Sola Scriptura

แชร์
ฝัง
  • เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 ม.ค. 2025

ความคิดเห็น • 53

  • @wongsikiongwongsikiong4296
    @wongsikiongwongsikiong4296 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    Turn to me and be saved all the ends of the earth!
    For I am God, and there is no other.
    I am God, the LORD, and besides me there is no saviour.
    Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it.
    Blessed is he who reads aloud the words of prophecy, and blessed who hear and who keep what is written therein, for the time is near.
    Blessed is he who keeps the words of the prophesy of this book.

  • @JERRYSHONDA
    @JERRYSHONDA 20 วันที่ผ่านมา

    a wow sermon

  • @KikiD1965
    @KikiD1965 7 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    God lets us hear His voice

    • @frankh.5378
      @frankh.5378 5 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Through God's Word!

  • @dannymitchell4092
    @dannymitchell4092 ปีที่แล้ว

    What is this pastors name?
    Anyone know

    • @truthforlife1
      @truthforlife1  ปีที่แล้ว

      Hi, This is Dr. Albert Mohler who was one of the speakers at the annual Basics Conferences in 2017. Blessings, TFL Staff

  • @samanthagirikhanov2796
    @samanthagirikhanov2796 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    So true! That’s why everyone who reads the scripture agrees, including Luther and all the reformers. 🤣

  • @kkdoc7864
    @kkdoc7864 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    The bottom line is that the ONLY known source of GOD breathed doctrine is Holy Scripture, which is the “Word of God”. Anything said or written thereafter must meet that burden of proof. If it cannot, then it must totally be in line with scripture to be accepted as true. Otherwise it must be discarded.

    • @youngrupee
      @youngrupee 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      But how do we know what Holy Scripture is? Does the scripture give us a canon?

  • @patquint3291
    @patquint3291 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    If the truth and the fullness of Christianity comes out of scripture alone, why are there so many differences in Protestant denominations and if the Rule of Faith is found only in scripture, where is Denominationalism found in scripture and why did the Arians “prove” their theology using scripture? There was no reformation in the 16th century, only revolution leading to division in God’s Church.

  • @joecannes2421
    @joecannes2421 7 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    Excellent, sola Scriptura is the rule

    • @lukeslaby
      @lukeslaby 5 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      Who's interpretation of Scripture is correct then?

    • @lukeslaby
      @lukeslaby 5 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Asaph Vapor how can two people with different interpretations both be correct? It’s impossible. Someone is right and someone is wrong but a contradiction can never be true.

    • @codyvandal2860
      @codyvandal2860 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@lukeslaby Very true. But since each man will be judged by God alone with his eternal destiny dependent on what he believed do you not think that he should read the Scriptures for himself and determine that on his own? Or would you rather he uncritically accept a doctrine like the existence of purgatory which is no where in the Bible? And when told that he can give money to priests to reduce his time in purgatory he should just believe them and empty his pockets? There are many faithful servants of Christ in the RCC but the system as a whole is apostate.
      Close examination of the Scriptures confirms that and so the official doctrine of the RCC is to assert that their human traditions are equally authoritative to the Word of God (a blasphemous declaration I think). Our Lord himself warned the Pharisees strictly of the danger of doing that. I pray for Catholics to see this. The Pope declaring himself to be infallible, the existence of indulgences, the invention of purgatory, sexually molesting children, the idolatry of praying to humans and angels (even if "prayer" is defined in two seperate ways) not to mention burning people alive just because they wanted to read the Bible for themselves. God have mercy on them.

    • @lukeslaby
      @lukeslaby 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@codyvandal2860 Lots to unpack here, however, for the sake of not writing a whole book in response LOL, I will keep my response to the topic of interpreting scripture. Interesting points, but I see the independent reading of the Holy Scriptures as potentially dangerous for the reason that each person may interpret passages differently. Stepping back, I'm sure we can agree that truth is unchanging, just as God, who is THE ultimate truth, is unchanging. Therefore, it is problematic to see His Bible, Divinely Inspired and truthful (like Him) as something that can be interpreted to mean different things. The Bible passage meanings become subjective instead of objective. This leaves one to realize that we must have a supreme, final authority by which scripture can be understood. I am not sure what you mean by "uncritically accepting", do you mean blindly accepting? Because I agree with you that no one should blindly accept teachings without giving them serious thought. God love you, my friend.

    • @codyvandal2860
      @codyvandal2860 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@lukeslaby I completely understand what you are saying and I am in agreement with you that it's "potentially dangerous for the reason that each person may interpret passages differently."
      But it's equally dangerous (if not more so) to have an authoritative body such as the Magisterium or the Papacy determine for themselves the interpretation and then force everyone else at swordpoint to agree or burn them alive which was the actual official policy of Rome for well over 1,000 years(something they've never apologized for btw).
      Because what this does is ensure uniformity - but uniformity is so virtue when people are uniformly wrong.
      And when you stand before the Judgement Seat of Christ you will not have a priest, pope, bishop, or cardinal there to stand in your place and take the heat for you. You alone will be responsible for what you believed and how you behaved. The RCC claims two sources of Divine Authority and that's the Holy Scriptures and the Sacred Tradition. Christ warned the Pharisees strictly about elevating the traditions of humans (which the Pharisees claimed were Godly) to those of God's Word - revealed directly to the people through his Prophets.
      Still, the Roman Church's approach might be acceptable if it were not the for the fact that the 'Sacred Traditions' stand frequently and overtly in direct opposition to the Sacred Scripture. I mean literal opposite. And in this light there desire to keep the Bible in a dead language and kill people for wanting to read it themselves seems less like a charitable attempt to deter error and more like a self centered desire to maintain a monopoly on truth so they might enrich themselves with temporal, material ,earthly wealth and power.
      This issue was the very heart of the Protestant Reformation. Once I saw it I could not unsee it. Just like Luther.

  • @thekam3588
    @thekam3588 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    My understanding of scripture alone is all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. The inspired word of God is used as the final authority. If there is something written or said that is passed down orally, should it contradict the written inspired word, should be cast away and no credence given it. There's a reason a person's Last Will and Testament takes precedence over what someone says. Period.

    • @lukeslaby
      @lukeslaby 5 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Who's interpretation of Scripture is correct then?

    • @semper_reformanda
      @semper_reformanda 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@lukeslaby That is a very good question and there is a very good answer: the interpretation of the one that does not contradict the Holy Scripture is the right one.

    • @lukeslaby
      @lukeslaby 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@semper_reformanda interesting. But what if there comes a scenario where two contradictory views do not contradict the Bible? For example: John 6? Catholics take a view that does not contradict the scripture and Protestants also take an opposing view also claiming to not contradict scripture. Seems a bit confusing

    • @semper_reformanda
      @semper_reformanda 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@lukeslaby let‘s be more specific: what exactly do you mean in John 6? If you aim at transsubstination then nothing can be clearer than the fact that we do not have one single instance in the Scripture »describing« what Catholicism teaches about transsubstination. We have no scriptural example of a Lord‘s Supper where a so called change of substance of bread and wine is described or mentioned. The Bible does not even hint or explicitly say that during the taking of bread and wine there happens such a change of substance.
      So on this basis Catholicism’s Transsubstination is a mere Eisegesis and therefore »read INTO John 6« - like the Eisegesis that Paul confessed sin: »I robbed other churches« (2.Corinthians 11:8) - while there is not a single statement of anyone in the Bible telling us that we must believe in a Transsubstination.
      Thus Catholicism‘s view is contradictory to Scripture since it changes the message Jesus delievered in John 6. And when the Bible does not mention such a thing - we better make no doctrine out of what is not mentioned or not witnessed in the Bible.
      Then we have a context of John 6 and if you carefully read through John 6 then you come to the conclusion that eating and drinking Jesus is a metapher for completely relying on Jesus or trusting in Him. That is what Scipture says:
      John 6:29-30
      29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you BELIEVE in Him whom He sent.”
      30 Therefore they said to Him, “What sign will You perform then, that we may see it and BELIEVE You? What work will You do?
      John 6:51
      I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.”
      So Jesus is obviously talking about to have faith in Him - and not about a change of the substance of the bread and wine during the Lord‘s Supper.
      The truth is not a pendulum going in different directions. With regard to John 6 there can not be two opposing views that both do not contradict the Bible.

    • @lukeslaby
      @lukeslaby 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@semper_reformanda interesting. What then, have you to say about the fact that he repeats that his flesh and blood are true food and drink even after the crowds tell him that his teaching is difficult? Because I thought Jesus, instead of clarifying that it was merely a metaphor, continues to say how his flesh is real food and drink.

  • @MrJayb76
    @MrJayb76 7 ปีที่แล้ว +8

    The rule of sola scriptura is that there is no rule. The hallmark of SS is private interpretation. The end product is denominations and disunity. It is theological relativism at its finest.

    • @rhdtv2002
      @rhdtv2002 7 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Jay Bui division by division

    • @nomosnomosowicz7379
      @nomosnomosowicz7379 5 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      God's word is opaque, but papal pronouncements are perspicuous? Interesting. Who interprets the magisterium for you? Or is that left to "private interpretation" (whatever that means)?

    • @codyvandal2860
      @codyvandal2860 3 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      @@nomosnomosowicz7379 They believe that the Apostle Peter was handed authority over the Church and there has been an unbroken passing of the torch for 2,000 years. And therefore the Papacy and the Magisterium are hand chosen by God so when they speak it is like he speaks. That this is demonstrable untrue they don't care about at all. Nevermind that the Papacy didn't truly exist until the 6th century or that there have at times been as many as five different "popes" all fighting actual wars over control of the Papal "throne." They don't seem to consider that uniformity is no virtue when you are uniformly wrong.
      Every man will stand before God one day to be Judged and no earthly priest or pope will be standing there to be your advocate and take the heat for you. So everyone should read the Bible for themselves. Naturally, the Catholic Church strongly disagreed so that they alone could be the arbiters of what is and is not true (often involving sexual molestation of children, financial shakedowns, and sometimes burning people to death for questioning their priests)

  • @dom252
    @dom252 ปีที่แล้ว

    "Sola scriptura-the principle that God speaks only through the Scriptures"
    I'm not sure that's accurate. It's the belief that scriptures have a higher authority than the church and traditions.
    Many (most?) Protestants who believe in Sola Scriptura also believe that God still speaks through his people, based on scriptures such as "do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God (...) by this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God" (1 John 4:1-3). They would, of course, believe that such speaking can never over-rule scripture - due to Sola Scriptura giving it the higher authority.

  • @LaFedelaIglesia
    @LaFedelaIglesia 7 ปีที่แล้ว +7

    "Sola Scriptura"= PRIVATE INTERPRETATION

    • @angelamadhoo8325
      @angelamadhoo8325 7 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      WRONG!!!!! Sola Scriptura means by Scripture alone!

    • @nomosnomosowicz7379
      @nomosnomosowicz7379 5 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      @Onnie Dixon If only there were a way to understand your words outside of "private interpretation"..

    • @Alfredo8059
      @Alfredo8059 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      @Resurrected Eyes , SOLA (my private interpretation of ) Scripture plus my speculations and opinions. The Bible is alone when it is closed. 2 Thes. 2:15 contradicts Sola Scriptura,

  • @FranklinPUroda
    @FranklinPUroda 7 ปีที่แล้ว

    Preachers of the "Word"? Don't beat around the bush, Preachers of Jesus. If His Name is not part of the sermon/homily of the person who claims to be a follower of Jesus, IMO, it's not worth the time to listen. Life is too short.