@@xnihilo1044 By Catholics, For Catholics, about the Catholic Church established by Jesus, and only made possible by the traditions handed to us orally by Jesus, who never told us to write anything down.
I'm sick and tired of people (especially catholics) who either don't understand sola scriptura or intentionally caricature this protestant doctrine. Sola scriptura doesn't say the bible is the only authority. I repeat sola scriptura doesn't mean the bible is the only authority. It does means that scripture is the only INERRANT authority. What sola scriptura does is that it helps us to continuously reform any other authorities. We Protestants do respect traditions, creedes, confessions and councils. We just think they're errant and therefore reformable. You all need to just stop misrepresenting this
Thank you Lord G-d for for reminding us through your servant Jeff Durbin this foundational truth that even Jesus the LIVING WORD who was and is G-d, pointed Satan to the written word of G-d in his hour of temptation. Help us to do the same.
@@henos.h.w9921 he believes God is actually God's name. And he appears to cling to the tradition of the "ineffable name" that the talmudic jews held, which was the belief that we are not worthy enough to say God's name with our mouths. However as sons of God when we're born again we have the privilege of sons to call our Father by His Name, YAH. (PSALM 68:4 KJV)
@@williamkung9863 Because the scriptures are the only example of God-breathed revelation in the possession of the church, and because they are the only thing that God holds men accountable to, they form the only infallible rule for faith and practice for the church.
@@miqueasbello5382 The church does not possess a single, documented word of Jesus or the Apostles outside of scripture (simple fact of history). Jesus subjugates tradition to scripture (Matthew 15:1-14). Jesus only holds men accountable to the scripture (Matthew 12:3, 12:5, 19:4, 22:31, "have you not READ..."), and nowhere does Jesus hold men accountable for something that was God-breathed, and yet not inscripturated by His prophets or Apostles. According to 2 Timothy 3:16, the only thing in possession of the church that is θεοπνευστος is the scriptures - scriptures as defined by the apostles themselves, not by any church or church council. This means that there is nothing outside of the scriptures that are God-breathed, not traditions, not councils, not men, not the church, nothing… so if anyone makes an appeal to anything other than the scriptures as being of equal authority with the scriptures, then they had better be prepared to demonstrate that it too is θεοπνευστος, since whatever is asserted without the scriptures may be held as opinion, but need not be believed.
Anglicanism As Established is growing and is trying to counter what we are still suffering from as a result of the Oxford Movement. Yes, we are a small community as is that denomination in general. Never recovered like it was before the Revolutionary War. Pastor Durbin’s preaching does not in anyway conflict or deviate from our founding confessions regarding sola scriptura. The 1689 LBCF, and the WCF (Anglican clergy wrote that), is the same Biblical interpretation as ours regarding the authority of scripture. Thank you Jeff for at least mentioning the 39 Articles. I appreciate your ministry and apologetics!
I'm catholic who once looked into Anglican church but laughed when I saw a Facebook video of one of their live recorded worships. Rock music and rainbow flags don't belong in the church.
@@Psalm144.1 I have too unfortunately within the RCC. That's why I've settled with the SSPX. The traditional Latin Mass is beautiful. The community is great too.
@@Psalm144.1 I think my other comment got deleted because I put a link, but I was going to say that the doctrine of Purgatory is what also keeps me from considering protestantism. Check out the video titled "Proof of Purgatory part 1: Twenty two Bible verses"
So you're saying someone in Latin America, someone in Africa, someone in the middle East, someone in the Caribbean we All worship the same??? From 2000 years ago??? The same???? Are you sure?????
A pastor that leads his church to know scripture, foundation, etc like this would be awesome. Wow. Only a handful of brothers know what I am talking about when I get into details on church history etc.
Richard bennett answered on this video: 1. What is your historical background in Romanism? 2. Are we saved by grace alone or are we saved by grace plus works and the Holy Mother Church? 3. Is it really the physical body & blood of Jesus Christ on the Roman Catholic altar? Do we really eat Jesus physically? What about John chapter 6? 4. a)What if you do not believe in the canon law of the Roman Catholic church can you still be saved? b) Does that mean excommunication? c) Is God Only holy? d) Is Jesus the only mediator? e) Exodus 20:4-5, What about idolatry & graven images? 5. What is communion with the dead & to dead Roman Catholic saints? Does Hebrews 9:27 refute purgatory? 6. Does water baptism make a person "born again" & therefore right with God? 7. Is Roman Catholicism a cult? 8. What does it mean for a Catholic that no longer accepts all rules & doctrines of the Roman Catholic church? 9. Do the many contradictions within Roman Catholic laws & traditions mean that Romanism falls like a house of cards? 10. Is the Roman Catholic theory of apostolic succession true? 11. Is truth relative according to Romanism? Is Roman authority based on a three legged chair - scripture, tradition & official degrees of the Romanist church? 12. Does the word "grace" mean the same thing to a Romanist as to a real Biblical Christian? 13. The ECT #1 document says conversion is a process, is that true? The ECT #2 document says justification & righteousness is conferred, not imputed, is that true? 14. Richard Bennett talks directly & personally to any Roman Catholics who may be watching this video.
He made _so many_ Catholic arguments here that ultimately refute his position it's absolutely surreal. What does it mean? Jeff Durbin actually gets it. He'd actually make an awesome Catholic/Orthodox faithful. Because he gets it. He really does. He understands the incredible error at the heart of sola Scriptura, that it can't _really_ mean "Scripture alone." But go ahead and make your way through each Sola, you'll never hear "the Church" and you'll never hear "Tradition." Ultimately: The bible was canonized centuries after the last Apostle died. Book binding didn't happen for another 5 centuries after that. It wasn't even another 5 centuries after that when we see mass printing make scripture available for everyone. What this means is for 75 percent of the Church's history Sola Scriptura was absolutely and positively UNFEASIBLE, IMPRACTICAL, and NIGH IMPOSSIBLE, because it took _3 years_ for a single bible to be HAND WRITTEN by a Monk. 3 years wages is what it cost to produce a Bible, that's the cost of a house nowadays. Sola Scriptura was IMPOSSIBLE, people _needed_ the church to hear the word spoken *just as all the Apostles had to back in their day before Christ's ministry.* Peter and Andrew, James and John, simple illiterate fishermen had to go to the temple to hear a lector recite the scrolls. Nobody was trying to keep the scripture from them. And when did the reformation happen? Lock-step with the advent of the movable-type press, and the very first book ever printed was the Bible. No matter what Jeff Durbin says, the entire point of seizing the Bible from the Church that brought it to us, was to be one's own Pope and one's own Magisterium.
Absolute nonsense. The scripture was unavailable to most Christians because the apostate Roman Catholic Church literally made it illegal to translate in to languages that people could read. Yet there are hundreds of thousands of early transcript copies of the New Testament documents which were hand-written and copied long before the the first council of Nicea. Sola Scriptura is fact. The pope has no authority. Your priest has no authority. The church cannot save you because the church is a satanic cult. The pope is a satanic false prophet. Your faith in man-made theology damns you. I beg you to repent, please, and believe the gospel of Jesus Christ for you own good. The church will not, does not, and cannot save you. Faith alone in Christ alone can do that. I love you buddy. Hope you see the light some day.
If that is the case, I think I can probably speak for him and say that he's not talking to you with that message. He makes the point that sola scriptura does not mean that the Church is useless, and it is wrong to use that doctrine as a reason to skip going to Church.
It’s great! I visited once, even though I live near I haven’t made it a home church since I don’t believe I’m called to be there but it’s an amazing church with amazing leaders and sheep. All willing to forward the kingdom. I’ve evangelized with them since one of my friends is a member there
That's his point, lol. Catholicism in particular likes to point to the Church fathers as if they are holier than we are by virtue of the fact that they were closer in time to Christ or something. But the fact is that we *should* be far more righteous than they because we have so many years of Church history, where we have tried to weed out many of the mistakes.
The Holy Gospel According to St. John, ch. 6 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers did eat manna in the desert: and are dead. 50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven: that if any man eat of it, he may not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world. 52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 53 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 54 He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.
Which is said right after Jesus gave the crowd his miracle bread and his point was that special bread could not save you but rather its the believing one who would be saved.
To understand the Lords Supper you need to study in great detail the book of Hebrews and what it teaches of the sacrificial priesthood, but to fully understand Hebrews you must study Leviticus & Daniel, without true understanding of Leviticus and Daniel the book of Hebrews will be empty to you. John 6 will become clear to you in view of Leviticus and Hebrews. As most Roman Catholics and Orthodox do you conveniently left out the words you don’t want to hear. When studying scripture, one must study in toto in context of all of scripture. So here you go. 26 Jesus answered them, and said: Amen, amen I say to you, you seek me, not because you have seen miracles, but because you did eat of the loaves, and were filled. 27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto life everlasting, which the Son of man will give you. For him hath God, the Father, sealed. 28 They said therefore unto him: What shall we do, that we may work the works of God? 29 Jesus answered, and said to them: This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he hath sent. 30 They said therefore to him: What sign therefore dost thou shew, that we may see, and may believe thee? What dost thou work? 31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert, as it is written: He gave them bread from heaven to eat. 32 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you; Moses gave you not bread from heaven, but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is that which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life to the world. 34 They said therefore unto him: Lord, give us always this bread. 35 And Jesus said to them: I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall not hunger: and he that believeth in me shall never thirst. 36 But I said unto you, that you also have seen me, and you believe not. 37 All that the Father giveth to me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me, I will not cast out. 38 Because I came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me. 39 Now this is the will of the Father who sent me: that of all that he hath given me, I should lose nothing; but should raise it up again in the last day. 40 And this is the will of my Father that sent me: that every one who seeth the Son, and believeth in him, may have life everlasting, and I will raise him up in the last day. 41 The Jews therefore murmured at him, because he had said: I am the living bread which came down from heaven. 42 And they said: Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How then saith he, I came down from heaven? 43 Jesus therefore answered, and said to them: Murmur not among yourselves. 44 No man can come to me, except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him; and I will raise him up in the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets: And they shall all be taught of God. Every one that hath heard of the Father, and hath learned, cometh to me. 46 Not that any man hath seen the Father; but he who is of God, he hath seen the Father. 47 Amen, amen I say unto you: He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life.
@@tricord2939 Catholics affirm the truth in both selections. However, this is a secondary issue. The idea that you or I can authoritatively teach on these matters is absurd. We have not been given authority to bind and loose. The primary problem at hand is a belief in Sola Scriptura which is absolutely irrational, illogical and ahistorical.
You stopped reading too soon. 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. (John 6:63)
Perhaps, the Heavenly Father YAHWEH just plain FORGOT to "implant" a "HOLY, UNDEFILED BABY GIRL" to be called "MOTHER of the TRIUNE Elohim" in the WOMB of ANNE, eh?? Sarcasm apart, but it's a valid proposition to JUSTIFY the satanic Dogma of the "IMMACULATE CONCEPTION" blasphemy of Mary of Nazareth!
The trouble with the sola scriptura approach is that it isn't really possible. There is always disagreement about how scripture should be interpreted. This is why there are thousands of different Protestant denominations. How do we resolve these conflicts? You could say you will just consult the scriptures to find the answer to this disagreement. But this just brings up the same problem again. Who will decide which scriptures should be consulted? There will be disagreements again. Which books of the Bible will be given priority?
@@davidpinheiro9650 the solution is the one that has been used since the beginning. The early church had a disagreement on the question of circumcision for Christians. What did Paul do? He did not break away to create a separate church. He knew the body of Christ must be one, that a house divided against itself cannot stand. He brought the leaders of the churches together for a council in Jerusalem. Thexall discussed the matter and came to an agreement. Many times since then, the universal Catholic church has held similar ecumenical councils to resolve disputes and create an agreed upon doctrine. This way the church dies not have to keep splitting apart. We still follow scripture, but it is a single interpretation of scripture, rather than hundreds of different interpretations.
@@Klee99zeno And why did Paul follow the law (Acts 21) when he himself claimed that the law was extinct? And why is it that Peter (supposedly the first pope, therefore saint) was continuously with Jesus for 3 years, and He never informed him that the law would lapse with His death, and then Paul came to oppose Peter? Sorry, Jonathan, but I think the obvious conclusion is "we don't know".
@@davidpinheiro9650 so if we are asking how we can resolve disagreements about the scriptures, is the answer " we don't know." If that is the answer, then this would mean that we would really not know how to follow the technique of Sola Scriptura. If this approach cannot be done, then how can can we follow a method that we do not know how to perform? Why would anyone give their support to Sola Scriptura if it is literally not possible?
@@Klee99zeno You are absolutely right. But my point is that probably the "sola scriptura" is wrong, not because the scripture needs particular interpretation, but because the various writings were never "dictated" by God. The authors did not go into an "inspirational trance". God did not grab their hands when writing. They were made by humans (with more or less "divine inspiration") and as such contain errors and incongruities. Catholics say the Church was founded by Christ, who gave Peter the keys. They use "sola scriptura" when interpreting Matthew 16:18-19. But they reject "sola scriptura". Protestants who defend "sola scriptura" reject the direct interpretation of this passage. Probably they are both wrong.
hey Pastor Jeff, i am very thankful for your ministries , to abortion to the reformed church and to various cults and false teaching. i really see the Lord's fruit in this ministry, and even though everyone's like "he's a calvinist!" i'm laughing because when we're all in heaven , saved and redeemed, those issues will be seen as less than the great truth of our Lord's salvation!!! i really appreciate your teaching and i won't take ear to those who separate and divide over non gospel issues , so i thank God for this ministry that's opening many young people's eyes like myself you should definitely come to the east coast soon and do some ministry over here
How does Jeff know if he is a chosen one? His church thinks that the only people going to heaven are chosen...... Isn't it funny they don't tell you that upfront?
@@jennief7114 apologiachurch.com/doctrine/ While they don't explicitly say, "We are Calvinists", at least the first four points of the doctrines of grace are present (and I would say the fifth is present as well, especially and obviously in light of what they actually teach).
2 Thessalonians 2:15..." So then Brethren, Stand firm and Hold (Works/Deeds) to the TRADITION taught by us (Apostles/Disciples), either by spoken word (oral tradition) or by our letters." 2 Thessalonians 3:16... "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brethren who are Walking in Idleness (Lazy Works/Deeds) and not in accordance with the TRADITION (oral/spoken word and letters/epistles) that you received from us (Apostles/Disciples)." In Conclusion...the Christian Churches started without the Written (manuscripts) New Testament but with ORAL TRADITION (Spoken Word) more than 30 years after Christ Jesus Ascended to Heaven... therefore, SCRIPTURE (Bible) ALONE as the Sole Authority of God's Words is NON-BIBLICAL TRUTH... Amen.
@@anthonytan7134 But only the Early Oral Traditions that were chosen by God to be written down with the guidance of the Holy Spiurit after the Temple was destroyed circa 70 A.D. and the Revelation was revealed to Apostles John around 92-96 A.D... The Scripture of God thru Christ Jesus was COMPLETED from that on... Today, the Sole Authority of God's WORD is the written Bible (collection of Holy Scriptures). Catholics still kept on the practice of other oral tradition not allowed to be written down by God in the Bible... Just like what Apostle John saw in the Revelation... Not all that John saw were allowed to be written down as instructed by the Angel of God... Amen.
@@anthonytan7134 All I am saying, while the Bible was not completed yet in those days, the Early Christians practiced so many extra ORAL TRADITIONS not necessarily for the Soul's Salvation... But after the Temple was completely destroyed onward, only some ORAL TRADITION were allowed by God to be written down thru the guidance of the Holy Spirit that has full significant to our salvation to complete the Word of God...
@@jvlp2046 if the oral tradition written down, it should be properly called written tradition...don't you think ? so when Paul wrote to the Thessalonians about spoken word, it didn't make sense at all . Tradition in greek "paradosis" simply means what's been handed and passed on...in some translation "teaching", so do you really think that ALL teaching contained in the Bible ????? Next question will be simple, who you think has the authority to interpret the Scripture ? You, me, anybody ????
@@jvlp2046 Let me give you another challenge, in acts 15, council of Jerusalem, who do you think argue from the Scripture ??? Maybe those folk believed in sola scriptura, be my guest. God bless
Iranaeus , Against Heresies, book 3, 1, 1 “We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed "perfect knowledge," as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles."
In your sermon on sola scriptura, you chose “not to develop” your refutation against the strongest argument against sola scriptura. How do we know what is and isn’t canonical? For example, by what authority can you say that the book of Tobit is not canonical? To put faith in the inerrancy of the scriptures requires first putting faith in the inerrancy of the authority of the Church, otherwise we would could not confidently say which books are scriptural and which are not.
By God’s sovereigns authority, also if they follow the characteristics of what scripture is then that’s what scripture is discovered by. I have faith in scripture, the apostles , and on God. The Catholic Church is irrelevant. They just helped us discovered the inspired word of God. Let me bring an analogy (it doesn’t have to make sense, it just wants to make a point) , a random dude discovered that grass is green, im not gonna have faith in that random dude. I’m gonna have faith that grass is green. The church help discovered scripture, I’m not gonna have faith in the Catholic Church.I’m gonna have faith in scripture.
There a lot of good information on the internet about how the canon was formed, criteria for what books were included, etc.If your REALLY interested do some research.
Harry Waddington the gospels were already know to be written by the apostles or someone related to the apostles like mark and Luke, John and Mathew were also known and recognized. I trust the apostles since they were with Jesus and were great men of God who gave us the message of the gospel. The letters of Paul are also known and recognized and also used for teaching, instruction, correction and have a sustainable doctrine. Paul even quoted Luke’s gospels. All of those book and letters are early and around the time of the apostles. And if we check any other book we will make a conclusion on whether the book is inspired or not and some would be difficult to know which is inspired which results into years of debate. I thank the early Christians for their help on preserving the books and thank them for putting the books into the Bible. But just because they did that doesn’t mean they have the authority they say they do in today’s Catholic Church. I trust them like I trust any medical expert or scientist but if they didn’t put the Bible together, then anyone who has the Holy Spirit would be able to discover the inspired books, I just thank the early church for not giving us the burden. I’m a Protestant but I don’t hold Martin Luther as an authority.
@@tan1591 just a matter of fact brother, Luke was not an apostle , he was an evangelist and a doctor , and became a companion of Paul, he was a gentile not a jew
Durbin is right on a lot of stuff but this one fell flat. The actual doctrine of sola scriptora was a 16th century idea developed by Luther. He kept saying “because Jesus and the apostles taught this (sola scriptora” and then talks for an hour and never actually says where that’s taught in the Bible. Ironically, it is the church, not scripture, that is hailed as “the pillar and ground of truth” (1 Tim. 3:15)… but through sola scriptora the word “church” flipped from the “one, holy, Catholic (universal), apostolic church” to just “the body of believers”…. Through sola scriptora, we have lost so many valuable traditions as a Christian body unfortunately.
The Sacraments, especially the Eucharist and confession. 7 books of Inspired Scripture. Communion of Saints. Blessings of persons and objects. Grace through relics.
Not trying to be biased although I do disagree with him on this and many other things, but he seems to be trying to cast a net big enough that refutes all major objections to sola scriptura that are popular and used often. The problem is a lot of it is contradictory, but once again that is my bias talking
In response to your preface of the video, I'd love to join a church, but I live in an area that is so liberal that finding a church that doesn't include homosexual marriage or condoning abortion by praying it away. Your videos are the only source I have
Hey man, one good way to find a good church is a website called 9 marks. They've got a church search function that could help you find a faithful church closed by!
@@mack6861 look into the Catholic Church. If you find a priest in a Catholic Church teaching such nonsense, you can appeal to the Bishop directly to have the priest reprimanded.
@@daddydaycareky hi! I think you may have meant to reply to the one who's comment I replied to as well! I think his name is Mackedo, so I get the mix up haha!
look into the Catholic Church. If you find a priest in a Catholic Church teaching such nonsense, you can appeal to the Bishop directly to have the priest reprimanded.
Protestants in the 60s did not condemn abortion but attacked the Catholic Church because it did condemn abortion. Now they agree with the Catholics and condemn it.
I'm going to predict many going to misunderstand the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and hold and believe in Solo Scriptura that Scripture alone is the authority rejecting other authorities like creeds, confessions, father's theological works etc.. confessions are important where you learn what Sola Scriptura is.
I can answer that question in one verse Alex; Isaiah 8:20 Consult God's instruction and the testimony of warning. If anyone does not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn.
I heard Dr. White say that on his website, maybe Alpha&Omega Ministries, that he had rebuttals to Jay. Although I have yet to search them out. Just letting you know, in the case that you wanted to really see responses to Dyer.
Synchronicity I Love Jeff (even though I’m not a Protestant), and he does some great work for the pro life movement, but Dyer would absolutely obliterate him AND James White.
Watch Trent Horn's rebutted video if you could Jeff, or maybe Invite Trent for this debate? watch many of your videos but inviting catholics is something ive never witnessed here. i know its easy to arguing with witnesses or the mormons, but maybe a debater like Trent for example? ;)
@@ministryoftruth1451 will this do to change his mind? CAnswersTV. . - This personal testimony is for all the many people who contact me, Larry Wessels of Christian Answers through our TH-cam channel at th-cam.com/users/CAnswersTV on a regular basis about having relatives or loved ones in the Roman Catholic religion or who have friends or relatives who are about to convert to Roman Catholicism. In my own case I was never a Roman Catholic but was rather raised in the Lutheran Church from birth. My problem, which is the same problem for almost everyone born into the world (unless you are John the Baptist - Luke 1:15, "For he will be great in the sight of the Lord; and he will drink no wine or liquor, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother’s womb.") is that I was not born as a true "born again" Christian even though I was baptized as a baby to begin with (John 3:3-8, Romans 8:1-17, etc.) but rather born as a lost sinner (Psalm 51:5, Ephesians 2:1, Romans 5:12, 1 Corinthians 2:14, Titus 1:15-16, Jeremiah 17:9, Romans 3:10-18, etc.). Being a lost sinner yet masquerading as a "Christian" although I didn't know it at the time because my parents made me go to their church as I grew up brainwashing me into believing I was a real "Christian" although I was evil as any unbeliever & more so when I got to college. As evil as I was on a regular & unrepentant basis, I justified myself that I was okay with God because I went to church every Easter & Christmas (although I skipped a lot of Easters) while I attended the University of Texas at Austin, Texas. This fake religiosity made me think I had a hellfire insurance policy so I was free to sin all I wanted & I did. With this type of of religious delusion going on in my life throughout my college experience it came to pass that I met my future wife my senior year who was born & raised a Roman Catholic. My opinion at that time was everyone who claims to be a Christian must be okay so being a Protestant or Catholic didn't matter at all. To make a long story short I ended up marrying my wife in the Roman Catholic Church to make her family happy although I remained a very nominal almost nonexistent Lutheran in name only. After marriage I attended Roman Catholic services with my wife from time to time because she wanted it that way & to me it really didn't make any difference one way or the other. God, however, had other plans for me on May 16, 1981 about a year after we were married. That particular day I was supernaturally "born again" by the power of the Holy Spirit like the Bible talks about & suddenly everything in my life was turned upside down! For more on that see my testimony video "D & D Dungeon Master Testimony: Dungeons & Dragons, Wargaming, Violent Video Games & Wasting Time" at th-cam.com/video/V41a_5INzVY/w-d-xo.html .Wow what a change & suddenly when I read the Bible it started to actually make sense! This sudden drastic change in my life obviously did not set well with my Roman Catholic wife. The more I studied & shared the Bible with her the more upset she got. She went to her friends for help & they told her I would get over this religious fervor in about six weeks and then I would return to my normal godless secular self. The problem for her was six weeks came & went & then months came & went & all I was doing was getting stronger in the Word of God & in my zeal for Christ. Things really started hitting the fan when I started to tell her that her Roman Catholic religion contradicted what I was reading in the Bible. In fact, after I was "born again" on May 16, 1981 I only went one final time for a Sunday morning service with my wife to her Saint Mary's Catholic Church in Austin, Texas & immediately spiritually recognized this place was a tomb for the dead not a place to honor, praise & glorify the Lord Jesus Christ (I had never noticed that before I was "born again"). Once again, to make a long story short, my wife ended up getting enraged at me for attacking her religion & started to throw away Biblical study materials I was collecting. She started to use sex as a weapon & refused to sleep in the same bedroom with me until I repented of all this "Bible stuff" (this went on for almost two years). I was seriously thinking she was going to divorce me & leave me just as 1 Corinthians 7:15 says, "Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace." My wife's side of the family are all staunch Roman Catholics especially her mother who regularly went on pilgrimages down to Mexico to honor the Virgin Mary. This only increased the tension in my marital situation. More than once I got in some serious theological discussions with my wife's mother that got her blood absolutely boiling probably because she had no answers to anything I brought up from the Bible even though I was following the command of 1 Peter 3:15, "but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence;" meaning I was trying to present to her Biblical information in a well meaning & kind manner without trying to start a fight. Unfortunately that situation with my mother-in-law came close to being a Galatians 4:16 occurrence, "So have I become your enemy by telling you the truth?" Total destruction of our relationship was saved when I followed the Biblical command in Titus 3:10-11, "As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned." From then on I talked no more about the things of God with my mother-in-law thus we got along fine after that. The strained marriage I had with my wife over religion finally came to an end somewhere in 1983 when my wife got the bright idea to have her two priests that she grew up with at Saint Mary's Catholic Church in Austin, Texas straighten me out on the things of God since she didn't know enough of the Bible to refute me. My wife got her priests to schedule a meeting with me in their office to discuss with me why the Roman Catholic religion was the true Christian faith. I gladly accepted the invitation from the priests & arrived at the appointed time with my wife coming with me to see what would happen. I have to say, after 39 years in public Christian ministry at the time of this writing, & after having been in more debates with people of multiple religious backgrounds than I can count, that this was the easiest debate discussion I ever had. For 30 minutes I lectured the two priests chapter & verse from the Bible while the priests struggled to quote two or three Bible verses they were aware of. This was a ridiculous encounter since the priests seemed to know next to nothing of scripture. This was like going into a cornfield & beating up on two scarecrows but more importantly my wife was there to hear it all. After 30 minutes the priests were done with the meeting & my wife was done with the Roman Catholic religion. After that my wife joined me in attending a good Bible based church & a couple of years later was water baptized thus rejecting the baptism she had as an infant in the Roman Catholic religion. For those that are interested see our playlist with almost 200 videos called "Dealing with Roman Catholicism, Idolatry & the Virgin Mary" at th-cam.com/play/PLFFA8D69D1B914715.html . Excellent websites to reference to in regard to Roman Catholicism: 1. bereanbeacon.org/ - The Ministry was founded in 1992 by former Roman Catholic priest for 22 years Richard M. Bennett. The Berean Beacon places particular emphasis on the evangelization and conversion of Roman Catholics. The other main thrust of the ministry is to inform evangelical Christians about Catholicism through its materials that are provided on the internet. 2. www.proclaimingthegospel.org/ - Former Roman Catholics Mike & Jane Gendron lead this Christian evangelistic ministry with deep compassion for Roman Catholics who are victims of deception. Excellent resources available. 3. www.cwrc-rz.org/ - CWRC, A Christian Witness To Roman Catholicism founded by Robert M. Zins, a former Catholic, with a Th.M. from Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, Texas; Major: Historical Theology. Rob made many videos concerning Roman Catholicism available on the internet through TH-cam and www.sermonaudio.com/ ; just type "Rob Zins Roman Catholicism" in a Google or Yahoo search on your computer . 4. christiantruth.com/ - Christian Resources is a non-profit teaching, apologetics and publishing ministry founded by William Webster, a former Roman Catholic, dealing with issues related to Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, the Gospel, Church history and the Chrisitan life. William Webster has a Masters of Theology in Biblical Interpretation and a PhD in Historical Theology, both from Whitefield Theological Seminary. 5. mtc.org/ -The founder and director of Mission To Catholics is Bartholomew F. Brewer Ph.D. Bart was ordained to the Roman Catholic priesthood at the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary in Washington DC. During ten years as a priest he served as a Discalced Carmelite missionary in the Philippines, as a parish priest in Arizona and California and finally as a U.S. Navy Chaplain. 6. www.takeheed.info/category/roman-catholicism/ - A Christian ministry founded by a former Roman Catholic from Ireland Cecil Andrews. Matthew 24:4, "And Jesus answered and said to them, "See to it that no one misleads you."
@@ministryoftruth1451 speaking truth is speaking up if you do not talk no one would know. The mormons are doing far better then most Christian did you know? Its a real shame. And jesus himself!!!! He talked non stop!!! And are you saying he talked too much?? Its never too much ONLY that you tried.
I like how he jumped right to "traditions of men".......a classic Protestant move that itself violates the wider teaching of tradition within Scripture
If Sola Scriptura is true, then where is that in the bible, and where in the bible does it tell us which books go in the bible? Did Jesus hand out bibles? Just want to note not trying to argue just asking questions. It's good to learn and dig.
I'm not sure why Catholics don't except Sola Scriptura. My understanding of the doctrine is that Scripture alone is the ultimate authority regarding matters of faith. What is Scripture? I've always thought Scripture = every divinely inspired and infallible message from YHWH. So let's say that the Catholics are right. The Magisterial rulings of the Church are divinely inspired and infallible messages from YHWH. By definition wouldn't that make the Magisterial rulings Scripture? And therefore not contradictory to Sola Scriptura at all? I mean if something is a divinely inspired and infallible message from YHWH then I'm like "put that in the Bible". I'm seriously asking. I'm not trying to attack anybody.
@@yomama847 I didn't know that. I thought that Catholics thought that Holy Tradition was equal with Holy Scripture. I'm glad to hear that they don't. But now I'm wondering why they deny Sola Scriptura being how they believe that Scripture trumps tradition.
@@redbearwarrior4859 In practice, there may be Catholics ignorant or indifferent to Scripture, but the Church has always revered and upheld Scripture. In fact, I would wager that more than 66% of the Catholic Mass is direct quotes or minor variations of verses from Scripture. Here are some more recent examples of Church teachings regarding Scripture: DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON DIVINE REVELATION DEI VERBUM SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI ON NOVEMBER 18, 1965 Chapter VI ...since, as inspired by God and committed once and for all to writing, they impart the word of God Himself without change, and make the voice of the Holy Spirit resound in the words of the prophets and Apostles. Therefore, like the Christian religion itself, all the preaching of the Church must be nourished and regulated by Sacred Scripture. For in the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven meets His children with great love and speaks with them; and the force and power in the word of God is so great that it stands as the support and energy of the Church, the strength of faith for her sons, the food of the soul, the pure and everlasting source of spiritual life. Consequently these words are perfectly applicable to Sacred Scripture: "For the word of God is living and active" (Heb. 4:12) and "it has power to build you up and give you your heritage among all those who are sanctified" (Acts 20:32; see 1 Thess. 2:13 Also Catechism of the Catholic Church PART ONE SECTION ONE CHAPTER TWO ARTICLE 3 SACRED SCRIPTURE... 107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72 108 Still, the Christian faith is not a "religion of the book." Christianity is the religion of the "Word" of God, a word which is "not a written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate and living".73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."74 III. THE HOLY SPIRIT, INTERPRETER OF SCRIPTURE 109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.75 110 In order to discover the sacred authors' intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."76 111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. "Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written."77 The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.78 112 1. Be especially attentive "to the content and unity of the whole Scripture". Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God's plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.79 The phrase "heart of Christ" can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.80
@@redbearwarrior4859 the short answer is because it ignores the other, more explicitly established, infallible source of truth, which are the successors of the Apostles, who are transfered authority through the laying of hands.
My Personal Opinion (non-biblical opinion) regarding "Sola Scriptura" (Written Scripture Alone)... during the time when the New Covenant Scriptures of God thru Christ Jesus were not written down yet or have not fully completely written down yet... the early Christians of the 1st Cent. A.D., before the 2nd Temple was destroyed by the Roman Empire, their CHRISTIAN FAITH in Christ Jesus thru God's Grace, practiced their FAITH based on VERBAL/ORAL TRADITIONS alone written from the Hearts of the Apostles and Disciples... But after the 2nd Temple was destroyed in around 70 A.D., more or less 40 years after Christ Jesus ascended back to Heaven with God the Father... God decided to ALLOW only those VERBAL/ORAL TRADITIONS to be written down by God's People guided by the Holy Spirit that have significance, relevance, and importance to the process of SALVATION of mankind... Those oral/verbal traditions were practiced by the Early Christians in the 1st Cent. A.D. that was not written down was God's DECISION not to practice no more... most especially after the book of revelation was written down by Apostle John at Patmos in around 92 - 96 A.D. Apostle John said (Rev. 22:18-19/paraphrase)... "I testified and warned anyone who hears the Prophecy of this SCROLL (singular/Book/Bible): if anyone ADDS any WORDS to them, God will add to that person the PLaGUES (tribulation/troubles) written in this scroll (Book)... And anyone who SUBTRACT (takes away) any WORDS of the Prophecy from this scroll (Book), God will take away to that person any share from the Tree of Life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll (Book)."... Amen Therefore, in my personal opinion, today, in our time when the WORD of GOD is finally completed without any FAULT of its OWN (not of Human Scribers' errors/mistakes like handwriting, spelling, printing, grammar, language translation, etc.)... we, Christian believers and followers of Christ must RELY Solely upon the written Holy BOOK/BIBLE (no longer Oral/Verbal Traditions).
@@jennief7114 It is based only on God's good pleasure, His will. As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion,fn but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” - Roman's 9:13-17
Scripture is technically just the Old Testament. Though Jesus and the apostles had traditions guide them as well. This is seen in the writings of Paul, 2 Peter and Jude. You know... the whole Michael confrontation with the devil. Also Paul’s teachings in first Corinthians 11 on head coverings, lol! Peace of Christ be with you all. Be civil in here fam!
Colossians 1:25 "Of which I became a minister according to the stewardship of God, which was given to me for you, to complete the word of God." The New Testament is as much the Word of God (scripture, 2 Tim 3:16) as the Old.
discjockeydoll I think she means in the context of the passage in 2 Timothy, the Old Testament is what St. Paul was referring to. I could be wrong, but I’m trying to give her the benefit of doubt.
@@froyvm7868 Understood. I just wanted you to be aware in case. He mentions Doug Wilson, so he is clearly friendly with the Presbyterians. Well... not PCUSA......
Just read Keith Mathison’s excellent work, “The Shape of Sola Scriptura.” He makes a great point about Sola Scriptura - that it’s not divorced from church tradition as some Protestants like to believe, but is the foundation of truth from which regula fidei springs.
@@daddydaycareky 2 Timothy 3:16-17 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. This my friend is Sola Scriptura.
@@levibaer18 I don't disagree that Scripture is God Breathed. I don't disagree that Scripture is beneficial for developing doctrine or for teaching. I don't disagree that Scripture fully and completely equips us for every good work. I disagree that this verse implies that Scripture is the only authority. Additionally, the other major issue is that the application of this verse, as proposed in this video, presupposes the canon of scripture.
@@daddydaycareky All God breathed scripture presupposes the cannon. This is a problem with Catholicism, not anyone else. Can you show me where traditions are God breathed or good for reproduction?
Is there a shorter boiled down version of this talk? Or maybe a summary of the major points. I'm afraid its a bit long-winded and a bit too "showtime."
He's following the same script as James White's book "Roman Catholic Controversy." Yes, it's an apologetic against Roman Catholicism, but it discusses Sola Scriptura in depth.
''your teacher your mentor your hero watching you.''. your... tradition? of men? ''if anything is wrong with my teaching, you can blame him''. so says all the pastors of all the mini traditions, of all the protestant churches. ''i fear i have created as many churches as there are heads'' -Luther '' the reformation leads to relativism''
Election has nothing to do with being good enough, you should know that. Romans 9 makes it very clear that it does not depend on human effort works, but on God who has mercy. It's God's unconditional choice.
@Curtis Hazen But if God elects, how does someone know their belief is sincere enough, how do they know if in a bad time and they stray, are they truly elected?
Bible alone, Infallible word of God, you say. It means that when pastor Durbin interprets bible verses this is just his opinion because he does not have an infallible authority to interpret the bible. The phrase “Body of Christ” is given more than 500 interpretations. Surely when pastor Durbin will interpret this, it will be another opinion.
Sola scriptura is not only the written word of God, but It comprises also the Holy Spirit's spoken word (rhema word) and the word of God who became flesh (Jesus). All three comprise sola scriptura, and all three are written in heaven. In all cases within God's church, it is the Holy Spirit who ultimately interprets the logos word of God. Therefore, there are times when a particular church may not be able to arrive to a consensus by simply burying there heads in the bible for an interpretation. They must earnestly seek the Holy Spirit for an interpretation or answer. "Those who are LED BY THE SPIRIT OF GOD, these are the sons of God."
@@anthonytan7134 Jesus is the word of God who became flesh ("I am the truth"); the Holy Spirit's rhema word ( "When He, the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all truth." ); the written word of God ("All Scripture is given by inspiration of God...").
I am desperate for an answer on this question. Let me just take one disagreement between Catholic and Protestant. The question is how can we trust the Bible? Catholics say the Church put the Bible together. Protestants say “NO the Bible revealed itself. Protestants say "the Church no more gave us the Bible than Newton gave us gravity.” For me not growing up in a religious home I just read the Bible until I was convinced that it was not a myth. I read it carefully so I know the contents pretty well. So to the question as to why we should trust anything the early Church did; this is what the Bible says: Jesus said 1) He was going to build a single Church. 2) He said the gates of hell would not prevail against it. 3) He said that He would be with the Church until the end of the age. 4) He said that He was going to send the "Spirit of Truth" to guide the Church in all truth. Then Paul says 5) the pillar and bulwark of truth is “the church.” Okay so let us look in church history at the Canon. In 382 AD the Church had the Council and determined that the canon was 73 books. They chose which books are infallible. That would be a radically important thing right? So the question is why would we trust those 73 books? Well, the answer is that Jesus said he would be with the Church to the end of the age. He also said he would give it the Holy Spirit to guide it in all truth. So we should trust what he says right? So from 382 AD to 1520 AD the Church that operated on the earth had the 73 book canon. But then Protestants come along and around 1520 AD and they claim that the early Church got the 73 book canon wrong. I am not being rude or belligerent but I really would like someone to explain - calmly and in simple language because I am slow - Please tell me how that is not absurd to say the Church got the 73 book Canon wrong based on Jesus promise to be with the Church to the end of the age and to send the “Spirit of Truth” to guide the church in All TRUTH. I am not being belligerent here really, I earnestly want to know. Did Jesus lie? Did He make a mistake? Did the Holy Spirit make an error with the 73 book canon? I cannot for the life of me believe that the church which is described as the “pillar and bulwark of truth” was not even on the earth from 382 To 1520. But then let’s move on; let’s say that the Protestants are right and the Church errored in the 73 Book canon. If the Church errored in the 73 book canon did God wait from 382 AD until 1520 before He restored the real truth? Are we really going to believe that for 1200 years the true Christian Church was not there? You could not say the true church was there if they could not even get the correct books in the canon. And I don’t see any other church in history declaring anything different than the 73 book canon. So the real church with the correct Bible was not on earth if the Protestant claim is true. Can that make any sense? I am just a guy who read the Bible very closely and came down on the Catholic side only recently but now I have Protestants telling me I am going to hell. I am not being rude or accusatory. But please tell me how it is not absurd that Jesus says he would create one Church. He would be with the Church to the end of the age. He would give it the Holy Spirit to guide it in ALL TRUTH. But then for one of the most important issues in all of Christianity the early Church gets 73 book canon wrong and so the real truth on this issue is not there until 1520. If that is true that would make me question the Christian truth claims entirely. Just a reasoned answer to this question would really help me.
The existence of denominations does not deny the existence of a universal church. Protestants believe in a single body of believers collectively known as "the Church," but that Scriptures has not exhaustively defined all theological points. The Bible is sufficient to equip the man of God for every good work. Now, to address the other points, only a Catholic would argue that the Bible was 73 books since 382. Jerome did not include the detuerocanonical texts, and, without fail, early Church fathers who knew Hebrew did not include them. Josephus makes reference to a series of books that the Jewish temple housed that did not include them. If you are asking how the New Testament canon can be trusted, I would refer you to three passages. 1) Of course, 1 Timothy 3:16, which is brought up in this sermon. 2) 1 Peter 1:21, which is also quoted here and says that no prophecy has ever been given by the will of man, but by the will of God, borne through men by the Spirit. 3) Ephesians 6: says to put on the "whole armor of God," which includes the following: truth, righteousness, the gospel of peace, faith, salvation, and the word of God. There is no reference to tradition or the authority of the Church, and none of those things can even be interpreted in that light. For this reason, I find it annoying when Catholics say things like "it is not our responsibility to prove the validity of tradition as an infallible rule of faith, but on the Protestants to prove that there is no other infallible rule of faith." Such an argument, frankly, is stupid, since the burden of proof is ALWAYS on the party arguing in favor of an addition and not those against. We know that the Bible is God-Breathed and borne by the Spirit. We know that the sheep of Christ know His voice. The Bible is ontologically different than anything else ever written. All books are either inspired or not inspired. If God's sheep know His voice, then doesn't it logically follow that His sheep would know his Word, the Bible? There are many other topics here that are related. For example, I think it's silly that Catholics want a verse that says "sola scriptura" but rely on "tradition" to prove the infallibility of tradition. John 21:23 actually shows the first incorrect extra-Biblical tradition PASSED ON BY THE APOSTLES: that John would live forever. "So the saying spread abroad among the brothers[a] that this disciple was not to die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he was not to die, but, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?”" Additionally, if God's plan was to have one single organization of the Church, why does He address seven different Churches in the beginning of Revelation? If you are going to be Catholic-- and yes, true Catholicism is not the true gospel; I believe that if you adhere to the catechisms of the Catholic church, you are not saved because they do not preach a true gospel-- then you have to reckon with these questions. And if you cannot answer them by inferring something from the Bible absent the teachings of Rome, then I would challenge you to reconsider your position on Catholicism. After all, we are all presupposing something. Are you presupposing the inerrancy and sufficiency of the sole God-breathe revelation we have in the Bible, or in the doctrines of the Church organization. If it is the latter, please just consider whether or not that is what the Bible turly teaches.
@@seanbrenon Look I told you that I was new to religion and I am just looking at the evidence. Which you did not respond to except to give an anti Catholic rant. I did not even say I was Catholic I just said when it came to the Canon I had come down on the Catholic side of the debate about the 73 books and I gave you the evidence. I said I was looking at the evidence for Sola Scriptura and I gave you the quotes about what Jesus and the New Testament said about THE CHURCH. Forget about what church it was back then. If Jesus said that he would be with the church until the end of time and that he would send the Holy Spirit to guide the church in all truth; and if Paul said that the church is "the pillar and foundation of truth;" then don't you have to look at the historical evidence and find out what that church was? If you don't think it was the Catholic Church don't you have to look at history and see which one it was? When I look at history of the Canon there was disagreement and so what did the church do when there was a disagreement? They held a council. In Acts 15 there was a disagreement as to whether Gentiles had to obey the Law of Moses or not. Some people said "yes" and some people said "no." The Church held the Council of Jerusalem in about 50 AD and they made the doctrinal decision that Gentiles did not have to obey the Law of Moses and be circumcised. We see that church in Acts 15 guided by the Holy Spirit make a doctrinal decision that was binding on the whole church. In 325 there was a debate about the divinity of Christ. Some claimed he was a created being who had God-like qualities but that he was NOT fully God. There was a terrible debate. Someone named Arius and his large group of followers argued against that view. They pointed to scriptures where Jesus indicated that the Father was greater than he was. Matthew 24:36 - No one knows when that day or time will be. The Son and the angels in heaven don’t know when it will be. Only the Father knows. Mark 10:18 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good-except God alone. John 14:28 - You heard that I said to you, ‘I am going away, and I am coming to you.’ If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. All of these Scriptures seem to say that the Father is greater than Christ. And so what did the church do? It held the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. And that Council specified that Jesus Christ was "of the same essence" as the Father. THE CHURCH rejected Arius view. So let me ask you; do you believe that Christ is consubstantial to the Father because of your excellent Bible translation skills? Or do you trust Christ when he said that he would build a Church that would be guided the Holy Spirit in all truth? I am no expert Bible translator. When it comes to question whether Christ was "consubstantial" with the Father or not I cannot go to the Bible and expertly determine that. And if you are honest you will agree that you cannot do that either. I have to trust someone else. You have to trust someone else. So whose interpretation do you trust? I trust the church that Christ established which held the Council of Nicaea and among a hotly debated issue with everyone pointing to dozens of Bible verses that support their interpretation; I trusted the Church established by Christ. If the Church that was established by Christ was not the Church that held the Council of Nicaea then where is it? There was not any other Christian Church around in 325 AD. So how do you know that THE CHURCH got it right? How can you be sure that Arius and the other half of Christianity that believed him are wrong? Can you trust your Bible translation skills to know that the Church was right, and Arius was wrong. Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses and Oneness Pentecostals all read these passages and they get their PhD's in Bible studies like everyone else and the DENY that the Bible teaches that Christ is consubstantial to the Father and that you are not saved because your interpretation of the Trinity is wrong. So how do you know that they are wrong. Millions of people read the exact same Bible as you do and they think that it is God-Breathed just like you do and they have a completely different and opposite view than yours. How can you trust your foundational beliefs unless you find out which Church was established by Christ and then follow that Church? You wrote - Are you presupposing the inerrancy and sufficiency of the sole God-breathe revelation we have in the Bible, or in the doctrines of the Church organization. If it is the latter, please just consider whether or not that is what the Bible truly teaches. Okay let us do exactly what you say. Does the Bible say that Jesus started a church and that he would guide the church until the end of time? I think the answer is "yes." He did. Did Jesus start a church and say that he would send the Holy Spirit to guide that church in ALL TRUTH forever? Again the answer is "yes." He said all of those things. Do we see the church do that in Scripture? Again "yes." Does the Bible say that the church is "the pillar and foundation of the truth?" Again, the answer is yes. Does the Bible say what instrument will be used to "teach the manifold wisdom of God?" Once again the answer is "yes." In Ephesians 3:10 Paul tells us that the instrument that "the manifold wisdom of God will be made known "through THE CHURCH." Now lets see if the Bible teaches your view. Does it say that Jesus sheep will hear his voice and so you should read all the documents that exist and if you are one of his sheep you will get it right. Does it say that? The answer is "no" it doesn't even hint of that idea. Your version of reading the Bible and making a determination of whether you hear his voice or not ends up in chaos because you believe from what I can tell in the 66 book Canon. But Augustine the greatest Christian theologian whoever lived disagrees with you. He believed in the 73 book Canon. Luther also disagrees with you. He did not include in James, Jude, or Revelation in his canon. He listed them with the Deuterocanon books. So if I sit here and I can't decide then who should I trust? Should I trust you? Should I trust Luther? Should I trust Augustine? Or should I find the church that Christ said he would establish and promised me that he would guide that church in all truth forever? I think I will go with Christ's church. There is tons of evidence of history which establish which Church was established by Jesus Christ. And for you comment on Jerome. The Curch held the Council of Rome in 382 and made the determination that the Canon was the 73 Book version. The Church then also held the Council of Hippo with Augustine in attendance in 393 AD and again guided by the Holy Spirit confirmed that the 73 Book version was to be considered Scripture. Augustine the church's greatest theologian believed in the 73 Book Canon. And then THE CHURCH met again at the Council of Carthage in 397 and made the same determination that the 73 book version was the official Canon. You mention Jerome and claim that he did not include them. But the evidence shows he doubted the Deuterocanon at first and he had questions about them. But he believed that Christ established one Church guided by the Holy Spirit because that is what the Bible says that he did. And when The Church made the determination of the Canon Jerome accepted it. By 402 AD he wrote a treaty against those "Hebrews" that you reference and Jerome said that he (Jerome) believed he would be in sin if he accepted the "Hebrew argument over the Church's decrees in the Councils. So while he originally questioned them. He accepted the declaration of THE CHURCH.
@@stevenwall1964 So you are not engaging in good faith. Two points on this: none of what you said is indicative of someone "new" to the issue. You're not desperate for an answer; you've already made up your mind. That's why I asked about your presuppositions. You have already decided that the Church is the determining agent of the canon. Second, if you took what I wrote as an anti-Catholic rant, then re-read it. I mention Catholicism once in reference to an exact point you implied: that Catholics say that I have to prove the fallibility of everything other than the Bible. Nothing else was specifically a reference to Catholicism. Was that your plan? To enter into the discussion in bad faith and then wallop someone with your real knowledge on the topic? What a joke. Nonetheless, the Revelation of John was written after Clement was allegedly passed on the papacy by Peter. This is the same time period as Ignatius, Quadratus, etc. So, you need to account for the fact that Christ does not address Clement in Revelation. You tell me where the Bible says that "one Church" refers to "one organization." So no, you do not have to look at Church history to see what the Church was in order to understand the idea that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. I don't really care what the early Church fathers said about things if they are saying things that the Bible does not. As for Acts 15, that is the Church in Jerusalem that is happening while revelation is still being made. Nonetheless, the Church does not say, "On our authority we say this." THEY QUOTE THE BIBLE and say "Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God." Why bother with the Bible if you are going to rip it out of context? "Millions of people read the exact same Bible as you do and they think that it is God-Breathed just like you do and they have a completely different and opposite view than yours." Easy. If they preach something that opposes the gospel preached to me, then I know it is wrong. That's not that hard to figure out. You're trying to use an example of something that doesn't change anything. Pick your group, and they are saying something that the Bible does not. Mormons don't believe in Sola Scriptura, JW actually create their own version of the Bible so it says what they want, and Oneness Pentecostals deny the trinity, which is a Biblical teaching. They clearly don't believe in sola scriptura. Again, show me where the Bible says that the Church is meant to be one, single organization, or where the Bible says that all Christians will agree on things. And if you are not using the Bible, but the Church's interpretation of the Bible, then you are arguing in Circles. How do you not see that? I would actually point to Jerome bowing to the authority of the Church as a great example of why you can't just take the Church's word on this. If you have never read the deuterocanonical books, go read them. Judith is laughably ahistorical. It's not even close. Remember, the Church is not infallible! Authoritative, sure, but not infallible. And you cannot prove that they are infallible unless you use the Church's interpretation of Scriptures. So again, if you are presupposing that the Church is infallible, then you need to examine what you are believing against what the Bible ACTUALLY says. And stop taking verses out of context. That's just solid hermeneutics.
@@seanbrenon Well thank you for letting me know that I am dealing in bad faith and you have somehow determined that I am not desperate to know something. And calling my statements a joke. But let's just take this back to my original question. My question was about the Canon. You are the one who brough in the Catholic claims about sola scriptura and stupid things you think Catholics claim. My question was focused on the Canon. When I read the Bible as an atheist I saw Jesus make comments about the Church like: I will build my CHURCH and the gates of hades will not prevail against it. If someone sins speak to him, if he won't listen then take w or 3 witnesses, if he still won't listen then tell it to the CHURCH. And if he won't listen to the CHURCH then treat him as a pagan. How would you do this, if there not a church to take the person to? I pointed out that the Bible says that the "CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of truth." And the Bible says that the instrument that was designated to teach the manifold wisdom of God is .... again "THE CHURCH." And so the ONLY question in my original post was if there was this Church started by Christ who said that he himself would guide that church until the end of time. How does it make any sense that he would let that church get the canon wrong and let it stay that way for 1500 years. That is my main question. So why don't you answer that. I was desperate to know because I was an atheist but the reason, I became a Christian was that Jesus made predictions about the church and those predictions came true. I realized the "ontological nature" of the Bible that you reference and so I became a believer. But to find Christ's Church I read what he predicted about his church. Christ said that his church would 1) be persecuted which was a strange prediction because the Romans were very religiously tolerant. And Christ said that his church would 2) "be one" so that the world would know that Christianity is true. And Christ said that his church would 3) go to all nations. And so when I look in history and see what church did all of those things it was the Catholic Church. I don't see any other church for the first 500 years. If there was a different church in the first 500 years would show it to me please? That church that I see that was persecuted like Christ said was the Catholic Church. It believed that the Bishop of Rome was the successor of Peter and the Romans hunted that person down and executed most of them and other leaders to try to stop Christianity. It was also that Church that stayed unified through the all of the great Councils (Nicaea 325, Constantinople 381, Ephesus in 431 AD, Chalcedon in 451 AD). Those councils defined the deity of Christ, the deity of the Holy Spirit, the Holy Trinity and the Doctrine of the Incarnation. And that church did go to all nations. Ignatius who knew the apostle John writing in 107 gives the structure of the entire church by as having a Bishop, presbyters, and deacons. The most famous church historians I know of say that there was one uniformly structured church by the middle of the second century. Read JDN Kelly's book Early Christian Doctrines or Jaroslav Pelikan's 5 Volume set on the History of the Christian Tradition. Or even read an atheist historian like Will Durrant. They all say that the Church that existed in the first 500 years of Christianity was the Catholic Church. To me that was amazing evidence that in fact a risen Christ was real and was guiding his church like he promised; because there was a church that did everything he predicted. Ignatius writing in 107 AD described the Church structure was asked how you could take something to the church like Christ says in Matthew 18 if the church had gone to all nations. How could you "take a person to the CHURCH? And Ignatius said to take the issue to the Bishop because where the Bishop is there is Jesus Christ, there is the "Katholicos Ekklysia. or the Catholic Church. And so by looking at history I saw that there was one church that did everything that Christ predicted and it was the Catholic Church and so I started going to a Catholic Church. And one day I walk out of church and someone who says he is a pastor of different church hands me a flyer saying I am going to hell for being a Catholic because the Catholic Church was not the true gospel. Well that was shocking. And so, I got my history books and showed the guy that the only church the history books talk about is the Catholic Church. I showed him all the statements that I have showed you about what the Bible says about the Church. And he pretty much said the same thing you did. That he thought I had made up my mind and I was going to hell and he got mad and quit talking to me. And so the question I posted that you answered was just about the Canon. But it could be any topic. My question was that if Christ started a church; and said the gates of hades would not prevail against it and said that he would guide that church until the end of time; then how can it make sense that he would let that church get the canon so wrong. That was my question to you. But we can expand to any topic. I asked about the Canon and you brought the topic of Catholics having a false gospel so lets just go with that. How does it make sense in light of all the things that Christ said about the Church that the only church that existed for the first 500 years not only got the Canon completely wrong; even worse it was a false gospel. How does that even make sense to you? That means that Christ started a church and the Bible makes all those comments about "the Church" but then for some reason the church that existed for the 500 years got it all wrong? I became a Christian because I saw all of the predictions that Christ and the Bible made about the Church. I looked at the early Church and saw that all those predictions come true; and now this pastor and you are telling me I am going to hell because that church that fulfilled all of Christ's predictions does not have the true gospel? Make sense of that for me. Just that one issue not all the other back and forth issue. I would gladly discuss those later but just stick to my basic question that I asked in the first place. If the Church I see in the first 500 years is a false gospel then what church do you think the New Testament is referencing?
@@stevenwall1964 Here's why I am saying that you have already made up your mind on this issue: only a Catholic would look at "Church history" and conclude that it is a single organization. You are taking one continent predominantly-- Europe-- and calling that the Church. What of the Ethiopians? Phillip Ministers to the Ethiopian eunuch a bit before Paul goes to Rome. How do YOU explain the existence of seven Churches in revelation? You are ignoring the issues in the positive stance that there are other infallible rules of faith only to ask a question of sola scriptura. That is not the disposition of someone seeking an answer. You are taking one idea-- that Christ builds His Church and sustains it-- and then inferring some kind of infallibility from that. Hence my statement that you cannot prove the opposing position. And the fact that you will not respond to these questions in favor of repeating a question I have already addressed while claiming that I have not is the basis for me saying that you are arguing in bad faith. This is not the first time I have debated this issue with a Catholic. I know what their talking points are, and you are hitting many of them. So you can keep claiming that you are seeking an answer, but you do not talk like someone who is. You are talking like someone who has made up their mind on this issue. Now, in spite of you claiming otherwise, I have already answered your question. First, I said that the canon you claim was championed by the Church fathers was not championed by them. I can't name all of them off the top of my head because it's not my expertise. But I mentioned Jerome. Origen and Justin Martyr also did not recognize the apocryphal canon. And, honestly, the canon was not infallibly declared by the Catholic Church until the Council of Trent. It's just not true that the Church widely considered the apocrypha part of scriptures. The Jews certainly did not, and Josephus explains that. Like I said, if you are interested in this topic beyond the unfounded assertion that the Church fathers universally believed in the deuterocanonical books, Roger Beckwith gets into this in his book "Old Testament Canon for the New Testament Church." Remember that every book of the apocrypha is OT. No Jewish sources quote them as Scripture. No books within 200 years of the New Testament quote them as Scripture. If the Jews did not accept them, why should the Church? Does not Paul tell the Romans in Romans 3:2 that the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God? And yet none of them believed in the apocrypha. Certain Church fathers like Justin Martyr don't ever quote the apocrypha, and many Church fathers who do also cite the pseudepigrapha, too-- for example, the second "pope" Clement. We don't call those Scriptures. I would argue that the fact the Church has survived and flourished in spite of many Church fathers claiming the apocrypha as Scriptures, when it is not, is an example of how the Spirit carries the Church in spite of its flaws. Finally, LIKE I SAID, even though you insist I haven't answered your question for some reason, the Church is not infallible. The members of the Church are fallen people and are liable to the fallible decision of all people. It does not surprise me to learn that many early Church fathers without the benefit of 2000 years of scholarship would fall into error on what belongs in the canon. Just like it should not surprise you to learn that many Church fathers quoted the pseudopigrapha. So the challenge once again is posed to you whether or not you want to rely on the one sole God-breathed Scriptures, or if you want to rely on something outside of that. I have already given a long defense of how the individual believer is responsible for their own beliefs. The Church is not responsible for the individual's belief, and you must prove one way or another that the Church is meant to function in such an infallible way, even as regards the canon. As I sad before, you cannot do it. Certainly, you will not, clearly, because you are calling this a "separate issue," even though your entire position on this relies on the infallibility of the Church in declaring a canon-- or at least on the idea that God would never let His Church be tested by allowing false books into their midst, even though, as early as Deuteronomy 13:1, God says that He will allow false prophets into the midst of His people to test them. If you are going to hold a position, you must be able to defend it. Asking questions of the opposing position is not a defense. One final point: I did not say that everything the Church taught in the early years was the false gospel. Obviously not. There was a lot of heresy back then, sure. But there are many great men that God used to bless the Church. The existence of a 73 book canon still maintains the correct 66 books. So, the presence of bad books does not negate the good ones. At the end of the day, there's a lot more good in the Catholic canon than bad. So, calling that a "false gospel" is not really what I was talking about. That's not what the term "false gospel" means.
Notice that Jeff is recommending books by James White, R. C. Sproul and William Webster. So he is saying that IN ADDITION TO THE SCRIPTURE, we should read some other stuff. Therefore he is not practicing Sola Scriptura himself because he is going beyond the bible to other sources of spiritual knowledge.
That's not how this works. Do you really think that you are not allowed to read other books? But obviously to those who understand Biblical doctrine Sola Scriptura means that Scripture alone carries the weight of God's inerrancy. When I read any commentary or book on anything I compare it to scripture to see if it holds truth. For example, is the Pope a mediator between men and God with the ability to forgive sins. 1 Timothy 2:5 says not a chance.
@@ministryoftruth1451 - can you find Gd's truth in the Bible if the protestant version of the Bible is missing several books of the Bible? Martin Luther decided that certain parts of the Bible should not be in the Bible. He took out several books of the bible that had been in there for centuries. He also wanted to remove some others. He hated the book of James and said he felt like burning it. He hated the book of Ester because he thought it seemed a little too Jewish to him. Protestant leaders made changes to the bible because they thought they could make improvements to it. King Henry the eighth changed the words of the Lord's Prayer because he arbitrarily declared that he had the authority to do this. If some one told you to cross out several parts of scripture and replace it with new words of your own, would you do it? What if someone told you to tear out several pages of your bible and throw them away? Would you do that? I would hope not. You cannot respect God's word if you want to change God's word.
@@Klee99zeno First of all, I don't agree with Luther on these things. Why would you presume I do. Starting with a straw man is dishonest. Secondly we know for a fact that the Bible AS WE KNOWIT NOW has been unchanged since the first century. the apocryphal books are not scripture. I would add you also can't add to God's word and have it still be truth.
@@Klee99zeno The Bible was "assembled" long before the Roman Catholic Church became dominant. The term “canon” is used to describe the books that are divinely inspired and therefore belong in the Bible. The difficulty in determining the biblical canon is that the Bible does not give us a list of the books that belong in the Bible. Determining the canon was a process conducted first by Jewish rabbis and scholars and later by early Christians. Ultimately, it was God who decided what books belonged in the biblical canon. A book of Scripture belonged in the canon from the moment God inspired its writing. It was simply a matter of God’s convincing His human followers which books should be included in the Bible. Compared to the New Testament, there was much less controversy over the canon of the Old Testament. Hebrew believers recognized God’s messengers and accepted their writings as inspired of God. While there was undeniably some debate in regards to the Old Testament canon, by A.D. 250 there was nearly universal agreement on the canon of Hebrew Scripture. The only issue that remained was the Apocrypha, with some debate and discussion continuing today. The vast majority of Hebrew scholars considered the Apocrypha to be good historical and religious documents, but not on the same level as the Hebrew Scriptures. For the New Testament, the process of the recognition and collection began in the first centuries of the Christian church. Very early on, some of the New Testament books were being recognized. Paul considered Luke’s writings to be as authoritative as the Old Testament (1 Timothy 5:18; see also Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7). Peter recognized Paul’s writings as Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). Some of the books of the New Testament were being circulated among the churches (Colossians 4:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:27). Clement of Rome mentioned at least eight New Testament books (A.D. 95). Ignatius of Antioch acknowledged about seven books (A.D. 115). Polycarp, a disciple of John the apostle, acknowledged 15 books (A.D. 108). Later, Irenaeus mentioned 21 books (A.D. 185). Hippolytus recognized 22 books (A.D. 170-235). The New Testament books receiving the most controversy were Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John. The first “canon” was the Muratorian Canon, which was compiled in AD 170. The Muratorian Canon included all of the New Testament books except Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter, and 3 John. In AD 363, the Council of Laodicea stated that only the Old Testament (along with one book of the Apocrypha) and 26 books of the New Testament (everything but Revelation) were canonical and to be read in the churches. The Council of Hippo (AD 393) and the Council of Carthage (AD 397) also affirmed the same 27 books as authoritative. The councils followed something similar to the following principles to determine whether a New Testament book was truly inspired by the Holy Spirit: 1) Was the author an apostle or have a close connection with an apostle? 2) Is the book being accepted by the body of Christ at large? 3) Did the book contain consistency of doctrine and orthodox teaching? 4) Did the book bear evidence of high moral and spiritual values that would reflect a work of the Holy Spirit? Again, it is crucial to remember that the church did not determine the canon. No early church council decided on the canon. It was God, and God alone, who determined which books belonged in the Bible. It was simply a matter of God’s imparting to His followers what He had already decided. The human process of collecting the books of the Bible was flawed, but God, in His sovereignty, and despite our ignorance and stubbornness, brought the early church to the recognition of the books He had inspired.
@@brody.jones147 The Bereans were more noble than the Jewish people in Thessolonica because they examined the apostles teaching against scripture to see if what the apostles were teaching them was true. That is a clear example of sola scriptura in the Bible
I say this in a respectful way so don't get me wrong. But why would we need to watch a video when if we have the bible. If we open the bible and see sola scriptura written in scripture that all we need.
the problem with this approach is that anybody can build his/her own theology...read EARLY church histories where the heretics also argue from the basis of the Scripture
@@anthonytan7134so it’s better to listen to a church of fallen sinful men who will do the same but say they have authority over you ? As a Christian who believes the Bible is Gods word, we listen to everything and compare it to Gods word.
@@Jacksonmontyart the question is...which Bible ? Who's authority are we listening to when comes to "the version" of the Bible we should read ? at the end of the day you are listening to some sort authority ? do you realize that ?
2nd letter of Paul to thessalonicians Greeks, Chapter 2 line 15. Θεσ. Β' 2,15 ῎Άρα οὖν, ἀδελφοί, στήκετε, καὶ κρατεῖτε τὰς παραδόσεις ἃς ἐδιδάχθητε εἴτε διὰ λόγου εἴτε δι' ἐπιστολῆς ἡμῶν. Θεσ. Β' 2,15 Άρα λοιπόν, αδελφοί, να στέκετε σταθεροί, και να κρατάτε τις παραδόσεις που διδαχτήκατε είτε με λόγο είτε με επιστολή μας. So, brethren, stand firm, and keep the traditions you have been taught, either by word or by our letter.
There's some wacky stuff in gnosticism. They deny the birth of Christ and, I think, though I may be wrong, the humanity of Christ. There's a lot of belief that John was specifically refuting gnostic teachings when he wrote the Gospel of John.
@@elvisisacs3955 again? i'm not a glutton for punishment. I'm sorry but no manner of twisting can make sola scriptura pop out of scripture. Its simply a non-christian doctrine made up by a heretic 16 hundred years after Christ.
Jesus and the Apostles held to sola scriptra? Jesus and St. Paul accepted the authority of the Old Testament, but they also appealed to other authority, outside of written revelation. For example, in Matthew 23:2-3, Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have a legitimate, binding authority, based on a teaching succession from Moses’ seat, which phrase (or idea) cannot be found anywhere in the Old Testament. It is found in the (originally oral) Mishna. Paul says that Christians should “have nothing to do with” (2 Thess 3:14) and “avoid” (Rom 16:17) those who refuse to follow his authoritative (and not yet formally scriptural) instructions. "All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." This passage doesn’t teach formal sufficiency. In 2 Timothy alone (in context), Paul makes reference to oral tradition three times (1:13-14, 2:2, 3:14). Also, a very similar passage, Ephesians 4:11-15, would prove (using Protestant reasoning) the sufficiency of “pastors” and “teachers” for the attainment of Christian perfection. The Christian believer is “equipped, built up,” brought into “unity” and “mature manhood, knowledge” of Jesus, the “fulness of Christ,” and even preserved from doctrinal confusion by means of the teaching function of the Church. Yet this Pauline passage doesn’t even mention Scripture.
It depends on how you define it. If you define Sola Scriptura as that Scripture is the only source of authority, then you are wrong. But, most people define it as the only source (that we have) of infallible authority, meaning that if something contradicts Scripture, it is wrong. It defined in direct opposition to that of the Catholics who taught that Scripture and tradition are equally authoritative.
Matt If scripture is the only infallible authority how can you know what the canon of scripture is since it’s not mentioned anywhere in the Bible? You’re forced to say the Bible is infallible but the list of books in the Bible isn’t.
taking that scripture to it's logical conclusion - one would have to say they need to disregard anything that was written after 1 Corinthians (since it would be considered exceeding what was written) which basically throws out all of the Gospels and most of epistles
@@SuperSaiyanKrillin No, only if it "exceeds" what is written, that is to say, if it goes beyond. What that means is that, so long as it agrees with scripture, it is okay. Everything in the New Testament agrees with the scripture that came before. Thus, it is okay. Not so for many Catholic traditions and practices. Even if we interpret it the way you propose, what is the conclusion? That that verse should be ignored?
Question for anyone or for the team at apologia studios: a student of mine brought up the . . . issue they have with Judes, Goliath, and the other "villians" of the stories in scripture. There statement/question was along the lines of "was Judes born Just to be chosen to betray Jesus and end his own life?" and "why is it that some people in the bible, there only reason for being born was to be killed, or to die to be a part of an example for us or a pawn for the 'hero' of the story". And honestly, I dont really have an answer. This is something that have struggled with myself and Ive had to rely on the statement and truth that I will never be able to understand the reason God does the things he does but I have to and am going to trust him even in my confusion. So, what are your thoughts on those questions. This is something I really need help on. Thanks you a ton in advance
Judas wilfully chose to betray Jesus by his own free will and that's why he can be condemned for it(he meant it for evil)but at the same time the will of God was also coming to pass.(which he meant for good) We have free will but it will never be as free as God's who knows all things past present and future. I think something's we will never fully grasp with the human mind.
@@Cinnamonbuns13 so, (that was a lot and I have a hard time understanding their terminology and I probably need it to be dumbed down) this video leads me to 2 more questions. 1) what about the people that have literally never heard the name of Jesus or the gospel? It seems unfair (ik I'm human and I cant understand everything God does entirely but it still feels unfair) that they are going to hell without knowing Him. And 2) it the passages they quoted, it appears that God is being selfish. Now I've been a Christian since I was 4 ish and I'm 22 and a 6th gen Christian so I'm not going to walk away or anything like that from this, but I also know God isnt afraid, or cought off guard by my questions and doubts. So if someone could help me understand this in a way that makes sence that would be incredibly helpful.
@@jemboy7777 ik that. But. That still doesnt seem to answer my 2 questions above. Like, what's the reason for question 2 and whats the answer the question 1? I'm not trying to be arrogant, I just dont understand the answer or reason
This mission was for the Jews since the 11 Apostles were a Apostles for the Jews. Paul was an apostle for the Gentiles. Once the gospel was fully preached throughout the Roman Empire, this mission was fulfilled. “which has come to you, just as in all the world also it is constantly bearing fruit and increasing, even as it has been doing in you also since the day you heard of it and understood the grace of God in truth;” Colossians 1:6 NASB1995 “if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister.” Colossians 1:23 NASB1995 This was needed before the destruction of the temple. This is not a cartoon where Peter is standing at the gate of heaven. That is not what is depicted in Matthew 16:13-20 nor Matthew 18:18 at all.
@@urawesome4670 oh so you’re saying that after the apostles completed their mission there was no need for anymore teaching etc? God stopped his hand in guiding the Church through individual men? He stopped revealing himself throughout history? Then what is the need for your Reformation if proclamation of the gospel has been completed through the apostles. This isn’t a cartoon where God gave the mission to just 12 men. He gave it to all men called to be Christians.
Just like the saducees and Pharisees you dont follow the Sola scriptura especially Lev. 19:28 "You shall not make in yourselves any figures or Marks..."
Hebrews 10:24-25 ESV _”And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.”_ Colossians 3:16 ESV _”Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God.”_ 1 Corinthians 14:26 ESV _”What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up.”_ There are many, many more, but hope these are a good beginning point. If there was no need for Christians to meet together as the Church, once Jesus ascended into heaven, the disciples and others followers could’ve just gone back to their individual lives. There would’ve been no need for the epistles to the churches, admonishing them, many times, on how they should act when they gathered in Jesus’ name.
Yesica1993 I think they mean the modern incarnation of the church. In the apostolic age church gatherings looked way different then they do today. We do need to gather together as citizens of heaven and love and grow in the Christ together, whether on Sundays at the “church” or anytime anywhere.
What I focus on is how the church is made up of believers, the book of Acts and how the church was made, how Jesus went to the synagogue on the Sabbath, verses about not isolating yourself in proverbs, verses about submitting to your elders which you can’t do unless you’re a member of a church, and yes, it’s full of humans who sin, but community sharpens us, gives us opportunities to serve and be served. Christ died for the church and what’s important to Him should be important to us.
I love how Jesus apparently believed something that didn’t exist until 1500 years after he transfigured. I love how he delivered a “Truth” that sacraments aren’t really sacraments and a church that needs no priests and bishops.. and he safeguarded that within a church that had sacraments and ecclesiology for 1500 years until there was a printing press. This guy didn’t say ANYTHING correct. In fact, even his criticism of AA was a straw man. No.. AA doesn’t describe alcoholism as a brain disease, but as a spiritual disease, and the prescription of treatment in AA is closer to Christian tradition than Calvinism is. Calvinism is heresy through and through.
Please read all associated scriptures carefully as I won't always quote the entire scripture for the sake of space. The canon was determined by God and discovered by man. Long before church councils were ever convened, we have proof that the letters were circulated and accepted before the canon was formally established. The entire Old Testament was affirmed in the Jewish community by means of the Holy Spirit long before any council sat in judgement. All the Old Testament books are quoted in the New Testament except Ester, Eccles. And the Song of Solomon. None of the books of the Apocrypha, which the Catholic Church added to its canon in the 16th century, are quoted. The bible gives overwhelming evidence as to why scripture must always be our sole authority for faith. The Word of God is pure, perfect, inerrant, infallible, living, truth, light, holy, eternal, and forever settled in Heaven. It illuminates,cleanses, saves, frees, guides, converts, gives knowledge, gives wisdom, produces faith, refutes error, searches the heart, equips for every good work, and is used as a weapon. Elevating tradition to the level of authority was common with the religious leaders during Jesus' earthly ministry. Consider the exchange between the Pharisees and Jesus, Matthew 15:1-6. ...And by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition. Scripture provides the only objective basis for authority while the indwelling Holy Spirit provides illumination, conviction and discernment. This dual authority, the Spirit of God working with the Word of God, is sufficient in all matters of faith and Christian living. Consider the biblical justifications for the authority of Scripture alone. 2 Timothy 3:16. Since Scripture is used to correct and reprove, then it must be the authoritative standard by which everything else is judged for truthfulness. Jesus said, "Scripture cannot be broken" John 10:35, meaning, it cannot be annulled or made void. It cannot be set aside in favor of the traditions of men. The character of God is on the line when it comes to Scripture, Numbers 23:19. Christ used the authority of scripture to rebuke Satan, Matthew 4:1-11. Jesus used the authority of Scripture to rebuke false teachers, Matthew 22:23-33. Repentant sinners are saved by hearing and believing the Word,Romans 10:17, Ephesians 1:13-14. Jesus made it clear that His Word, and His Word alone, not the tradition of men,is what sets us apart as His disciples, John 8:31-32. Jesus rebuked the religious leaders for nullifying the Word of God with their traditions, Mark 7:9-13. The apostles Paul commended the Bereans for using scripture, not tradition, to verify the truthfulness of his teaching,Acts 17:11. Galatians 4:30 Hebrews 6:18 1 John 4:6 The bible never refers to any higher rule of faith. Scripture is what God says; religion is what man says God says. Therefore, after considering each source of authority, we must ask, " but what does scripture say", Galatians 4:30. We must also heed Paul's exhortation: " Do not go beyond what is written", 1 Corinthians 4:6. The Catholic Church teaches that Peter was the chief apostle and the rock upon which Jesus would build His church. They base this doctrine on a misinterpretation of Matthew 16:18. Jesus said " You are Peter ( petros - stone) and on this rock (petra - mass of rock) I will build my church." However, the Greek word "petra" is feminine, and therefore it is not normal to use it in reference to the masculine Peter. Jesus did not say, " upon thee I will build my church." Peter knew without a doubt that Jesus was not referring to him as "the rock", because he proclaimed Jesus as "the Rock", 1 Peter 2:6-8. Petra is referring to Peter's confession of faith. It was James, not Peter, who presided over the Jerusalem Council, Acts 15:13, 19. And it was the apostles who sent Peter to preach, rather than Peter sending them, Acts 8:14. Who is the foundation, the chief cornerstone and head of the church? Jesus. 1 Corinthians 3:11 - For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. And Ephesians 1:22-23, 2:20. See also, Mark 7:7-8, 13. Colossians 2:8. Proverbs 30:5-6.
Let's debunk your interpretation that Jesus is referring to himself as the rock. Let's talk about this passage. Matthew 16:18 "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" There are two interpretations. Both are actually true for different reasons. Interpretation exegesis: #1 The Church is built on Peter's confession. This interpretation comes from early Church extra biblical writings. When some Christians say this, they probably mostly don't know where that interpretation came from. In a "philosophical sense" yes the Church is built on Peter's confession that Jesus is the Christ. Obviously if Jesus was not the son of the living God, our hopes and beliefs would have no foundation. Some early Christians held to this interpretation. I will provide an example from Saint Augustine: Augustine (354-430): “In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built.’ . . . But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable.” (The Retractions, 1:20:1) He says let the reader decide. Because there were two opinions. The reality is that both can be true at the same time. Interpretation #2 Peter is the rock. From a literal perspective, this is true. If you understand how language works, Jesus is not referring to himself in Matthew 16. He is speaking to Peter. He calls Peter "Kepha" and changes his name to ROCK. If you were not having any bias towards your interpretation and were for example an atheist, and you read this passage, no one can draw this conclusion that Jesus is talking about himself. Without a doubt Jesus calls Peter the rock on whom the Church is built. There is no ambiguity, in fact it's straight forward. The fear among non Catholic Christians is that acknowledging Peter is the rock would be tantamount to saying the Catholic Church is the true Church. So they absolutely would prefer not to to follow this interpretation. Even though it is quite literally the true understanding of this passage. Scholars don't interpret this passage as saying linguistically Jesus is talking about himself. He isn't. The literal meaning is Peter is the rock. The other interpretation can be true at the same time. Just not literally. The early Church overall accepted that the Church was built on Peter the rock. This interpretation wasn't challenged until the protestant reformation.
@@dman7668 the OT canon was already established, by who? God. If God is the One who establishes His Word then He had already established the NT canon as well, why? Because Jesus is the Word and He is eternally existing.
@@dman7668 furthermore, putting the NT into one book does not mean one established the NT, why? Because the NT gospels and letters were already well established, being copied and shared around among believers of the early church. RC teaches fallacy.
This man literally just made the case for the Roman Catholic Church with his interpretation of Sola Scriptura....absolutely ignorant and he should not teach.
@@Changemymind1999 because it always comes down to who interprets and who has the authority to declare interpretation. Besides, this man can't even use the old testamate to prove Jesus is the mesiah.
Sorry Rev but you did not provide any evidence that the bible says that it, itself, is the sole source of authority for Christians. Yes, of course it is "God breathed" - as per Paul to Timothy - but that does not therefore mean that ONLY the bible and nothing else is God breathed! He breathed his life into Adam and Eve, and He breaths His life into us by His Spirit when we become Christians, and every day from that moment on. It is impossible to prove Sola Scriptura from scripture itself because it is fundamentally a flawed stance. In your opening comments you refer to Jesus' discussion with the hypocritical pharisees who use traditional practices to rob a family of material goods which they say are "given over to God". You then imply that ALL tradition is fundamentally evil (a slap at the Catholics I presume) because this single tradition you quote is clearly bad and not of God. At best this is being disingenuous. It is on a par with saying that "all religion is bad"; well the bible does not say that, but what it does say is that BAD religion is bad. James 1:27 describes what pure religion is, which I will let you read for yourself. The term religion is totally neutral but "pure religion" - good - is not the same as "evil religion" - bad. And remember, it is not entities or terms which bring evil but people; so Jesus is always addressing the evil that individual people do through hypocrisy, greed, pride etc.
"You then imply that ALL tradition is fundamentally evil.." No Pastor Jeff did not imply that. His point was that all traditions that make the Word of God void are evil. It's funny how you are quick to call him disingenious.
@@ianyimiah Hi Isaac. I hope you are well today. Sorry - I think he does imply that all tradition is wrong and does not make it clear that he is taking the incident with the Pharisee as an isolated one. If Mike was not intentionally implying that all tradition is inherently wrong then I apologise to him - it's very easy to slip into using offensive terms on a site like this. It would be great to hear his take on tradition in general in that case, because I have heard a lot of evangelicals talking about both religion and tradition as wrong and in error.
@@PapaJoeWalsh I don't think he was implying that. The scripture he quoted even makes it clear. Also, a few minutes after he said that, he said we can learn from church history and creeds. Church history is full of traditions and creeds and confessions are a form of tradition as well. In my view, I hear him saying this: that you can learn from church history (which includes traditions) as long as it does not contradict biblical truths.
Translation: Sola Scriptura means you have to listen to some guy in street clothes "preach" for an hour and fifteen minutes without actually expounding Scripture.
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. It does NOT say: Therefore go and make them all Bible students. You are utterly missing the mark, Sir. And that's sin.
Dear pastor Jeff, is it true that Jesus did not fulfill the determinations of Leviticus 20:10 and Deuteronomy 22:22 (stoning of adulterers) in John 8: 1-11? Did He go against "Sola Scriptura"? Or was this passage added later and not part of the real "Sola Scriptura"?
Are you implying that Jesus (God) cannot make changes to his law? I will not judge God why his laws for the Israelites wondering in the desert are not the same after the incarnation. Do you refrain from bacon because of Moses' Law? That would be such a miserable life.
@@Psalm144.1 Are you saying that God can make changes to his own law? Can He fail to comply with His own law? Are you saying that God, after the incarnation, changed his laws? But was it not only with his death, as Paul and Hebrews say, that the "covenant" was eliminated? Was Matthew wrong to mention that Jesus said he came to fulfill the whole law, and not to revoke it (Matthew 5: 17-18)? So Peter was with Jesus 3 years and He never told him that the law (the previous covenant) would be revoked with his death, did Paul have to discuss this matter with Peter? Dear Ichabod (whoever you are), I raised the issue of the adulterous women passage simply because this situation never happened. This text was added to the gospel of John. And therefore the evangelical definition of "Sola Scriptura" falls apart, since we do not have the originals of these "scriptures". Not to mention the contradictions / divergences within the "scriptures" themselves, and the factual and historical errors.
I did not say that God can change his law. I implied it. God did change his laws. Plenty of examples in the New Testament. I misunderstood why you mentioned John 8:1-11. I see your point now. However, that is not a text to use for arguing against the theology of sola scriptura. It was not in the earliest manuscripts. I don't think you listened to the video when Jeff explained Sola Scriptura. You have to understand the definition of Sola Scriptura before you can argue against it. Jeff Durbin is well aware of textual criticism as his mentor is James White (who wrote, The King James Only Controversy). We don't know that the adulterous situation never happened, we just have evidence to believe it was not in the originally written (inspired) gospels. It is completely orthodox, and in harmony with Jesus Christ's teachings. Divergences in manuscripts is not an argument against sola scriptura. Different topic.
@@Psalm144.1 Divergences in manuscripts is a solid argument against "sola scriptura". It is at the core of the "internal evidence" against sola scriptura. How can we affirm that these scriptures, the Catholic canon we follow, are our basis of faith if they contain divergences between themselves and divergences with external reality? Along with the fact that we don't even have the originals. Is the number of the beast 666? Or is it 616? How many more differences will we discover as soon as we discover older manuscripts? And what impact will these differences have on our faith? At least the Catholic Church is united under the same coordination, as Paul desired, and internally defines it's (wrong, I think!) basis of faith and of christian life. Evangelicals are very divided, with very disparate beliefs. From churches that accept divorce (scriptural based) and have gay women pastors to churches where women have to wear a veil and cannot speak (scriptural based).
Sola Scriptura debates with real Roman Catholic apologists are posted below.Textual criticism is a different issue. That in no way devalues scriptural authority. The point of textual criticism is determining the original text. Again, you are arguing against a non-existent definition of Sola Scriptura. 666 or 616 changes nothing about faith in God and the authority of scripture. If textual criticism was a solid and viable argument, than Roman Catholic apologists would use that. They do not. Here is a debate between James White (Jeff Durbin's mentor), and a Catholic Priest, Mitch Pacwa. I happen to think Pacwa is wonderful man of God. He does not use your argument at all.th-cam.com/video/nxTEtArbCgs/w-d-xo.htmlAnd here is another debate on sola scriptura. Again, the Catholic apologist does not use what you say. th-cam.com/video/pmYWBwIvejY/w-d-xo.html
I don't believe that scripture is the only source of Faith. God has spoken to me in many ways. For example when I was hospitalized in 2013 the Holy Spirit spoke my character defects to me, some but not all of which were in the scriptures. Had any of that contradicted the Bible I would not have believed in it. I do check every way (i.e. Revelations in dreams or advice from my pastor) with the Word of God. I believe that scripture is the ultimate authority but not that scripture is the sole rule of Faith. I think Sola scriptura discounts the many ways that God can speak to someone. For example I asked God to bless my dreams one night and he gave me the sentence "willing to go to any lengths" which is only in 12 steps meetings but I believe is consistent with God's word. I do believe that God wants me to be willing to go to any lengths to be willing to serve Him.
Ok, so it's the belief that scripture is the sole INFALLIBLE rule of Faith. I guess I just changed my mind. Because other ways must be tested by the Word of God. The Word of God is the ultimate litmus test of any other means of information or Revelations that one recieves.
Heads exploded across Christendom when the new world translation,entirely in keeping with the Greek grammar,inserted the indefinite article a John1:1c. There were even erroneous claims that it was the only translation to render the verse thus. Jesus is not a God insisted opponents. Well here is my question. If Jesus is not a God,how can he be JEHOVAH,who the bible plainly declares to be a God. Deuteronomy4:24KJV" for Jehovah thy God is a devouring fire, a jealous God."
Okay great so Jesus is a God and Jesus is God. Same thing right? Jehovah is a God so saying a God doesn’t mean he’s not God. I love your logic. Tell us about the faithful and discreet slave. What makes you think that’s a prophecy?
I did answer your question unless you believe Jesus is your triune God. If you get an interlinear you will notice that the Greek text states that the logos was with the God 'ton theon'. According to your copy of strong's the expression the God is a reference to the supreme God i.e without equals. The logos on the other hand is referred to as God without the definite article according to strong's 'theos' without the definite article or in the plural can refer to angels or rulers whether angelic or human See psalms8:5, john10:34. Thus in the context of the logos being with the supreme God ,according to strong's, his being God without the article must mean that he was God in the sense of being a Godlike prince, doubtless one of those mentioned at Job38:4-7KJV"4Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. 5Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? 6Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; 7When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?"
@@aservantofJEHOVAH7849 No you didn’t. I didn’t ask you about that, I only made a statement about your own logic. I asked you about the faithful and discreet slave. So answer.
aren't you asking us to compare whatever people say with scripture, therefore the answer is already in scripture. why would i go to church and listen to people, when the answer already came from god.
If I am discussing the Lord of the Rings books/movies with friends, they may give me insights, see things in them I´ve missed. I can learn and deepen my understanding. But how do I know their analyses are correct? By knowing the books/movies. For example, I come from a charismatic background and have always thought of spiritual warfare mainly in terms of prayer. But a bible teacher showed me that in 2 cor 10:4-6 Paul is using spiritual warfare imagery for apologetics, to challenge and tear down structures of lies raised against the truth. It was in the text, but I might not have seen it without help.
Protestant beliefs are contradcitory and self refuting which proves it is not of God. 1)All beliefs must be derived from scripture 2)All scripture refers to the old testament in 2 Tim 3:15-17 3)2 Tim 3:15-17 is not part of the old testament 4)Conclusion, 2 Tim 3:15-17 cannot be used to prove Sola Scriptura
@James Jose 2 Tim 3:15-17 Paul says Timothy from his childhoood has been acquainted with sacred writings. During Timothy's childhood only OT was sacred scripture. Paul was referring to OT only.
@James Jose you are correct 2 Tim 3:15 is referring OT which means you cannot use it for Sola Scriptura. Otherwise you would limit Sola Scriptura to the OT.
As a general rule I find myself in agreement with you. However, often because you have a correct belief you and Dr. White carry it beyond its parameters as if to demonstrate its value. This unfortunately ends up undercutting your position as you are trying to defend claims not made by sola scriptura. For example your references to the claims of AA could not only be undercut in about 15 seconds regarding the illness component of alcohol, but their solution to the problem addresses it in a spiritual context, NOT a medical one. Please limit yourself guys, because Jesus doesn't need your help to appear "more right" than He is. Try using scripture to speak for itself as opposed to trying to wax and buff it up. It is quite sufficient.
Regarding 2Tim3:15-17, i noticed Prots stress the qualifiers attributed to the man of God ("complete" and "fully" and "every") but fail to stress the qualifer attributed to Scripture which is "All". The qualifier "All" leaves open the possibility of other things being inspired of God. Stressing the qualities of the man of God does not teach Sola Scriptura. Let me give an example: All military documents and manuals are useful/profiitable for making a soldier complete, fully equiped for every military duty. The above does not mean Sola Manual. Soldiers need Military leadership, training, battle field Intel and much more. Prot's only source of Truth is Scripture and yet they don't even understand basic grammatical logic. 2 Pet 3:16 "as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures."
I have been listening to your messages for some time now and have enjoyed many of your teachings. You are a gifted orator. I was shocked when I just heard your dismissal of Alcoholics Anonymous however. I’m not sure why the theology of a program that helps people find sobriety should matter to you or your church. MANY people have had to begin their journey to find God in these less pious rooms. They still ultimately find God. I was then reminded of your other teachings which proclaim it’s okay to drink. Perhaps that’s the real reason you have issues with A.A. Tee totalers wouldn’t be prospective customers for Apologia Brewery. Maybe you should add Sola Churcho to your truths, and stop trying to have an opinion or thought on things that don’t concern you.
The A.A. Framework believes in a higher power. But that doesn’t make that higher power correct. To deny Christ is just that. Either he gets the glory or he doesn’t. Christ should be our peace. The Bible has instructions on the removal of sin in ones life. And Jeff is saying that the Bible is the guide and the basis for everything. AA helps a lot of people. And does very “good”. But even in that let’s examine good. How many good people will find themselves in hell for denying Christ.
Raycurlee23 to me it’s not an either or. It’s a first, then. Without AA I probably would’ve never made it back into church. Christ is my all and all, and to Him goes all glory. But I don’t discount the effect these 12 step programs have had on peoples lives. I’m not alone in my journey, I know many that have come to an ultimate relationship with Christ through this less popular venue.
I find sola scriptura to be not used by many Christian denominations. Sunday, Easter, Christmas is not in the Christian Scriptures. They are traditions and therefore outside of scripture.
The Lord's day aka Sunday is in the Bible (Rev. 1:10). Also holding onto Sola Scriptura doesn't mean you can't have tradition, it just means tradition is subordinate to scripture.
I think I agree with green frog and to the other guy Christmas and Easter is pagan , come on man anybody who does even a little research can see that they have pagan origins green frog was right churches adopted all this crap that you can’t find in the Bible show us where it says to celebrate Easter or Christmas give us the book chapter and verse
Mat 12:8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day. That means he is the master of it , he owns it It doesn’t say he is lord of Sunday Doesn’t say that does it? So why would the lords day in revelations mean Sunday , prove it please and don’t go run to some early church father I want bible verses thank you
Anthony Turner ‘We’ do nothing and ‘We’ save no one. God does all. We walk in faith of the works God already set before us. God alone saves those whom He foreknew. We walk in faith proclaiming of the gospel to the world and allow the Master to separate those we bring to Him (a world He created and completed before us, but blessed us in participating in the work He already completed).
Eh Eh Eh Jeff....if what you are teaching is wrong you will answer to God yourself. You will not be able to blame James White for your errors. There is only "One Hero of the Faith" who is none other than Jesus Christ. Also...your church has been exposed for recording the confessions of some of your members. Why are they confessing sins to you??? Don't you attack Catholics for the same practice?
Psalms83:18ASV"18That they may know that thou alone, whose name is JEHOVAH, Art the MOST HIGH over all the earth." Note please that there is but one named JEHOVAH. Note also that this one is the MOST HIGH. Thus if ones God is associated with multiple co'equals (e.g the Trinitarian Jesus). He is not the Lord JEHOVAH.
Proverbs8:22JB"Yahweh created me, first-fruits of his fashioning, before the oldest of his works." Job38:7JB"What supports its pillars at their bases? Who laid its cornerstone 7 to the joyful concert of the morning stars and unanimous acclaim of the sons of God?" We note that JEHOVAH was not alone before the creation of the physical universe and man. The first of these morning stars was particularly close to him in his work. Proverbs8:30JB"I was beside the master craftsman, delighting him day after day, ever at play in his presence," Note too that at revelation2:28Jesus identifies himself as morning star and as the wisdom of God a Luke11:49.
I am what? One what? Nothing I said precludes Jesus being from before Abraham or one with God. John17:22ASV" the glory which thou hast given me I have given unto them; that they may be one, even as we are one" Note that the believers become one in the same way that Jesus and his God are one and also that they receive the glory that Jesus received from his God and Father. If you get an interlinear and check you will notice that the neuter form of the greek word rendered one is used "en" when ever one us used of God the masculine form is used "eis" indicating a single person also singular personal pronouns are always used of JEHOVAH. Indicating that the bible writers regarded him as a single person.
@@aservantofJEHOVAH7849 Error: “That they may be one, even as we are one” does not conclude that they are one with us. I AM what? “And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you”. One what? I AM. I pray for you. That you will turn to Christ.
There is no scripture in the Bible. This is Luther's delusion. Show me a passage in the Bible, where is Sola Scriptura? On the contrary, there is a tradition in the Bible. It begins with the sentence: "Now, brethren, keep ye the tradition which ye have received from us by word and by word." This corresponds to the history of the Church.
The Bereans were more noble than the Jewish people in Thessolonica because they examined the apostles teaching against scripture to see if what the apostles were teaching was actually true. That is a clear example of sola scriptura that is in the Bible
The apostles taught the truth from Jesus. What you are describing is not Sola scriptura, but tradition. (The Bible speaks of it in the Corinthians.) The teachings were spread only orally until the Bible was written. Sola scriptura is the doctrine that only the Bible is the only source of faith. (But this is heresy, because the sources of faith are: the Bible, tradition, and the teaching office of the Catholic Church.)
@@DanielMaloneJr So why didn't Isaiah make an appeal to traditions? If Sola Scriptura is not true, then just point out one other INFALLIBLE rule for faith and practice. Or, point out a single word of Jesus or the Apostles outside of the scriptures that has been dogmatically defined by the church. You can't do that because Sola Scriptura is true.
Lawrence Stanley I can point out other infallible rules of faith. Tradition: 2 Thessalonians 2:15 15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. And The Church 1 Timothy 3:15 15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. None of those verses show sola scriptura. Just because someone appeals to scripture does not mean that it’s the sole infallible rule of faith. You need to show me a verse that says that.
@@DanielMaloneJr You're joking, right? Please tell me that you're joking... First, please tell me about these infallible traditions that Paul was referring to; traditions that never made it into scripture that are demonstrated to be infallible. Also, if you are asserting that the church is infallible, then please explain in what sense you mean it. All one must do to see that it is not infallible in any way is to look at the various popes and counsels who have often erred and contradicted one another, or, look to the development over time of unbiblical doctrines such as purgatory, the various Marian dogmas, or the infallibility of the pope speaking ex cathedra, and so on. No sir, neither tradition, nor the church is infallible for history has well demonstrated the FALLIBILITY of both.
If you ever witness to Sikhs... please, please wear a headdress and introduce yourself as Jeff Turbin.
lol
...
No... just, no.
*snort laugh* 😂
I'm am Indian 🇮🇳 and your comment makes so much sense.
"...Father, sanctify them in Thy Truth. Thy Word is the Truth."
The Lord Jesus is the Word
which was given orally
@@MasterKeyMagicand then written down. 😊
@@xnihilo1044 By Catholics, For Catholics, about the Catholic Church established by Jesus, and only made possible by the traditions handed to us orally by Jesus, who never told us to write anything down.
@@MasterKeyMagicwhich the Catholic Church didn’t exist then.
I'm sick and tired of people (especially catholics) who either don't understand sola scriptura or intentionally caricature this protestant doctrine. Sola scriptura doesn't say the bible is the only authority. I repeat sola scriptura doesn't mean the bible is the only authority. It does means that scripture is the only INERRANT authority. What sola scriptura does is that it helps us to continuously reform any other authorities. We Protestants do respect traditions, creedes, confessions and councils. We just think they're errant and therefore reformable. You all need to just stop misrepresenting this
"T o the law and to the testimony, if they speak not according to THIS WORD it is because there is no light in them."
Thank you Lord G-d for for reminding us through your servant Jeff Durbin this foundational truth that even Jesus the LIVING WORD who was and is G-d, pointed Satan to the written word of G-d in his hour of temptation. Help us to do the same.
Why G-d?
@@henos.h.w9921 he believes God is actually God's name. And he appears to cling to the tradition of the "ineffable name" that the talmudic jews held, which was the belief that we are not worthy enough to say God's name with our mouths. However as sons of God when we're born again we have the privilege of sons to call our Father by His Name, YAH. (PSALM 68:4 KJV)
Plppp
P pop pop ppp
We need to be so careful of false doctrine.
yes, and where is Sola Scriptura explained in the bible?
@@williamkung9863
Because the scriptures are the only example of God-breathed revelation in the possession of the church, and because they are the only thing that God holds men accountable to, they form the only infallible rule for faith and practice for the church.
Lawrence Stanley where does the Bible say all that?
@@miqueasbello5382
The church does not possess a single, documented word of Jesus or the Apostles outside of scripture (simple fact of history). Jesus subjugates tradition to scripture (Matthew 15:1-14). Jesus only holds men accountable to the scripture (Matthew 12:3, 12:5, 19:4, 22:31, "have you not READ..."), and nowhere does Jesus hold men accountable for something that was God-breathed, and yet not inscripturated by His prophets or Apostles.
According to 2 Timothy 3:16, the only thing in possession of the church that is θεοπνευστος is the scriptures - scriptures as defined by the apostles themselves, not by any church or church council. This means that there is nothing outside of the scriptures that are God-breathed, not traditions, not councils, not men, not the church, nothing… so if anyone makes an appeal to anything other than the scriptures as being of equal authority with the scriptures, then they had better be prepared to demonstrate that it too is θεοπνευστος, since whatever is asserted without the scriptures may be held as opinion, but need not be believed.
Lawrence Stanley Which part of 2 Tim. 3:16 says that the Scriptures are the ONLY thing that is God-breathed that the Church possesses?
Anglicanism As Established is growing and is trying to counter what we are still suffering from as a result of the Oxford Movement. Yes, we are a small community as is that denomination in general. Never recovered like it was before the Revolutionary War. Pastor Durbin’s preaching does not in anyway conflict or deviate from our founding confessions regarding sola scriptura. The 1689 LBCF, and the WCF (Anglican clergy wrote that), is the same Biblical interpretation as ours regarding the authority of scripture. Thank you Jeff for at least mentioning the 39 Articles. I appreciate your ministry and apologetics!
I'm catholic who once looked into Anglican church but laughed when I saw a Facebook video of one of their live recorded worships. Rock music and rainbow flags don't belong in the church.
@@TruLuan I’d laugh too and never join that Church also. And I’ve seen videos of Roman Catholics parishes doing the same.
@@Psalm144.1 I have too unfortunately within the RCC. That's why I've settled with the SSPX. The traditional Latin Mass is beautiful. The community is great too.
@@Psalm144.1 I think my other comment got deleted because I put a link, but I was going to say that the doctrine of Purgatory is what also keeps me from considering protestantism. Check out the video titled "Proof of Purgatory part 1: Twenty two Bible verses"
This is why I left the protestant church, pastors like this Gentleman. I highly doubt that the early church sounded and worshipped like this guy.
You mean 2,000 years later this guy speaks and acts a little different than someone from the other side of the planet?
Could you prove what you claim here or are you just bias and your bias is solely the truth?
So you're saying someone in Latin America, someone in Africa, someone in the middle East, someone in the Caribbean we All worship the same??? From 2000 years ago??? The same???? Are you sure?????
A pastor that leads his church to know scripture, foundation, etc like this would be awesome. Wow. Only a handful of brothers know what I am talking about when I get into details on church history etc.
Richard bennett
answered on this video:
1. What is your historical background in Romanism?
2. Are we saved by grace alone or are we saved by grace plus works and the Holy Mother Church?
3. Is it really the physical body & blood of Jesus Christ on the Roman Catholic altar? Do we really eat Jesus physically? What about John chapter 6?
4. a)What if you do not believe in the canon law of the Roman Catholic church can you still be saved?
b) Does that mean excommunication?
c) Is God Only holy?
d) Is Jesus the only mediator?
e) Exodus 20:4-5, What about idolatry & graven images?
5. What is communion with the dead & to dead Roman Catholic saints? Does Hebrews 9:27 refute purgatory?
6. Does water baptism make a person "born again" & therefore right with God?
7. Is Roman Catholicism a cult?
8. What does it mean for a Catholic that no longer accepts all rules & doctrines of the Roman Catholic church?
9. Do the many contradictions within Roman Catholic laws & traditions mean that Romanism falls like a house of cards?
10. Is the Roman Catholic theory of apostolic succession true?
11. Is truth relative according to Romanism? Is Roman authority based on a three legged chair - scripture, tradition & official degrees of the Romanist church?
12. Does the word "grace" mean the same thing to a Romanist as to a real Biblical Christian?
13. The ECT #1 document says conversion is a process, is that true? The ECT #2 document says justification & righteousness is conferred, not imputed, is that true?
14. Richard Bennett talks directly & personally to any Roman Catholics who may be watching this video.
He made _so many_ Catholic arguments here that ultimately refute his position it's absolutely surreal.
What does it mean? Jeff Durbin actually gets it. He'd actually make an awesome Catholic/Orthodox faithful.
Because he gets it. He really does. He understands the incredible error at the heart of sola Scriptura, that it can't _really_ mean "Scripture alone."
But go ahead and make your way through each Sola, you'll never hear "the Church" and you'll never hear "Tradition."
Ultimately:
The bible was canonized centuries after the last Apostle died.
Book binding didn't happen for another 5 centuries after that.
It wasn't even another 5 centuries after that when we see mass printing make scripture available for everyone. What this means is for 75 percent of the Church's history Sola Scriptura was absolutely and positively UNFEASIBLE, IMPRACTICAL, and NIGH IMPOSSIBLE, because it took _3 years_ for a single bible to be HAND WRITTEN by a Monk. 3 years wages is what it cost to produce a Bible, that's the cost of a house nowadays. Sola Scriptura was IMPOSSIBLE, people _needed_ the church to hear the word spoken *just as all the Apostles had to back in their day before Christ's ministry.* Peter and Andrew, James and John, simple illiterate fishermen had to go to the temple to hear a lector recite the scrolls. Nobody was trying to keep the scripture from them.
And when did the reformation happen?
Lock-step with the advent of the movable-type press, and the very first book ever printed was the Bible. No matter what Jeff Durbin says, the entire point of seizing the Bible from the Church that brought it to us, was to be one's own Pope and one's own Magisterium.
Absolute nonsense. The scripture was unavailable to most Christians because the apostate Roman Catholic Church literally made it illegal to translate in to languages that people could read.
Yet there are hundreds of thousands of early transcript copies of the New Testament documents which were hand-written and copied long before the the first council of Nicea.
Sola Scriptura is fact. The pope has no authority. Your priest has no authority. The church cannot save you because the church is a satanic cult. The pope is a satanic false prophet. Your faith in man-made theology damns you. I beg you to repent, please, and believe the gospel of Jesus Christ for you own good. The church will not, does not, and cannot save you. Faith alone in Christ alone can do that. I love you buddy. Hope you see the light some day.
I know nobody will see this...
But "Church babies" got me dead laughing!!! 🤣🤣🤣
Was Paul a church baby? Was Timothy?
The pre sermon message of " i am not your pasror/this is not your church" was really discouraging. I have no choice but to "go to church" online.
If that is the case, I think I can probably speak for him and say that he's not talking to you with that message. He makes the point that sola scriptura does not mean that the Church is useless, and it is wrong to use that doctrine as a reason to skip going to Church.
I love your sermons, Pastor Jeff. I wish I lived near your church!
It’s great! I visited once, even though I live near I haven’t made it a home church since I don’t believe I’m called to be there but it’s an amazing church with amazing leaders and sheep. All willing to forward the kingdom. I’ve evangelized with them since one of my friends is a member there
Why do you want to be near his church when you have the bible? I am not trying to be rude or anything I ask this in respect
People have died for the sake of the Word of God.
I don’t think anyone would die for the words of Tertullian.
That's his point, lol. Catholicism in particular likes to point to the Church fathers as if they are holier than we are by virtue of the fact that they were closer in time to Christ or something. But the fact is that we *should* be far more righteous than they because we have so many years of Church history, where we have tried to weed out many of the mistakes.
@@seanbrenon And weeded out many of the thruths.
@@seanbrenon Martin Luther, who lived later, claimed to understand Christianity better than the prophets and apostles. Catholics disagree.
@@fantasia55u know that Lutherans don’t consider him infallible right?
@@Joshua12w2o Martin Luther believed Jesus committed adultery, so I'm glad Protestants don't think their founder was infallible.
The Holy Gospel According to St. John, ch. 6
48 I am the bread of life.
49 Your fathers did eat manna in the desert: and are dead.
50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven: that if any man eat of it, he may not die.
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world.
52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
53 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.
54 He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
55 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.
Which is said right after Jesus gave the crowd his miracle bread and his point was that special bread could not save you but rather its the believing one who would be saved.
To understand the Lords Supper you need to study in great detail the book of Hebrews and what it teaches of the sacrificial priesthood, but to fully understand Hebrews you must study Leviticus & Daniel, without true understanding of Leviticus and Daniel the book of Hebrews will be empty to you. John 6 will become clear to you in view of Leviticus and Hebrews.
As most Roman Catholics and Orthodox do you conveniently left out the words you don’t want to hear. When studying scripture, one must study in toto in context of all of scripture. So here you go.
26 Jesus answered them, and said: Amen, amen I say to you, you seek me, not because you have seen miracles, but because you did eat of the loaves, and were filled.
27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto life everlasting, which the Son of man will give you. For him hath God, the Father, sealed.
28 They said therefore unto him: What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?
29 Jesus answered, and said to them: This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he hath sent.
30 They said therefore to him: What sign therefore dost thou shew, that we may see, and may believe thee? What dost thou work?
31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert, as it is written: He gave them bread from heaven to eat.
32 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you; Moses gave you not bread from heaven, but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.
33 For the bread of God is that which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life to the world.
34 They said therefore unto him: Lord, give us always this bread.
35 And Jesus said to them: I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall not hunger: and he that believeth in me shall never thirst.
36 But I said unto you, that you also have seen me, and you believe not.
37 All that the Father giveth to me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me, I will not cast out.
38 Because I came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me.
39 Now this is the will of the Father who sent me: that of all that he hath given me, I should lose nothing; but should raise it up again in the last day.
40 And this is the will of my Father that sent me: that every one who seeth the Son, and believeth in him, may have life everlasting, and I will raise him up in the last day.
41 The Jews therefore murmured at him, because he had said: I am the living bread which came down from heaven.
42 And they said: Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How then saith he, I came down from heaven?
43 Jesus therefore answered, and said to them: Murmur not among yourselves.
44 No man can come to me, except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him; and I will raise him up in the last day.
45 It is written in the prophets: And they shall all be taught of God. Every one that hath heard of the Father, and hath learned, cometh to me.
46 Not that any man hath seen the Father; but he who is of God, he hath seen the Father.
47 Amen, amen I say unto you: He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life.
@@tricord2939 Catholics affirm the truth in both selections. However, this is a secondary issue. The idea that you or I can authoritatively teach on these matters is absurd. We have not been given authority to bind and loose.
The primary problem at hand is a belief in Sola Scriptura which is absolutely irrational, illogical and ahistorical.
You stopped reading too soon.
63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
(John 6:63)
Perhaps, the Heavenly Father YAHWEH just plain FORGOT to "implant" a "HOLY, UNDEFILED BABY GIRL" to be called "MOTHER of the TRIUNE Elohim" in the WOMB of ANNE, eh?? Sarcasm apart, but it's a valid proposition to JUSTIFY the satanic Dogma of the "IMMACULATE CONCEPTION" blasphemy of Mary of Nazareth!
My only critique is that durian is pretty good😂
The trouble with the sola scriptura approach is that it isn't really possible. There is always disagreement about how scripture should be interpreted. This is why there are thousands of different Protestant denominations. How do we resolve these conflicts? You could say you will just consult the scriptures to find the answer to this disagreement. But this just brings up the same problem again. Who will decide which scriptures should be consulted? There will be disagreements again. Which books of the Bible will be given priority?
Ahahah! Good point! And what is the obvious conclusion?
@@davidpinheiro9650 the solution is the one that has been used since the beginning. The early church had a disagreement on the question of circumcision for Christians. What did Paul do? He did not break away to create a separate church. He knew the body of Christ must be one, that a house divided against itself cannot stand. He brought the leaders of the churches together for a council in Jerusalem. Thexall discussed the matter and came to an agreement. Many times since then, the universal Catholic church has held similar ecumenical councils to resolve disputes and create an agreed upon doctrine. This way the church dies not have to keep splitting apart. We still follow scripture, but it is a single interpretation of scripture, rather than hundreds of different interpretations.
@@Klee99zeno And why did Paul follow the law (Acts 21) when he himself claimed that the law was extinct?
And why is it that Peter (supposedly the first pope, therefore saint) was continuously with Jesus for 3 years, and He never informed him that the law would lapse with His death, and then Paul came to oppose Peter?
Sorry, Jonathan, but I think the obvious conclusion is "we don't know".
@@davidpinheiro9650 so if we are asking how we can resolve disagreements about the scriptures, is the answer " we don't know." If that is the answer, then this would mean that we would really not know how to follow the technique of Sola Scriptura. If this approach cannot be done, then how can can we follow a method that we do not know how to perform? Why would anyone give their support to Sola Scriptura if it is literally not possible?
@@Klee99zeno You are absolutely right.
But my point is that probably the "sola scriptura" is wrong, not because the scripture needs particular interpretation, but because the various writings were never "dictated" by God. The authors did not go into an "inspirational trance". God did not grab their hands when writing.
They were made by humans (with more or less "divine inspiration") and as such contain errors and incongruities.
Catholics say the Church was founded by Christ, who gave Peter the keys. They use "sola scriptura" when interpreting Matthew 16:18-19. But they reject "sola scriptura".
Protestants who defend "sola scriptura" reject the direct interpretation of this passage.
Probably they are both wrong.
hey Pastor Jeff, i am very thankful for your ministries , to abortion to the reformed church and to various cults and false teaching. i really see the Lord's fruit in this ministry, and even though everyone's like "he's a calvinist!" i'm laughing because when we're all in heaven , saved and redeemed, those issues will be seen as less than the great truth of our Lord's salvation!!! i really appreciate your teaching and i won't take ear to those who separate and divide over non gospel issues , so i thank God for this ministry that's opening many young people's eyes like myself
you should definitely come to the east coast soon and do some ministry over here
How does Jeff know if he is a chosen one? His church thinks that the only people going to heaven are chosen...... Isn't it funny they don't tell you that upfront?
@@jennief7114 Actually, they are pretty open about the fact that they hold to the doctrines of grace.
@@JustinHonaker Oh no, if you go onto any of their church websites They never disclose they are Calvinists. Send me one church that does that.
@@jennief7114
apologiachurch.com/doctrine/
While they don't explicitly say, "We are Calvinists", at least the first four points of the doctrines of grace are present (and I would say the fifth is present as well, especially and obviously in light of what they actually teach).
@@jennief7114 Lol they don't say "we're Calvinists."
If they read the bible in a contextually consistent manner, of course they're Calvinists.
2 Thessalonians 2:15..." So then Brethren, Stand firm and Hold (Works/Deeds) to the TRADITION taught by us (Apostles/Disciples), either by spoken word (oral tradition) or by our letters."
2 Thessalonians 3:16... "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brethren who are Walking in Idleness (Lazy Works/Deeds) and not in accordance with the TRADITION (oral/spoken word and letters/epistles) that you received from us (Apostles/Disciples)."
In Conclusion...the Christian Churches started without the Written (manuscripts) New Testament but with ORAL TRADITION (Spoken Word) more than 30 years after Christ Jesus Ascended to Heaven... therefore, SCRIPTURE (Bible) ALONE as the Sole Authority of God's Words is NON-BIBLICAL TRUTH... Amen.
Amen, according to Biblical scholar Lee Martin McDonald..."we had the faith first before the Bible" ( para-phrase )
@@anthonytan7134 But only the Early Oral Traditions that were chosen by God to be written down with the guidance of the Holy Spiurit after the Temple was destroyed circa 70 A.D. and the Revelation was revealed to Apostles John around 92-96 A.D... The Scripture of God thru Christ Jesus was COMPLETED from that on... Today, the Sole Authority of God's WORD is the written Bible (collection of Holy Scriptures). Catholics still kept on the practice of other oral tradition not allowed to be written down by God in the Bible... Just like what Apostle John saw in the Revelation... Not all that John saw were allowed to be written down as instructed by the Angel of God... Amen.
@@anthonytan7134 All I am saying, while the Bible was not completed yet in those days, the Early Christians practiced so many extra ORAL TRADITIONS not necessarily for the Soul's Salvation... But after the Temple was completely destroyed onward, only some ORAL TRADITION were allowed by God to be written down thru the guidance of the Holy Spirit that has full significant to our salvation to complete the Word of God...
@@jvlp2046 if the oral tradition written down, it should be properly called written tradition...don't you think ? so when Paul wrote to the Thessalonians about spoken word, it didn't make sense at all .
Tradition in greek "paradosis" simply means what's been handed and passed on...in some translation "teaching", so do you really think that ALL teaching contained in the Bible ?????
Next question will be simple, who you think has the authority to interpret the Scripture ? You, me, anybody ????
@@jvlp2046 Let me give you another challenge, in acts 15, council of Jerusalem, who do you think argue from the Scripture ??? Maybe those folk believed in sola scriptura, be my guest.
God bless
Iranaeus , Against Heresies, book 3, 1, 1 “We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed "perfect knowledge," as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles."
In your sermon on sola scriptura, you chose “not to develop” your refutation against the strongest argument against sola scriptura. How do we know what is and isn’t canonical? For example, by what authority can you say that the book of Tobit is not canonical? To put faith in the inerrancy of the scriptures requires first putting faith in the inerrancy of the authority of the Church, otherwise we would could not confidently say which books are scriptural and which are not.
By God’s sovereigns authority, also if they follow the characteristics of what scripture is then that’s what scripture is discovered by.
I have faith in scripture, the apostles , and on God. The Catholic Church is irrelevant. They just helped us discovered the inspired word of God.
Let me bring an analogy (it doesn’t have to make sense, it just wants to make a point) , a random dude discovered that grass is green, im not gonna have faith in that random dude. I’m gonna have faith that grass is green.
The church help discovered scripture,
I’m not gonna have faith in the Catholic Church.I’m gonna have faith in scripture.
There a lot of good information on the internet about how the canon was formed, criteria for what books were included, etc.If your REALLY interested do some research.
Harry Waddington they discovered the inspired books, not select or determined which book is going to be inspired.
Harry Waddington the gospels were already know to be written by the apostles or someone related to the apostles like mark and Luke, John and Mathew were also known and recognized. I trust the apostles since they were with Jesus and were great men of God who gave us the message of the gospel. The letters of Paul are also known and recognized and also used for teaching, instruction, correction and have a sustainable doctrine. Paul even quoted Luke’s gospels. All of those book and letters are early and around the time of the apostles. And if we check any other book we will make a conclusion on whether the book is inspired or not and some would be difficult to know which is inspired which results into years of debate. I thank the early Christians for their help on preserving the books and thank them for putting the books into the Bible. But just because they did that doesn’t mean they have the authority they say they do in today’s Catholic Church. I trust them like I trust any medical expert or scientist but if they didn’t put the Bible together, then anyone who has the Holy Spirit would be able to discover the inspired books, I just thank the early church for not giving us the burden. I’m a Protestant but I don’t hold Martin Luther as an authority.
@@tan1591 just a matter of fact brother, Luke was not an apostle , he was an evangelist and a doctor , and became a companion of Paul, he was a gentile not a jew
Durbin is right on a lot of stuff but this one fell flat. The actual doctrine of sola scriptora was a 16th century idea developed by Luther. He kept saying “because Jesus and the apostles taught this (sola scriptora” and then talks for an hour and never actually says where that’s taught in the Bible. Ironically, it is the church, not scripture, that is hailed as “the pillar and ground of truth” (1 Tim. 3:15)… but through sola scriptora the word “church” flipped from the “one, holy, Catholic (universal), apostolic church” to just “the body of believers”…. Through sola scriptora, we have lost so many valuable traditions as a Christian body unfortunately.
Can you give some examples of valuable traditions that we lost?
The Sacraments, especially the Eucharist and confession. 7 books of Inspired Scripture. Communion of Saints. Blessings of persons and objects. Grace through relics.
@@daddydaycarekyGrace is through God and God alone, also confessions and eucharist are still done in almost all churches today
@@Carol-FBagreed, the source of all grace is God alone.
I like Jeff- but this sermon left me confused he was all over the place. I was just trying to get a better understanding of sola scriptura.
Not trying to be biased although I do disagree with him on this and many other things, but he seems to be trying to cast a net big enough that refutes all major objections to sola scriptura that are popular and used often. The problem is a lot of it is contradictory, but once again that is my bias talking
In response to your preface of the video, I'd love to join a church, but I live in an area that is so liberal that finding a church that doesn't include homosexual marriage or condoning abortion by praying it away. Your videos are the only source I have
Hey man, one good way to find a good church is a website called 9 marks. They've got a church search function that could help you find a faithful church closed by!
@@mack6861 look into the Catholic Church. If you find a priest in a Catholic Church teaching such nonsense, you can appeal to the Bishop directly to have the priest reprimanded.
@@daddydaycareky hi! I think you may have meant to reply to the one who's comment I replied to as well! I think his name is Mackedo, so I get the mix up haha!
look into the Catholic Church. If you find a priest in a Catholic Church teaching such nonsense, you can appeal to the Bishop directly to have the priest reprimanded.
Protestants in the 60s did not condemn abortion but attacked the Catholic Church because it did condemn abortion. Now they agree with the Catholics and condemn it.
2 Thessalonians 2:15. 2 Timothy 2:2.
I'm going to predict many going to misunderstand the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and hold and believe in Solo Scriptura that Scripture alone is the authority rejecting other authorities like creeds, confessions, father's theological works etc.. confessions are important where you learn what Sola Scriptura is.
Amen.
Should Creed's and confessions be considered authority?
Jonathan Derek Moseley Yes because without them you wouldn’t have scripture.
@@HarrisonB72 because they came before scripture?
@@jonathanderekmoseley2130 Yes, but *not* over the authority of scripture.
I can answer that question in one verse Alex; Isaiah 8:20
Consult God's instruction and the testimony of warning. If anyone does not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn.
Debate Jay Dyer.
I heard Dr. White say that on his website, maybe Alpha&Omega Ministries, that he had rebuttals to Jay. Although I have yet to search them out. Just letting you know, in the case that you wanted to really see responses to Dyer.
Synchronicity I Love Jeff (even though I’m not a Protestant), and he does some great work for the pro life movement, but Dyer would absolutely obliterate him AND James White.
No one should debate that fool.
Watch Trent Horn's rebutted video if you could Jeff, or maybe Invite Trent for this debate? watch many of your videos but inviting catholics is something ive never witnessed here. i know its easy to arguing with witnesses or the mormons, but maybe a debater like Trent for example? ;)
I would prefer a debate with Bart Ehrman, but Trent Horn would also be a good idea.
Based on Trent's responses it would be futile. He simply doesn't understand and is blinded by his false religion.
@@ministryoftruth1451 will this do to change his mind?
CAnswersTV. . - This personal testimony is for all the many people who contact me, Larry Wessels of Christian Answers through our TH-cam channel at th-cam.com/users/CAnswersTV on a regular basis about having relatives or loved ones in the Roman Catholic religion or who have friends or relatives who are about to convert to Roman Catholicism. In my own case I was never a Roman Catholic but was rather raised in the Lutheran Church from birth. My problem, which is the same problem for almost everyone born into the world (unless you are John the Baptist - Luke 1:15, "For he will be great in the sight of the Lord; and he will drink no wine or liquor, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother’s womb.") is that I was not born as a true "born again" Christian even though I was baptized as a baby to begin with (John 3:3-8, Romans 8:1-17, etc.) but rather born as a lost sinner (Psalm 51:5, Ephesians 2:1, Romans 5:12, 1 Corinthians 2:14, Titus 1:15-16, Jeremiah 17:9, Romans 3:10-18, etc.).
Being a lost sinner yet masquerading as a "Christian" although I didn't know it at the time because my parents made me go to their church as I grew up brainwashing me into believing I was a real "Christian" although I was evil as any unbeliever & more so when I got to college. As evil as I was on a regular & unrepentant basis, I justified myself that I was okay with God because I went to church every Easter & Christmas (although I skipped a lot of Easters) while I attended the University of Texas at Austin, Texas. This fake religiosity made me think I had a hellfire insurance policy so I was free to sin all I wanted & I did. With this type of of religious delusion going on in my life throughout my college experience it came to pass that I met my future wife my senior year who was born & raised a Roman Catholic. My opinion at that time was everyone who claims to be a Christian must be okay so being a Protestant or Catholic didn't matter at all. To make a long story short I ended up marrying my wife in the Roman Catholic Church to make her family happy although I remained a very nominal almost nonexistent Lutheran in name only.
After marriage I attended Roman Catholic services with my wife from time to time because she wanted it that way & to me it really didn't make any difference one way or the other. God, however, had other plans for me on May 16, 1981 about a year after we were married. That particular day I was supernaturally "born again" by the power of the Holy Spirit like the Bible talks about & suddenly everything in my life was turned upside down! For more on that see my testimony video "D & D Dungeon Master Testimony: Dungeons & Dragons, Wargaming, Violent Video Games & Wasting Time" at th-cam.com/video/V41a_5INzVY/w-d-xo.html .Wow what a change & suddenly when I read the Bible it started to actually make sense!
This sudden drastic change in my life obviously did not set well with my Roman Catholic wife. The more I studied & shared the Bible with her the more upset she got. She went to her friends for help & they told her I would get over this religious fervor in about six weeks and then I would return to my normal godless secular self. The problem for her was six weeks came & went & then months came & went & all I was doing was getting stronger in the Word of God & in my zeal for Christ.
Things really started hitting the fan when I started to tell her that her Roman Catholic religion contradicted what I was reading in the Bible. In fact, after I was "born again" on May 16, 1981 I only went one final time for a Sunday morning service with my wife to her Saint Mary's Catholic Church in Austin, Texas & immediately spiritually recognized this place was a tomb for the dead not a place to honor, praise & glorify the Lord Jesus Christ (I had never noticed that before I was "born again"). Once again, to make a long story short, my wife ended up getting enraged at me for attacking her religion & started to throw away Biblical study materials I was collecting. She started to use sex as a weapon & refused to sleep in the same bedroom with me until I repented of all this "Bible stuff" (this went on for almost two years). I was seriously thinking she was going to divorce me & leave me just as 1 Corinthians 7:15 says, "Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace."
My wife's side of the family are all staunch Roman Catholics especially her mother who regularly went on pilgrimages down to Mexico to honor the Virgin Mary. This only increased the tension in my marital situation. More than once I got in some serious theological discussions with my wife's mother that got her blood absolutely boiling probably because she had no answers to anything I brought up from the Bible even though I was following the command of 1 Peter 3:15, "but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence;" meaning I was trying to present to her Biblical information in a well meaning & kind manner without trying to start a fight. Unfortunately that situation with my mother-in-law came close to being a Galatians 4:16 occurrence, "So have I become your enemy by telling you the truth?" Total destruction of our relationship was saved when I followed the Biblical command in Titus 3:10-11, "As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned." From then on I talked no more about the things of God with my mother-in-law thus we got along fine after that.
The strained marriage I had with my wife over religion finally came to an end somewhere in 1983 when my wife got the bright idea to have her two priests that she grew up with at Saint Mary's Catholic Church in Austin, Texas straighten me out on the things of God since she didn't know enough of the Bible to refute me. My wife got her priests to schedule a meeting with me in their office to discuss with me why the Roman Catholic religion was the true Christian faith. I gladly accepted the invitation from the priests & arrived at the appointed time with my wife coming with me to see what would happen.
I have to say, after 39 years in public Christian ministry at the time of this writing, & after having been in more debates with people of multiple religious backgrounds than I can count, that this was the easiest debate discussion I ever had. For 30 minutes I lectured the two priests chapter & verse from the Bible while the priests struggled to quote two or three Bible verses they were aware of. This was a ridiculous encounter since the priests seemed to know next to nothing of scripture. This was like going into a cornfield & beating up on two scarecrows but more importantly my wife was there to hear it all. After 30 minutes the priests were done with the meeting & my wife was done with the Roman Catholic religion. After that my wife joined me in attending a good Bible based church & a couple of years later was water baptized thus rejecting the baptism she had as an infant in the Roman Catholic religion. For those that are interested see our playlist with almost 200 videos called "Dealing with Roman Catholicism, Idolatry & the Virgin Mary" at th-cam.com/play/PLFFA8D69D1B914715.html .
Excellent websites to reference to in regard to Roman Catholicism:
1. bereanbeacon.org/ - The Ministry was founded in 1992 by former Roman Catholic priest for 22 years Richard M. Bennett. The Berean Beacon places particular emphasis on the evangelization and conversion of Roman Catholics. The other main thrust of the ministry is to inform evangelical Christians about Catholicism through its materials that are provided on the internet.
2. www.proclaimingthegospel.org/ - Former Roman Catholics Mike & Jane Gendron lead this Christian evangelistic ministry with deep compassion for Roman Catholics who are victims of deception. Excellent resources available.
3. www.cwrc-rz.org/ - CWRC, A Christian Witness To Roman Catholicism founded by Robert M. Zins, a former Catholic, with a Th.M. from Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, Texas; Major: Historical Theology. Rob made many videos concerning Roman Catholicism available on the internet through TH-cam and www.sermonaudio.com/ ; just type "Rob Zins Roman Catholicism" in a Google or Yahoo search on your computer .
4. christiantruth.com/ - Christian Resources is a non-profit teaching, apologetics and publishing ministry founded by William Webster, a former Roman Catholic, dealing with issues related to Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, the Gospel, Church history and the Chrisitan life. William Webster has a Masters of Theology in Biblical Interpretation and a PhD in Historical Theology, both from Whitefield Theological Seminary.
5. mtc.org/ -The founder and director of Mission To Catholics is Bartholomew F. Brewer Ph.D. Bart was ordained to the Roman Catholic priesthood at the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary in Washington DC. During ten years as a priest he served as a Discalced Carmelite missionary in the Philippines, as a parish priest in Arizona and California and finally as a U.S. Navy Chaplain.
6. www.takeheed.info/category/roman-catholicism/ - A Christian ministry founded by a former Roman Catholic from Ireland Cecil Andrews. Matthew 24:4, "And Jesus answered and said to them, "See to it that no one misleads you."
@@Sherlock245 Its not up to me to change their mind. It is up to me to speak truth.
BTW, that was all too long. Nobody's reading that.
@@ministryoftruth1451 speaking truth is speaking up if you do not talk no one would know. The mormons are doing far better then most Christian did you know? Its a real shame. And jesus himself!!!! He talked non stop!!! And are you saying he talked too much?? Its never too much ONLY that you tried.
I like how he jumped right to "traditions of men".......a classic Protestant move that itself violates the wider teaching of tradition within Scripture
But listening to a man that edifies himself above the church doesn't. Gotta love Catholic Beliefs
If Sola Scriptura is true, then where is that in the bible, and where in the bible does it tell us which books go in the bible? Did Jesus hand out bibles? Just want to note not trying to argue just asking questions. It's good to learn and dig.
to argue from the Bible is circular reasoning
not my pastor? im moving to AZ. joking love you brother
Sola scriptura!!!❤❤❤❤
I'm not sure why Catholics don't except Sola Scriptura. My understanding of the doctrine is that Scripture alone is the ultimate authority regarding matters of faith. What is Scripture? I've always thought Scripture = every divinely inspired and infallible message from YHWH. So let's say that the Catholics are right. The Magisterial rulings of the Church are divinely inspired and infallible messages from YHWH. By definition wouldn't that make the Magisterial rulings Scripture? And therefore not contradictory to Sola Scriptura at all? I mean if something is a divinely inspired and infallible message from YHWH then I'm like "put that in the Bible". I'm seriously asking. I'm not trying to attack anybody.
Catholics would say they do believe that Scripture is the highest authority above tradition.
@@yomama847 I didn't know that. I thought that Catholics thought that Holy Tradition was equal with Holy Scripture. I'm glad to hear that they don't. But now I'm wondering why they deny Sola Scriptura being how they believe that Scripture trumps tradition.
@@redbearwarrior4859
In practice, there may be Catholics ignorant or indifferent to Scripture, but the Church has always revered and upheld Scripture. In fact, I would wager that more than 66% of the Catholic Mass is direct quotes or minor variations of verses from Scripture.
Here are some more recent examples of Church teachings regarding Scripture:
DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION
ON DIVINE REVELATION
DEI VERBUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED
BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 18, 1965
Chapter VI
...since, as inspired by God and committed once and for all to writing, they impart the word of God Himself without change, and make the voice of the Holy Spirit resound in the words of the prophets and Apostles. Therefore, like the Christian religion itself, all the preaching of the Church must be nourished and regulated by Sacred Scripture. For in the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven meets His children with great love and speaks with them; and the force and power in the word of God is so great that it stands as the support and energy of the Church, the strength of faith for her sons, the food of the soul, the pure and everlasting source of spiritual life. Consequently these words are perfectly applicable to Sacred Scripture: "For the word of God is living and active" (Heb. 4:12) and "it has power to build you up and give you your heritage among all those who are sanctified" (Acts 20:32; see 1 Thess. 2:13
Also
Catechism of the Catholic Church
PART ONE
SECTION ONE
CHAPTER TWO
ARTICLE 3
SACRED SCRIPTURE...
107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72
108 Still, the Christian faith is not a "religion of the book." Christianity is the religion of the "Word" of God, a word which is "not a written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate and living".73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."74
III. THE HOLY SPIRIT, INTERPRETER OF SCRIPTURE
109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.75
110 In order to discover the sacred authors' intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."76
111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. "Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written."77
The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.78
112 1. Be especially attentive "to the content and unity of the whole Scripture". Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God's plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.79
The phrase "heart of Christ" can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.80
@@daddydaycareky thanks for this. So why do Catholics deny Sola Scriptura? What you wrote seems to be compatible with it.
@@redbearwarrior4859 the short answer is because it ignores the other, more explicitly established, infallible source of truth, which are the successors of the Apostles, who are transfered authority through the laying of hands.
My Personal Opinion (non-biblical opinion) regarding "Sola Scriptura" (Written Scripture Alone)... during the time when the New Covenant Scriptures of God thru Christ Jesus were not written down yet or have not fully completely written down yet... the early Christians of the 1st Cent. A.D., before the 2nd Temple was destroyed by the Roman Empire, their CHRISTIAN FAITH in Christ Jesus thru God's Grace, practiced their FAITH based on VERBAL/ORAL TRADITIONS alone written from the Hearts of the Apostles and Disciples...
But after the 2nd Temple was destroyed in around 70 A.D., more or less 40 years after Christ Jesus ascended back to Heaven with God the Father... God decided to ALLOW only those VERBAL/ORAL TRADITIONS to be written down by God's People guided by the Holy Spirit that have significance, relevance, and importance to the process of SALVATION of mankind...
Those oral/verbal traditions were practiced by the Early Christians in the 1st Cent. A.D. that was not written down was God's DECISION not to practice no more... most especially after the book of revelation was written down by Apostle John at Patmos in around 92 - 96 A.D.
Apostle John said (Rev. 22:18-19/paraphrase)... "I testified and warned anyone who hears the Prophecy of this SCROLL (singular/Book/Bible): if anyone ADDS any WORDS to them, God will add to that person the PLaGUES (tribulation/troubles) written in this scroll (Book)... And anyone who SUBTRACT (takes away) any WORDS of the Prophecy from this scroll (Book), God will take away to that person any share from the Tree of Life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll (Book)."... Amen
Therefore, in my personal opinion, today, in our time when the WORD of GOD is finally completed without any FAULT of its OWN (not of Human Scribers' errors/mistakes like handwriting, spelling, printing, grammar, language translation, etc.)... we, Christian believers and followers of Christ must RELY Solely upon the written Holy BOOK/BIBLE (no longer Oral/Verbal Traditions).
Scripture Alone means leave Alone
Hey Jeff, how do you know that you are good enough to be a chosen one?
If by "chosen one" you mean one of the elect, it has nothing to do with how good he is (or how good I am).
@@JustinHonaker So how are the elect chosen?
@@jennief7114 It is based only on God's good pleasure, His will.
As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion,fn but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” - Roman's 9:13-17
@@JustinHonaker So when Christ died on the cross stating it was for all, was he a liar?
@@jennief7114 Meaning what?
Scripture is technically just the Old Testament. Though Jesus and the apostles had traditions guide them as well. This is seen in the writings of Paul, 2 Peter and Jude. You know... the whole Michael confrontation with the devil. Also Paul’s teachings in first Corinthians 11 on head coverings, lol!
Peace of Christ be with you all. Be civil in here fam!
"Scripture is technically just the old testament" what exactly does scripture mean in your head?
If you think the Old Testament is the only reliable text we have, you're not a Christian. You're Jewish, and you're under the curse of the law.
Colossians 1:25 "Of which I became a minister according to the stewardship of God, which was given to me for you, to complete the word of God."
The New Testament is as much the Word of God (scripture, 2 Tim 3:16) as the Old.
In Latin Mass (Catholic Church) women still cover their heads 🙏🏽
discjockeydoll I think she means in the context of the passage in 2 Timothy, the Old Testament is what St. Paul was referring to. I could be wrong, but I’m trying to give her the benefit of doubt.
Worship service? Was everyone prostrate before God?
Hi Pastor Jeff, do you teach the pre-tribulation rapture for all saved Christians?
There is no a secrete rapture, brother; and beeing Pastor Jeff a presbiterian, I think he is amillenial or premillenial, but not dispensacional
@@froyvm7868 jeff is post millennial
@@froyvm7868 Jeff Durbin is also not Presbyterian, but Reformed Baptist.
@@seanbrenon Yeah I didn’t know that 3 years ago
@@froyvm7868 Understood. I just wanted you to be aware in case. He mentions Doug Wilson, so he is clearly friendly with the Presbyterians. Well... not PCUSA......
Just read Keith Mathison’s excellent work, “The Shape of Sola Scriptura.” He makes a great point about Sola Scriptura - that it’s not divorced from church tradition as some Protestants like to believe, but is the foundation of truth from which regula fidei springs.
In total agreement. The problem is when doctrines are created “in faith” that don’t originate from the Bible.
@@levibaer18 like Sola Scriptura?
@@daddydaycareky
2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
This my friend is Sola Scriptura.
@@levibaer18 I don't disagree that Scripture is God Breathed. I don't disagree that Scripture is beneficial for developing doctrine or for teaching. I don't disagree that Scripture fully and completely equips us for every good work.
I disagree that this verse implies that Scripture is the only authority. Additionally, the other major issue is that the application of this verse, as proposed in this video, presupposes the canon of scripture.
@@daddydaycareky
All God breathed scripture presupposes the cannon. This is a problem with Catholicism, not anyone else. Can you show me where traditions are God breathed or good for reproduction?
Is there a shorter boiled down version of this talk?
Or maybe a summary of the major points.
I'm afraid its a bit long-winded and a bit too "showtime."
He's following the same script as James White's book "Roman Catholic Controversy." Yes, it's an apologetic against Roman Catholicism, but it discusses Sola Scriptura in depth.
Durians are great
''your teacher your mentor your hero watching you.''. your... tradition? of men?
''if anything is wrong with my teaching, you can blame him''. so says all the pastors of all the mini traditions, of all the protestant churches.
''i fear i have created as many churches as there are heads'' -Luther
'' the reformation leads to relativism''
I cant till God positions me next to this guy
Boom
How does he know he is good enough to be one of the elected?
Good question?
Election has nothing to do with being good enough, you should know that. Romans 9 makes it very clear that it does not depend on human effort works, but on God who has mercy. It's God's unconditional choice.
@@jacobgarcia4826 where is free will than??? If you think that you do what ever you want to doing and still be saved, you are doomed to failure.
@Curtis Hazen But if God elects, how does someone know their belief is sincere enough, how do they know if in a bad time and they stray, are they truly elected?
@@jacobgarcia4826 Oh so, if it is not by effort how does someone know they have been elected, how do you know personally someone has been elected?
Bible alone, Infallible word of God, you say. It means that when pastor Durbin interprets bible verses this is just his opinion because he does not have an infallible authority to interpret the bible. The phrase “Body of Christ” is given more than 500 interpretations. Surely when pastor Durbin will interpret this, it will be another opinion.
The correct answer is “no”.
Really need this! Thank you!
Sola scriptura is not only the written word of God, but It comprises also the Holy Spirit's spoken word (rhema word) and the word of God who became flesh (Jesus). All three comprise sola scriptura, and all three are written in heaven.
In all cases within God's church, it is the Holy Spirit who ultimately interprets the logos word of God.
Therefore, there are times when a particular church may not be able to arrive to a consensus by simply burying there heads in the bible for an interpretation. They must earnestly seek the Holy Spirit for an interpretation or answer.
"Those who are LED BY THE SPIRIT OF GOD, these are the sons of God."
Sounds to good to be true, but how do you know ?
@@anthonytan7134
Jesus is the word of God who became flesh ("I am the truth"); the Holy Spirit's rhema word ( "When He, the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all truth." ); the written word of God ("All Scripture is given by inspiration of God...").
I am desperate for an answer on this question. Let me just take one disagreement between Catholic and Protestant. The question is how can we trust the Bible? Catholics say the Church put the Bible together. Protestants say “NO the Bible revealed itself. Protestants say "the Church no more gave us the Bible than Newton gave us gravity.” For me not growing up in a religious home I just read the Bible until I was convinced that it was not a myth. I read it carefully so I know the contents pretty well. So to the question as to why we should trust anything the early Church did; this is what the Bible says: Jesus said 1) He was going to build a single Church. 2) He said the gates of hell would not prevail against it. 3) He said that He would be with the Church until the end of the age. 4) He said that He was going to send the "Spirit of Truth" to guide the Church in all truth. Then Paul says 5) the pillar and bulwark of truth is “the church.” Okay so let us look in church history at the Canon. In 382 AD the Church had the Council and determined that the canon was 73 books. They chose which books are infallible. That would be a radically important thing right? So the question is why would we trust those 73 books? Well, the answer is that Jesus said he would be with the Church to the end of the age. He also said he would give it the Holy Spirit to guide it in all truth. So we should trust what he says right? So from 382 AD to 1520 AD the Church that operated on the earth had the 73 book canon. But then Protestants come along and around 1520 AD and they claim that the early Church got the 73 book canon wrong. I am not being rude or belligerent but I really would like someone to explain - calmly and in simple language because I am slow - Please tell me how that is not absurd to say the Church got the 73 book Canon wrong based on Jesus promise to be with the Church to the end of the age and to send the “Spirit of Truth” to guide the church in All TRUTH.
I am not being belligerent here really, I earnestly want to know. Did Jesus lie? Did He make a mistake? Did the Holy Spirit make an error with the 73 book canon?
I cannot for the life of me believe that the church which is described as the “pillar and bulwark of truth” was not even on the earth from 382 To 1520. But then let’s move on; let’s say that the Protestants are right and the Church errored in the 73 Book canon. If the Church errored in the 73 book canon did God wait from 382 AD until 1520 before He restored the real truth? Are we really going to believe that for 1200 years the true Christian Church was not there? You could not say the true church was there if they could not even get the correct books in the canon. And I don’t see any other church in history declaring anything different than the 73 book canon. So the real church with the correct Bible was not on earth if the Protestant claim is true. Can that make any sense? I am just a guy who read the Bible very closely and came down on the Catholic side only recently but now I have Protestants telling me I am going to hell. I am not being rude or accusatory. But please tell me how it is not absurd that Jesus says he would create one Church. He would be with the Church to the end of the age. He would give it the Holy Spirit to guide it in ALL TRUTH. But then for one of the most important issues in all of Christianity the early Church gets 73 book canon wrong and so the real truth on this issue is not there until 1520. If that is true that would make me question the Christian truth claims entirely. Just a reasoned answer to this question would really help me.
The existence of denominations does not deny the existence of a universal church. Protestants believe in a single body of believers collectively known as "the Church," but that Scriptures has not exhaustively defined all theological points. The Bible is sufficient to equip the man of God for every good work.
Now, to address the other points, only a Catholic would argue that the Bible was 73 books since 382. Jerome did not include the detuerocanonical texts, and, without fail, early Church fathers who knew Hebrew did not include them. Josephus makes reference to a series of books that the Jewish temple housed that did not include them.
If you are asking how the New Testament canon can be trusted, I would refer you to three passages. 1) Of course, 1 Timothy 3:16, which is brought up in this sermon. 2) 1 Peter 1:21, which is also quoted here and says that no prophecy has ever been given by the will of man, but by the will of God, borne through men by the Spirit. 3) Ephesians 6: says to put on the "whole armor of God," which includes the following: truth, righteousness, the gospel of peace, faith, salvation, and the word of God. There is no reference to tradition or the authority of the Church, and none of those things can even be interpreted in that light.
For this reason, I find it annoying when Catholics say things like "it is not our responsibility to prove the validity of tradition as an infallible rule of faith, but on the Protestants to prove that there is no other infallible rule of faith." Such an argument, frankly, is stupid, since the burden of proof is ALWAYS on the party arguing in favor of an addition and not those against. We know that the Bible is God-Breathed and borne by the Spirit. We know that the sheep of Christ know His voice. The Bible is ontologically different than anything else ever written. All books are either inspired or not inspired. If God's sheep know His voice, then doesn't it logically follow that His sheep would know his Word, the Bible?
There are many other topics here that are related. For example, I think it's silly that Catholics want a verse that says "sola scriptura" but rely on "tradition" to prove the infallibility of tradition. John 21:23 actually shows the first incorrect extra-Biblical tradition PASSED ON BY THE APOSTLES: that John would live forever. "So the saying spread abroad among the brothers[a] that this disciple was not to die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he was not to die, but, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?”"
Additionally, if God's plan was to have one single organization of the Church, why does He address seven different Churches in the beginning of Revelation?
If you are going to be Catholic-- and yes, true Catholicism is not the true gospel; I believe that if you adhere to the catechisms of the Catholic church, you are not saved because they do not preach a true gospel-- then you have to reckon with these questions. And if you cannot answer them by inferring something from the Bible absent the teachings of Rome, then I would challenge you to reconsider your position on Catholicism. After all, we are all presupposing something. Are you presupposing the inerrancy and sufficiency of the sole God-breathe revelation we have in the Bible, or in the doctrines of the Church organization. If it is the latter, please just consider whether or not that is what the Bible turly teaches.
@@seanbrenon Look I told you that I was new to religion and I am just looking at the evidence. Which you did not respond to except to give an anti Catholic rant. I did not even say I was Catholic I just said when it came to the Canon I had come down on the Catholic side of the debate about the 73 books and I gave you the evidence. I said I was looking at the evidence for Sola Scriptura and I gave you the quotes about what Jesus and the New Testament said about THE CHURCH. Forget about what church it was back then. If Jesus said that he would be with the church until the end of time and that he would send the Holy Spirit to guide the church in all truth; and if Paul said that the church is "the pillar and foundation of truth;" then don't you have to look at the historical evidence and find out what that church was? If you don't think it was the Catholic Church don't you have to look at history and see which one it was?
When I look at history of the Canon there was disagreement and so what did the church do when there was a disagreement? They held a council. In Acts 15 there was a disagreement as to whether Gentiles had to obey the Law of Moses or not. Some people said "yes" and some people said "no." The Church held the Council of Jerusalem in about 50 AD and they made the doctrinal decision that Gentiles did not have to obey the Law of Moses and be circumcised. We see that church in Acts 15 guided by the Holy Spirit make a doctrinal decision that was binding on the whole church.
In 325 there was a debate about the divinity of Christ. Some claimed he was a created being who had God-like qualities but that he was NOT fully God. There was a terrible debate. Someone named Arius and his large group of followers argued against that view. They pointed to scriptures where Jesus indicated that the Father was greater than he was. Matthew 24:36 - No one knows when that day or time will be. The Son and the angels in heaven don’t know when it will be. Only the Father knows. Mark 10:18 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good-except God alone. John 14:28 - You heard that I said to you, ‘I am going away, and I am coming to you.’ If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.
All of these Scriptures seem to say that the Father is greater than Christ. And so what did the church do? It held the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. And that Council specified that Jesus Christ was "of the same essence" as the Father. THE CHURCH rejected Arius view. So let me ask you; do you believe that Christ is consubstantial to the Father because of your excellent Bible translation skills? Or do you trust Christ when he said that he would build a Church that would be guided the Holy Spirit in all truth? I am no expert Bible translator. When it comes to question whether Christ was "consubstantial" with the Father or not I cannot go to the Bible and expertly determine that. And if you are honest you will agree that you cannot do that either. I have to trust someone else. You have to trust someone else. So whose interpretation do you trust?
I trust the church that Christ established which held the Council of Nicaea and among a hotly debated issue with everyone pointing to dozens of Bible verses that support their interpretation; I trusted the Church established by Christ. If the Church that was established by Christ was not the Church that held the Council of Nicaea then where is it? There was not any other Christian Church around in 325 AD.
So how do you know that THE CHURCH got it right? How can you be sure that Arius and the other half of Christianity that believed him are wrong? Can you trust your Bible translation skills to know that the Church was right, and Arius was wrong. Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses and Oneness Pentecostals all read these passages and they get their PhD's in Bible studies like everyone else and the DENY that the Bible teaches that Christ is consubstantial to the Father and that you are not saved because your interpretation of the Trinity is wrong. So how do you know that they are wrong. Millions of people read the exact same Bible as you do and they think that it is God-Breathed just like you do and they have a completely different and opposite view than yours. How can you trust your foundational beliefs unless you find out which Church was established by Christ and then follow that Church?
You wrote - Are you presupposing the inerrancy and sufficiency of the sole God-breathe revelation we have in the Bible, or in the doctrines of the Church organization. If it is the latter, please just consider whether or not that is what the Bible truly teaches.
Okay let us do exactly what you say. Does the Bible say that Jesus started a church and that he would guide the church until the end of time? I think the answer is "yes." He did. Did Jesus start a church and say that he would send the Holy Spirit to guide that church in ALL TRUTH forever? Again the answer is "yes." He said all of those things. Do we see the church do that in Scripture? Again "yes." Does the Bible say that the church is "the pillar and foundation of the truth?" Again, the answer is yes. Does the Bible say what instrument will be used to "teach the manifold wisdom of God?" Once again the answer is "yes." In Ephesians 3:10 Paul tells us that the instrument that "the manifold wisdom of God will be made known "through THE CHURCH."
Now lets see if the Bible teaches your view. Does it say that Jesus sheep will hear his voice and so you should read all the documents that exist and if you are one of his sheep you will get it right. Does it say that? The answer is "no" it doesn't even hint of that idea. Your version of reading the Bible and making a determination of whether you hear his voice or not ends up in chaos because you believe from what I can tell in the 66 book Canon. But Augustine the greatest Christian theologian whoever lived disagrees with you. He believed in the 73 book Canon. Luther also disagrees with you. He did not include in James, Jude, or Revelation in his canon. He listed them with the Deuterocanon books. So if I sit here and I can't decide then who should I trust? Should I trust you? Should I trust Luther? Should I trust Augustine? Or should I find the church that Christ said he would establish and promised me that he would guide that church in all truth forever? I think I will go with Christ's church. There is tons of evidence of history which establish which Church was established by Jesus Christ.
And for you comment on Jerome. The Curch held the Council of Rome in 382 and made the determination that the Canon was the 73 Book version. The Church then also held the Council of Hippo with Augustine in attendance in 393 AD and again guided by the Holy Spirit confirmed that the 73 Book version was to be considered Scripture. Augustine the church's greatest theologian believed in the 73 Book Canon. And then THE CHURCH met again at the Council of Carthage in 397 and made the same determination that the 73 book version was the official Canon. You mention Jerome and claim that he did not include them. But the evidence shows he doubted the Deuterocanon at first and he had questions about them. But he believed that Christ established one Church guided by the Holy Spirit because that is what the Bible says that he did. And when The Church made the determination of the Canon Jerome accepted it. By 402 AD he wrote a treaty against those "Hebrews" that you reference and Jerome said that he (Jerome) believed he would be in sin if he accepted the "Hebrew argument over the Church's decrees in the Councils. So while he originally questioned them. He accepted the declaration of THE CHURCH.
@@stevenwall1964 So you are not engaging in good faith. Two points on this: none of what you said is indicative of someone "new" to the issue. You're not desperate for an answer; you've already made up your mind. That's why I asked about your presuppositions. You have already decided that the Church is the determining agent of the canon.
Second, if you took what I wrote as an anti-Catholic rant, then re-read it. I mention Catholicism once in reference to an exact point you implied: that Catholics say that I have to prove the fallibility of everything other than the Bible. Nothing else was specifically a reference to Catholicism.
Was that your plan? To enter into the discussion in bad faith and then wallop someone with your real knowledge on the topic? What a joke.
Nonetheless, the Revelation of John was written after Clement was allegedly passed on the papacy by Peter. This is the same time period as Ignatius, Quadratus, etc. So, you need to account for the fact that Christ does not address Clement in Revelation. You tell me where the Bible says that "one Church" refers to "one organization." So no, you do not have to look at Church history to see what the Church was in order to understand the idea that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. I don't really care what the early Church fathers said about things if they are saying things that the Bible does not.
As for Acts 15, that is the Church in Jerusalem that is happening while revelation is still being made. Nonetheless, the Church does not say, "On our authority we say this." THEY QUOTE THE BIBLE and say "Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God." Why bother with the Bible if you are going to rip it out of context?
"Millions of people read the exact same Bible as you do and they think that it is God-Breathed just like you do and they have a completely different and opposite view than yours." Easy. If they preach something that opposes the gospel preached to me, then I know it is wrong. That's not that hard to figure out. You're trying to use an example of something that doesn't change anything. Pick your group, and they are saying something that the Bible does not. Mormons don't believe in Sola Scriptura, JW actually create their own version of the Bible so it says what they want, and Oneness Pentecostals deny the trinity, which is a Biblical teaching. They clearly don't believe in sola scriptura.
Again, show me where the Bible says that the Church is meant to be one, single organization, or where the Bible says that all Christians will agree on things. And if you are not using the Bible, but the Church's interpretation of the Bible, then you are arguing in Circles. How do you not see that?
I would actually point to Jerome bowing to the authority of the Church as a great example of why you can't just take the Church's word on this. If you have never read the deuterocanonical books, go read them. Judith is laughably ahistorical. It's not even close. Remember, the Church is not infallible! Authoritative, sure, but not infallible. And you cannot prove that they are infallible unless you use the Church's interpretation of Scriptures.
So again, if you are presupposing that the Church is infallible, then you need to examine what you are believing against what the Bible ACTUALLY says. And stop taking verses out of context. That's just solid hermeneutics.
@@seanbrenon Well thank you for letting me know that I am dealing in bad faith and you have somehow determined that I am not desperate to know something. And calling my statements a joke. But let's just take this back to my original question. My question was about the Canon. You are the one who brough in the Catholic claims about sola scriptura and stupid things you think Catholics claim. My question was focused on the Canon. When I read the Bible as an atheist I saw Jesus make comments about the Church like:
I will build my CHURCH and the gates of hades will not prevail against it.
If someone sins speak to him, if he won't listen then take w or 3 witnesses, if he still won't listen then tell it to the CHURCH. And if he won't listen to the CHURCH then treat him as a pagan.
How would you do this, if there not a church to take the person to? I pointed out that the Bible says that the "CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of truth." And the Bible says that the instrument that was designated to teach the manifold wisdom of God is .... again "THE CHURCH."
And so the ONLY question in my original post was if there was this Church started by Christ who said that he himself would guide that church until the end of time. How does it make any sense that he would let that church get the canon wrong and let it stay that way for 1500 years. That is my main question. So why don't you answer that.
I was desperate to know because I was an atheist but the reason, I became a Christian was that Jesus made predictions about the church and those predictions came true. I realized the "ontological nature" of the Bible that you reference and so I became a believer. But to find Christ's Church I read what he predicted about his church. Christ said that his church would 1) be persecuted which was a strange prediction because the Romans were very religiously tolerant. And Christ said that his church would 2) "be one" so that the world would know that Christianity is true. And Christ said that his church would 3) go to all nations. And so when I look in history and see what church did all of those things it was the Catholic Church. I don't see any other church for the first 500 years. If there was a different church in the first 500 years would show it to me please?
That church that I see that was persecuted like Christ said was the Catholic Church. It believed that the Bishop of Rome was the successor of Peter and the Romans hunted that person down and executed most of them and other leaders to try to stop Christianity. It was also that Church that stayed unified through the all of the great Councils (Nicaea 325, Constantinople 381, Ephesus in 431 AD, Chalcedon in 451 AD). Those councils defined the deity of Christ, the deity of the Holy Spirit, the Holy Trinity and the Doctrine of the Incarnation. And that church did go to all nations. Ignatius who knew the apostle John writing in 107 gives the structure of the entire church by as having a Bishop, presbyters, and deacons. The most famous church historians I know of say that there was one uniformly structured church by the middle of the second century. Read JDN Kelly's book Early Christian Doctrines or Jaroslav Pelikan's 5 Volume set on the History of the Christian Tradition. Or even read an atheist historian like Will Durrant. They all say that the Church that existed in the first 500 years of Christianity was the Catholic Church. To me that was amazing evidence that in fact a risen Christ was real and was guiding his church like he promised; because there was a church that did everything he predicted.
Ignatius writing in 107 AD described the Church structure was asked how you could take something to the church like Christ says in Matthew 18 if the church had gone to all nations. How could you "take a person to the CHURCH? And Ignatius said to take the issue to the Bishop because where the Bishop is there is Jesus Christ, there is the "Katholicos Ekklysia. or the Catholic Church.
And so by looking at history I saw that there was one church that did everything that Christ predicted and it was the Catholic Church and so I started going to a Catholic Church. And one day I walk out of church and someone who says he is a pastor of different church hands me a flyer saying I am going to hell for being a Catholic because the Catholic Church was not the true gospel. Well that was shocking. And so, I got my history books and showed the guy that the only church the history books talk about is the Catholic Church. I showed him all the statements that I have showed you about what the Bible says about the Church. And he pretty much said the same thing you did. That he thought I had made up my mind and I was going to hell and he got mad and quit talking to me.
And so the question I posted that you answered was just about the Canon. But it could be any topic. My question was that if Christ started a church; and said the gates of hades would not prevail against it and said that he would guide that church until the end of time; then how can it make sense that he would let that church get the canon so wrong. That was my question to you. But we can expand to any topic. I asked about the Canon and you brought the topic of Catholics having a false gospel so lets just go with that. How does it make sense in light of all the things that Christ said about the Church that the only church that existed for the first 500 years not only got the Canon completely wrong; even worse it was a false gospel. How does that even make sense to you?
That means that Christ started a church and the Bible makes all those comments about "the Church" but then for some reason the church that existed for the 500 years got it all wrong? I became a Christian because I saw all of the predictions that Christ and the Bible made about the Church. I looked at the early Church and saw that all those predictions come true; and now this pastor and you are telling me I am going to hell because that church that fulfilled all of Christ's predictions does not have the true gospel? Make sense of that for me. Just that one issue not all the other back and forth issue. I would gladly discuss those later but just stick to my basic question that I asked in the first place. If the Church I see in the first 500 years is a false gospel then what church do you think the New Testament is referencing?
@@stevenwall1964 Here's why I am saying that you have already made up your mind on this issue: only a Catholic would look at "Church history" and conclude that it is a single organization. You are taking one continent predominantly-- Europe-- and calling that the Church. What of the Ethiopians? Phillip Ministers to the Ethiopian eunuch a bit before Paul goes to Rome. How do YOU explain the existence of seven Churches in revelation? You are ignoring the issues in the positive stance that there are other infallible rules of faith only to ask a question of sola scriptura. That is not the disposition of someone seeking an answer.
You are taking one idea-- that Christ builds His Church and sustains it-- and then inferring some kind of infallibility from that. Hence my statement that you cannot prove the opposing position. And the fact that you will not respond to these questions in favor of repeating a question I have already addressed while claiming that I have not is the basis for me saying that you are arguing in bad faith. This is not the first time I have debated this issue with a Catholic. I know what their talking points are, and you are hitting many of them. So you can keep claiming that you are seeking an answer, but you do not talk like someone who is. You are talking like someone who has made up their mind on this issue.
Now, in spite of you claiming otherwise, I have already answered your question. First, I said that the canon you claim was championed by the Church fathers was not championed by them. I can't name all of them off the top of my head because it's not my expertise. But I mentioned Jerome. Origen and Justin Martyr also did not recognize the apocryphal canon. And, honestly, the canon was not infallibly declared by the Catholic Church until the Council of Trent.
It's just not true that the Church widely considered the apocrypha part of scriptures. The Jews certainly did not, and Josephus explains that. Like I said, if you are interested in this topic beyond the unfounded assertion that the Church fathers universally believed in the deuterocanonical books, Roger Beckwith gets into this in his book "Old Testament Canon for the New Testament Church." Remember that every book of the apocrypha is OT. No Jewish sources quote them as Scripture. No books within 200 years of the New Testament quote them as Scripture. If the Jews did not accept them, why should the Church? Does not Paul tell the Romans in Romans 3:2 that the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God? And yet none of them believed in the apocrypha.
Certain Church fathers like Justin Martyr don't ever quote the apocrypha, and many Church fathers who do also cite the pseudepigrapha, too-- for example, the second "pope" Clement. We don't call those Scriptures.
I would argue that the fact the Church has survived and flourished in spite of many Church fathers claiming the apocrypha as Scriptures, when it is not, is an example of how the Spirit carries the Church in spite of its flaws.
Finally, LIKE I SAID, even though you insist I haven't answered your question for some reason, the Church is not infallible. The members of the Church are fallen people and are liable to the fallible decision of all people. It does not surprise me to learn that many early Church fathers without the benefit of 2000 years of scholarship would fall into error on what belongs in the canon. Just like it should not surprise you to learn that many Church fathers quoted the pseudopigrapha.
So the challenge once again is posed to you whether or not you want to rely on the one sole God-breathed Scriptures, or if you want to rely on something outside of that. I have already given a long defense of how the individual believer is responsible for their own beliefs. The Church is not responsible for the individual's belief, and you must prove one way or another that the Church is meant to function in such an infallible way, even as regards the canon. As I sad before, you cannot do it. Certainly, you will not, clearly, because you are calling this a "separate issue," even though your entire position on this relies on the infallibility of the Church in declaring a canon-- or at least on the idea that God would never let His Church be tested by allowing false books into their midst, even though, as early as Deuteronomy 13:1, God says that He will allow false prophets into the midst of His people to test them.
If you are going to hold a position, you must be able to defend it. Asking questions of the opposing position is not a defense.
One final point: I did not say that everything the Church taught in the early years was the false gospel. Obviously not. There was a lot of heresy back then, sure. But there are many great men that God used to bless the Church. The existence of a 73 book canon still maintains the correct 66 books. So, the presence of bad books does not negate the good ones. At the end of the day, there's a lot more good in the Catholic canon than bad. So, calling that a "false gospel" is not really what I was talking about. That's not what the term "false gospel" means.
Notice that Jeff is recommending books by James White, R. C. Sproul and William Webster. So he is saying that IN ADDITION TO THE SCRIPTURE, we should read some other stuff. Therefore he is not practicing Sola Scriptura himself because he is going beyond the bible to other sources of spiritual knowledge.
That's not how this works. Do you really think that you are not allowed to read other books? But obviously to those who understand Biblical doctrine Sola Scriptura means that Scripture alone carries the weight of God's inerrancy. When I read any commentary or book on anything I compare it to scripture to see if it holds truth. For example, is the Pope a mediator between men and God with the ability to forgive sins. 1 Timothy 2:5 says not a chance.
@@ministryoftruth1451 - can you find Gd's truth in the Bible if the protestant version of the Bible is missing several books of the Bible? Martin Luther decided that certain parts of the Bible should not be in the Bible. He took out several books of the bible that had been in there for centuries. He also wanted to remove some others. He hated the book of James and said he felt like burning it. He hated the book of Ester because he thought it seemed a little too Jewish to him. Protestant leaders made changes to the bible because they thought they could make improvements to it. King Henry the eighth changed the words of the Lord's Prayer because he arbitrarily declared that he had the authority to do this. If some one told you to cross out several parts of scripture and replace it with new words of your own, would you do it? What if someone told you to tear out several pages of your bible and throw them away? Would you do that? I would hope not. You cannot respect God's word if you want to change God's word.
@@Klee99zeno First of all, I don't agree with Luther on these things. Why would you presume I do. Starting with a straw man is dishonest. Secondly we know for a fact that the Bible AS WE KNOWIT NOW has been unchanged since the first century. the apocryphal books are not scripture. I would add you also can't add to God's word and have it still be truth.
@@Klee99zeno The Bible was "assembled" long before the Roman Catholic Church became dominant. The term “canon” is used to describe the books that are divinely inspired and therefore belong in the Bible. The difficulty in determining the biblical canon is that the Bible does not give us a list of the books that belong in the Bible. Determining the canon was a process conducted first by Jewish rabbis and scholars and later by early Christians. Ultimately, it was God who decided what books belonged in the biblical canon. A book of Scripture belonged in the canon from the moment God inspired its writing. It was simply a matter of God’s convincing His human followers which books should be included in the Bible.
Compared to the New Testament, there was much less controversy over the canon of the Old Testament. Hebrew believers recognized God’s messengers and accepted their writings as inspired of God. While there was undeniably some debate in regards to the Old Testament canon, by A.D. 250 there was nearly universal agreement on the canon of Hebrew Scripture. The only issue that remained was the Apocrypha, with some debate and discussion continuing today. The vast majority of Hebrew scholars considered the Apocrypha to be good historical and religious documents, but not on the same level as the Hebrew Scriptures.
For the New Testament, the process of the recognition and collection began in the first centuries of the Christian church. Very early on, some of the New Testament books were being recognized. Paul considered Luke’s writings to be as authoritative as the Old Testament (1 Timothy 5:18; see also Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7). Peter recognized Paul’s writings as Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). Some of the books of the New Testament were being circulated among the churches (Colossians 4:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:27). Clement of Rome mentioned at least eight New Testament books (A.D. 95). Ignatius of Antioch acknowledged about seven books (A.D. 115). Polycarp, a disciple of John the apostle, acknowledged 15 books (A.D. 108). Later, Irenaeus mentioned 21 books (A.D. 185). Hippolytus recognized 22 books (A.D. 170-235). The New Testament books receiving the most controversy were Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John.
The first “canon” was the Muratorian Canon, which was compiled in AD 170. The Muratorian Canon included all of the New Testament books except Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter, and 3 John. In AD 363, the Council of Laodicea stated that only the Old Testament (along with one book of the Apocrypha) and 26 books of the New Testament (everything but Revelation) were canonical and to be read in the churches. The Council of Hippo (AD 393) and the Council of Carthage (AD 397) also affirmed the same 27 books as authoritative.
The councils followed something similar to the following principles to determine whether a New Testament book was truly inspired by the Holy Spirit: 1) Was the author an apostle or have a close connection with an apostle? 2) Is the book being accepted by the body of Christ at large? 3) Did the book contain consistency of doctrine and orthodox teaching? 4) Did the book bear evidence of high moral and spiritual values that would reflect a work of the Holy Spirit? Again, it is crucial to remember that the church did not determine the canon. No early church council decided on the canon. It was God, and God alone, who determined which books belonged in the Bible. It was simply a matter of God’s imparting to His followers what He had already decided. The human process of collecting the books of the Bible was flawed, but God, in His sovereignty, and despite our ignorance and stubbornness, brought the early church to the recognition of the books He had inspired.
Sola scripture is man made doctrine. That is not the Biblical teaching.
Josip M How so?
@@StarbuckJames where is sola scriptura in the Bible
@@brody.jones147 The Bereans were more noble than the Jewish people in Thessolonica because they examined the apostles teaching against scripture to see if what the apostles were teaching them was true. That is a clear example of sola scriptura in the Bible
I say this in a respectful way so don't get me wrong. But why would we need to watch a video when if we have the bible. If we open the bible and see sola scriptura written in scripture that all we need.
the problem with this approach is that anybody can build his/her own theology...read EARLY church histories where the heretics also argue from the basis of the Scripture
@@anthonytan7134so it’s better to listen to a church of fallen sinful men who will do the same but say they have authority over you ? As a Christian who believes the Bible is Gods word, we listen to everything and compare it to Gods word.
@@Jacksonmontyart the question is...which Bible ? Who's authority are we listening to when comes to "the version" of the Bible we should read ? at the end of the day you are listening to some sort authority ? do you realize that ?
Isn’t sola scriptura a tradition of men?
2nd letter of Paul to thessalonicians Greeks, Chapter 2 line 15.
Θεσ. Β' 2,15 ῎Άρα οὖν, ἀδελφοί, στήκετε, καὶ κρατεῖτε τὰς παραδόσεις ἃς ἐδιδάχθητε εἴτε διὰ λόγου εἴτε δι' ἐπιστολῆς ἡμῶν.
Θεσ. Β' 2,15 Άρα λοιπόν, αδελφοί, να στέκετε σταθεροί, και να κρατάτε τις παραδόσεις που διδαχτήκατε είτε με λόγο είτε με επιστολή μας.
So, brethren, stand firm, and keep the traditions you have been taught, either by word or by our letter.
paradosis...the teaching, what's been received and passed on...so all NT writing could fall into this category as well
Spoiler: it doesn't.
Curious about reading the Essene/gnostic writings...it's sounds like the same new testament teaching?
Id say read it for yourself so that you may know what they are about but do NOT read it as the word of God for it is not.
@@az-jinx354 thank you.
There's some wacky stuff in gnosticism. They deny the birth of Christ and, I think, though I may be wrong, the humanity of Christ. There's a lot of belief that John was specifically refuting gnostic teachings when he wrote the Gospel of John.
No.
Faith and words without acts is nothing.
Does the bible teach scripture alone?
short answer: no
Long answer: noooooooooooo
Ok, now watch the video
@@elvisisacs3955
again? i'm not a glutton for punishment.
I'm sorry but no manner of twisting can make sola scriptura pop out of scripture. Its simply a non-christian doctrine made up by a heretic 16 hundred years after Christ.
Tyson Guess too true, my friend.
It's true, sadly the bible doesn't support it.
Jesus and the Apostles held to sola scriptra?
Jesus and St. Paul accepted the authority of the Old Testament, but they also appealed to other authority, outside of written revelation. For example, in Matthew 23:2-3, Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have a legitimate, binding authority, based on a teaching succession from Moses’ seat, which phrase (or idea) cannot be found anywhere in the Old Testament. It is found in the (originally oral) Mishna.
Paul says that Christians should “have nothing to do with” (2 Thess 3:14) and “avoid” (Rom 16:17) those who refuse to follow his authoritative (and not yet formally scriptural) instructions.
"All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."
This passage doesn’t teach formal sufficiency. In 2 Timothy alone (in context), Paul makes reference to oral tradition three times (1:13-14, 2:2, 3:14). Also, a very similar passage, Ephesians 4:11-15, would prove (using Protestant reasoning) the sufficiency of “pastors” and “teachers” for the attainment of Christian perfection. The Christian believer is “equipped, built up,” brought into “unity” and “mature manhood, knowledge” of Jesus, the “fulness of Christ,” and even preserved from doctrinal confusion by means of the teaching function of the Church. Yet this Pauline passage doesn’t even mention Scripture.
It depends on how you define it. If you define Sola Scriptura as that Scripture is the only source of authority, then you are wrong. But, most people define it as the only source (that we have) of infallible authority, meaning that if something contradicts Scripture, it is wrong. It defined in direct opposition to that of the Catholics who taught that Scripture and tradition are equally authoritative.
Matt If scripture is the only infallible authority how can you know what the canon of scripture is since it’s not mentioned anywhere in the Bible? You’re forced to say the Bible is infallible but the list of books in the Bible isn’t.
The Bible says not to exceed what is written, (1 Corinthians 4:6).
taking that scripture to it's logical conclusion - one would have to say they need to disregard anything that was written after 1 Corinthians (since it would be considered exceeding what was written) which basically throws out all of the Gospels and most of epistles
@@SuperSaiyanKrillin and there is different translations to that verse, 8, I think?!
@@SuperSaiyanKrillin No, only if it "exceeds" what is written, that is to say, if it goes beyond. What that means is that, so long as it agrees with scripture, it is okay. Everything in the New Testament agrees with the scripture that came before. Thus, it is okay. Not so for many Catholic traditions and practices.
Even if we interpret it the way you propose, what is the conclusion? That that verse should be ignored?
Stubadub Yeah the only way the Roman Church could reform is if they denied the papacy because they believe the papacy is inspired.
Stubadub That still presents a problem because Catholics believe that everything they believe does not go against scripture.
Thank you Pastor Jeff🙏🙏
Please respond to Trent Horn on his refutation.
He can't
that would be great! refer the video below
th-cam.com/video/dFMDXhPnczU/w-d-xo.html
@@rockko7 Sure he cannot ... We all know where the false teaching is!
Question for anyone or for the team at apologia studios:
a student of mine brought up the . . . issue they have with Judes, Goliath, and the other "villians" of the stories in scripture. There statement/question was along the lines of "was Judes born Just to be chosen to betray Jesus and end his own life?" and "why is it that some people in the bible, there only reason for being born was to be killed, or to die to be a part of an example for us or a pawn for the 'hero' of the story". And honestly, I dont really have an answer. This is something that have struggled with myself and Ive had to rely on the statement and truth that I will never be able to understand the reason God does the things he does but I have to and am going to trust him even in my confusion. So, what are your thoughts on those questions. This is something I really need help on. Thanks you a ton in advance
Judas wilfully chose to betray Jesus by his own free will and that's why he can be condemned for it(he meant it for evil)but at the same time the will of God was also coming to pass.(which he meant for good)
We have free will but it will never be as free as God's who knows all things past present and future.
I think something's we will never fully grasp with the human mind.
th-cam.com/video/YTR2n5NkCNE/w-d-xo.html
@@Cinnamonbuns13 so, (that was a lot and I have a hard time understanding their terminology and I probably need it to be dumbed down) this video leads me to 2 more questions. 1) what about the people that have literally never heard the name of Jesus or the gospel? It seems unfair (ik I'm human and I cant understand everything God does entirely but it still feels unfair) that they are going to hell without knowing Him. And 2) it the passages they quoted, it appears that God is being selfish.
Now I've been a Christian since I was 4 ish and I'm 22 and a 6th gen Christian so I'm not going to walk away or anything like that from this, but I also know God isnt afraid, or cought off guard by my questions and doubts. So if someone could help me understand this in a way that makes sence that would be incredibly helpful.
@@brianslater289 no one is innocent and God would be completely just to let everyone go to hell
@@jemboy7777 ik that. But. That still doesnt seem to answer my 2 questions above. Like, what's the reason for question 2 and whats the answer the question 1?
I'm not trying to be arrogant, I just dont understand the answer or reason
I am curious, (the pastor admits at 6:05 that he is unworthy.) So why does he go ahead a preaching anyway? On what authority?
On the authority of Scripture.
Good teaching
Jesus handed the keys of the kingdom to Peter
Protestant: but wait... did he really... say that..?
Protestants would say either Peter was never in Rome or he was never the first Pope.
This mission was for the Jews since the 11 Apostles were a Apostles for the Jews. Paul was an apostle for the Gentiles. Once the gospel was fully preached throughout the Roman Empire, this mission was fulfilled.
“which has come to you, just as in all the world also it is constantly bearing fruit and increasing, even as it has been doing in you also since the day you heard of it and understood the grace of God in truth;”
Colossians 1:6 NASB1995
“if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister.”
Colossians 1:23 NASB1995
This was needed before the destruction of the temple.
This is not a cartoon where Peter is standing at the gate of heaven. That is not what is depicted in Matthew 16:13-20 nor Matthew 18:18 at all.
@@urawesome4670 oh so you’re saying that after the apostles completed their mission there was no need for anymore teaching etc? God stopped his hand in guiding the Church through individual men? He stopped revealing himself throughout history? Then what is the need for your Reformation if proclamation of the gospel has been completed through the apostles.
This isn’t a cartoon where God gave the mission to just 12 men. He gave it to all men called to be Christians.
Sola Scriptura was invented in the 16th century.
Would you say the Trinity is a fourth-century invention?
@@xnihilo1044 no
It existed way before that lol
@@Joshua12w2o The Trinity has always existed, but the doctrine wasn't established until the late fourth century.
@@fantasia55 the same can be said about sola scriptura it existed way before Martin Luther and even before the great schism with historical proof
Just like the saducees and Pharisees you dont follow the Sola scriptura especially Lev. 19:28 "You shall not make in yourselves any figures or Marks..."
Can you please give me the verse that says it is a biblical command to go to a church?
Which statement in this video did you disagree with, and upon what basis? Give the time stamp.
Hebrews 10:24-25 ESV
_”And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.”_
Colossians 3:16 ESV
_”Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God.”_
1 Corinthians 14:26 ESV
_”What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up.”_
There are many, many more, but hope these are a good beginning point. If there was no need for Christians to meet together as the Church, once Jesus ascended into heaven, the disciples and others followers could’ve just gone back to their individual lives. There would’ve been no need for the epistles to the churches, admonishing them, many times, on how they should act when they gathered in Jesus’ name.
Well? Where is your response?
Yesica1993 I think they mean the modern incarnation of the church. In the apostolic age church gatherings looked way different then they do today. We do need to gather together as citizens of heaven and love and grow in the Christ together, whether on Sundays at the “church” or anytime anywhere.
What I focus on is how the church is made up of believers, the book of Acts and how the church was made, how Jesus went to the synagogue on the Sabbath, verses about not isolating yourself in proverbs, verses about submitting to your elders which you can’t do unless you’re a member of a church, and yes, it’s full of humans who sin, but community sharpens us, gives us opportunities to serve and be served.
Christ died for the church and what’s important to Him should be important to us.
I love how Jesus apparently believed something that didn’t exist until 1500 years after he transfigured.
I love how he delivered a “Truth” that sacraments aren’t really sacraments and a church that needs no priests and bishops.. and he safeguarded that within a church that had sacraments and ecclesiology for 1500 years until there was a printing press.
This guy didn’t say ANYTHING correct. In fact, even his criticism of AA was a straw man. No.. AA doesn’t describe alcoholism as a brain disease, but as a spiritual disease, and the prescription of treatment in AA is closer to Christian tradition than Calvinism is. Calvinism is heresy through and through.
Algorithm boost. Preach!
all roads leads to rome.except one.
Please read all associated scriptures carefully as I won't always quote the entire scripture for the sake of space.
The canon was determined by God and discovered by man.
Long before church councils were ever convened, we have proof that the letters were circulated and accepted before the canon was formally established.
The entire Old Testament was affirmed in the Jewish community by means of the Holy Spirit long before any council sat in judgement.
All the Old Testament books are quoted in the New Testament except Ester, Eccles. And the Song of Solomon.
None of the books of the Apocrypha, which the Catholic Church added to its canon in the 16th century, are quoted.
The bible gives overwhelming evidence as to why scripture must always be our sole authority for faith. The Word of God is pure, perfect, inerrant, infallible, living, truth, light, holy, eternal, and forever settled in Heaven.
It illuminates,cleanses, saves, frees, guides, converts, gives knowledge, gives wisdom, produces faith, refutes error, searches the heart, equips for every good work, and is used as a weapon.
Elevating tradition to the level of authority was common with the religious leaders during Jesus' earthly ministry.
Consider the exchange between the Pharisees and Jesus, Matthew 15:1-6.
...And by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition.
Scripture provides the only objective basis for authority while the indwelling Holy Spirit provides illumination, conviction and discernment. This dual authority, the Spirit of God working with the Word of God, is sufficient in all matters of faith and Christian living. Consider the biblical justifications for the authority of Scripture alone.
2 Timothy 3:16.
Since Scripture is used to correct and reprove, then it must be the authoritative standard by which everything else is judged for truthfulness.
Jesus said, "Scripture cannot be broken" John 10:35, meaning, it cannot be annulled or made void. It cannot be set aside in favor of the traditions of men.
The character of God is on the line when it comes to Scripture, Numbers 23:19.
Christ used the authority of scripture to rebuke Satan, Matthew 4:1-11.
Jesus used the authority of Scripture to rebuke false teachers, Matthew 22:23-33.
Repentant sinners are saved by hearing and believing the Word,Romans 10:17, Ephesians 1:13-14.
Jesus made it clear that His Word, and His Word alone, not the tradition of men,is what sets us apart as His disciples, John 8:31-32.
Jesus rebuked the religious leaders for nullifying the Word of God with their traditions, Mark 7:9-13.
The apostles Paul commended the Bereans for using scripture, not tradition, to verify the truthfulness of his teaching,Acts 17:11.
Galatians 4:30
Hebrews 6:18
1 John 4:6
The bible never refers to any higher rule of faith.
Scripture is what God says; religion is what man says God says.
Therefore, after considering each source of authority, we must ask, " but what does scripture say", Galatians 4:30.
We must also heed Paul's exhortation: " Do not go beyond what is written", 1 Corinthians 4:6.
The Catholic Church teaches that Peter was the chief apostle and the rock upon which Jesus would build His church. They base this doctrine on a misinterpretation of Matthew 16:18.
Jesus said " You are Peter ( petros - stone) and on this rock (petra - mass of rock) I will build my church."
However, the Greek word "petra" is feminine, and therefore it is not normal to use it in reference to the masculine Peter.
Jesus did not say, " upon thee I will build my church." Peter knew without a doubt that Jesus was not referring to him as "the rock", because he proclaimed Jesus as "the Rock", 1 Peter 2:6-8.
Petra is referring to Peter's confession of faith.
It was James, not Peter, who presided over the Jerusalem Council, Acts 15:13, 19. And it was the apostles who sent Peter to preach, rather than Peter sending them, Acts 8:14.
Who is the foundation, the chief cornerstone and head of the church?
Jesus.
1 Corinthians 3:11 - For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.
And
Ephesians 1:22-23, 2:20.
See also, Mark 7:7-8, 13.
Colossians 2:8.
Proverbs 30:5-6.
No, we didn't have a Bible canon prior to the Catholic Church. That's false.
Let's debunk your interpretation that Jesus is referring to himself as the rock.
Let's talk about this passage.
Matthew 16:18
"And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it"
There are two interpretations. Both are actually true for different reasons.
Interpretation exegesis:
#1 The Church is built on Peter's confession.
This interpretation comes from early Church extra biblical writings. When some Christians say this, they probably mostly don't know where that interpretation came from. In a "philosophical sense" yes the Church is built on Peter's confession that Jesus is the Christ. Obviously if Jesus was not the son of the living God, our hopes and beliefs would have no foundation. Some early Christians held to this interpretation. I will provide an example from Saint Augustine:
Augustine (354-430):
“In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built.’ . . . But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable.” (The Retractions, 1:20:1)
He says let the reader decide. Because there were two opinions. The reality is that both can be true at the same time.
Interpretation #2 Peter is the rock.
From a literal perspective, this is true. If you understand how language works, Jesus is not referring to himself in Matthew 16. He is speaking to Peter. He calls Peter "Kepha" and changes his name to ROCK. If you were not having any bias towards your interpretation and were for example an atheist, and you read this passage, no one can draw this conclusion that Jesus is talking about himself.
Without a doubt Jesus calls Peter the rock on whom the Church is built. There is no ambiguity, in fact it's straight forward. The fear among non Catholic Christians is that acknowledging Peter is the rock would be tantamount to saying the Catholic Church is the true Church. So they absolutely would prefer not to to follow this interpretation. Even though it is quite literally the true understanding of this passage. Scholars don't interpret this passage as saying linguistically Jesus is talking about himself. He isn't.
The literal meaning is Peter is the rock.
The other interpretation can be true at the same time. Just not literally. The early Church overall accepted that the Church was built on Peter the rock. This interpretation wasn't challenged until the protestant reformation.
@@dman7668 the OT canon was already established, by who? God. If God is the One who establishes His Word then He had already established the NT canon as well, why? Because Jesus is the Word and He is eternally existing.
@@dman7668 furthermore, putting the NT into one book does not mean one established the NT, why? Because the NT gospels and letters were already well established, being copied and shared around among believers of the early church. RC teaches fallacy.
@@dman7668 your point #1, you flat out lie, it was established by the preceding verses and not extra biblical sources.
This man literally just made the case for the Roman Catholic Church with his interpretation of Sola Scriptura....absolutely ignorant and he should not teach.
How so?
@@Changemymind1999 because it always comes down to who interprets and who has the authority to declare interpretation. Besides, this man can't even use the old testamate to prove Jesus is the mesiah.
Sorry Rev but you did not provide any evidence that the bible says that it, itself, is the sole source of authority for Christians. Yes, of course it is "God breathed" - as per Paul to Timothy - but that does not therefore mean that ONLY the bible and nothing else is God breathed! He breathed his life into Adam and Eve, and He breaths His life into us by His Spirit when we become Christians, and every day from that moment on. It is impossible to prove Sola Scriptura from scripture itself because it is fundamentally a flawed stance.
In your opening comments you refer to Jesus' discussion with the hypocritical pharisees who use traditional practices to rob a family of material goods which they say are "given over to God". You then imply that ALL tradition is fundamentally evil (a slap at the Catholics I presume) because this single tradition you quote is clearly bad and not of God. At best this is being disingenuous. It is on a par with saying that "all religion is bad"; well the bible does not say that, but what it does say is that BAD religion is bad. James 1:27 describes what pure religion is, which I will let you read for yourself. The term religion is totally neutral but "pure religion" - good - is not the same as "evil religion" - bad. And remember, it is not entities or terms which bring evil but people; so Jesus is always addressing the evil that individual people do through hypocrisy, greed, pride etc.
"You then imply that ALL tradition is fundamentally evil.." No Pastor Jeff did not imply that. His point was that all traditions that make the Word of God void are evil.
It's funny how you are quick to call him disingenious.
@@ianyimiah Hi Isaac. I hope you are well today. Sorry - I think he does imply that all tradition is wrong and does not make it clear that he is taking the incident with the Pharisee as an isolated one.
If Mike was not intentionally implying that all tradition is inherently wrong then I apologise to him - it's very easy to slip into using offensive terms on a site like this.
It would be great to hear his take on tradition in general in that case, because I have heard a lot of evangelicals talking about both religion and tradition as wrong and in error.
@@PapaJoeWalsh I don't think he was implying that. The scripture he quoted even makes it clear. Also, a few minutes after he said that, he said we can learn from church history and creeds. Church history is full of traditions and creeds and confessions are a form of tradition as well.
In my view, I hear him saying this: that you can learn from church history (which includes traditions) as long as it does not contradict biblical truths.
@@ianyimiah I can accept that Isaac. Thank you.
@@PapaJoeWalsh Thank you as well for giving me a hearing.
Jeff "now watch" Durbin lol :)
Translation: Sola Scriptura means you have to listen to some guy in street clothes "preach" for an hour and fifteen minutes without actually expounding Scripture.
@Glen...well said!! They should always end their sermons with "...thus saith the Lord...maybe"
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.
It does NOT say: Therefore go and make them all Bible students.
You are utterly missing the mark, Sir. And that's sin.
Dear pastor Jeff, is it true that Jesus did not fulfill the determinations of Leviticus 20:10 and Deuteronomy 22:22 (stoning of adulterers) in John 8: 1-11?
Did He go against "Sola Scriptura"?
Or was this passage added later and not part of the real "Sola Scriptura"?
Are you implying that Jesus (God) cannot make changes to his law? I will not judge God why his laws for the Israelites wondering in the desert are not the same after the incarnation. Do you refrain from bacon because of Moses' Law? That would be such a miserable life.
@@Psalm144.1 Are you saying that God can make changes to his own law? Can He fail to comply with His own law?
Are you saying that God, after the incarnation, changed his laws? But was it not only with his death, as Paul and Hebrews say, that the "covenant" was eliminated? Was Matthew wrong to mention that Jesus said he came to fulfill the whole law, and not to revoke it (Matthew 5: 17-18)?
So Peter was with Jesus 3 years and He never told him that the law (the previous covenant) would be revoked with his death, did Paul have to discuss this matter with Peter?
Dear Ichabod (whoever you are), I raised the issue of the adulterous women passage simply because this situation never happened. This text was added to the gospel of John. And therefore the evangelical definition of "Sola Scriptura" falls apart, since we do not have the originals of these "scriptures". Not to mention the contradictions / divergences within the "scriptures" themselves, and the factual and historical errors.
I did not say that God can change his law. I implied it. God did change his laws. Plenty of examples in the New Testament. I misunderstood why you mentioned John 8:1-11. I see your point now. However, that is not a text to use for arguing against the theology of sola scriptura. It was not in the earliest manuscripts. I don't think you listened to the video when Jeff explained Sola Scriptura. You have to understand the definition of Sola Scriptura before you can argue against it. Jeff Durbin is well aware of textual criticism as his mentor is James White (who wrote, The King James Only Controversy). We don't know that the adulterous situation never happened, we just have evidence to believe it was not in the originally written (inspired) gospels. It is completely orthodox, and in harmony with Jesus Christ's teachings. Divergences in manuscripts is not an argument against sola scriptura. Different topic.
@@Psalm144.1 Divergences in manuscripts is a solid argument against "sola scriptura". It is at the core of the "internal evidence" against sola scriptura.
How can we affirm that these scriptures, the Catholic canon we follow, are our basis of faith if they contain divergences between themselves and divergences with external reality?
Along with the fact that we don't even have the originals. Is the number of the beast 666? Or is it 616? How many more differences will we discover as soon as we discover older manuscripts? And what impact will these differences have on our faith?
At least the Catholic Church is united under the same coordination, as Paul desired, and internally defines it's (wrong, I think!) basis of faith and of christian life.
Evangelicals are very divided, with very disparate beliefs. From churches that accept divorce (scriptural based) and have gay women pastors to churches where women have to wear a veil and cannot speak (scriptural based).
Sola Scriptura debates with real Roman Catholic apologists are posted below.Textual criticism is a different issue. That in no way devalues scriptural authority. The point of textual criticism is determining the original text. Again, you are arguing against a non-existent definition of Sola Scriptura. 666 or 616 changes nothing about faith in God and the authority of scripture.
If textual criticism was a solid and viable argument, than Roman Catholic apologists would use that. They do not.
Here is a debate between James White (Jeff Durbin's mentor), and a Catholic Priest, Mitch Pacwa. I happen to think Pacwa is wonderful man of God. He does not use your argument at all.th-cam.com/video/nxTEtArbCgs/w-d-xo.htmlAnd
here is another debate on sola scriptura. Again, the Catholic apologist does not use what you say. th-cam.com/video/pmYWBwIvejY/w-d-xo.html
I don't believe that scripture is the only source of Faith. God has spoken to me in many ways. For example when I was hospitalized in 2013 the Holy Spirit spoke my character defects to me, some but not all of which were in the scriptures. Had any of that contradicted the Bible I would not have believed in it. I do check every way (i.e. Revelations in dreams or advice from my pastor) with the Word of God. I believe that scripture is the ultimate authority but not that scripture is the sole rule of Faith. I think Sola scriptura discounts the many ways that God can speak to someone. For example I asked God to bless my dreams one night and he gave me the sentence "willing to go to any lengths" which is only in 12 steps meetings but I believe is consistent with God's word. I do believe that God wants me to be willing to go to any lengths to be willing to serve Him.
Ok, so it's the belief that scripture is the sole INFALLIBLE rule of Faith. I guess I just changed my mind. Because other ways must be tested by the Word of God. The Word of God is the ultimate litmus test of any other means of information or Revelations that one recieves.
Heads exploded across Christendom when the new world translation,entirely in keeping with the Greek grammar,inserted the indefinite article a John1:1c. There were even erroneous claims that it was the only translation to render the verse thus. Jesus is not a God insisted opponents. Well here is my question. If Jesus is not a God,how can he be JEHOVAH,who the bible plainly declares to be a God.
Deuteronomy4:24KJV" for Jehovah thy God is a devouring fire, a jealous God."
Okay great so Jesus is a God and Jesus is God. Same thing right? Jehovah is a God so saying a God doesn’t mean he’s not God. I love your logic. Tell us about the faithful and discreet slave. What makes you think that’s a prophecy?
@Samantha according to trinitarians he is not a God he subsists within a God. If you are a modalist I have a different line of questioning for you.
@@aservantofJEHOVAH7849 Answer my question.
I did answer your question unless you believe Jesus is your triune God. If you get an interlinear you will notice that the Greek text states that the logos was with the God 'ton theon'. According to your copy of strong's the expression the God is a reference to the supreme God i.e without equals. The logos on the other hand is referred to as God without the definite article according to strong's 'theos' without the definite article or in the plural can refer to angels or rulers whether angelic or human
See psalms8:5, john10:34.
Thus in the context of the logos being with the supreme God ,according to strong's, his being God without the article must mean that he was God in the sense of being a Godlike prince, doubtless one of those mentioned at Job38:4-7KJV"4Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
5Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
6Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?"
@@aservantofJEHOVAH7849 No you didn’t. I didn’t ask you about that, I only made a statement about your own logic. I asked you about the faithful and discreet slave. So answer.
aren't you asking us to compare whatever people say with scripture, therefore the answer is already in scripture. why would i go to church and listen to people, when the answer already came from god.
If I am discussing the Lord of the Rings books/movies with friends, they may give me insights, see things in them I´ve missed. I can learn and deepen my understanding. But how do I know their analyses are correct? By knowing the books/movies.
For example, I come from a charismatic background and have always thought of spiritual warfare mainly in terms of prayer. But a bible teacher showed me that in 2 cor 10:4-6 Paul is using spiritual warfare imagery for apologetics, to challenge and tear down structures of lies raised against the truth.
It was in the text, but I might not have seen it without help.
@@thomasfryxelius5526 I like that
@@peterdiscipleofjesus :)
Of course not.
Protestant beliefs are contradcitory and self refuting which proves it is not of God.
1)All beliefs must be derived from scripture
2)All scripture refers to the old testament in 2 Tim 3:15-17
3)2 Tim 3:15-17 is not part of the old testament
4)Conclusion, 2 Tim 3:15-17 cannot be used to prove Sola Scriptura
@James Jose
So you have a dilemma. If 2 Tim 3:15-17 is scriptural, then it is telling you that the only thing scriptural is the OT.
@James Jose
2 Tim 3:15-17 Paul says Timothy from his childhoood has been acquainted with sacred writings. During Timothy's childhood only OT was sacred scripture.
Paul was referring to OT only.
@James Jose you are correct 2 Tim 3:15 is referring OT which means you cannot use it for Sola Scriptura. Otherwise you would limit Sola Scriptura to the OT.
As a general rule I find myself in agreement with you. However, often because you have a correct belief you and Dr. White carry it beyond its parameters as if to demonstrate its value. This unfortunately ends up undercutting your position as you are trying to defend claims not made by sola scriptura. For example your references to the claims of AA could not only be undercut in about 15 seconds regarding the illness component of alcohol, but their solution to the problem addresses it in a spiritual context, NOT a medical one. Please limit yourself guys, because Jesus doesn't need your help to appear "more right" than He is. Try using scripture to speak for itself as opposed to trying to wax and buff it up. It is quite sufficient.
I'm really not entirely sure what you're trying to say.
Regarding 2Tim3:15-17, i noticed Prots stress the qualifiers attributed to the man of God ("complete" and "fully" and "every") but fail to stress the qualifer attributed to Scripture which is "All".
The qualifier "All" leaves open the possibility of other things being inspired of God. Stressing the qualities of the man of God does not teach Sola Scriptura.
Let me give an example: All military documents and manuals are useful/profiitable for making a soldier complete, fully equiped for every military duty.
The above does not mean Sola Manual. Soldiers need Military leadership, training, battle field Intel and much more.
Prot's only source of Truth is Scripture and yet they don't even understand basic grammatical logic.
2 Pet 3:16
"as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures."
Believing in sola scriptura you will not get the full truth.
The simple answer, no
I have been listening to your messages for some time now and have enjoyed many of your teachings. You are a gifted orator. I was shocked when I just heard your dismissal of Alcoholics Anonymous however. I’m not sure why the theology of a program that helps people find sobriety should matter to you or your church. MANY people have had to begin their journey to find God in these less pious rooms. They still ultimately find God. I was then reminded of your other teachings which proclaim it’s okay to drink. Perhaps that’s the real reason you have issues with A.A. Tee totalers wouldn’t be prospective customers for Apologia Brewery. Maybe you should add Sola Churcho to your truths, and stop trying to have an opinion or thought on things that don’t concern you.
Todd Chaney Looks like your idol was attacked.
AA is not my idol, nor has it ever been. It’s not a religion. It doesn’t claim it is.
Brucev7 amen to that! God alone heals!
The A.A. Framework believes in a higher power. But that doesn’t make that higher power correct. To deny Christ is just that. Either he gets the glory or he doesn’t. Christ should be our peace. The Bible has instructions on the removal of sin in ones life. And Jeff is saying that the Bible is the guide and the basis for everything. AA helps a lot of people. And does very “good”. But even in that let’s examine good. How many good people will find themselves in hell for denying Christ.
Raycurlee23 to me it’s not an either or. It’s a first, then. Without AA I probably would’ve never made it back into church. Christ is my all and all, and to Him goes all glory. But I don’t discount the effect these 12 step programs have had on peoples lives. I’m not alone in my journey, I know many that have come to an ultimate relationship with Christ through this less popular venue.
I find sola scriptura to be not used by many Christian denominations. Sunday, Easter, Christmas is not in the Christian Scriptures. They are traditions and therefore outside of scripture.
4GreenFrog, Easter and Christmas is not pagan
4GreenFrog, Traditions are good but scripture is the ultimate guidance.
The Lord's day aka Sunday is in the Bible (Rev. 1:10). Also holding onto Sola Scriptura doesn't mean you can't have tradition, it just means tradition is subordinate to scripture.
I think I agree with green frog and to the other guy Christmas and Easter is pagan , come on man anybody who does even a little research can see that they have pagan origins green frog was right churches adopted all this crap that you can’t find in the Bible show us where it says to celebrate Easter or Christmas give us the book chapter and verse
Mat 12:8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.
That means he is the master of it , he owns it
It doesn’t say he is lord of Sunday
Doesn’t say that does it?
So why would the lords day in revelations mean Sunday , prove it please and don’t go run to some early church father I want bible verses thank you
Sorry y answer, no. Longer answer, noooooooo.
We will do wonders together and save so many souls
Anthony Turner ‘We’ do nothing and ‘We’ save no one. God does all. We walk in faith of the works God already set before us. God alone saves those whom He foreknew. We walk in faith proclaiming of the gospel to the world and allow the Master to separate those we bring to Him (a world He created and completed before us, but blessed us in participating in the work He already completed).
Eh Eh Eh Jeff....if what you are teaching is wrong you will answer to God yourself. You will not be able to blame James White for your errors. There is only "One Hero of the Faith" who is none other than Jesus Christ.
Also...your church has been exposed for recording the confessions of some of your members. Why are they confessing sins to you???
Don't you attack Catholics for the same practice?
Psalms83:18ASV"18That they may know that thou alone, whose name is JEHOVAH, Art the MOST HIGH over all the earth." Note please that there is but one named JEHOVAH. Note also that this one is the MOST HIGH. Thus if ones God is associated with multiple co'equals (e.g the Trinitarian Jesus). He is not the Lord JEHOVAH.
Who was Jehovah speaking to when he said, “let us create man in our image”?
Proverbs8:22JB"Yahweh created me, first-fruits of his fashioning, before the oldest of his works."
Job38:7JB"What supports its pillars at their bases? Who laid its cornerstone
7 to the joyful concert of the morning stars and unanimous acclaim of the sons of God?"
We note that JEHOVAH was not alone before the creation of the physical universe and man.
The first of these morning stars was particularly close to him in his work.
Proverbs8:30JB"I was beside the master craftsman, delighting him day after day, ever at play in his presence,"
Note too that at revelation2:28Jesus identifies himself as morning star and as the wisdom of God a Luke11:49.
@@aservantofJEHOVAH7849
“Before Abraham came to be, I AM”.
“I and the father are one”
I am what? One what? Nothing I said precludes Jesus being from before Abraham or one with God.
John17:22ASV" the glory which thou hast given me I have given unto them; that they may be one, even as we are one"
Note that the believers become one in the same way that Jesus and his God are one and also that they receive the glory that Jesus received from his God and Father. If you get an interlinear and check you will notice that the neuter form of the greek word rendered one is used "en" when ever one us used of God the masculine form is used "eis" indicating a single person also singular personal pronouns are always used of JEHOVAH. Indicating that the bible writers regarded him as a single person.
@@aservantofJEHOVAH7849
Error: “That they may be one, even as we are one” does not conclude that they are one with us. I AM what? “And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you”. One what? I AM.
I pray for you. That you will turn to Christ.
There is no scripture in the Bible. This is Luther's delusion. Show me a passage in the Bible, where is Sola Scriptura? On the contrary, there is a tradition in the Bible. It begins with the sentence: "Now, brethren, keep ye the tradition which ye have received from us by word and by word." This corresponds to the history of the Church.
The Bereans were more noble than the Jewish people in Thessolonica because they examined the apostles teaching against scripture to see if what the apostles were teaching was actually true. That is a clear example of sola scriptura that is in the Bible
The apostles taught the truth from Jesus. What you are describing is not Sola scriptura, but tradition. (The Bible speaks of it in the Corinthians.) The teachings were spread only orally until the Bible was written. Sola scriptura is the doctrine that only the Bible is the only source of faith. (But this is heresy, because the sources of faith are: the Bible, tradition, and the teaching office of the Catholic Church.)
Another false teaching. You cannot find Bible Alone teaching in the bible. Emphasis on the word “Alone”
Isaiah 8:20, cf. Luke 16:29.
Lawrence Stanley None of those show sola scriptura
@@DanielMaloneJr
So why didn't Isaiah make an appeal to traditions? If Sola Scriptura is not true, then just point out one other INFALLIBLE rule for faith and practice. Or, point out a single word of Jesus or the Apostles outside of the scriptures that has been dogmatically defined by the church. You can't do that because Sola Scriptura is true.
Lawrence Stanley I can point out other infallible rules of faith.
Tradition:
2 Thessalonians 2:15
15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.
And The Church
1 Timothy 3:15
15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.
None of those verses show sola scriptura. Just because someone appeals to scripture does not mean that it’s the sole infallible rule of faith. You need to show me a verse that says that.
@@DanielMaloneJr
You're joking, right? Please tell me that you're joking...
First, please tell me about these infallible traditions that Paul was referring to; traditions that never made it into scripture that are demonstrated to be infallible. Also, if you are asserting that the church is infallible, then please explain in what sense you mean it. All one must do to see that it is not infallible in any way is to look at the various popes and counsels who have often erred and contradicted one another, or, look to the development over time of unbiblical doctrines such as purgatory, the various Marian dogmas, or the infallibility of the pope speaking ex cathedra, and so on. No sir, neither tradition, nor the church is infallible for history has well demonstrated the FALLIBILITY of both.