sin, and hence anything they wrote couldn't be immaculate translation of God's Word.
Or
2. You deny that God wrote the text through men. That the Holy Spirit literally came down, picked up a pen and started writing, and dropped it on Paul's desk, which defeats the point of Pentecost, or the Incarnation for that matter.
Any time you deny the place of Gods Holy Spouse, whether its Mary as the spouse of the Spirit, or the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church as the Bride if Christ, you immediately lose all legitimacy in believing in any dogma or traditions. Sola Scriptura is Utterly self defeating.
Hey RZ, fan of the content and Catholic here, I think that the first point you made about sin and infallibility is a weak point and bad argument, because it doesn't really logically follow that sin makes someone wrong, for example, we all know that Paul rebuked Peter for refusing to eat with the gentile converts, and in that case Peter was not making a doctrinal statement about gentiles, but instead was not living up to the rules he set in place. As Catholics we can both affirm the moral failing of the hierarchy while still affirming that the church never erred on a point of doctrine, think of the Pornocracy or the Borgia Popes, despicable behavior, completely unbecoming of a lay Catholic, let alone the Pope, yet even they did not bind the Church to error. Essentially what I am trying to say is infallible =/= sinless, and I would be hard pressed to find a Catholic who knows his faith who would say such a thing.
Sola scriptura which is Latin for “I value my own opinion above the authority of the church left by Christ”
My problem with sola scriptura is that pretty much nobody thought it before the protestant reformation
St Athanasius believed in Sola Scriptura, he was the BIGGEST defender of orthodoxy in the early church
@@redeemedzoomer6053Unequivocally untrue
@@redeemedzoomer6053 I'm going to need a source, because nothing I've read on St Athanasius suggests a belief in Sola Scriptura.
@@redeemedzoomer6053why are you lying? This is ridiculous
@@redeemedzoomer6053that is an overt lie, shame on you
In theory, the Catholic Church could come out right now and "infallibly proclaim as dogma" things that blatantly contradict scripture. In such a case, who would be right? If your answer is scripture, then you believe in Sola Scriptura.
One of the best satire channels on youtube.
Second comment, 2nd point, RZ on the point of the Pharisees, the thing about that is Christ was able to prove that He was above the pharisees and their authority, 1. because He is God and can do what He wants, and 2. He had miracles to back His statements up. In the modern context, some basic Church history can show how from the first few centuries Christians believed in an unerring Church, and in order to prove that you would have an extraordinary mission against the contemporary church, you should have miracles to back up your claim, but none to my knowledge of the early Protestant reformers did any miracles. So you can't really say that Jesus vs. Pharisees is the same as Protestants vs. Catholics/Orthodox. Not to mention the arguments for why the current Church is given more authority and more protections from error than the Jewish Temple.
Amen re: Bach and Handel. Two of the greatest composers of all time!
“You’re basically saying that councils are better at communicating than God himself through his own word”
Horrible strawman. We’re instead saying that councils are better at INTERPRETING the word than Pastor Jim Bob who believes sola scriptura
Cant wait for kyle to react to this
@Orthodox Kyle got some work again...
From BILLY BOB'S NON-DENOM: Hey, Zoomer, we love you and great video! Just curious why you take a swing at us?
Non-denom: No roots in any church? Our first point of reference is the early church, and we don't get anchored to corrupt national religious leaders.
Every non-denom church is free to use its own judgement to take doctrinal cues from other past or present church leaders.
The main virtue of non-denom is HUMILITY because we have excused ourselves from picking which groups are wrong and bad and which are ok, and only consider individual teachings on a case by case basis.
The primary value of non-denominationalism is that we get to spend less time fighting with other Christians because EACH local church is supposed to be Bereans who read the Bible and can accept wisdom from any denomination so long as it matches up with Scripture. It's like final form Sola Scriptura!
As always, we love you and a great video overall, your content is a huge blessing and I pray that you are strengthened and encouraged in private and in your ministry here!
I like that you applied Martin Chemnitz argument about the pharisies, I learned about it with Jordan Cooper, great vid.
As someone who is starting the process of converting to Catholicism, I have to ask this: How can you trust the Bible you have, when seven books have been taken out of it? What authority would allow for that? Also, if those seven books didn't belong, why were they there to begin with?
Once you start realizing how much Protestants took away from Christianity, such as the Eucharist, it's hard to think they're right about much of what they say.
broooo true
You lost me at the church building and songs.
I was in a Methodist church all my life. I love the church and buildings and the songs. (African Methodists are a different level of lit though) BUT the church was dead. Our youth group leader who was allowed to stay encouraged relationships, there was no difference between the conversations in the church.
I found a church on campus that you would call “box church” however for the first time I met people who were living the Word. They were not perfect but they believed God. We prayed for people on the streets, we had connect groups and actually walked together in Christ, I was held accountable for my sins, I was healed. The church LIVED.
Strong Christians can stay in a church like that but not when you’re weak or a young Christian.
I’ll always love the Methodist Church and they got so many things absolutely right however I truly became a believer in a boxy church. I know they have so many issues too, believe me. But for new Christians they were stricter than the Methodists in terms of your actual every day life.❤
2:04 That’s not true, Mozart and Beethoven were Catholics, also Vivaldi who was a catholic priest
W.
W
Wrong Bach. J.C Bach converted to catholicism, not J.S Bach
Not Johann Sebastian the gigachad who knew that Rome taught false doctrine (still does and is going to turn woke any second)
Wrong, that was JC Bach, Bach’s son
The first quote was amazing
Where did the Bible come from? On whose authority do you know which books are included or not? As you admitted, the document could be infallible without the church being infallible, true. But we don’t believe the entire church and everyone in it is always infallible.
Your stance on sin is also, wait for it, Catholic.
TLDR; misunderstand infallibility.
Big props to you for trying to think deeply about all this stuff; it’s urgent and important to try to follow Christ to consider these things. Happy to walk on the journey with you and thanks for your perspective.
Side note: if sola scriptura were actually accepted in practice by most Protestants, there would be no reason for the common practice of Protestant “statements of faith” and church shopping would be far lesser.
I absolutely love Redeemed Zoomer's content and think he's done 10x more good than harm, but 16:08 has to be one of the worst arguments he's ever made.
He says that: "multiple churches claim to be the true church, so none of them are, and therefore Protestantism is correct." By this logic, you can claim that: "Multiple religions claim to be true, so none of them are true, and atheism is correct." or "There are multiple philosophical positions you can take, so none of them are true, and nihilism is correct."
Also, at 16:23, he says that they have "equally credible historical claims." Which comes out of nowhere. What has convinced him that all of the churches that claim to be "the one true church" have equal amounts of evidence? Wouldn't the "one true church" be the biblically accurate one? He agrees that the filioque is biblical, so wouldn't Catholicism have more evidence than Eastern Orthodoxy? Based on his other videos, I believe that he thinks Catholicism is more biblical than Orthodoxy, so why is he saying this?
I like the Minecraft gameplay format, but these videos could use some editing. I think that if you want to paint these arguments in the best light you should have the option to cut stuff out. That's why I think the other videos that utilize editing are much more persuasive. They are scripted and every word counts, instead of being 30 mins of partially scripted unfiltered thoughts.
Btw, If RZ ever sees this then keep up the good work bro. 👍 God bless. ✝
You strawmanned the position.
@@UniteAgainstEvil elaborate, which part?