I ran across this video and clicked on it. I'm just a simple county man who reads the Bible and tries to follow it. I can't give those big word answers but can read basic English. The theme I read is that God created, man sinned and needed pardoning/ forgiven. First there was animal sacrifice but this was temporary so God sent His only son to die as our sacrifice- this is the Gospel. This is the message and words the whole world needs. The Bible does say if anyone comes to you with another gospel which for this ole country boy means another way to be forgiven and made right with God- the Bible says let that person be accursed. You can write other books or films or anything if it lines up to that message. The problem would come as the Bible says if we/anyone tries to give another gospel. I don't condemn others who write as long as they write about God then the premise is the gospel. Until all are safe and saved- this is really all that matters. We have a lot of work to do- splitting hairs is what the Pharisees and Sadducees did and Christ surely condemned them. let us not do that but simply proclaim the gospel of Christ
Thank you for the comment. This is splitting hairs. This is the central doctrine of protestantism the Bible alone) that's completely unbiblical. That's important to know.
Whether sola scriptura is overtly mentioned in the Bible or not, Catholicism fails to recognize a crucially important issue. We know that the Bible is the Word of God. The Bible declares itself to be God-breathed, inerrant, and authoritative. We also know that God does not change His mind or contradict Himself. So, while the Bible itself may not explicitly argue for sola scriptura, it most definitely does not allow for traditions that contradict its message. Sola scriptura is not as much of an argument against tradition as it is an argument against unbiblical, extra-biblical and/or anti-biblical doctrines. The only way to know for sure what God expects of us is to stay true to what we know He has revealed-the Bible. We can know, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that Scripture is true, authoritative, and reliable. The same cannot be said of tradition.
Ironically, you're saying sola scriptura is against unbiblical traditions, and yet that's exactly what the Bible alone is because it's not taught in scripture. You literally, as a Protestant, have to assume it because it's not there. Is Catholic doctrines aren't there, which they are, you say they are unbiblical. But when the Protestant doctrine of the solar scripture is not found in the pages of scripture, you think it's okay. Protestants can't even agree on what solar scripture is. Don't you think that's a problem? Wouldn't you think let the court doctrine of protestantism would be right there in the pages of scripture easy for people to understand? Here's where you're the misunderstanding. Yes, the Bible is the word of God, but play Word of God is Not only in the bible. Jesus is the Word of God, and He communicated that divine Word orally. The vast majority of all God's Words were not written down. Even Scripture says that. Jn. 21:25, 2 Jn. 2:12, 3 Jn. 13-14, 1 Thess. 2:13. etc. So, God's yes, we absolutely believe God's Word, but God's word isn't only in Scripture, and God's Word says to listen to the authority of the Church. We would accept it if it was biblical, but it's not. It's a tradition of men that contradicts scripture. First, because the Bible tells us to hold to traditions put also the authority of the church. Jesus said if you don't listen to the authority of the church, then you reject him. Only the church has authority to properly interpret scripture.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial where does the bible tell us to hold to the authority of the church? IF you are saved and I assume you are not for baptism doesn't save anyone, would know only to listen to the authority of the word of God and we receive revelation through the holy spirit. A church claiming to hold sole authority to interpret scripture is one sign of a cult! PS I'M INDEPENDENT BAPTIST AND NO PROTESTANT. WE NEVER WERE PART OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. SOME CAME OUT OF OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN THE 16OOS INTO THE BAPTIST CHURCH BUT WE WERE THERE ACCORDING TO BIBLE DOCTRINE LONG BEFORE YOU EXISTED. YOU NEED TO READ THE BIBLE ONLY AND PRAY THE SPIRIT SPEAKS TO YOU! THE RAPTURE IS NEAR AND I WOULD NOT WANT YOU TO BE LEFT BEHIND.
So the 2 questions are: 1) Where in the Bible does it say to use the Bible as our standard of authority? 2) What evidence from scripture do you have that it is God breathed / inspired by God (the books that were included), or put another way why were the books that were included the ones that were included. So lets look at these 2 questions, and why they are being asked. The Bible through many examples shows us the importance of knowing scripture, and to use it to discern truth from false teaching, For example Jesus quoted scripture to Satan when He was being tempted, and it also gives an example of someone (the devil) mis-quoting scripture to push an agenda. So the attitude that is usually prevalent within the PC is to compare what is being taught with the Bible, to use the bible as a spirit level to ensure that what is being taught is correct. Some books were not included even though that have good teaching, others were not included because they were false, or whose original author cannot be verified. It is the trust in the Holy Spirit that He guided the early Church leaders in their discernment of what should be included and what doesn't need to be included. So that 2 Timothy 3:16-17 may be seen as having value. So why is the author of this video asking these 2 questions? The answer is 2 fold, The first is that the Catholic Church believes things that are not only not found in scripture, but that actually go counter to scripture, The second is using a passage incorrectly to bolster (give authority to) these beliefs that are not found in Scripture, that even though these beliefs that are not found in the Bible that they "are true" as they are part of "the traditions" that are vaguely being referred to in 2 Thessalonians 2:15. "Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle." So are those the teachings found in 1st and 2nd Thessalonians, Or some mysterious ones that are not found in the Bible BUT must also be followed? So the 2 questions being "asked" in this video are being asked, So that you don't question the Catholic Church using scripture, instead rely on the Catholic Church to answer your question/s without scripture. Because if the question could be answered using scripture.... then they would be using scripture to answer the question. And if what is believed / taught goes counter to Scripture, that you trust the Catholic Church NOT the Bible......
But you never answered either question. You instead made some unsubstantiated claims, sidestepping once again the answers to these questions. Why are these questions being asked? because they are valid questions to be asked of those who claim this concept of Sola Scriptura. Let me do what you just did. *So that you don't question the Catholic Church using scripture, instead rely on the Catholic Church to answer your question/s without scripture.* As the canon can only be answered without relying on scripture as again there is no table of contents. And *Because if the question could be answered using scripture.... then they would be using scripture to answer the question.* Of course we would. But as there is no source in scripture to name scripture, we come into a bit of a circular problem. Protestants will ignore that problem even exists. You are to go by and use only the Bible, yet immediately you run into the problem of having first to determine just what is scripture and what is not...without scripture to tell you. Marty Luther edited his own Bible, greatly influencing those who came later. These are the books he decided were not scripture. As he promotes Scripture alone and there is no canon or table of contents within the Bible one wonders how he arrived at this list. He certainly did not use scripture to guide him. This is just one example of yours. I ask _what the canon of scripture is._ where do I find it within scripture. without a Church or a deranged heretic to tell me. This is how Luther handled it. He was a heavy-handed editor. Books Luther Isolated and Considered Disputed: 1. New Testament: ◦ Hebrews ◦ James ◦ Jude ◦ Revelation Deuterocanonical Books (moved to an "Apocrypha" section in Luther's Bible): 1. Tobit 2. Judith 3. Additions to Esther 4. Wisdom of Solomon 5. Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) 6. Baruch 7. Letter of Jeremiah 8. Additions to Daniel (Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon) 9. 1 Maccabees 10. 2 Maccabees Luther included these books in a separate section, referring to them as "useful for reading," but not on par with the canonical books. Protestants don't know this, but the word Apocrypha (14th century) was kidnapped. while the meaning was applied to a newly coined word pseudepigrapha (17th century) and the already known and defined word _Apocrypha_ used to refer to the deuterocanonical books. Actual scripture that you deny. But you have, again to beat a dead heretic, no listings of books that compose the Bible.
Good job answering the "2 Catholic Questions Protestants Can't Answer!". 👍👍 For Brian Mercier: Not everything have to be literally written in the Bible. For example the word Trinity. Good luck finding that word in the Bible.
"Jesus replied, “You hypocrites, Isaiah described you beautifully when he wrote-‘This people honours me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. And in vain they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men’. You are so busy holding on to the traditions of men that you let go the commandment of God!” (Mark 7)
Um. Nowhere does that say Bible alone as a doctrine. There's a huge difference between the doctrines of man and doctrines of God, something prots get mixed up all the time. In fact many protestants reject the doctrines Christ taught, i.e. baptism saving, the eucharist is his flesh. If you can't get those basic ones which are explicit no one's gonna trust an abstract interpretation of scripture that misses the context.
@@Sicarius089we believe that everything we to know or understand is in bible, church is more than one gather for God and asking bit of help from someone who already has bit experience to connect is ok,i mean new Christians usually don't know that woman means church and sitting on someone means you have dominion over them, and Jesus commanded pharacies to search scriptures in which they thought they had life,he didn't say in your culture or tradition but go to scriptures,i meant you are probably so far away from God that 10 commandments aren't a promise to you
@@zhanucong4614 your first premise is entirely wrong. The bible illustrates the fall of man but God's plan for salvation through Christ and the new testament was presented to bring people to Christ. The bible even admits that not all Christ did and taught aren't included in the bible but that the record is presented so others may believe. From there the church was established by Christ to guide others in faith and morals. As seen in teachings like "if there's disagreement among you, bring it to the church" it doesn't say open your bible and argue, but that the church has the authority to put matters to rest, as also seen in Acts where there's a dispute and Peter and I think it's James help settle the matter, they weren't reading Acts when they did that, they actually lived it out and it's recorded so others would know that the church has that authority to settle disputes, something the bible can't do due to others misinterpreting the text. I'm not gonna trust doctrines that came 1500+ years after Christ by people who broke away from the church over those who uphold the teachings of those who learned directly from the apostles and in turn passed that on to their successors. That's where Protestantism fails, they've reinvented the wheel and rejected apostolic succession, whereas the Catholic church holds to the traditions handed to them which can be seen in early writings of those who learned from the apostles, i.e. St Clement of Rome (chosen by Peter), St Ignatius of Antioch & St Polycarp (known and chosen by St John the apostle) St Cyprian, St Justin Martyr, St Irenaues of Lyons to name a few.
7 วันที่ผ่านมา
@@Sicarius089the church is an institution made up my men who are sinners. A little known fact is that there was reform in the 9 and 11 centuries as well before the “reformation “ which it wasn’t. That was badly titled. The counter reformation was the real reformation. The parable of the weeds amongst the wheat was a parable used by saint augustine against donatism. We see in acts 20 verse 30 where Paul says and from your own group, men will come foward perverting the truth to draw the disciples away from them.
@@thejerichoconnection3473 show me where the trinity is plainly taught, show me about praying to saints and Mary. Show me going to heaven, show me immortality of the soul. None of which is in the bible and contradicts the bible.
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
@Catholic Truth Official you say " That doesn’t mean *only scripture is inspired by God. " how will you prove anything other teaching is inspired by God ? answer is you cannot do it , what you are attempting to do is create support that men can create traditions and then claim they are just as inspired by God as the bible scriptures are
Easy. By the Church Jesus established and gave his authority to. How are you going to prove the Books in the Bible are inspired Scripture going by the Bible alone. Shows us where the Bible says Hebrews or 3 John or Obediah are Scripture. And no, we don't claim it and men can create traditions and then say they are inspired. Tradition was already invented by Christ and any tradition comes down from him and the apostles and successors. In the Bible is tradition, just tradition written down.
Understanding is a faith issue . Faith comes by hearing the word of God. Lean, not on your understanding .Trust in the Lord. 1CORINTHIANS 1-1:30 . 1PETER 2-15-25. KJV.
The phrase sola scriptura is from the Latin: sola having the idea of “alone,” “ground,” “base,” and the word scriptura meaning “writings”-referring to the Scriptures. Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian. The Bible is complete, authoritative, and true. “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16). for the first question.
That's one definition. But other Protestants and other creams that are older than this definition disagree with you. So where does Scripture solve the problem
@CatholicTruthOfficial why do you make a video about sola scripture , you looking for a way to make traditions of catholism to be valid protestants don't care what you believe , you are experiencing a self esteem issue of feeling insecure so you create a video to get people to respond , just so you can lift your self up in pride thinking you won something
While I don't identify as a 'Protestant'-a term originally used as a pejorative in the context of the 16th-century church revival-it's important to clarify what 'Sola Scriptura' truly represents. This doctrine is not merely a modern invention but a significant theological assertion that emphasizes the Bible as the sole and ultimate source of truth, countering the unscriptural traditions that had infiltrated the church over the centuries. Historically, teachings such as indulgences and the concept of purgatory were indicative of a works-based religion that strayed from the core message of Scripture. These practices suggested that salvation could be earned or that one could suffer in an intermediate state to purify oneself before entering heaven. In contrast, the Bible clearly teaches that the death of Jesus Christ on the cross was sufficient for our salvation, affirming that grace-not works-brings us into a right relationship with God. Instead of rejecting 'Sola Scriptura,' it would be wise to open the Bible-any Bible, whether Catholic or non-Catholic-and learn what the New Testament teaches about the grace of God and the new birth. This approach can lead us back to the foundational truths as taught by the apostles and the early church.
Scripture as the sole and infallible rule a faith (a definition many Protestants reject) is a man-made tradition. It's 100% not biblical. Nowhere does Scripture say it's the sole or infallible rule of faith, and without biblical proof, it's unbiblical.
One must ask: when and why did "sola scriptura" emerge? It was to counter the drift that had taken place in the RCC. It is not a "mere modern invention" but a return to biblical authority and orthodoxy. John 17:17 reminds us God's Word is truth; not the RCC.
@CatholicTruthOfficial it is obvious that you take issue with scripture of it being " God breathed" or of "Holy Spirit inspiration " because catholic want to claim their own man made doctrines to be held as high as Holy Spirit or Messiahs words . Remember what Christ said to the pharisees and about them ? simple point is this notion that God created catholicism as the first church true church and that is not true , catholicism did not exist until the 300's ad ,
problem comes with catholics trying to ' one up ' everyone else and trying to say they are the only true church, they parade their pope around as if he is Christ , ' in place of Christ ' and this is because of their tradition
Matthew 4 4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. now the Holy Spirit inspired writings are the " word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."
Even Catholic church accepts only the 27 books of New Testament as scripture. Septuagint Bible was accepted as word of God by Jesus as book of Scripture.
Protestant here. First, just so we're on the same page, Sola Scriptura has a very simple definition: "Scripture is our sole INFALLIBLE authority". There are other authorities like parents and church leaders, but the words of God are the only INFALLIBLE words we have today. 2:22 Sola Scriptura doesn't mean every belief will be explicit in scripture. No single verse for the trinity. But I'll try to answer what I think your question is getting at. Let's start from something I hope we can agree on: God giving us instruction is always more authoritative than a human giving us instruction. This has one exception: the apostles. Jesus gave them all the power to bind and loose, meaning that the apostles teachings are just as authoritative as scripture. Here's where we disagree: Roman Catholics believe we STILL have a person on earth who can speak like this, Sola Scriptura holders don't. And here we come to the answer to your question: we see God clearly giving the apostles binding and loosing, where's the chapter and verse where he gives Peter's successors binding and loosing? To expand on that a little bit, God's word having higher authority is the default. We'd need God to explicitly tell us if we should treat a human's teachings with the same authority as his. He did this with the apostles. The burden of proof is on Rome to show that the Roman bishop was given this authority too, because I don't see that anywhere. The burden of proof is NOT on us to prove that God's word has the higher authority. That's the default. So I give you this "unanswerable" question: when did God say that Peter's successors could speak with the same authority as him? 5:21 This question can really apply to any verse, and is basically "how can you be sure you're interpreting scripture correctly". And the answer is- we can't! Lots of people have interpreted scripture lots of different ways, and that didn't just start in the 1500s. Sola Scriptura does NOT promise everyone will agree on what scripture means. This is what makes Protestantism so appealing to me: if we settle on an interpretation of something that later turns out to be wrong, we reform it! A great example of this: the age of the Earth. A lot of people have thought it was 6000 years throughout church history. But now with modern science, we know it's likely to be much older. We can simply admit, "hey, we've been interpreting this wrong!" Not so with Roman Catholic dogmas. Well, it's not supposed to be so anyway, 'No Salvation Outside the Church' has been taken on a doctrinal development roller coaster lately. 7:28 I was actually surprised this wasn't number two because it's so common, I was going to be so proud... The canon is not a problem at all for Sola Scriptura. I'll prove it with the old testament pre-Jesus. At this point in time, we had no "infallible" Roman bishop to tell us which books were canon, right? There was no infallible office pre-Rome. Hopefully we're agreed on that. So when God spoke through a prophet, how did the people know it was really God without the Roman bishop to tell them? And yet, when Jesus arrives on the scene, he seems perfectly comfortable binding people to what scripture says. Shouldn't they have been upset? Shouldn't they have said "no fair Jesus, we don't have an infallible bishop to discern the canon for us! We don't know what's inspired!" Having God's words be your highest authoritative does not require you to have an infallible guy on the side telling you which words are Gods. If any unsure Protestants made it this far, please know: these are not new questions. They have answers. Are we really being asked to believe that Sola Scriptura-believing scholars and pastors don't have answers for these base-level questions? Yes we are, that's how internet apologists operate. "Protestants can't answer this, we have all the answers, you have none of the answers".
Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, then you will understand that the Catholic interpretation of scripture is correct, because you will agree with it.
Don’t you think your pastors are authoritative on scripture? If not why do you have them if not to teach with authority? Your point is a bit of an oxymoron. On binding and loosing. Wouldn’t that cover succession? I mean the Apostles replaced Judas Escariot with Mathias? And then why did the Apostles appoint their successors? Polycarp? Ignatius? Clement? All taught and ordained by the Apostles Your position of no succession does not stand up to historical events
@@johnyang1420Jesus said nothing about Catholic. We are called to be Christian. The word Catholic isn’t in the Bible. The way to the Father is thru the Son and not in any church
As a born again Christian, I hold to sola scriptura, as in that the Bible (Word of God) is the final authority in all matters in faith and practice. I accept every church council ruling that are clearly inline with the scriptures, anything else is to be considered suspect and likely the traditions of man that have entered into the Church. God bless
Then again, there is not a single verse in the Bible that can back up Sola Scriptura, thus you are failing at your own logic since you are following a deliberately man made doctrine. Also, not a single Bible verse says that the Bible is the only and final authority in all matters of the faith. You cannot be a protestant and be consistent, it is just not possible.
Might I ask you how Protestants resolve differences in interpretation using sola scriputra? Are there doctrinal differences in Protestantism? I’m curious as to how you know your specific interpretation is correct and the Church that God decided to work through to provide the scriptures is wrong? How is it that I shouldn’t trust the Church Christ created, the Pilar and bulwark of truth, to interpret the scriptures that it compiled?
@@barbwellman6686 I would say the evidence shows that sola scriptura has served to divide christians. I would venture to say that as Eve stepped out from under the authority of her husband so the Protestants have stepped out from the authority of the Catholic Church. The result is the same. There is a loss of knowledge, a separation from God’s active will and division. The fruits of sola scriptura is division. Divide and conquer, it benefits the enemy and has lead to a massive lack of conversion. We have just produced the most atheistic generation ever, which Christ foresaw and why He prayed for our unity. Therefore, our obstinance in our division places us contrary to Christ’s will in His prayer for unity.
I am a Christian, I renounce myself from belonging to any denomination, I am just a Christian a followr of Christ Jesus. Jesus teachings and His death and resurrection which is in the Holy Bible is our sole basis, practice or traditions which rectify Jesus' teachings and the Gospel are the only traditions we are upholding. Any other than those are unnecessary for they distract us from the truth. Can I ask you How do you enter Heaven? And what are the qualifications to enter Heaven?
We'd be happy to answer your question after you answer the three that we asked in the video. 1. Since Protestants can't agree on what the Bible alone is and have different understandings of it, where does the bible alone solve this problem? 2. Protestants say that scripture is god-breathed, like in to Timothy 3:16, and yet the Greek word, Theopnustos, has two different meanings. So how do you know which meaning it is according to scripture? 3. How do you know which books belong in the Bible according to the Bible alone? Or do you have to use an authority outside of scripture?
@@CatholicTruthOfficial 1. Bible alone is the basis of our teachings, when we teach we connect it to the Scriptures. There are different understanding of one verse but that is our opinion alone, but there is one thing we agreed upon on our opinions, if the opinion emulates Christ Jesus then it is the best opinion, we made sure to go back to the scriptures. 2. Both means that they came from God. That only solidifies the fact that the Bible is infallible because its from God. 3. The one without 14 other books. The Holy Bible is already spread to millions and lots of Christians who are born again in Spirit used it, God allowed 14 books to be removed in the first place, which means they are unnecessary.
@@Yjohanna Regarding #3: I am assuming you believe there are 66 books in the Bible(Catholics believe there are 73 books in the Bible). The question is asked: How do you know the Bible is composed of 66 books(or, whatever number who think it is)? Nowhere in the Protestant Bible does it say the Bible is made up of 66 books. So, one can not say the belief of 66 books(or however many) is based on the Protestant Bible. So, what are you basing your belief on? (Bonus question: What would you have based your beliefs on three years after Christ's Resurrection when not one book of the New Testament had been written?)
@@Channel-nq7eo We are basing it on our God, our God is alive and so is His Words, if we don't believe in the Bible, being a Christian would be in vain. The Bible is infallible since its from God, people who wrote it whether they have seen it or not as long as God willed them to write it, it will be perfect.
@@RG-qn2qm yes the “merits” of saints don’t get anyone to Heaven. But why ask the question? What I do and believe only helps me to Heaven. I pray for others but my merits have nothing to do with it. Catholicism doesn’t teach merits of others.
“But there is a spirit in man: And the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.” Job 32:8 “The Spirit of God hath made me, And the breath of the Almighty hath given me life.” Job 33:4 “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” 2 Timothy 3:16-17 “knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” 2 Peter 1:20-21 KJV God inspired the scriptures through prophets. Case closed
Have you actually read and studied those verses? They don't approve the Bible alone. 2 Tim. 3:15-17 doesn't say that the Bible is the only or final authority or that we just need to go by the bible. It doesn't say any of that. Rather, this passage says Scripture is 'helpful' (not sufficient) in aiding a Christian. Many things are helpful in that regard, but it never says only thing we need. Lastly, 2 Tim. 3:15-17 is talking about the Old Testament Scriptures, not the whole Bible. It describes the scriptures Timothy knew as a kid. Old Testament. There was no Bible at this time and there wouldn't be for 4 cenruries. The New Testament would even be finished for at least 6 decades. So the best argument you can make is that all we need is the Old Testament. That is what makes us perfect. But of course, the verses don't say any of that. If we are going to take your claim literally here, employing the same logic, then all we need is perseverance. James 1:4 says that perseverance makes us "perfect and complete, lacking in nothing. So according to James all we need is perseverance to be perfect. And the Greek is far stronger than in 2nd Timothy.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial “And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.” 2 Peter 3:15-16 “Also other scriptures” Peter identifies Paul’s epistles as scripture also. “If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.” 1 Corinthians 14:37 Prophets at the time were able to confirm if an epistle was Holy Spirit inspired Why trust the Greek more? It’s not even the original. There are no originals “Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: but we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:” 1 Corinthians 2:6-7 “to whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus:” Colossians 1:27-28 “And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: that we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;” Ephesians 4:11-14 “And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:” Colossians 2:10 Made perfect in Christ.
The Church didn't just "find out" in the 1800's. If this is an honest question it highlights a lack of understanding on how dogmas are declared and the history behind making something a dogma.
7 วันที่ผ่านมา +2
@@hirakisk1973they have no idea how it works. Had the apostles gone by sola Scriptura the gentiles would have been circumcised at the council of Jerusalem.
That’s a very good answer my friend However it does fail when you consider St Peter’s rebuke from St Paul on this matter you referred to .
7 วันที่ผ่านมา +2
@@andrewdrew677 problem is that it has nothing to do with his teaching but more with his conduct so nice try. Also when Paul was appointed by the god he went down to Jerusalem to confer with cephas which is Aramaic which means rock . He stayed with him for 15 days. Even Jesus rebuked peter but that didn’t know stop him from making him chief shepherd over the rest of the apostles.
Dogmas only clarify a preexisting truth. Usually counsels occur when there is disputes among truth which results in clarification statements. It’s not an introduction of something new. This is one of those mistakes people don’t understand about Church teaching since the earliest counsels of the times of the apostles and early church fathers
The apostles have already documented the gospels and epistles of apostles that was Christianity started while catholicism started in fourth century face the facts
The apostles could not have documented everything Cincinnati Testament wasn't even finished being written until they had scattered all over the world. It was finally written when John was exiled in Patmos. Jesus started the Catholic church and the church made the bible.
Jesus did NOT start catholicism is a religion that began in the years 300 , like about 313 ad , The Israelites and Jews in the first century were not catholic
@@CatholicTruthOfficial You mean the translated the Bible to Latin. Yeshua started a Messianic Hebrew church. The Hebrew church had Hebrew gospels. Jerome said that when in doubt of the Greek, go to the fountain. And the fountain was the Hebrew scriptures.
If the target audience is protestants, and since so many are so far removed from this debate, it would had been helpful to actually explain what the premise of the issue you see vs launching into a gotcha question. because the very similar questions can be applied to Catholics as you referenced the church in this video, so what church, what traditions do you refer to? As you did state correctly the people the letters were going to were Jews, so it would be those traditions, their church etc. so in essence the Catholic church itself has failed
Jewish Church?! You may have a second look in the bible?! There is ONLY ONE CHURCH INSTITUTED BY JESUS CHRIST. Which clearly IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. You may read some Church history. And church fathers. Not Martin Luther, who obviously did have selfish interests in his teachings. Breaking his chastity vow may clearly show this to one's open eyes. Well, which fruits did this bring?! Well, Luther gave is "wife" a manly name, as she was so bossy. Obviously not obedience, like the bible teaches... Wasn't it about the fruits, which show up the wrong prophets?!
@@kletterfreak814 Vow of chastity and where did that come from? oh yes a man who wanted more power and control, oh the irony that it is now the cause of Catholics down fall. While its amazing how God humor works, unfortunately what the Catholics have down has put a stink on the entirety of religion instead of where it needs to be solely directed at and the whole must suffer due to your pope fragile ego. Take the log out of your eye before the speck of another.
@@seventysevens8065 Well, definitely, Paul didn't write to Jews only: He clearly mentions that the Gospels are as well for the Greeks, who were considered pagan before.
@kletterfreak814 That was after Paul's conversion , several years after the Christian church was established by Jews following the Hebrew OT and Christ Jesus , before Paul was converted to being a Christian he was persecuting Christians and putting them in prison for preaching the gospel of Jesus all the 12 apostles were Jewish , and they did not want any gentiles in the Christian church , when Paul was converted and he came to the 12 saying they needed to allow gentiles into the Church , after the 12 agreed , they argued about if the gentiles should follow the Jewish laws gentiles that have not accepted Christ as LORD and Savoir are still pagans Jesus came for the lost sheep of Israel , but would accept gentiles if they came to Him and showed they had Faith in Him , Paul was chosen to be the apostle to the gentiles , and Jesus had to blind his eyes to get his attention , then healed him and told him to be the apostle to the gentiles
I am a Protestant believer who believes in the doctrine of scripture alone as the sole theological authority. My question is what beliefs or doctrines does the Catholic Church practice that come into conflict with the doctrine of scripture alone?
The largest is the recognition of Sacred Tradition as a major authority in the faith. Scripture alone rejects the authority of the Church, creating a massive diversion in core Christian beliefs. There are plenty more conflicts that sola scriptura has with the Catholic Church but that is the most substantial one to start with.
Scripture alone particularly falls short when it comes to modern issues like IVF, transgenderism, stem cell research, and contraception. There aren't clear answers to these things in the Bible.
Well for one the leadership tries to cover up the child s*x a*use that runs rampant in their organization but the scripture says what is done in darkness comes to light. Same for protestant religions too though...
When I was about 12 or 13, long before even thinking a thought about Catholicism, being "dragged" to church, mostly Baptist and church of God etc., it was always "THE BIBLE", sola scriptura, that's the authority and of course "faith alone" and viola, saved forever... yet when I was being made to go to church during these years I would always ask, "if all I need is faith and if the Bible alone is the authority, why should we go to church, what need of a pastor?" And yet I was told that it was sinful not to go, like we were obligated, I think that in this inconsistency, the understanding of the need of a leader, a structure, a pastor, shepherd of some kind is still sensed or inherent, though they don't put it that way.
@@williamconner7431 Jesus said to "tell it to The Church" Matthew 18:17, ans Saint Paul said The Church is "the pillar and bulwark of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15). Clearly Jesus reveals himself through The Church whish is the mystical body of Christ on earth. And yes, Jesus does tell us how to be born again. See John 3:5
@puddleglum943 the obligation of a believer is to meet with his brothers and sisters to remember the death and resurrection of hhe Lord Jesus. You certainly do not need a paid ministry. They will pander to that particular churches way of thinking or guess what, they'll be out of a job. A paid ministry stops you thinking for yourself and you have to make your salvation sure. The bible is the word of God. You need nothing else. Edict from churches are not God's word especially if they contradict the bible
Until I was 18, I was a member of the Roman Catholic Church! I left for several reasons, but the main Motivator was because the Catholic Church threatened to EX-communicate our Parich Monsignor since he was teaching teenagers directly from the New Testament. Among other reasons is what appeared to be intentional misinterpretations of Bible Verses. I was serious about the possibility of becoming a Catholic Missionary since they were discussing the subject. When I mentioned it during a break during Service, the lady behind me said No Wives, no girl friends, No Children, No Marriages! Being a relatively bright 11-year-old, I instantly replied, "GOD would NOT like that"!!! Her answer was, "This one is going to be a major problem"!!! I was a very well-behaved kid in school, catechism, and in life [not bragging, just informing you MY FATHER was wise and strict]. To shorten the number of concepts and the length of this long post. So, tell me where to find the word "Trinity" in the Bible. NOT every Biblical principle is written out word for word in the Bible. Sometimes, you must read more than just the specific word or chapter. PS: GOD assumes we have a little intelligence [If you have been observing current events, perhaps I should have stated extremely little intelligence."] Good Day!!!
That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Catholic priests teach people directly from the New Testament all the time. I've taught a Bible study for 20 years, and have taught directly from the bible. I don't think your information is accurate. It's probably second-hand source is not based on reality. Your attitude and your response to that lady was exactly right. She was precisely wrong and ignorant of all things godly. I really would ask you to reconsider leaving the church that Jesus Christ himself established for a few people who really had no idea what they were talking about. Although you will find that in any church. Free reconsider. If you have any questions we'd be happy to help answer them.
First, to address what was said in the video, if catholic tradition goes against the Bible, you have to go with the Bible. The catholic church teaches fath plus works. My mom grew up catholic. She grew up with a lot of guilt and the fear of going to Hell. Martin Luther was a catholic monk who used to beat himself with a whip to atone for his sins. In those days many Catholics would do the same, as well as walking on their knees until they were bloody and lying on a hard stone floor for hours, all in an effort to atone for their sins.When Luther came to understand the Gospel and sola fide, all of a sudden he didn't have to beat himself anymore. He knew that his sins were forgiven. My mom came to understand the Gospel as a teenager. Also, as a catholic she was discouraged from reading the bible.
If non-catholic tradition goes against the Bible then you have to go with the Bible. The Bible alone is Protestant tradition and goes against the bible. That is why we reject it. Also, the Catholic church does not believe in faith Plus works. Show us in any document where we teach Faith plus works in those words. What the Catholic Church teaches is that we are saved by faith. It's just not an empty faith. If you have faith but you don't live it out, and you do evil Works instead of good works, and you don't follow Christ or his commandments, then it's a faith that doesn't save you. James is clear that faith without works is dead. He doesn't say you don't have real faith, or faith at all, he says you have faith but it's a dead faith that doesn't save.
Martin Luther suffered from scrupulosity. None of his other monk Brothers did. Just luther. Which is why he went off the edge and started a false religion with heresy. In fact both a superior and his brother is used to try to encourage him and talk to him about the love of God and tell him that he's being too hard on himself and he needs to give his sins to jesus. But Luther couldn't let it go and always saw Jesus as angry because of his father figure on earth. So it's not the Catholic church or the monks that were the problem, it was Luther who was the problem and continued to be a problem when he invented his own religion and teachings to try to make himself feel better in the sight of god. That's where faith alone and the Bible alone came from.
Either we are saved by faith alone or faith plus works. There is no middle ground. The Second Counsel of Trent says that anyone who believes in sola fide is anathema, or eternally cursed. As a Protestant I agree with you that faith without works is dead. Most of the reformers taught that also. Luther was not the only catholic to inflict harm on himself, though he took it further than most. The catholic church believes that if an infant dies before it has been baptized it goes straight to Hell. If someone commits a mortal sin and dies before he or she can confess to the priest, that person goes straight to Hell. My mom grew up as an Irish catholic terrified by the thought of going to Hell. It wasn't until later that she came to understand the Gospel as Luther did. I had a similar experience growing up with the fear of Hell always hanging over my head, and when I discovered sola fide it changed my whole life. Luther had the same experience. I don't understand why you hate it so much.
This is Sola Scriptura from the Bible... 2 Timothy 3:15 [15]And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. Scripture is sufficient for salvation St. Peter explained that scripture is more reliable than man's experience. Here he recalls his own great tradition... 2 Peter 1:17-18 [17]For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. [18]And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. Peter personally saw and heard, but said of the scripture.... 2 Peter 1:19 [19]We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Nothing else can equal the scripture. That friends, is Sola Scriptura.
The problem with that is Timothy was written about 63 AD and Peter was written about 67 AD. The New Testament was not fully written and the actual canon was not chosen yet. So, he was referring to the Hebrew Old Testament scrolls that were also being established from three different sources.
And so we continue to major on things that are prideful and lead to division. Dear catholic brother, you have asked 3 questions and ONLY God our Father in heaven will give you the answers that are true. No man can ! So, please preach the Gospel of the Kingdom of God to the world and make disciples. For if you do this, you have many like me who will stand with you.
When Protestants can't answer simple questions that undermine their core doctrines, they cry pride and division. The fact is they are already divided by the tens of thousands and are extremely prideful because they all think they're right in everyone else's wrong. We can give answers for all of our Catholic doctrines, surely you should be able to give answers for the central doctrine of all of protestantism. We aren't just trying to be divisive, it's actually very important to realize that protestantism is not biblical and does not come from christ. It was an invention of man 15 centuries later which is why these don't have biblical support. We want you to come home to the true church of Jesus.
@CatholicTruthOfficial Am at home in Christ Jesus and you will be shocked at the end. Remain steadfast in your conviction. Not sure why anyone should protest when the Gospel is so simple. Please go and preach the Gospel and make disciples.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial "When Protestants can't answer simple questions that undermine their core doctrines, they cry pride and division. The fact is they are already divided by the tens of thousands and are extremely prideful because they all think they're right in everyone else's wrong." Is this fruit of the Spirit or fruit of the flesh?
@@CatholicTruthOfficialCan you show in the Scripture or revelation that protestantism was an invention of man and not a move of God? I'm sure God didn't just stop guiding history after the days of the early church.
@@bingo7799look at the fruits of Protestantism: moral relativism, widespread acceptance of abortion, divorce and contraception. Most Catholics objectively do these things too, but the church teachings themselves remain steadfast against these things. You will know a tree by its fruit
In my own knowledge, I question if the Bible is actually completely God's word. But as far as the Bible alone, 2 Scriptures are Revelation 22:18-19, which states we are not to add or take away from "this prophesy". It might only refer to the entire book of Revelation, or it could be an extension of a passage that tells us we are not to add or take away from ANY of God's doctrines, Proverbs 30:5-6, "Every word of God is pure, He is a shield to those who trust in Him. DO NOT ADD to His words, lest He reprove you and you be found to be a LIAR".
Thank you for your comment. These are common misunderstandings. Revelation 22 does not prove the Bible alone or the sufficiency of scripture either. This was written by John when he was exiled on the Island of Patmos. After he had finished writing the book of Revelation, he sealed it up with the warning not to add or take away from it because it was given to him directly by God. The Bible would not even be put together for another 300 years. So this passage is only talking about the Book of Revelation not the whole Blble.
Yes, the Bible is the word of God. If Scripture alone was the word of God, you would have a point, but the bible says it's not. _Jesus_ is the Word of God, and He gave us the Word of God _orally._ The vast majority of all God's words were _not_ written down but were oral and that the oral word being preached was his word too. 1 Thess. 2:13, Jn. 21:25, 2 Jn. 2:12, 3 Jn. 13-14, etc. So, God's word, yes, we absolutely believe God's Word, but God's word isn't only found in Scripture. You also ignore Scripture because Scripture states that Jesus also started a church and gave his authority to the Church. Moreover, He said if we don't listen to the authority of the Church, then we reject Christ and God. Not to mention that Bible says to hold to godly Traditions too which is the word of God (1 Thess. 2:13, 2 Thess. 2:15, 1 Cor. 11:2, 2 Tim. 2:2, etc.)
How so? We never asked you to find the words sola scriptura in the Bible. So, I think this is a straan argument designed to avoid the fact that you can't answer our questions. 3 questions. You didn't answer any like we said you wouldn't. Prayers for you though.
Well, you wanted sincere answers, so here they are. As a Protestant believer, I am giving them to you: 1) Nowhere. The Bible is not a dictionary or an encyclopedia, so you won’t find a verse in it that would say, "The principle of Sola Scriptura is..."; 2) We can’t. The term "God-breathed" could mean "inspired by God," or it could also mean "life-giving." Both interpretations are possible; So, I’ve sincerely answered your first two questions. Now what? What was the point of asking them? If your intent is to argue that these answers somehow disprove the Sola Scriptura principle, then you are mistaken-they don’t. You won’t find a definition of "soccer" or "boxing" in the Bible either. Nor will you find one "true" definition of these sports outside of the Bible. For instance, one could argue that FIFA has the ultimate authority over the rules of soccer. However, that doesn’t mean two high school teams playing soccer according to their own modified rules are not playing soccer. Similarly, the absence of a definition of soccer in the Bible doesn’t negate the existence or validity of the sport. So, instead of looking for a formal definition of Sola Scriptura-let alone demanding that it be explicitly defined in the Bible-you need to look at the very essence of this principle. And that essence is simple: salvation is possible through Scripture alone. That is, salvation is achieved by believing in the truths and stories contained in the Scripture and a person does not need to believe in any extra-biblical traditions (e.g., the immaculate conception of Mary or her coronation) to be saved. And this principle IS FOUND in the Bible-in the place that you have never cited in your video: "Jesus performed MANY OTHER SIGNS in the presence of his disciples, WHICH ARE NOT RECORDED in this book. BUT THESE ARE WRITTEN THAT you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing YOU MAY HAVE LIFE IN HIS NAME." (John 20:30-31) The Apostle John states here clearly that there are many other signs and events he did not include in his gospel. However, he also affirms that the written accounts that ARE included are sufficient for belief and salvation. What is also of importance here is the phrase "but these are written"-it highlights the sufficiency of Scripture alone, without requiring oral tradition to convey these truths. So with this perspective on Sola Scriptura, it becomes clear that, unlike what you have said, 2nd Timothy 3:16 is NOT the "main argument" for Sola Scriptura. Whether Scripture is "God-breathed" or "life-giving" in that passage is not the crux of the matter. What matters is that salvation is attainable through faith in the gospel facts and stories written in Scripture. Moreover, this does not mean that a person must know the entirety of Scripture to be saved. The gospel facts alone are sufficient for salvation. Someone can be saved by only accepting the truths presented in the Gospel of John, or by only accepting those in the Gospel of Luke, or by only accepting those in Paul’s epistles. It is not necessary to be familiar with James, Hebrews, or Revelation. Hence, the answer to your third question.
Thank you for your honest and sincere answers. Here's why it's important. Because this is a chord doctrinal matter of protestantism, and Protestants can't agree on what it means and are going each according to their own definitions, yet they say everything must be found in scripture and yet this Doctrine is not found in scripture. Our other point of asking was to show that the Bible can't actually solve doctrinal issues like this. Our third issue is that Protestants want Catholics to show their doctrines and definitions word for word in Scripture, yes say they don't have to themselves. Catholics can find their own doctrines in scripture even if not word for word, so we get that, yet the doctrine of the Bible alone is not even found in scripture implicitly. As for the second question that you say you don't know, Protestants say the Bible alone is true because it's the only thing that's God breathed. If we don't know it's God breathed then we can't make this argument. Have you seen any debates? 2 Tim. 3:16-17 is the main argument of Protestants that they hyperfocus on. Your last error is saying that these things were written shows that these alone are necessary. And that's just false. How hard is it high like the sufficiency of scriptural alone? John didn't separate the scriptures from the church and the church is full understanding of the gospel. As opposed to Protestants 500 years later who are just going by the scriptures and don't have the church and don't have that full understanding from tradition that John passed on.
@@CatholicTruthOfficialThe difference is a lot of your extra Biblical beliefs are actual dogma. A Catholic must believe in Marian doctrines that place to be saved, for example. Sola Scriptura just recognizes the authority of scripture in our lives. It is objective and unchanging. Sure, interpretation may differ, but the crux of salvation is clearly placed into scripture. So, when man changes the doctrines to fit an agenda we have an infallible source to fall back on. In other words the words of Jesus and the original apostles, unchanged.
@@turquisestones Why didn't Jesus promise a book for everyone to read on their own? Why wasn't the printing press invented until nearly 1400 years after Jesus walked the earth? How did all these Christians get saved for all these years when they couldn't read or own a Bible? The doctrine of Sola Scriptura came from a man..a Catholic monk who broke from Jesus Church and that's who you all follow.. not a good idea
“Do not go beyond what is written…” says protestants. But sola scriptura is “implied” in scripture, says them also. One day, they’re strict on being explicit and on other days, on being implicit.
It’s ironic that Bible verse. Do not go past what is written “ if you look at Calvin comments on it, he doesn’t find any support for sola scriptura. Another fun thing 1 Corinthians was written 56 AD So that would also prove the following as extra: John’s Gospel, Acts, Romans, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, Titus, 1 & 2 Timothy, Hebrews, James, 1 & 2 Peter, 1, 2, & 3 John, Jude, and Revelation
@@JuanGonzalez-kb3gm you think the principle of the teaching changed over time? Paul states it’s a saying amongst the church. Therefore it is a rule of faith, the principle is still applicable. Do not go beyond what is written or you will become a follower of one man over the other.
@ I agree with your statement. That’s the way the Catholic Church understood it, yet Protestants use that Bible verse to try to prove sola scriptura. Where in the scripture does it say Sola scriptura the only rule of faith, where does it say what is supposed to be written and inspired. I come from Protestant background and found sola scriptura to be the best, till I figured out it was just a way for every liberal Protestant to interpret the Bible the way they want.
@@JuanGonzalez-kb3gm sola scriptura doesn’t mean the Bible is the “only” source of authority. That’s ’solo scriptura’ which no one in practice follows. And only the ignorant claim to follow. Sola scriptura simply states the scriptures are the only infallible authority, and that external traditions authority is subservient to scripture. The Holy Scriptures are the only extant 100% verified apostolic tradition that we have. It makes sense that they are our highest authority. However they are not the ‘only’ authority.
You stated that the Greek word “theopneustos”, which Paul used in 2Timothy 3:16 and is translated as “inspired by God” by most Bible translations, could also be translated as “life giving”. However, if Paul wanted to declare that all scripture is “life giving” in this verse, he would probably have used the Greek word “zōopoieō” as he did in 1Corinthians 15:45: “So, too, it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living being,” the last Adam a life-giving spirit.” New American Bible. In 2Timothy 3:16, it is clear that Paul was declaring that all scripture is inspired by God; therefore, we can trust it, rely on it, and use it “for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.” As far as “sola scriptura,” please refer to the following scriptures: Deuteronomy 4:2, “You shall not add to the word which I speak to you, neither shall you take away from it. Preserve the commandments of the Lord your God which I am teaching to you.” Catholic Public Domain Version Deuteronomy 12:32, “You must diligently observe everything that I command you; do not add to it or take anything from it.” New Revised Standard Version Proverbs 30:6, “Do not add anything to his words, lest you be reproved and be discovered to be a liar.” Catholic Public Domain Version Revelation 22:18-19, “I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this book; if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away that person’s share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. New Revised Standard Version Mark 7:8-9, ‘“You disregard God’s commandment but cling to human tradition. He went on to say, “How well you have set aside the commandment of God in order to uphold your tradition!”’ New American Bible Mark 7:13, “…You nullify the word of God in favor of your tradition that you have handed on. And you do many such things.” New American Bible
The point someone raised about the Trinity, I believe, is valid. No where in Scripture is the word Trinity found. But, we can conclude, by reason, God being Tri-une. Even the Catholic church accepts this. Re: 2 Tim 3:16 God Breathe, Life giving, inspired - take your pick. Two key words in this passage is "All Scripture."All scripture is God Breathe / Life giving / inspired by "God." Check out John 6:63 (Jesus speaking). The only question that remains is are you willing to gamble your eternal destiny on other writings that are not God Breathe, Life giving, inspired by God? I test everything by the proven Word of God. So, just like the word Trinity, just like the word Rapture, I choose to cling to Scripture Only. Anything else is like throwing dice.
The point about the Trinity is not a valid one. We never asked you to find the words sola scriptura. And, for the record, Protestants ask Catholics every day where the word pope is, or where it says to pray to Mary etc and the same faulty questioning. We are coming at it from a different approach. We said Protestants can't agree on the nature of sola scriptura or what it is. Thus, we are asking for where Scripture settles the matter or even talks about it. All Protestants do as add what they think it is themselves and then try to attach a Scripture to it. However, scripture itself never can settle the matter for Protestants. Not to mention, it's entirely unbiblical. Besides that, the Trinity can be deduced from Scripture, but there is no biblical support for sola scriptura.
God breathed and life-giving are not always synonymous. It has nothing to do with gambling, it has to do with proper interpretation, and the tens of thousands of contradictory Protestant religions all show that the Bible alone doesn't work. They haven't solved a single problem doctrinally using the Bible in 500 years. That's why we need the church that Christ established and gave his authority to help us interpret it properly.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial Protestant is a Catholic word used to describe anyone who disagrees with the RCC. It is not a religion such as the RCC. Catholic want you to believe it is and therefore will bring all sorts of rubbish accusations against it thereby elevating themselves.
Later, however, when Peter came to Antioch I had to oppose him publicly, for he was then plainly in the wrong. It happened like this. Until the arrival of some of James’ companions, he, Peter, was in the habit of eating his meals with the Gentiles. After they came, he withdrew and ate separately from the Gentiles-out of sheer fear of what the Jews might think. The other Jewish Christians carried out a similar piece of deception, and the force of their bad example was so great that even Barnabas was affected by it. But when I saw that this behaviour was a contradiction of the truth of the Gospel, I said to Peter so that everyone could hear, “If you, who are a Jew, do not live like a Jew but like a Gentile, why on earth do you try to make Gentiles live like Jews?” (Galatians 2) I believe Paul is calling your first pope a hypocrite.
And he was being a hypocrite. So what's the problem? People have called out the pope several times in history. It doesn't help you to answer the questions we asked in the video that you are avoiding. Here are the questions for you to make it easy for you. 1. Since Protestants can't agree on what the Bible alone is and have different understandings of it, where does the bible alone solve this problem? 2. Protestants say that scripture is god-breathed, like in to Timothy 3:16, and yet the Greek word, Theopnustos, has two different meanings. So how do you know which meaning it is according to scripture? 3. How do you know which books belong in the Bible according to the Bible alone? Or do you have to use an authority outside of scripture?
@@CatholicTruthOfficial "People have called out the pope several times in history." "So what's the problem?" Oh, it may have something (everything?) to do with ex cathedra matters, infallibility, no salvation outside the Catholic Church, visions, popes pushing their pagan views on creation...
Popes sin too. Catholics don't deny this. Infallibility is only when they are declaring a particular church teaching. It doesn't mean they are morally perfect all of the time.
I dont even talk theology or the bible with protestants until they can answer how over 45k denominations can all be right or where did the bibke come from? Cuz it wasn't christ.
No Protestant ever said 45k denominations are all correct. The Bible came from the early church. This doesn’t make you Catholic as the orthodox can claim they were that early Church and Rome was in error. If that’s your leading questions, Protestants probably don’t want to bother talking theology or Bible with you anyways
1. They aren’t all right 2. The scriptures were handed down by the apostles. The canon was decided at a regional level at Rome/Carthage But the modern Roman Catholic Church no longer holds a primary secondary distinction for the apocrypha and the primary 66 as the early church did during the canons codification.
Well, there are about 9 denominations, but the most profound are the born-again christian. But we are ALL part of them body of Christ. Listen to the scriptures of Vassula Ryden
1. If they accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and acknowledge that He died on the cross for the forgiveness of sins then they are right. The small difference I’ll let you deal with, like is the pope infallible or is Mary sinless? 2. The Bible came from the Hebrews since it already was circulating all around by the time the Catholic Church was established. Im sure you’re referring to canon although the books we see in the Bible were already known as scripture like when Jesus read from the scroll of Isaiah or when the writers of the New Testament referenced the Old Testament.
Your first question is a circular argument. Scripture does not say sola scriptura. Scripture was decided at the Council of Nicaea in 325AD. Martin Luther returned to Sola Scriptura because the Catholic Church were including too many additions such as indulgences.
We never asked if the bible uses the words Sola scriptura. We said Protestants can't agree on the nature of sola scriptura or what it is. Thus, we are asking for where Scripture settles the matter or even talks about it. All Protestants do as add what they think it is themselves and then try to attach a Scripture to it. However, scripture itself never can settle the matter for Protestants. Not to mention, it's entirely unbiblical.
Scripture was not decided at Nicaea. It was decided first at the Catholic Council of Rome in 382 and finalized at the Council of Carthage in 397. No one believed in sola scriptura until the 1300s when it was invented. So Luther returned to nothing but heresy.
Except the Bible doesn't actually say that and neither does 2nd Timothy. If you read timothy, it says it's helpful in making Doctrine and correcting people. But the Bible also says the church does that, and the apostles were trained to do that as well and they trained others to do that. In fact in the bible, in Acts 15, the apostles made Doctrine not using the bible. It was by their own authority.
2 Tim. 3:15-17 is talking about the Old Testament Scriptures, not the whole Bible. It describes the scriptures Timothy knew as a kid. Old Testament. There was no Bible at this time, and there wouldn't be for 4 centuries. The New Testament would even be finished for at least 6 decades. So the best argument you can make is that all we need is the Old Testament. That is what makes us perfect. But of course, the verses don't say any of that. And you have to ignore the fact that the Bible clearly says that we must hold to tradition (2 Thess. 2:15, 1 Cor. 11:2, 2 Tim. 2:2, etc) _and_ listen to the authority of the church. _Jesus_ says that if you don't listen to the church and it's authority, then you rejected Him and God (Lk. 10:16, Mt. 18:15-18, etc). If we are going to take your claim literally here, employing the same logic, then all we need is perseverance. James 1:4 says that perseverance makes us "perfect and complete, lacking in nothing. So according to James all we need is perseverance to be perfect. And the Greek is far stronger than in 2nd Timothy
May I ask you on whose authority do you form your doctrine that you can go outside the scripture in order to formulate doctrine? Were the popes that launched the crusades God's mouthpieces or is the present pope who declared that Christians and Muslims worship the same God the mouthpiece of the Lord?
We rely on the authority of the church because Jesus gave his authority to the church. Not only that, but the Bible says if you don't listen to the authority of the church then you reject Jesus himself. So that's Divine authority. However, we still use scripture, it just must be properly interpreted, in other words, by the church Christ started.
@CatholicTruthOfficial The authority of the church ? so that would mean not just catholics that is where catholics want to be dominate ,because they want exclusivity to themselves
@@CatholicTruthOfficial You are talking in circles. The pope is the head of the church according to Catholic teaching and yet you cannot defend the leadership of your church. If the vicar of Christ is unreliable who are you talking about when you say "The Church". Every word Jesus spoke is in red letters in the scriptures that all three major Christian denominations accept as authoritative Bible.
The fact is that traditions exist in all Protestant sects. Once a community based on a sola scriptura begins to exist, a set of traditions begin to be established. Then at one point there occurs splitting up on the basis of some individual's interpretation of some verse(s) ..this goes on . That's how we have thousands of sects including Moons and JWs ...
Sola scriptura leads to one thing even the top famous phd theologian Protestant scholars will back and claim before you disagree which is that Sola Scriptura ultimately leads to the conclusion that the Bible is up to one’s own interpretation. No if ands or butts no saying we reproof in scripture with scripture because even the scripture your reproofing with other scripture is still being interpreted by your own understanding which we know is wrong. I’m not saying you can’t understand scripture I’m not saying scripture is impossible to comprehend without a PHD . I’m saying there is an ultimate authority on the scripture portions that are most commonly debated like tradition being bad or good and that authority can be trusted as the correct interpretation because it comes from apostolic teachings. That’s why so many Protestant denominations have different interpretations they all decide that they don’t need an apostolic understanding if that apostolic understanding isn’t something written in the gospel that they can physically read . The Bible says to hold to tradition by word of mouth OR by letter ,so tradition isn’t always bad it’s about context and some traditions where never written but where passed down from apostles by WORD OF MOUTH. Again it also says this in the Bible for the sola scriptura crowd. Many Protestant bibles have changed the word tradition to the word teachings in particular verses especially when tradition is mentioned in a good sense. Oddly enough in the same updated bibles they leave the word as tradition only when it’s presented as a negative action . I wonder if it’s cause it makes Catholics look wrong lol . Meanwhile in the original Greek tradition (paradosis) is what’s used in the New Testament such as in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 not the word teachings( didasko) as they change it to in many Protestant bibles. So then you see why tradition is read and thought of as a negative naughty thing and to never use as a reference to one’s faith for salvation. Simply because they always read it in a negative light. It’s not very sola scriptura to be changing words that aren’t in the original scripture is it ? And you can’t say it’s the same meaning because then why not leave the word in those versus encouraging tradition alone and unchanged the same way those updated Protestant bibles coincidentally only left the word tradition as it’s normal text in the frowned upon verses??? When in fact the apostles were teaching tradition by word of mouth or by letter themselves and without it couldn’t accurately do the work Jesus told them to do such as Holy Communion . Tradition is only bad when it’s used to twist scripture to lord over people as the Pharisees did . Yet people will say “you see ah ha!” exactly what Catholics do when all the while condemning you for going outside of scripture exactly like the Pharisees tried to blame Jesus for . Last the Church is a physical place not just a body of worshiping people because of it was just a body of worshiping people where would you go to get the truth from if every group scattered around the earth would have only gone by sola scriptura and thus having different interpretations since there would be no tradition or biblical authority with guidance ? So even if you decide your still sola scriptura you can’t ignore Protestants change scripture when convenient and live by their own interpretation which scripture says is wrong . And you can read the entire chapter for each verse I’ve posted which I encourage because then you’ll say it’s out of context like all Protestants do when in a bind. Here are the versus backing my point. 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. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 15 So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter. 2 Peter 1:20 20 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation
Not quite. John 15:26 says the Spirit guides us into all truth. He also inspired Gods Word (2 Tim 3:16-17) and 2 Peter 1:16-21 is how the Spirit guide the writers in their inspiration. No flaws and no inconsistencies.
@@dannymoore1530 Playing komm, süßer tod on the piano tonight for your ancestors who stole the language and culture of the native Americans you stole this land from.
2 Timothy 3:16-17. Colose 3:16. Luke 11:28. Hebrew 4:12. Matthew 4:4. Psalms 119:105. John 17:17. Matthew 24:35. Isaiah 40:8 n many more that must sola scriptura. But Catholic deny the word of God so Catholic can ignore Matthew 6:7, exodus 20:4-5, roman 3:23, etc
Not one of those mentioned the Bible alone or teach the Bible alone. They teach scripture, yes, but not scripture alone, and alone being the keyword. For example, 2 Tim. 3:15-17 doesn't say that the Bible is the only or final authority or that we just need to go by the bible. It doesn't say any of that. Rather, this passage says Scripture is 'helpful' (not sufficient) in aiding a Christian. Many things are helpful in that regard, but it never says only thing we need. Lastly, 2 Tim. 3:15-17 is talking about the Old Testament Scriptures, not the whole Bible. It describes the scriptures Timothy knew as a kid. Old Testament. There was no Bible at this time and there wouldn't be for 4 cenruries. The New Testament would even be finished for at least 6 decades. So the best argument you can make is that all we need is the Old Testament. That is what makes us perfect. But of course, the verses don't say any of that.
@CatholicTruthOfficial All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. Doesn't say about Catholic dogma is given by inspiration of God nor for instruction in righteousness. obviously u don't know how to read bible. Maybe because u worship statues makes u dumb, or u read too much fairytale made up by pope so called Catholic dogma.
@CatholicTruthOfficial so it's clear how silly ur slander. It's obviously easy to answer ur idiotic old questions. But it's hard for u to understand n follow the word of God. Let's people laugh by read what u gonna say about exodus 20:4-5, about ur heathen rosario prayer that against Matthew 6:7, or how u call a sins politician such as pope as holy father against roman 3:23. Let's people see how heretic u r. Can u answer that?
Dear Friend, If you can show the Scriptural reference for indulgence, we could. Certainly, you cannot that does not mean that we also can not. Getting to know historical background the corrupt state of the because of man made doctrines such as indulgence and purgatory, it became a necessity to make a stand for Sola Scriptura... For it is safer than man made and popish false doctrines...
Purgatory and indulgences are biblical. Protestants just know only about 20 verses. That's their problem. We'd be happy to answer your questions right after you answer ours. There is far more biblical evidence for Purgatory than sola scriptura, of which there is none.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial Dear Friend, I have answered already, by referring to the church history, how the Roman Catholic church then abused the people by selling the indulgences by preaching about the purgatory...
You really didn't. First time of the Catholic Church never sold indulgences. Second of all, the teaching of purgatory goes back to the earliest Christians and is biblical. Third, you didn't answer anything of the three questions of this video.
Former protestant here. I honestly followed the trail of evidence which blew me away with how true Catholicism is. However, 2 things to note: 1. tribalism gave me inertia. I didn't want to go down the rabbit trail. 2. God overwhelmed me with grace. He basically commanded me to become Catholic. So I researched based on what felt like a strict command. It wasn't my own brilliance. Conclusion: we have to pray for protestants. It's very hard to leave our tribes.
Catholics are NOTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT Happy with the Bible ALONE !!! 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says: "ALL SCRIPTURE IS GOD-BREATHED and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work"1. 2 Peter 1:20-21 says : "Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. FOR PROPHECY NEVER HAD ITS ORIGIN IN THE HUMAN WILL, BUT PROPHETS, THOUGH HUMAN, SPOKE FROM GOD AS THEY WERE CARRIED ALONG BY THE HOLY SPIRIT"1. Catholics ALSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO BELIEVE in the CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church) - a BOOK OF LIESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS !!! It TEACHES that Mary: #1) “did not lay aside this SAVING OFFICE, but by her manifold intercession continues to BRING US the gifts of ETERNAL SALVATION” (No. 969) #2) Is “Queen over all things…” (Paragraph 966) #3) Is “Mother of God” (Paragraph 495). But ------------------- the Bible CLEARLYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY says: “… For the child within her was CONCEIVED by the Holy Spirit.” Matthew 1:20 … HOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW can Mary be the “Mother” to SOMEONE CONCEIVED by SOMEONE ELSEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE ??????????????????? Mary was JUSTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT a “SURROGATEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE Mother” to the Lord GOD Jesus !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BEWARE my dear Catholics: Revelation 21:8 --- “But cowards, unbelievers, the corrupt, murderers, the immoral, those who practice witchcraft, idol worshipers, and ALL LIARS-their fate is in the FIERY LAKE OF BURNING SULFUR (about 2,192°F). This is the second death.”
2 Thessalonians 2:15 "So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter." Paul explicitly wrote that we are NOT to follow the Bible alone! He wrote that there is the written Scriptures but also an oral tradition that the Apostles passed down to others, which the Catholic Church (explicitly called so as early as 110 AD) has carried on to this day!
@@Charliehopper684Show me where I did that. I only mentioned that the only way to the Father is thru Christ alone. To worship Him is in spirit and truth. To receive His spirit we must be born again. Christ himself quoted this. We are called to be CHRISian and not anything else. Do you deny salvation of our souls thru Christ himself?
These are the translations of 4 Catholic Bibles : Douay-Rheims Bible “All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice”, Catholic Public Domain Version “All Scripture, having been divinely inspired, is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in justice,” New American Bible “All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness”, New Revised Standard Version “All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,”
Apparently you don't trust Catholic interpreters of the Bible. So, how can you believe that the scriptures you cited concerning "traditions" are interpreted correctly? New American Bible: "'In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines human precepts.’" Mark 7:7
User, you didn't answer the question, you just avoided it. How do you know, according to the Bible alone, that it's supposed to be interpreted that way? Show us from scripture only. Sola scriptura is a tradition of men. So Mark 7:7 fits this teaching perfectly.
Criteria used to determine which scripture is inspired are 1. Whether Jesus or apostles quoted from them. 2. Whether the apostles or their close associates authored them. 3. Whether they are consistent with the teachings of Christ and the apostles. 4. Whether they contain outlandish unverified stories. In which case they were rejected. The councils of Laodicea etc used the following criteria. 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
There are at least 12 books in the Bible that neither Jesus or the apostles quoted from, so how is that used for canonicity? The last two are subjective and people would disagree on them, but it does sound as a whole, that the reason we know the Books of the bible, is because it was decided by an authority outside of the bible.
1: Already addressed. But you would also need to know what scripture is _to be_ quoted from! You don't even know what the OT is. 2: Who are these "close associates?" We don't even know who wrote the Gospels 3: How do we know what the teachings of Christ or the Apostles are? Are we going by what is written or what people say, Tradition. That is what we are supposed to be determining. 4: what is an outlandish story? The entire book of Revelations or raising someone from the dead, or Christ rising from the dead? Eating the flesh of our Lord and drinking His blood seemed to be pretty outlandish to many of the people who heard His command. B1: again, how do we know the author and how do we know the association of the author with an Apostle? Only the letters Identify the writer. B2: what does it matter if the body of Christ accepts a given book? the Body of Christ the Church accepted 73 books, but Marty whittled that down to 62 books. You are still missing books! B3: that depends on what other books you have already determined to be inspired. B4: that also depends on what the editor considers to be high moral and spiritual values. All these things must be done in the blind as you have rejected any thing outside the Bible as having anything or anyone with authority. The difference with your list of requirements is you have to apply them 1500 years later, quite alienated from any source of information and completely devoid of witness . Whereas the Church contained contemporaries with the NT scripture, (Even including the Apostles themselves, the actual writers.) Later writers who wrote what they had been taught from Apostles, and students of the Apostles. These people have something to guide them on your list of requirements, and they did not have the self-imposed restriction that it must be in the Bible.
@@dave_ecclectic 1. Do you believe the current cannon (OT and NT) is correct? 2. Do you believe the current cannon (OT and NT) is inspired by the Lord and is infallible? 3. What was the point of the reformation?
@@mattb4249 1 whose canon 2 whose canon 3 There was no _point_ to the reformation. There was in fact no reformation at all. Its result though was to deviate from what Jesus taught to what a few individuals chose to believe. In every case it is a reduction in the instructions Jesus gave us, some so drastic as to reduce the Bible to a sound bite and in some denominations to hold St. Paul's writings over all the others, including the Gospels. Some even go so far not to be Christians at all, which is very ironic. None of the heretics made the slightest attempt to reform the Church. Only one even addressed the Church. Instead, they all invented their own churches something that continues if not till today very recently 2022
@@dave_ecclectic 1. The cannon that is consistent between churches that are part of Christendom that profess the Jesus of the scriptures as Lord God. This includes churches that may fall into one of the following groups of Christendom: The Church of the East, Oriental Orthodoxy, Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, Protestantism. 2. See 1. 3. If there was no point in the reformation, then why did it happen? Additionally, why was the Roman Church, which is the "one true church" unable to stop the so called heresies from happening as it had done in the past?
Answer to question 1. Scripture is simply the highest authority, not that we reject tradition wholesale, it is simply secondary in authority to the scriptures. 1 Corinthians 4:6 Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written.” Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other. Question 2 The answer is simply, your interpretation is wrong, it means God breathed. That’s also how it’s always been translated something akin to “divinely inspired” even in the early church. Next 🤷♂️
When you say that "we don't reject tradition wholesale", does that mean that you don't reject any tradition that is not explicitly written in the Bible?
@ no, traditions authority is simply subservient to scriptures authority. That’s all Sola Scriptura is stating Tradition is fallible, it can be wrong, scripture is the only 100% authentic verifiable apostolic tradition. It therefore holds the highest authority, and is infallible.
@@CleavetoAntiquity I see. I remember that Apostle Paul once commended the christians in Corinth for being faithful to the "traditions" that they received from him (1 Corinthians 11:2). I was just wondering...how did Paul communicate those "traditions" to the christians in Corinth? did he describe or outline those "traditions" in any of his letters to them ?
@@jerome2642 sure, that’s probably the most common question on this topic. Scripture is Apostolic tradition, No not every teaching of the apostles was written down. But it is the only remaining extant 100% confirmed Apostolic tradition we have. Which is why we consider it to be the highest authority in matters of faith. In this instance the only 100% verifiable apostolic tradition we have from Paul, is the Holy Scriptures.
Here are the questions that we actually asked in the video that you didn't answer. 1. Since Protestants can't agree on what the Bible alone is and have different understandings of it, where does the bible alone solve this problem? 2. Protestants say that scripture is god-breathed, like in to Timothy 3:16, and yet the Greek word, Theopnustos, has two different meanings. So how do you know which meaning it is according to scripture? 3. How do you know which books belong in the Bible according to the Bible alone? Or do you have to use an authority outside of scripture?
@CatholicTruthOfficial Jesus said you nullify the word of God by your tradition. Which catholics do. Joseph knew Mary not till she had brought forth her firstborn son. Which means she didn't have sex until after Jesus was born. He was Mary's firstborn son. She had other sons. She was a sinner in need of a Savior as she said herself. My heart rejoices in God my Savior. All other excuses the catholics think up is not valid. She also gave a sacrifice for sin. She also in Mark chapter 3 along with her relatives thought Jesus was out of his mind. She was full of grace but that does not make her sinless. If you do that you nullify all the other scriptures. She is and was not a virgin all or her life nor was Jesus her only child. Now go ahead and make your point and deny scripture by using future traditions of your church.
Yes, Jesus did say that the Pharisees nullify the word of God by their traditions. Their traditions. It's amazing how many times Protestants can ignore the verses of the New Testament that tell us to hold as Christians to Christian tradition. 2 Thess. 2:15, 1 Cor. 11:2, 2 Tim. 2:2, etc. We are clearly told as Christians to hold to tradition, so you can't say that Jesus just condemned tradition when he was talking only to the Pharisees and their traditions.
Jesus did not have any blood brothers or blood sisters. Mary had no other children. The Greek word for brother could mean brother, but it could also mean cousin, uncle, nephew, close friend, etc. You're assuming it's brother but without any evidence accept that thats what you want it to be. So just reading in English doesn't help your cause. The fact is when you look at the rest of scripture and the entirety of Christian history you realize that they are not Blood Brothers because no early Christian accepted that. Second, when you compare the 4 crucifixion scenes and the Road to Emmeus, you see his "brothers" belong to another Mary. There were several Mary's at the cross. This is what all of the earliest Christians taught also. The were sons of Mary the wife of Cloepus. Thus, they are not blood brothers which is why no Christian in history including the Reformers believed this. Third, at the cross, Jesus gave his mother to John the Apostle, which would have never happened if he had other brothers and sisters according to Jewish custom.
No one is denying the authority of Scripture. We are denying sola scriptura, that it's the only authority or the final authority, precisely because that is a mam-mde teaching and unbiblical.
See Deut 4:2, Proverbs 30:5-6, Mk 6:9 and Rev 22:18-19. Each of these has a particular context but taken together they establish a principle.Also in 2Tim 3 :17 the words 'complete, equipped' share a similar root emphasizing that the man of God is ready for EVERY good work. This includes what to believe and how to live. When Catholics quote 2Thess 2:15 they ignore the fact that it is in the past tense and cannot refer to traditions accumulated 100s of years in the future. Hence 'Sola scriptura' .stands.
None of those say the bible alone friend. Not one. For example: Revelation 22 does not prove the Bible alone or the sufficiency of scripture either. This was written by John when he was exiled on the Island of Patmos. After he had finished writing the book of Revelation, he sealed it up with the warning not to add or take away from it because it was given to him directly by God. The Bible would not even be put together for another 300 years. So this passage is only talking about the Book of Revelation not the whole Blble.
Another big flaw. Have you actually read and studied those verses? They don't approve the Bible alone. 2 Tim. 3:15-17 doesn't say that the Bible is the only or final authority or that we just need to go by the bible. It doesn't say any of that. Rather, this passage says Scripture is 'helpful' (not sufficient) in aiding a Christian. Many things are helpful in that regard, but it never says only thing we need. Lastly, 2 Tim. 3:15-17 is talking about the Old Testament Scriptures, not the whole Bible. It describes the scriptures Timothy knew as a kid. Old Testament. There was no Bible at this time and there wouldn't be for 4 cenruries. The New Testament would even be finished for at least 6 decades. So the best argument you can make is that all we need is the Old Testament. That is what makes us perfect. But of course, the verses don't say any of that.
Didn’t Jesus highly criticize man’s traditions? Catholics also like to exalt man (Pope, Bishops, etc…)another thing God hates. Jesus is the ONLY means to Salvation. Believing Him as Lord and Savior is the work of God.
Man's traditions aren't inherently bad unless they go above the Word of God. Ironically, by your interpretations, you hold to a man-made tradition from the 16th century or later. Evidence shows the early church was Catholic and "high-church". So if these traditions come from God, then they're not man-made and can not go against God.
Well, what if the Traditions are not mans? You mention (Pope, Bishops, etc…) These are all in the Bible and St. Paul even wrote 3 books to two Bishops. None of these are _mans_ traditions, they are Gods. The 7 Sacraments are in the Bible and yet I doubt you follow any of them? I believe you are wrong in God hates exalting other humans. You forget it was God who implemented the various priests and even the King of Israel. Don't harm anyone who was 'anointed'. So, where did you get the idea God hates respecting those leaders He implemented? I thought that belief in our Lord was an act of Faith, while Salvation is the gift of God.
@@alexmcintosh4783 Alex, It's evident you need to take more time reading the Bible. Tradition is part of the Church's source of Christian doctrine. ▪︎2 Thessalonians 2:15 15. Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the Traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
@@alexmcintosh4783 Alex, I saw the first 3 replies to your comment and all of them seem to be “correcting” you. Especially the one that said you need to study your bible more and used Paul’s words to the Thessalonians. We’ll let me just tell you…..YOU GOT IT RIGHT!! LORD YESHUA is the only way !!!!! These people who are so for traditions, don’t know what they are talking about. Catholic Church traditions are wrong and some are down right EVIL SIN. Such as their tradition of INDULGENCES. Soooo, follow LORD YESHUA and stay focused on him.
If you can find me proof that a tradition actually dates back to the Apostles, I will go with you. Otherwise, all we have that goes back to Paul and the Apostles is scripture. The real problem with the Catholic Church is that it is much like the Muslims in that if the Word of God contradicts a tradition, you go with the tradition. If the Quran and Hadith disagree, the Muslims go with the Hadith. For instance, Mary in the Bible is a minor character of almost no importance except as a portal for God to enter his creation. When Jesus was at a party and told that Mary was there with his brother, he replied that he had no mother or brother. Yet in Catholic tradition this long dead woman is worshipped. Catholics pray to here. You pray only to a God and Mariolatry is worship of her and not just unbiblical but antibiblical.
Didn't answer any of the three questions. And you did exactly what we knew you would do is just try to attack Catholicism falsely rather than answering the questions that you can't answer.
Perhaps you are slow, but I thought it was clear that my answer was that I only accept as inspired what can be traced back to the disciples and those like Paul who have their seal of approval like Paul. If you do not have an actual meeting with God, you are not inspired. Hopefully that is clear. As to an unfair attack, if you pray to someone or something then you are engaged in worship. Only God is entitled to worship. The catholic church encourages the worship of Mary. How is that an unfair criticism?
How has it been answered? I venerate my dead parents. I think of them fondly and tell people how wonderful they were. I do not pray to them. Prayer is a form of worship. You build graven images of this insignificant dead woman and pray to her. That is worship and not veneration.
First of all, Mary is not dead. Christians are alive in Christ. We don't die. Secondly, she is prefigured constantly throughout the old testament. In the New Testament, she is the woman crowned with 12 stars in the book of Revelation. She prophecied correctly in Luke that "generations will call me blessed" like we say in the Hail Mary prayer. Also, you will notice that in the Davidic line of kingship, the mother of the king is the queen and this continues to this day. Mary is the Queen of Heaven and earth precisely because Jesus is the King of Heaven and Earth and Mary is YOUR mother too because you are a part of the body of Christ. We do not offer Christ's sacrifice to Mary--we offer Him to the Father alone. Prayer is not the same thing as worship. Prayer is making a request.
The word purgatory is not in the bible, but like the trinity, the concept is biblical. Purgatory The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches: All who die in God’s grace, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven (1030) This seems so simple. It’s common sense. Scripture is very clear when it says, “But nothing unclean shall enter [heaven]” (Rev. 21:27). Hab. 1:13 says, “You [God]… are of purer eyes than to behold evil and cannot look on wrong…” How many of us will be perfectly sanctified at the time of our deaths? I dare say most of us will be in need of further purification in order to enter the gates of heaven after we die, if, please God, we die in a state of grace. In II Maccabees 12:39-46, we discover Judas Maccabeus and members of his Jewish military forces collecting the bodies of some fallen comrades who had been killed in battle. When they discovered these men were carrying “sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear” (vs. 40), Judas and his companions discerned they had died as a punishment for sin. Therefore, Judas and his men “turned to prayer beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out… He also took up a collection… and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably… Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.” Mt 5:25-26 Make friends quickly with your accuser, while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison; truly I say to you, you will never get out till you have paid the last penny I Cor 3:11-15 If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved 1 John 5 16-17 reference to deadly (mortal) sin & non deadly sin (venial) sin Luke 12 40-48 the four servants are treated differently, the faithful one gains Heaven, the second Hell & the other two, purgatory Mt 18:34 In anger his master handed him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed. II Mac 12:39-46 Mt 5:25-26 I Cor 3:11-15 1 John 5 16-17 Luke 12 40-48 Mt 18:34
@@RG-qn2qm RG, Gladly! You can find it right next to "Sola Scriptura". The reality is, that the concept of Purgatory actually is taught in Scripture. In contrast, Sola Scriptura is not taught in the Bible; it's an invention created by Martin Luther, in 1521, in order to give free rein to himself for his personal interpretation of Scripture, as if he was infallible. What's the result? More than 30,000 different and divided human-created churches and sects around the world. The question is: Who gave authority to such individuals to create separate churches in opposition to the one true Church, as described in: Matthew 16:18 18. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build *My Church*, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. RG, as you can read, *My Church* means just one. Therefore every single protestant church and sect is created in opposition to the Will of God. Here's a passage describing Purgatory. Matthew 5:25-26 25. Come to terms with your opponent in good time while you are still on the way to the court with him, or he may hand you over to the judge and the judge to the officer, and you will be thrown into prison. 26. In truth I tell you, You Will Not Get Out till you have PAID the last penny. RG, in Heaven no payment is needed. In Hell, no payment can cease eternal punishment. In Purgatory, the grace of God is applied to those accused of venial sins upon dieing: ▪︎1 Corinthians 3:15 15. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be Saved, but only As through Fire. Think! Being saved, but through fire? That is not Hell! Mr. RG, It's Purgatory. Such is what happens to those who are saved and will eventually see God, after atoning for their imperfections in Purgatory. To make it concise: In Hell, no one is saved from the fire. In Purgatory the fire cleanses the imperfect, but already "Saved", in order to be able to see God in perfect purity Luke 12:57-59 57. “Why do you not judge for yourselves what is right? 58. If you are to go with your opponent before a magistrate, make an effort to settle the matter on the way; otherwise your opponent will turn you over to the judge, and the judge hand you over to the constable, and the constable throw you into prison. 59. I say to you, you will not be released until you have paid the last penny.” As you can see, Purgatory is a place, where imperfect "saved people", are released after atoning for their imperfections. May God bless your discernment.
Purgatory was invented using the books of Maccabees! That isn’t true scripture! Sola scriptura is in Timothy and one of the earliest church fathers claimed that traditions of the church were actually the writings!
@Paul-zf8ob Paul, The Word "Bible" is not in the Bible. Are you going to deny it? Do you know who introduced the word Bible? It was created by Pope Damasus in 382AD, to designate the 73-book Canon decided by the Council of Rome of 382AD. Sadly, in 1521, Martin Luther and his cohorts, decided to remove Seven Deuterocanonical books from the original Christian Bible, placing them as an apendix at the end of their Bible, in order to adapt Scripture to their thinking; although without removing them. However, It is worth noting that Protestants from the Reformation maintained the same 73 books in their Bible until 1826, when in the City of Edinburgh, the "European and Foreign Bible Society" decided to remove 7 Deuterocanonical books from The Old Testament, altogether. The question that must be asked is: Who gave them Apostolic authority? No one! They gave it to themselves.
Not Protestant, I am a Christian, on the first question I give you John 16:13 Jesus talking to his apostles says, " When the Spirit of truth comes, HE WILL GUIDE YOU INTO ALL THE TRUTH..." so the apostles would have ALL TRUTH, how much is ALL? Next is Jude 3 " Contend for the faith which WAS ONCE FOR ALL DELIVERED TO THE SAINTS", what does ONCE FOR ALL MEAN? 2 Peter 1:3 " His divine power has granted to us ALL THINGS THAT pertain to life and godliness.." again, how much is ALL THINGS? James 1:25 " But he who looks into the PERFECT LAW, THE LAW OF LIBERTY". 2 Tim 3:16 " All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, correction.....that the man of God may be complete..... Col 4:12 " That you may stand mature and fully assured IN ALL THE WILL OF GOD" Phil 4:9 Paul says, " What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me DO; AND THE GOD OF PEACE WILL BE WITH YOU", so if I DO what Paul says, God will be with me!! Col 1:25 Paul says, " Of which I became a minister according to the divine office.......TO MAKE THE WORD OF GOD FULLY KNOWN", so Paul made the word of God fully known. Acts 9:15 " Go, for Paul is a chosen instrument of mine, to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel" Acts 22:14 " And he said, " The God of our fathers appointed Paul TO KNOW HIS WILL". So, yes we do have ALL TRUTH, ALL THINGS THAT PERTAIN TO LIFE, the perfect law of liberty and we can stand fully assured in ALL THE WILL OF GOD and if I do what Paul says, God will be with me......
2 Tim. 3:15-17 doesn't say that the Bible is the only or final authority or that we just need to go by the bible. It doesn't say any of that. Rather, this passage says Scripture is 'helpful' (not sufficient) in aiding a Christian. Many things are helpful in that regard, but it never says only thing we need. Lastly, 2 Tim. 3:15-17 is talking about the Old Testament Scriptures, not the whole Bible. It describes the scriptures Timothy knew as a kid. Old Testament. There was no Bible at this time and there wouldn't be for 4 cenruries. The New Testament would even be finished for at least 6 decades. So the best argument you can make is that all we need is the Old Testament. That is what makes us perfect. But of course, the verses don't say any of that. We do agree that the holy spirit will guide the church into all truth, but not every individual christian. But that doesn't prove the Bible alone, none of these do. Almost none of these verses even mentioned in the bible. You're reading your theology into scripture.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial It says " ALL SCRIPTURE", The HS led the apostles into ALL TRUTH, so what does it mean " ALL TRUTH" and btw individual Christians are the church, and it says the apostles were led into ALL THE TRUTH!!! It is apparent you cannot answer.....Did the apostles have ALL TRUTH?? Yes they did, so then , we have ALL TRUTH. Did God grant us ALL THINGS THAT PERTAIN TO LIFE AND GODLINESS, sure he did, so again we have ALL TRUTH. Did Paul MAKE THE WORD OF GOD FULLY KNOWN, yes he did, so it has been made FULLY KNOWN. If I do what Paul says, will God be with me? Yes he will. 2 Tim 3:15 " Sacred writings which were able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus", that would be the NT and the scripture would make THE MAN OF GOD COMPLETE, equipped for every good work. You failed to answer any of the scriptures given, for again it is apparent you cannot answer......
@@DannyLoyd Are you saying Christians who contradict one another regarding salvation(for example) are to be defined as "the church" which is the "pillar and ground of the truth"? You say "we have all truth". Who are the "we" people? And, are you concluding that the "we" people are in total agreement with regards to infant baptism, for example. "Once saved always saved" being another example. 2 Tim. 3: 15 - "And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy Scriptures, which can instruct thee unto salvation, through the faith which is in Christ Jesus." Please note: This is not referencing the New Testament. It is referencing the Old Testament.
@@Channel-nq7eo Denominations are not the Lord's Church, they are man made like the Catholic Church. You do not have to be a member of any denomination to be saved, so why be one? We have ALL TRUTH, but it is up to you to accept it and to teach it. Infant baptism is not taught in scripture, Jesus said in Mark 16:16 " He that believes and is baptized shall be saved", a baby cannot believe. In Acts 2:38 " Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus...", a baby cannot repent. OSAS also is not taught in scripture, Heb 3:12 " Lest there be found in you an evil unbelieving heart causing you to fall away from the living God", so are they still saved? 1 Tim 4:1 " Depart from the faith.....giving heed to doctrine of demons"....so are they still saved? The NT IS SCRIPTURE, AND IT SAYS ALL SCRIPTURE IS INSPIRED BY GOD. And in John 16:13 it says that the HS would guide the apostles into ALL THE TRUTH and that Jesus would give the words to the HS to speak...so the teachings of the apostles were GOD BREATHE...THEY CAME DIRECTLY FROM GOD!!! Now find us where the Catholic Church is mentioned in scripture!!!
First, thank you for approaching these concerns with respect. These, and many other concerns Protestants have with the Catholic church. I can use the same arguments with your positions. Example, no where in the Bible does it say, don't do drugs, don't kill (abort) babies, God isn't a Martian, thou shall not color one's hair, don't pick your nose while eating.... and on and on. We come to believe/trust/see/understand what the bible says based on what it is saying, or NOT saying in many places. The bible clearly says, in Matthew 23:9, "And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven": Like your point for sharing is not an attack, neither is mine. Mine is this, 2 Timothy 2:23-26: "Stay away from foolish and stupid arguments. You know that these arguments grow into bigger arguments. As a servant of the Lord, you must not argue. You must be kind to everyone. You must be a good teacher, and you must be patient. You must gently teach those who don't agree with you". Titus 3:9: "Avoid genealogies, controversies, and quarrels over the Law. They settle nothing and lead nowhere". Proverbs 20:3: "Avoiding a fight is a mark of honor; only fools insist on arguing" If you are as studied as you appear, you clearly understand why Martin Luther had concerns, and tried desperately to get the Catholic church to correct itself and get back to sola scriptura and the other sola's. And with all due respect... anymore discussion IS a waste of my time.
To Catholic Truth... Mormons, JW's, and many, MANY other people groups have used your same arguments to have their position to be true as well, which would clearly take a stand against what YOU are choosing to believe. Though I do enjoy a good discussion like this, I see it always comes back to buying into man-crap or God's Word IS sufficient. PERIOD!!! I'll move on and trust God's word.
You could use the same arguments, but we don't make those arguments. It's the Protestants who are always asking to find every single thing in the bible, and it's the protestants, the non-catholics who say if it's not in the Bible then it's not true. That's why we are using their own illogical logic against them. We were the ones who specifically said everything is not in the Bible, and the church existed for 400 years before there was ever a single Bible. Would that being said, if something contradicts the Bible and is not found within it, then it can't be true. Sola scriptura contradicts scripture and therefore is not true.
Jesus was not speaking literally in Matthew 23:9 when he said call no man father. He was using rabbinic hyperbole (similar to when Jesus said to cut out your eye if it causes you to sin). How do we know? Because men are called the father from the beginning of the New Testament to the end, both in a physical and in a spiritual way. Mt. 15:4 says to honor your father and mother. Heb. 12:9 talks about our fathers in the flesh. Spiritualy speaking, Paul says in 1 Cor. 4:15 that he has become our _father_ in the gospel. Abraham is called our father in the faith 6 times just in Romans chapter 4 alone. So we know that all fatherhood whether physical or spiritual derives from God's fatherhood who is the ultimate and eternal father (Eph. 6).
Jesus discussed all the time with the Pharisees and Sadducees and the people. So discussions are not a waste of time. In fact we bring countless people back to the Church of Jesus Christ through these kind of discussions. As long as they are charitable and humble, we are happy to have them. You are right that Luther had some concerns, and he wanted to reform some of the corruption in the church. Rightly so. However, he wasn't the right man for the job. Other men during his lifetime ended up reforming the church, but unfortunately, all he ended up doing was destroying the body of Christ, inventing heresies, and creating an insane amount of division in the church worse than before. He even admitted that what he did ended up having a far worse effect than the church was before he started.
Sola Scriptura is in all the Bible , if you have an ear to hear... Jesus used the Word of God to overcome satan in the wilderness. He also told the Pharisees in John 5:38-39 KJV - And ye have not his WORD ABIDING IN YOU: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not. SEARCH THE SCRIPTURES; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. Mark 7:13 KJV - Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye. Hebrews 10:7 KJV - Then said I, Lo, I come (in the VOLUME of the BOOK it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. (Psalm 40: 7) 1 Corinthians 4:6b KJV - ... not to think of men above that which is WRITTEN,... Psalm 119:11 KJV - Thy WORD have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.
Not one of those verses proved sola scriptura. You're just reading your own theology into scripture. You mentioned God's word, yet the Bible says God's word is not only in Scripture. So it's a self-defeating argument. Also, passages like 1 Cor 4:6 have nothing to do with sola scriptura. Don't go beyond what is written where? In the whole bible? Just in the book of Corinthians that Paul is writing to them about? The book of life which is the context of the passage? Which one is it, and how do you know according to scripture alone. Where does Scripture tell us what he's talking about?
seventy, you are lying or ignorant or both. We will assume you're just ignorant Beyond measure. Because you haven't done your research in your slandering the Catholic Church saying that we teach things that we never teach. Which is why you can't offer a single quote, a single document, or a single official teaching to back up your positions and claims.
Learn why the catholic churches were sued dozens of times because priests and bishops and cardinals all sexually abused young boys in their churches they were not fired , they were just sent to different parishes so it would no longer be talked about the church paid out many millions of dollars because they were guilty as charged
Which church are true according to the Bible in this world? Because many churches are not true according to this scriptures, Matthew 7:21-23,Roman's 10;1-3,2Corintians 11:12-15,2thimoty 4:3-4,2Peter 2:1-3,1John 4:1.
John 12:46-50 [46]I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness. [47]“If anyone hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge that person. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world. [48]There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; the very words I have spoken will condemn them at the last day. [49]For I did not speak on my own, but the Father who sent me commanded me to say all that I have spoken. [50]I know that his command leads to eternal life. So whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say.”
Yes, the Bible is the word of God. If Scripture alone was the word of God, you would have a point, but the bible says it's not. _Jesus_ is the Word of God, and He gave us the Word of God _orally._ The vast majority of all God's words were _not_ written down but were oral and that the oral word being preached was his word too. 1 Thess. 2:13, Jn. 21:25, 2 Jn. 2:12, 3 Jn. 13-14, etc. So, God's word, yes, we absolutely believe God's Word, but God's word isn't only found in Scripture. You also ignore Scripture because Scripture states that Jesus also started a church and gave his authority to the Church. Moreover, He said if we don't listen to the authority of the Church, then we reject Christ and God. Not to mention that Bible says to hold to godly Traditions too which is the word of God (1 Thess. 2:13, 2 Thess. 2:15, 1 Cor. 11:2, 2 Tim. 2:2, etc.)
Matthew 15:3 [3]Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? Idolatry Baby baptism Recited prayers Relics Worshipping the cross Purgatory Mass Eucharist Praying to Saints and Mary Mary - mother of all delusion - Queen of heaven delusion ......List goes on..... For breaking the command of God.
Ephesians 5:24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. The Church needs to submit to Christ not that the Church can do whatever it wants. First start with simple obedience over the command not to worship idols everything else one by one will fall in place.
We can't understand why Protestants selectively quote scripture. They will quote Matthew 7 where Jesus condemns the Pharisees and their traditions, and they completely and blindly ignore all of the strong statements to Christians that we are supposed to hold to tradition, Christian tradition that has come down from Christ. 2 Thess. 2:15, 1 Cor. 11:2, 2 Tim. 2:2, etc. We are clearly told as Christians to hold to tradition, so you can't say that Jesus just condemned tradition when he was talking only to the Pharisees and their traditions. Infant baptism is biblical (Acts 2:38-39). Eucharist biblical (Jn. 6:54-55, Mt. 26:26). Purgatory biblical: 2 2 Macc. 12:43-46) We don't worship them cross. Only God. Relicas are biblical (2 Kings 2:14, Acts 5:15-16, Acts 19:11-12). The Mass is biblical (Mt. 26). Even Protestant have prayer services which biologic are not biblical either.
So tell us, where does the bible say it's the soul infallible source Amarula faith. Show us that and we will leave the Catholic church. Also, the word in to Timothy 3:16 for God breathed can also mean life-giving instead. It has two different definitions. So how do you know it means god breathed and not life-giving. Seems like you're reading your own Theology into scripture. We've read the Bible for 30 years. Thats a terrible arguement.
"Where is Sola Scritura in the Bible?" Well, the 1st question really isnt the right question to ask. We could also ask "Where in the Bible does God prove His existence?" We don't see that either. Does that mean God does not exist? We do know that there is, in fact, the Word that comes from God. Several places in the Bible tell us so. Some examples are in Jeremiah, where he says "The Word of the Lord came to me", and Ezekiel, and other prophets throughout the Bible tell us that the Word of God is real. Another place is John Ch 1. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... The Bible itself presumes that the Word of God is real. We believe the Bible Prophets because Jesus quoted them. He also said that you have to listen to His Words and obey them if you want eternal life. So, it is just as silly to ask where in the Bible does it say "Sola Scriptura", the answer is EVERYWHERE. By the way. There is a reason why the people accepted the teaching authority of Moses. It is because they saw the power of God, through God SPEAKING through Moses, (The people asked Moses to talk to God out of fear once they heard the voice of God in the mount) and they experienced it through His leadership. He proved time and time again that what God said to Him would come to pass. ALso, Moses wrote many important Bible Books, such as Job. Moses was a prophet, and the Bible says that God does nothing unless he first reveals what he is doing THROUGH HIS PROPHETS. I.e., the WORD of God. Also, Jesus condemned the Pharisees for holding the traditions of men above the Word of God - (Mat 5:3, 6, Mark 7:8, 9) Paul, a pharisee, said he was zealous for the _traditions_ of his fathers but said he counted those traditions but DUNG, for the sake of gaining Jesus Christ. And by the way - it was Tradition that excluded all but Jews from being part of the commonwealth of Israel. Yet, we know that tradition was condemned by Pauls ministry, which was to the Gentiles. I think the real reason you ask this question is because you want to give "tradition" equal authority with the WORD of GOD, and and you believe the pope has power as Christ on earth, Vicar. If the Bible is the sole authority (and it is) that would mean that the Pope is unnecessary, and he is. There is NO SUPPORT in the Bible for a Pope, except for a few places that the papacy distorts what the Bible says. Salvation is in one man, and it is not the Pope. He has absolutely nothing to do with man's salvation, which is totally the Work of God. The Pope is no more qualified for this task than any other man. The Pope is fallible, he is a mere man, and that is all. There is only one potentate, as we read in the Book of 1 Timothy, and that is Jesus Christ. Finally, you asked us not to condemn or say bad things about the Catholic Church. We do not. It isnt the people. It is the system that is evil. The people in the Catholic Church God wants to save. However, that said, it is kind of unfair for you to ask us not to at least mention the inappropriate and anti-scriptural message that the Church promotes because, the entire reason for your questions in this video is to support Catholic Dogma. So, you should expect "Respectful" push back, don't you think? We have a LOT of reasons that we accept only the Bible, and not the words of mere men. Too many to be overthrown by such a simple, and yes, remedial question. "Where in the Bible is Sola Scriptura?" The answer? Everywhere.
Of course it's the right question. When you ask where Mary is in the bible, or Purgatory, or the pope, we don't say that's the wrong question just because it's inconvenient for us. We answer the question with scripture. Yet Protestants can't do that because their Central Doctrine is not found in scripture. Therefore, it's unbiblical. For the life of us, we can't understand why Protestants selectively quote scripture. They will quote Matthew 7 where Jesus condemns the Pharisees and their traditions, and they completely and blindly ignore all of the strong statements to Christians that we are supposed to hold to tradition, Christian tradition that has come down from Christ. 2 Thess. 2:15, 1 Cor. 11:2, 2 Tim. 2:2, etc. We are clearly told as Christians to hold to tradition, so you can't say that Jesus just condemned tradition when he was talking to the Pharisees and their traditions.
As far as scripture being equal to tradition, what you don't seem to realize is that scripture is tradition. It's just tradition that has been written down. Tradition is the full body and teaching of Christ that he gave to us orally, and some of that was written down at a later date. But to understand what was written, you must understand the full body of knowledge that we've been given. So it's not that one is higher than the other, they both complement each other and work together, and both in conjunction with the teaching authority of the church that Christ gave us to help us properly and understand it.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial I understand where you are coming from, but "tradition" of the church is not "inspired". That is the difference. When God spoke to the prophets, with the exception of a very few, their words were written down. I realize that you want the Pope's words to be as if from God, but you have no evidence for that. In fact, some of what the Catholic system teaches is in direct contradiction of the Scriptures. Conflict is not equality. What you are asking Protestants to do - I mean true protestants - is to reject sound logic and common sense, to say nothing of disobedience and faithfulness to the Scriptures. Remember, your video gave the challenge, and I answered. I'll go so far as to say, very few Catholics know the Bible very well. They only know what the clergy tells them, which is what started the reformation in the first place.
I'm Seventh-Day Adventist, you seemed real sincere and my answer is not meant as an attack. If I remember correctly, I think the creed "sola scriptura" came about from protestants that felt deceived by The Roman Catholic Church. They would read scripture and find contradictions with what the church taught and what was plainly written in the Bible. The main purpose of "sola scriptura" is to avoid the teachings of tradition that is in CONFLICT with the word of God. @4:01 Your examples here weren't good, they actually make a case for Bible only. 1.) Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible, he wasn't an authority outside of scripture, his writings were apart of scripture.. 2.)Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for teaching their tradition over the writings of Moses which he called the "Word of God". (Mark 7:6-13) (Mark 7:6-13) Makes the BEST case for sola scriptura. Here we have the Jewish elders teaching men a tradition that is in conflict with the word of God. And Jesus refers to the writings of Moses as the word of God. If we are being honest here, are there Catholic teachings that contradict Exodus 20:1-11? The Bible is not saying we can't have teachers, but it tells us how to identify those who are genuine teachers. Isaiah 8:20. If you don't speak according to the word there is no truth in you. "Sola scriptura" can then be seen as the Bible being the PRIMARY authority, and teachers MUST speak according to scriptures, and tradition cannot contradict scripture. If protestants were going by scripture alone, they would keep the 7th Day Sabbath I didn't understand your argument on 2 Timothy 3:16... you're essentially saying it can be read as " All scripture is LIFE GIVEN..." instead of "God Breathed" therefore not inspired by God. I've read over 50 translations of that verse, not one version of the Bible translated it the way you claimed. Not even one versions translated close to "life given" Here's the Catholic version "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteous" I couldn't find "life given" for "theopneustos" in the Exhaustive Concordance. In fact the word "theopneustos" is derived from "theos" (which means God) and "pneo" (breathe). Even if there is a variation of the word that could lead to "life given". The word "theopneustos" still has "Theos" in it, you cannot remove "God" from a word that is literally saying "God-breathe". And this reminds me of Genesis 2:7, God breathed life into the dust and it became a living being. Even if it can be read "life-given" it's still referring to God. OR I could just read the word as it literally translates God-breathed, I think over 50 translations and even the Catholic version support me on this... You made this argument just to say a man has authority over the word of God. Mark 7:6-13 ‘This people honors Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. 7 And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ 8 For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men-the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.” 9 He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’ 11 But you say, ‘If a man says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban”-’ (that is, a gift to God), 12 then you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother, 13 making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.
Sincere question: what is your point in asking these questions? If it's that beyond what's in scripture the Holy Spirit guides and indeed educates God's children, most catholics and protestants would likely agree. Excellent channel by the way.
The point is to help bring non-Catholic Christians back to the Original Church, founded by Jesus through Simon Peter and the Apostles. And as for the Holy Spirit guiding Christians towards what's right, I've actually realized why that isn't true. If the hundreds of different denominations all claim to be following the Holy Spirit, then why do they all believe such different things about baptism, communion, etc.? Simply put, they cannot all be listening to the Holy Spirit. They are listening to themselves.
No bibiical reference to purgatory. Hebrews 9:27 counters that wishful thought. Recall Lazarus and the rich man who died and found himself in hell (Lk 16:20-25). We should heed the finality of God's judgment.
There's many biblical references to Purgatory but there's zero for the Bible alone which is why you couldn't answer the questions in this video. Hebrews 9:27 has nothing to do with Purgatory and we quote that verse all the time. It doesn't sound like you understand what Purgatory is. Actually the rich man was in purgatory, he was in the waiting place, which was also in the same area as Paradise where the good thief went. Everyone went to the waiting place until Jesus died.
We don't need to provide them. He needs to first show that he understands what Purgatory is since he clearly doesn't. Second of all, we have a whole entire video proving Purgatory from the Bible, yet none of you Protestants can even produce one verse that proves the Bible alone. But that doesn't seem to bother you.
All of this does nothing except create division among the brethren , which is why protestants now exists , they were fed up with the fallacies that were pushed on them
As a former protestant, and now a devout Catholic I'm grateful for the True Church and it's great to have dialogue with our separated brothers and sisters .... When I tell protestants about the Church mentioned in the Gospels they tell me that we are the church as members of the Body of Christ they failed to understand the context as Jesus stated when he told Peter you are rock and on this rock I will build my Church.....❤❤❤❤❤❤
@@JLCProductions1976 Are ya winning, son? Or ya crying on the internet cause almost nobody in the world believes you? Seeking out Catholic channels to harass, real big man here...I'm sure Jesus is real impressed with you... Sit back and relax, cause Roman Catholic Church coming back in a huge way. Trump's Cabinet (so far): JD Vance - Catholic John Ratcliffe - Catholic RFK Jr - Catholic Marco Rubio - Catholic Elise Stefanik - Catholic Sean Duffy - Catholic Karoline Leavitt - Catholic Tom Homan - Catholic Linda McMahon - Catholic Sebastian Gorka: Catholic Lori Chavez-Deremer-Catholic Other key figures: Melania Trump - Catholic JFK - Catholic JFK jr - Catholic Gen Flynn - Catholic Carlo Vigano - Catholic Mel Gibson - Catholic Steve Bannon - Catholic Clarence Thomas - Catholic Amy Coney Barrett - Catholic Brett Kavanaugh - Catholic Rudy Giuliani - Catholic Mike Lindell - Catholic Jack Posobiec - Catholic Kellyanne Conway - Catholic John Kelly - Catholic Mercedes Schlapp - Catholic Matt Schlapp - Catholic What a COINCIDENCE!!!! 🤣 Triggered?
@@JLCProductions1976 Jesus asked Peter three times if he loved him and Peter said "Yes". The Lord Jesus then told Peter to go and feed his flock. That's a weak argument, the word Catholic is not in the Bible hence Baptist are true Christians. If that's how all Prots are then I feel sorry for you guys.
@randygreear8556 100% correct. They praise themselves and try to usurp God's authority using men's philosophies. On account of this, I fear the being who is worshipped in the Vatican might be someone very different.
The bible itself does not argue for Sola Scriptura, the definition of Sola Scriptura is that the scriptures alone are the Sole authority for faith and practice, we don't reject tradition for the fact of being tradition because real tradition helps to compliment or clear bible passages, we are against false tradition that contradicts scripture.
Ask a Catholic why the ten commandments in their bible are different than the KJV bible. And different than the Hebrew manuscripts? Ask a Catholic why Their cross still has Jesus hanging on it when, in fact, he's alive and Iives Heaven? Ask a Catholic why they believe in their traditions, knowing that a Pagan ruler, Constantine, brought pagan traditions and beliefs into the church, which are still practiced within the church every sunday. Ask a Catholic when did Jesus the Lord of the Sabbath change the day to Sunday the first day of the week?
Ask a SDA why they are still using the Bible they got from Catholics. Ask why they follow traditions of men. Ask why they don't worship on Sunday like ALL Christians. Ask why they still belirve debunked theories about Constantine. Ask why the are in a Church with proven False prophets...
Ask a Protestant to show us where in the Bible the 10 commandments are numbered. There are 13 Thou Shalts and thou shalt nots. 13, not 10. So, where does the Bible tell you how and where to combine them. We will wait.
@CatholicTruthOfficial The Jewish Ten Commandments are from the book of Exodus in the Torah: I am the Lord your God. "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of slavery." (Exodus 20:2) You shall have no other gods before Me. You shall not make for yourself an idol. "You shall not recognize other gods before Me. You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth." (Exodus 20:3-4) You shall not take the name of God in vain. "You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain." (Exodus 20:7) Remember and observe the Sabbath and keep it holy. "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant, your animal or your stranger within your gates." (Exodus 20:8-10) Honor your father and mother. "Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be prolonged in the land which the Lord your God gives you." (Exodus 20:12) You shall not murder. "You shall not murder." (Exodus 20:13) You shall not commit adultery. "You shall not commit adultery." (Exodus 20:13) You shall not steal. "You shall not steal." (Exodus 20:13) You shall not bear false witness. "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor." (Exodus 20:13) You shall not covet your neighbor's wife or house. "You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor." (Exodus 20:14)
Click open the description area, then go down to where it shows in blue text "show transcript". Click this blue text and the transcript will open up for you.
What else would you want? Why do you need anything more than scripture? It sounds to me like you are falling into what I call a trap. A lot of people don’t believe in the teachings of the Bible as a whole. I’ve heard people say referring to scripture, “Jesus didn’t say that. Paul did.” This kind of thinking is based in the denial of truth and human philosophy, which is flawed. Who is it that wants you questioning scripture? If we (Christians) don’t use the holy Bible alone, we become separated by our own interpretations and philosophies. We develop a state of being at odds with each other. Who is it that wants believers to be at odds with each other? This whole video proves that point. You say that you are making this video out of love. But that is not true. If you were to look deeper inside yourself and are willing to be honest with yourself, you’d see that your reason for making this video is to prove someone wrong. This desire is born of sinful pride. The very nature of this video inspires sinful pride and malice towards others. The comments in the comment section prove that. Maybe I can’t answer your questions the way you want them answered. However, your questions are designed to catch someone in a trap they can’t possibly get out of. So the phrase “scripture alone” isn’t in the Bible. That’s where faith and discernment come into play. Protestants believe in “scripture alone” because when you allow human philosophy and, I say this lightly, interpretation, I know that some interpretation is required for the study of holy scripture, you open up some very dangerous pathways. As Christ believing Christians, we have to have a standard for truth. That standard is scripture. Scripture defines truth. We believe it to be the word of God and the word of God defines truth. But, you have to have faith that it is truth. If it is not the only definition or standard for truth then what is? Sinful man with his prideful philosophy? Do you really want to put your trust in that? I don’t. So, therefore, I believe in scripture alone as absolute truth. If man is allowed to define truth, inevitably, it will lead to sin and falleness. You commented that the Jews believed in the teachings of the Pharisees. Jesus called the Pharisees a bunch of hell bound vipers. Just because people believe in something doesn’t make it true. Obviously you are free to believe what you want to believe. I would caution you, however, to test everything against scripture.
What is your standard of truth? What YOU think the Bible says. That is why there are thousands of different denominations and more by the day. Every single group claims that they are interpreting it correctly through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Can't be. God isn't a God of confusion. Jesus Christ only established one Church. It was also a visible Church. In John 17, he says that the world will know he is the Messiah because of the oneness of believers. The early Church heresies involved people interpreting scriptures for themselves and coming up with new interpretations. It is still happening today. It is why we see more and more heresies coming back in Protestantism (like denial of the Trinity).
Where does the bible say that the scriptures are the only standard. Quote a chapter and verse for us on that. You asked what else we would want, well, what Jesus gave us. Jesus gave us a teaching and preaching authoritative church. And in fact he said that he gave his exact same authority to the apostles and the leaders of the church, and not only that, but send me must listen to them or I'll be rejected Christ and god. So if you have the Bible but you don't have the church, then you don't have true christianity. The Bible didn't even exist for 400 years, but the church did. The church was teaching and preaching, correcting and reproving long before the New Testament was even written., and it's the church, the authoritative Church who authoritatively gave us the scriptures.
You said test everything against the scripture. Which one of the tens of thousands of Protestant denominations and personal interpretations are we going to test it by? Who is interpretation of scripture? Protestants have all gone by the Bible alone, all pray to the holy spirit for 500 years, and continue to have more and more disagreements by the day and the tens of thousands.
The answer to question one begins where Paul in Galatians 1:8 instructs "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed." This can ONLY be known from God's Holy Word. ANYTHING that is different in the slightest would be anathema and anything repetitive would be redundant and unnecessary. It is then concluded in Revelation when John instructs in verses 22:18-19 "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book". This is further reinforced in Deuteronomy 4:2 "You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you".
REVELATION 22 Revelation 22 does not prove the Bible alone or the sufficiency of scripture either. This was written by John when he was exiled on the Island of Patmos. After he had finished writing the book of Revelation, he sealed it up with the warning not to add or take away from it because it was given to him directly by God. The Bible would not even be put together for another 300 years. So this passage is only talking about the Book of Revelation, not the whole Bible. Same with Deuteronomy. It's not talking about the whole Bible since the whole Bible wasn't written. If you are going to hold to this logically, then there should have been no other books written after Deuteronomy because it says not to go beyond what is written at that time. So, by your logic, there should be no rest of the Old Testament written or New Testament.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial even if I granted you were correct about being only for those 2 books (which obviously I don't), you didn't address the greater point of Paul instructing to reject anything which contradicted their writing. Anything that disagrees is to be discarded and a simple restating is superfluous.
Amazing question that I don't have a answer for however do Catholics believe it is wrong to trust the new and old testaments of Jesus Christ over the teachings of humans
Thank you for your question. We think though that it's kind of a faulty one in the sense that everyone who interprets the scripture is for themselves as a man, or a woman. There are millions of non-catholic interpretations that disagree with each other. Therefore, could we say that they are listening to men and women? What Catholic says that Jesus also started a teaching and preaching authoritative church, and Christ says he gave the apostles the exact same Authority that he had. Therefore, we believe the church that Christ established and guides by his holy spirit has the only proper authority to interpret the Holy Word of God. This will be the only way that it's not a man-made tradition or interpretation. Outside the church you have thousands and millions of personal interpretations. Does that help?
In the wilderness, Jesus was Sola Scriptura with Satan. Why? When someone comes at you with an authority (a sword) other than the written word of God, the believer will only find God's victory wielding the sword that is sharper than any other two-edged sword, the written word of God.
Jesus quoting Scripture is not sola scriptura any more than the Catholic church quoting scriptura is sola scriptura. Also you didn't answer the questions of the video.
@CatholicTruthOfficial Jesus was in a confrontation with Satan, and He did not converse with him about the Sanhedrin (church), the Oral Torah, Jewish history, and other diverse commentaries. Jesus countered with the sword of the Spirit (the written word of God). All the other swords cannot compete.
@@dannisivoccia2712 with the same token, Satan also used scripture to tempt Jesus. Are you saying Satan is not a devout follower of God, a “true sword “ bearer?
@fbrlajes There are scriptures that take precedence over other scriptures. Satan tried to use a scripture verse on Jesus to put Him to the test. There was an evil intent behind Satan's posturing of the scripture verse that he used. Jesus discerned it immediately, and countered with a scripture verse that put away Satan's evil intent.
Paul wrote in 2nd Thessalonians that we have teachings that are written yes, but also teachings given by word of mouth, which implies there are Christian truths that are not explicitly written in the Bible.
I don't know how that word is pronounced or how it's spelled. Question 1: John 14:26 KJV But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
2Timothy 3:16 - 17 is Sola Scriptura. How did Jesus rebuke Satan? Did he refer to tradition? Did he defer to his divinity as God? No, he quoted scripture. How does God give ilfe? By breathing. It means both. Which books are canon? The ones in the Bible. Who gave us the Bible? God did. Not the church. If the Church assembling the Bible made it the true Church we would still be following Judaism.
Actually, Jesus and the apostles referred to tradition many times. So this alone debunks your argument. If Jesus only and ever appealed it to scripture you would have a point, but he didn't. Have you actually read and studied those verses? They don't approve the Bible alone. 2 Tim. 3:15-17 doesn't say that the Bible is the only or final authority or that we just need to go by the bible. It doesn't say any of that. Rather, this passage says Scripture is 'helpful' (not sufficient) in aiding a Christian. Many things are helpful in that regard, but it never says only thing we need. Lastly, 2 Tim. 3:15-17 is talking about the Old Testament Scriptures, not the whole Bible. It describes the scriptures Timothy knew as a kid. Old Testament. There was no Bible at this time and there wouldn't be for 4 cenruries. The New Testament would even be finished for at least 6 decades. So the best argument you can make is that all we need is the Old Testament. That is what makes us perfect. But of course, the verses don't say any of that. If we are going to take your claim literally here, employing the same logic, then all we need is perseverance. James 1:4 says that perseverance makes us "perfect and complete, lacking in nothing. So according to James all we need is perseverance to be perfect. And the Greek is far stronger than in 2nd Timothy.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial 1 - You are conflating Sola Scriptura with Solo Scriptura. The Prot position isn't Scriptura ONLY it is Scripture = the highest authority. This means you can have traditions and leaders etc, but a tradition or a leader cannot be held as high as scripture. 2 - 2 Tim. 3:15-17 - "that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." Complete means complete, so yes the highest authority. It doesn't even say you need anything else to be complete. 3 - God knows there would be more scripture to come, since he inspired it, which would apply to the NT as well. God is not bound by time and space. 4 - James 1:4 refers to persevering through hardship - trials of many kinds. The context prevents you from making the point you are attempting to make.
my answer to this video is: Revelation 22:18 says, "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book"
The Catholic Church wrote that book and that verse is for only that book. The Catholic Church wrote all of the New Testament and added the whole thing to the Septuagint.
@@tabandken8562 the Roman Catholic church didn't exist and "wrote" nothing other than its catechism (to to explain/defend its self proclaimed authority)The Bible is a compilation/record of the tradition and writings of the Apostles("word and epistle")combined with Jewish scriptures
@brianwilliams-se5jy The Catholic Church was there from the beginning. The Catholic Church was started by Jesus. Ignatius of Antioch See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church (Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 8 [A.D. 110]). Polycarp And of the elect, he was one indeed, the wonderful martyr Polycarp, who in our days was an apostolic and prophetic teacher, bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna. (Martyrdom of Polycarp 16:2 [A.D. 155]). Justin Martyr For the men of former generations, who instituted private and public rites in honor of such as were more powerful, caused forgetfulness of the Catholic faith to take possession of their posterity (On the Sole Government of God 1 [inter A.D. 151-155]). Irenaeus The truth is to be found nowhere else but in the Catholic Church, the sole depository of apostolical doctrine. Heresies are of recent formation and cannot trace their origin up to the apostles (Against Heresies 3:4 [A.D. 189]). The Muratorian Canon He wrote, besides these, one to Philemon, and one to Titus, and two to Timothy, in simple personal affection and love indeed; but yet these are hallowed in the esteem of the Catholic Church (3 [inter A.D. 180-200]). Tertullian Where was Marcion then, that shipmaster of Pontus, the zealous student of Stoicism? Where was Valentinus then, the disciple of Platonism? For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago - in the reign of Antoninus for the most part - and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus, until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled (The Prescription Against Heretics 22, 30 [A.D.200]). Clement of Alexandria It is my opinion that the true Church, that which is really ancient, is one, and that in it those who according to God’s purpose are just, are enrolled…Therefore in substance and idea, in origin, in pre-eminence, we say that the ancient and Catholic Church is alone, collecting as it does into the unity of the one faith (Stromata 7:17 [A.D. 202]). Origen Let such things, however, be lightly esteemed by him who is desirous of being trained in divine learning, while retaining in its integrity the rule of the Catholic faith (On First Principles 3 [A.D. 225]). Hippolytus Behold, into how great impiety that lawless one has proceeded, by inculcating adultery and murder at the same time! And withal, after such audacious acts, they, lost to all shame, attempt to call themselves a Catholic Church! (Refutation of All Heresies 9:7 [A.D. 228]).
@@tabandken8562 fyi, St. Paul wrote most of the NT. No pope or Bishop wrote anything. No human added anything to God's thoughts. Paul said this.. 1 Corinthians 1:17 [17]For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. Does that sound Catholic at all? 2 Peter 1:21 [21]For the prophecy came not in any time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. Proverbs 30:5-6 [5]Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. [6]Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. "Every word of God is pure" means it is of only one source, i.e. not a mixture. There is nothing of man in it. You can stop with your unfounded claims.
@@brianwilliams-se5jy Jesus est His One True Church, Mt 16 18-19 with Peter as His first representative or Prime Minister Isa 22:22 which is the pillar & foundation of Truth 1 Tim 3:15 which Ignatius named as Katholikos or Universal in 107AD which codified your bible in 382AD which has existed for 2000 yrs, in spite of sinful men & is the longest existing human institution. Fact check if you don’t believe me. Catholic inspired authors, under the guidance of the HS, wrote the NT. The CC codified your bible in 382
Thanks for the video Bryan.. I came across an interesting statement.. the catholic church predates the bible as it is today... The bible was put together around 380AD.. so, since the church put it together, obviously, the church has authority to see what is inspired and what is not ..
I am not a Catholic. I believe that Jesus was God, died on the cross, was resurrected on the third day and that he died for my sins. I claim I am saved. Am I deluded, in error or I am saved?
A strong start but we must put on the whole armor of God. 2 Peter 1 4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. 5 And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; 6 And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; 7 And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity. 8 For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. 10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: 11 For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
Leslie, those are good beliefs, core beliefs, but you also have some core beliefs that are not biblical. That's why we asked the three questions in the video. Can you answer them please? Here are the questions for you to make it easy for you. 1. Since Protestants can't agree on what the Bible alone is and have different understandings of it, where does the bible alone solve this problem? 2. Protestants say that scripture is god-breathed, like in to Timothy 3:16, and yet the Greek word, Theopnustos, has two different meanings. So how do you know which meaning it is according to scripture? 3. How do you know which books belong in the Bible according to the Bible alone? Or do you have to use an authority outside of scripture?
Also you were not deluded, but you also don't have the full gospel. No, that's not enough to be saved because Jesus said you also need to be baptized. Mk. 16:16. So did Peter. Acts 2:38. 1 Pet. 3:21. And others.
What does Scripture alone mean? Protestants can't agree on what it means. Something that means you only use the Bible and nothing else. Some say there are other authorities but the Bible is the highest authority. Others say it's the soul infallible Authority and Rule of faith. So there are many different definitions of what people say it is, but where does Scripture solve the problem of disagreement.
Theology soundly laid out and understood is a good foundation for every true Christian, but that alone is not enough. It is the revelatory understanding of scripture that is necessary. Receiving a living revelation. Just as Jesus said to Peter, flesh and blood hath not revealed this unto you. Jesus wasn't making Peter a pope, he was saying upon this rock, the rock of revelation I will build my church. It is the revelation of the Holy Spirit that enlightens us and reveals truth, not tradition or men's religious theological understanding. This is how we are born again and know God by revelation.
In Mt. 16:18-19, Jesus makes Peter the head of the church. He calls PETER rock, not himself. He even changes his name from Simon to Peter, which means "rock." Complete coincidence? He could have changed it to anything but he changed it to a name which means Rock. Jesus even calls Simon the Rock at other times as well like in Jn. 1:42 as did Paul. (Cephas means Rock). Also, Jesus intentionally traveled with the apostles hundreds of miles to Cesarea Philippi to do this, where there is a huge 500 foot rock. That is the exact spot that Jesus changed Simon's name to Rock and said that you are the rock upon which I will build my church. And at this very moment he gave him the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven giving him a primacy of authority. Name changes are significant in Scripture. When Jesus changes his name from Simon to Peter, it symbolizes a change in status and a change in mission (like Abram to Abraham and Issac to Israel, etc). Peter was receiving a special call to be the head of the church which is why he alone singularly received the keys of the kingdom alone. The keys come from Isaiah 22 and symbolize the primacy of authority over the whole household of God. Peter is mentioned in the bible 195 times. Saint John, 29 times, St. James 16 times. Peter does first miracle and the first speech. Peter receives the revelations from God. He has a special relationship with Christ who trains him. Acts 15:11. Peter alone settled the dispute. Lists of apostles are always Peter and 11. Peter and the others. Peter and the Apostles. He is always listed 1st and Judas last. Luke 5:1-10: Peter chosen for ministry as fisher of men. Luke 22:24-32. Leader of the brothers. John 21:1-17: chosen as shepherd of church under Christ.
Yup, Sola Skiptura is a Human tradition made by Martin Luther... Up to this is day, many Counterfeit Pastors got very rich through The word of God. Sadly, many Gullible members who still believe, adore and worship their human counterfeit Pastors... Sad but this is the reality...
LuminousTwinHearts Here you go stereotyping a few bad apples as if all denominations are greed filled pagans . Shall we stereotype the roman Catholic church as being filled with pedo priests ? Very few priests are abusers and to call the roman Catholic church to be filled with abusers is wrong just as your assertion that denominations are all after your money.
Yes I agree a lot of pastors got rich from good Christian’s. But isn’t the pope worth about 16 million dollars and live in a palace . How did he get 16 million dollars ?
@@ThatGuy-nr5spno? The Pope is not worth 16 million dollars. I’m very curious where you pulled that number from. If anything, Pope Francis is on record as have a net worth of about how ever much his Timex watch is worth. He doesn’t own anything. As for living in a palace, its primary purpose is a Cathedral, the secondary purpose is a graveyard, and then it houses many many people, not just the Pope.
@ThatGuy-nr5sp Pope doesn't have 16 million, all he have now is just borrow, after he retire , he will live as a normal citizens... And as a token of his service, if he still lives, he'll get a 1 or 2 coins of gold as payment then that's it...
@@ThatGuy-nr5sp the roman Catholic church is number two in richest churches in the world , oddly enough the cult Mormonism is number one as being richest. You will find various pastors of some denominations being filthy rich but the riches are not from swindling the flock . Having loads of money is not a sin or if it is then those of us who rent apartments must be righteous and those who own houses must be sinners?
Where in the Bible does it define Sola Roman Catholic? Where does it teach the Pope is the vicar of Christ? Where does the Bible teach to pray to anyone but God? I was raised Catholic. Now I am a Christian. Just like the Bereans, I search the Scriptures to test if the teachings of the Catholic church are true. The core Christian beliefs are true. But it's the add on teachings that are not supported by scripture that I question.
Lara, like every other Protestant on this thread, you know you can't answer the questions and so you just avoid them and try to ask other questions instead. Silly questions that the Catholic Church doesn't even believe. Here are the questions for you to make it easy for you. 1. Since Protestants can't agree on what the Bible alone is and have different understandings of it, where does the bible alone solve this problem? 2. Protestants say that scripture is god-breathed, like in to Timothy 3:16, and yet the Greek word, Theopnustos, has two different meanings. So how do you know which meaning it is according to scripture? 3. How do you know which books belong in the Bible according to the Bible alone? Or do you have to use an authority outside of scripture?
If you had watched the video, which you didn't, you would know that the bereans were Jewish and didn't go by the Bible alone nor does that passage prove the Bible alone. It actually disproves it.
@@GmanfromTexas NOT REALLY! IT HAS TO TWIST IT TO USE IT! I COR. 3;11-15 TELLS OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE SAINTS (BORN AGAIN BELIEVERS) AFTER THE RAPTURE. OUR WORKS ARE JUDGED AND NOT US! MATTHEW 5:23-25 DEALS WITH PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS! IF YOU CHEERY PICK VERSES AT LEAST KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT!THIS IS WHAT CULTS DO.
because of Constantine, the Church became political and that power began to corrupt it. You can read the church fathers before Constantine like Origen, Justyn Martyr, etc. all had different ideas from one another and that’s okay. But none of them bowed to a pope, prayed to Marry, etc. But they all loved Jesus and made Him the center. Also, how do you explain Eastern Orthodox, Waldensians, etc??
You made some big claims, but didn't back it up with any facts. The church did not become a political because of constantine. In the early church fathers agreed on all of the essentials. They discussed the rest, and yet the Catholic Church still only had one teaching. None of them believed in the Bible alone, Faith alone, denominationalism, alter calls, Sinners prayers, thinking they can choose what books belong in the Bible and so on.
@@CatholicTruthOfficialI’ll leave it to the individual to read the works of Origen, Justyn Martyr, etc. and see how they disagree about some things. Yes, all serious Protestants also agree with the essentials (the apostles creed.)
All the early Church fathers believed in the True Presence of the Eucharist, infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, tradition, the authority of the Church, and other things most Protestants wouldn't accept because the early Church was Catholic, not Protestant. They also were all part of the one same Church and didn't have 1000s of varying doctrines and beliefs like Protestants.
@@CatholicTruthOfficialhere are a couple counter examples for you to try on: Polycarp 1:3 “though ye saw Him not, ye believe with joy unutterable and full of glory; unto which joy many desire to enter in; forasmuch as ye know that it is by grace ye are saved, not of works, but by the will of God through Jesus Christ.” “Let no one then think it strange, when we say that the Lord’s blood is figuratively represented as milk. For is it not figuratively represented as wine?” (Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, Book 1, Chapter 6).
Thanks for the question. We believe Scripture is the Word of God. Inerrant. However, it must be properly interpreted and is not self-interpreting. Scripture tells us Jesus started a teaching and preaching authoritative church, and he said we must listen to the church or we are not Christian. Tbis, we believe we need both Scripture and the Church, and it's the church that has the authority from Christ to properly interpret Scripture.
Discouragement of the Cross👉: Concerned it might lead to idol worship? It appears this sentiment is shared in Sahih al-Bukhari 5952, Book 77, Hadith 168.
We only worship Jesus too. There's nothing wrong though with asking other people in the body of Christ to pray for you. Intercessory prayer is not worship, it's Biblical.
@@joannquaid6037 Jesus is our mediator to God. It is completely acceptable to have intercessors *TO* Jesus. Or have you never asked others to pray for you or someone you know? Your not asking them to worship for you.
Sola Scriptura ⬇️ 2 Timothy 3:16-17 English Standard Version 16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God[a] may be complete, equipped for every good work. “Complete” “Equipped for EVERY good work” That’s definitive. Funnily enough, Catholics have an extra 7 books in their Bible that was in dispute all throughout church history, even among Catholics 😅 The Protestant Bible contains the 66 books which were NEVER disputed.
So you are saying that the canon of the bible was were never settled in church history? So tell us who settled the canon of the bible you are using now and an whose authority was that done?
Exactly, the Bible is God's manual that serve as guidance for the believers. Without a manual anyone can make up stories that suit their narrative, the very reason why they deny scripture only.
Lovegod, you didn't answer the question in the video. In fact, you didn't answer any of the three questions. Have you actually read and studied those verses? They don't approve the Bible alone. 2 Tim. 3:15-17 doesn't say that the Bible is the only or final authority or that we just need to go by the bible. It doesn't say any of that. Rather, this passage says Scripture is 'helpful' (not sufficient) in aiding a Christian. Many things are helpful in that regard, but it never says only thing we need. Lastly, 2 Tim. 3:15-17 is talking about the Old Testament Scriptures, not the whole Bible. It describes the scriptures Timothy knew as a kid. Old Testament. There was no Bible at this time and there wouldn't be for 4 cenruries. The New Testament would even be finished for at least 6 decades. So the best argument you can make is that all we need is the Old Testament. That is what makes us perfect. But of course, the verses don't say any of that. If we are going to take your claim literally here, employing the same logic, then all we need is perseverance. James 1:4 says that perseverance makes us "perfect and complete, lacking in nothing. So according to James all we need is perseverance to be perfect. And the Greek is far stronger than in 2nd Timothy.
Those seven books you were talking about were there in the very first Bible ever made and every Bible ever since. They weren't taken out until the 1800s by protestants. Learn history.
In Ezekiel chapter 37, Ezekiel preached the word of to the bones they came alive and formed a great multitude. This supports the idea that the word of God is life giving (?)
You say that Sola Scriptura is a man-made tradition. Well, that's okay, because Sola Scriptura allows for sources of authority besides Scripture (only they can't contradict Scripture), and Sola Scriptura itself does not contradict Scripture. It's odd, you say you're not going to attack or put down Protestants and you're not going to say, "we're right, you're wrong," and then you directly attack Protestants by saying "they have been duped." Bro, that is a put-down if I've ever heard one! By saying Protestants are duped, you're clearly implying they are wrong and you are right! I find your approach extremely duplicitous. I also doubt your allegation that there is substantive disagreement among Protestant scholars over the meaning of Sola Scriptura; it's easy to find people who haven't been well taught and therefore confuse Sola with Solo (or Nuda) Scriptura, no doubt, but where are your quotes proving that knowledgeable, well-taught Protestants do this? How about some quotes from professors in Protestant seminaries or from recognized scholars? Allegations are as cheap and as durable as party balloons. No controversy would ever have arisen if the Catholic Church had not strayed (on its own authority) into teachings which _deviated_ from the authority of the Bible. Sales of indulgences, for one. Salvation "by grace through faith" became salvation by pocketbook in the middle ages.
@@johnyang1420 The church depends upon the Bible for its claim to authority. If the church gave us the Bible, then in the process of creating the Bible it created the documentation for its own authority. That's self-serving circular reasoning. Jesus Himself treated the O.T. as a written source of authority. Jesus quoted the O.T. as His authoritative text in settling differences of opinion and in showing the Pharisees & Sadducees their doctrinal errors. Jesus described the record of these divinely inspired messages as “the word of God” (Matt. 15:6) and referred to it as “Scripture” (‘the writings’), and He declared that “Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35). The N.T., insofar as the truthfulness of the propositions it teaches, is also authoritative. For one thing, 1/3 of the N.T. consists of quotes and references from the infallible, authoritative O.T. For another, a large portion of the N.T. contains quotes from Jesus, God the Son (you can't get more authoritative than the words which came from the lips of God, can you?) Of the remainder, most of it is passing on and expounding upon the teachings of Jesus which were heard from his lips by the Apostles. The N.T. was penned (quilled, actually) by Apostles who had direct exposure to Jesus and who were able to learn from Him on a first-hand or second-hand basis, so they are far, far less likely to have been mistaken than subsequent churchmen might be; we also have good reason to assume that _Apostles who preferred to die for their belief and understanding of Jesus' teachings_ would not have lied in their writings. Besides that, N.T. Scripture itself suggests that it is divinely inspired. We know from history that the Gospels and Epistles were recognized by the church, as early as 149 A.D., to be Scripture and authoritative. When in the course of time a group of church leaders met to discuss things in a council, they took note of these points I've described, they wrote a list of these documents which were already universally accepted as authoritative among the churches, and they said 'let's not include any additional documents' because the other documents floating around at that time were seen to contain errors or fabrications. But their actions did not provide any extraordinary properties to those pre-existing, previously-accepted writings. Holy Scriptures were Holy Scriptures long before any Council convened to discuss the sum of their contents.
Sola Scripture - the belief that Scripture alone is infallible and the ultimate source of authority for Christian practice. Your question is misleading. Catholics agree scripture is infallible and that it is a source of authority. The real question is can we say that other things are also infallible and on equal ground with Scripture for authority? Do you honestly believe we should accept every tradition? This is not a good line of reasoning because of Scripture where Paul writes about being careful about being led astray by human tradition. Even looking at church history it seems that tradition can and has changed, so tradition must be judged. What then is tradition judged by? Is it not the scriptures? Secondly, you claim the magisterium is infallible. Can you honestly say looking at church history that magisterium has always gotten everything correct at all times? No you would not want to say that because even popes have disagreed with one another. Someone had to be wrong in those disagreements. Many Catholics including bishops in teaching authority in the Catholic Church think pope Francis is getting it wrong right now. So then the magisterium to must be judged. Judged by what? Is it not the scriptures? You also seem to mix in solo scriptura when you talk about sola scriptura. There is a difference, and not acknowledging the difference makes you feel unreliable. Your second question really feels irrelevant because even the Catholic Church believes that Scripture. But let’s break down the word to answer your question. θεόπνευστος - θεό = God πνευστος coming from πνεῦμα = Breath Question number 3: again you are mixing solo scriptura with Sola Scriptura and it makes you look unreliable
I ran across this video and clicked on it. I'm just a simple county man who reads the Bible and tries to follow it. I can't give those big word answers but can read basic English. The theme I read is that God created, man sinned and needed pardoning/ forgiven. First there was animal sacrifice but this was temporary so God sent His only son to die as our sacrifice- this is the Gospel. This is the message and words the whole world needs. The Bible does say if anyone comes to you with another gospel which for this ole country boy means another way to be forgiven and made right with God- the Bible says let that person be accursed. You can write other books or films or anything if it lines up to that message. The problem would come as the Bible says if we/anyone tries to give another gospel. I don't condemn others who write as long as they write about God then the premise is the gospel. Until all are safe and saved- this is really all that matters. We have a lot of work to do- splitting hairs is what the Pharisees and Sadducees did and Christ surely condemned them. let us not do that but simply proclaim the gospel of Christ
Thank you for the comment. This is splitting hairs. This is the central doctrine of protestantism the Bible alone) that's completely unbiblical. That's important to know.
I liked this comment. Thanks for your simple and correct comment.
Whether sola scriptura is overtly mentioned in the Bible or not, Catholicism fails to recognize a crucially important issue. We know that the Bible is the Word of God. The Bible declares itself to be God-breathed, inerrant, and authoritative. We also know that God does not change His mind or contradict Himself. So, while the Bible itself may not explicitly argue for sola scriptura, it most definitely does not allow for traditions that contradict its message. Sola scriptura is not as much of an argument against tradition as it is an argument against unbiblical, extra-biblical and/or anti-biblical doctrines. The only way to know for sure what God expects of us is to stay true to what we know He has revealed-the Bible. We can know, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that Scripture is true, authoritative, and reliable. The same cannot be said of tradition.
Well said Brother!
Ironically, you're saying sola scriptura is against unbiblical traditions, and yet that's exactly what the Bible alone is because it's not taught in scripture. You literally, as a Protestant, have to assume it because it's not there.
Is Catholic doctrines aren't there, which they are, you say they are unbiblical. But when the Protestant doctrine of the solar scripture is not found in the pages of scripture, you think it's okay.
Protestants can't even agree on what solar scripture is. Don't you think that's a problem? Wouldn't you think let the court doctrine of protestantism would be right there in the pages of scripture easy for people to understand?
Here's where you're the misunderstanding. Yes, the Bible is the word of God, but play Word of God is Not only in the bible.
Jesus is the Word of God, and He communicated that divine Word orally. The vast majority of all God's Words were not written down. Even Scripture says that. Jn. 21:25, 2 Jn. 2:12, 3 Jn. 13-14, 1 Thess. 2:13. etc. So, God's yes, we absolutely believe God's Word, but God's word isn't only in Scripture, and God's Word says to listen to the authority of the Church.
We would accept it if it was biblical, but it's not. It's a tradition of men that contradicts scripture.
First, because the Bible tells us to hold to traditions put also the authority of the church. Jesus said if you don't listen to the authority of the church, then you reject him. Only the church has authority to properly interpret scripture.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial IF I WANT TO BE SAVED ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE ALONE WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO ME?
@@CatholicTruthOfficial where does the bible tell us to hold to the authority of the church? IF you are saved and I assume you are not for baptism doesn't save anyone, would know only to listen to the authority of the word of God and we receive revelation through the holy spirit. A church claiming to hold sole authority to interpret scripture is one sign of a cult! PS I'M INDEPENDENT BAPTIST AND NO PROTESTANT. WE NEVER WERE PART OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. SOME CAME OUT OF OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN THE 16OOS INTO THE BAPTIST CHURCH BUT WE WERE THERE ACCORDING TO BIBLE DOCTRINE LONG BEFORE YOU EXISTED. YOU NEED TO READ THE BIBLE ONLY AND PRAY THE SPIRIT SPEAKS TO YOU! THE RAPTURE IS NEAR AND I WOULD NOT WANT YOU TO BE LEFT BEHIND.
You can't be saved according to the Bible alone. The Bible alone is not a Christian teaching, and it's not from christ. Christ established the church.
So the 2 questions are:
1) Where in the Bible does it say to use the Bible as our standard of authority?
2) What evidence from scripture do you have that it is God breathed / inspired by God (the books that were included), or put another way why were the books that were included the ones that were included.
So lets look at these 2 questions, and why they are being asked.
The Bible through many examples shows us the importance of knowing scripture, and to use it to discern truth from false teaching,
For example Jesus quoted scripture to Satan when He was being tempted, and it also gives an example of someone (the devil) mis-quoting scripture to push an agenda.
So the attitude that is usually prevalent within the PC is to compare what is being taught with the Bible, to use the bible as a spirit level to ensure that what is being taught is correct.
Some books were not included even though that have good teaching, others were not included because they were false, or whose original author cannot be verified.
It is the trust in the Holy Spirit that He guided the early Church leaders in their discernment of what should be included and what doesn't need to be included.
So that 2 Timothy 3:16-17 may be seen as having value.
So why is the author of this video asking these 2 questions?
The answer is 2 fold,
The first is that the Catholic Church believes things that are not only not found in scripture, but that actually go counter to scripture,
The second is using a passage incorrectly to bolster (give authority to) these beliefs that are not found in Scripture, that even though these beliefs that are not found in the Bible that they "are true" as they are part of "the traditions" that are vaguely being referred to in 2 Thessalonians 2:15.
"Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle."
So are those the teachings found in 1st and 2nd Thessalonians,
Or some mysterious ones that are not found in the Bible BUT must also be followed?
So the 2 questions being "asked" in this video are being asked,
So that you don't question the Catholic Church using scripture, instead rely on the Catholic Church to answer your question/s without scripture.
Because if the question could be answered using scripture.... then they would be using scripture to answer the question.
And if what is believed / taught goes counter to Scripture, that you trust the Catholic Church NOT the Bible......
Well said 🙏🫶🙌✨️
Answered.. nicely done.
Well said.
But you never answered either question. You instead made some unsubstantiated claims, sidestepping once again the answers to these questions.
Why are these questions being asked? because they are valid questions to be asked of those who claim this concept of Sola Scriptura.
Let me do what you just did.
*So that you don't question the Catholic Church using scripture, instead rely on the Catholic Church to answer your question/s without scripture.* As the canon can only be answered without relying on scripture as again there is no table of contents.
And
*Because if the question could be answered using scripture.... then they would be using scripture to answer the question.* Of course we would. But as there is no source in scripture to name scripture, we come into a bit of a circular problem. Protestants will ignore that problem even exists.
You are to go by and use only the Bible, yet immediately you run into the problem of having first to determine just what is scripture and what is not...without scripture to tell you.
Marty Luther edited his own Bible, greatly influencing those who came later. These are the books he decided were not scripture. As he promotes Scripture alone and there is no canon or table of contents within the Bible one wonders how he arrived at this list. He certainly did not use scripture to guide him.
This is just one example of yours. I ask _what the canon of scripture is._ where do I find it within scripture. without a Church or a deranged heretic to tell me.
This is how Luther handled it. He was a heavy-handed editor.
Books Luther Isolated and Considered Disputed:
1. New Testament:
◦ Hebrews
◦ James
◦ Jude
◦ Revelation
Deuterocanonical Books (moved to an "Apocrypha" section in Luther's Bible):
1. Tobit
2. Judith
3. Additions to Esther
4. Wisdom of Solomon
5. Ecclesiasticus (Sirach)
6. Baruch
7. Letter of Jeremiah
8. Additions to Daniel (Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon)
9. 1 Maccabees
10. 2 Maccabees
Luther included these books in a separate section, referring to them as "useful for reading," but not on par with the canonical books.
Protestants don't know this, but the word Apocrypha (14th century) was kidnapped. while the meaning was applied to a newly coined word pseudepigrapha (17th century) and the already known and defined word _Apocrypha_ used to refer to the deuterocanonical books. Actual scripture that you deny. But you have, again to beat a dead heretic, no listings of books that compose the Bible.
Good job answering the "2 Catholic Questions Protestants Can't Answer!". 👍👍
For Brian Mercier: Not everything have to be literally written in the Bible. For example the word Trinity. Good luck finding that word in the Bible.
"Jesus replied, “You hypocrites, Isaiah described you beautifully when he wrote-‘This people honours me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. And in vain they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men’. You are so busy holding on to the traditions of men that you let go the commandment of God!” (Mark 7)
Um. Nowhere does that say Bible alone as a doctrine. There's a huge difference between the doctrines of man and doctrines of God, something prots get mixed up all the time. In fact many protestants reject the doctrines Christ taught, i.e. baptism saving, the eucharist is his flesh. If you can't get those basic ones which are explicit no one's gonna trust an abstract interpretation of scripture that misses the context.
@@Sicarius089we believe that everything we to know or understand is in bible, church is more than one gather for God and asking bit of help from someone who already has bit experience to connect is ok,i mean new Christians usually don't know that woman means church and sitting on someone means you have dominion over them, and Jesus commanded pharacies to search scriptures in which they thought they had life,he didn't say in your culture or tradition but go to scriptures,i meant you are probably so far away from God that 10 commandments aren't a promise to you
@@zhanucong4614 your first premise is entirely wrong. The bible illustrates the fall of man but God's plan for salvation through Christ and the new testament was presented to bring people to Christ. The bible even admits that not all Christ did and taught aren't included in the bible but that the record is presented so others may believe. From there the church was established by Christ to guide others in faith and morals. As seen in teachings like "if there's disagreement among you, bring it to the church" it doesn't say open your bible and argue, but that the church has the authority to put matters to rest, as also seen in Acts where there's a dispute and Peter and I think it's James help settle the matter, they weren't reading Acts when they did that, they actually lived it out and it's recorded so others would know that the church has that authority to settle disputes, something the bible can't do due to others misinterpreting the text. I'm not gonna trust doctrines that came 1500+ years after Christ by people who broke away from the church over those who uphold the teachings of those who learned directly from the apostles and in turn passed that on to their successors. That's where Protestantism fails, they've reinvented the wheel and rejected apostolic succession, whereas the Catholic church holds to the traditions handed to them which can be seen in early writings of those who learned from the apostles, i.e. St Clement of Rome (chosen by Peter), St Ignatius of Antioch & St Polycarp (known and chosen by St John the apostle) St Cyprian, St Justin Martyr, St Irenaues of Lyons to name a few.
@@Sicarius089the church is an institution made up my men who are sinners. A little known fact is that there was reform in the 9 and 11 centuries as well before the “reformation “ which it wasn’t. That was badly titled. The counter reformation was the real reformation. The parable of the weeds amongst the wheat was a parable used by saint augustine against donatism. We see in acts 20 verse 30 where Paul says and from your own group, men will come foward perverting the truth to draw the disciples away from them.
The Protestant doctrines of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fede (salvation thru faith alone) are "traditions of men".
Good vid because you induce folks to think and discuss.
That’s what Paul tells us to do! Examine ourselves.
The Bible doesn't literally say, "there is a Trinity", but we still believe in that concept.
Are you arguing against or for solascriptura?
Please, show where in Scripture we can find “the concept” of sola scriptura.
@@thejerichoconnection3473 show me where the trinity is plainly taught, show me about praying to saints and Mary. Show me going to heaven, show me immortality of the soul. None of which is in the bible and contradicts the bible.
@@2304rcb not sure why you ask me. I don’t believe in sola scriptura.
@@thejerichoconnection3473 that's a shame.
Thanks!
Thank you Gman! We appreciate it!
2 Timothy
3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
Sure, all scripture is inspired by God. That doesn’t mean *only scripture is inspired by God. There is no disagreement here regarding those verses.
Also, the Scripture being spoken of is the Old Testament, not the whole Bible. This doesn't prove the Bible alone.
@Catholic Truth Official you say " That doesn’t mean *only scripture is inspired by God. "
how will you prove anything other teaching is inspired by God ?
answer is you cannot do it ,
what you are attempting to do is create support that men can create traditions and then claim they are just as inspired by God as the bible scriptures are
Easy. By the Church Jesus established and gave his authority to. How are you going to prove the Books in the Bible are inspired Scripture going by the Bible alone. Shows us where the Bible says Hebrews or 3 John or Obediah are Scripture.
And no, we don't claim it and men can create traditions and then say they are inspired. Tradition was already invented by Christ and any tradition comes down from him and the apostles and successors. In the Bible is tradition, just tradition written down.
Why would protestants use revelation 22 to show bible alone when Martin luther rejected the book of revelation
And 4 other New Testament books.
Understanding is a faith issue . Faith comes by hearing the word of God. Lean, not on your understanding .Trust in the Lord. 1CORINTHIANS 1-1:30 . 1PETER 2-15-25. KJV.
Exactly, the word of God doesn't come to us just by being written, but also by hearing which is preaching and teaching. 1 Thess. 2:13
The phrase sola scriptura is from the Latin: sola having the idea of “alone,” “ground,” “base,” and the word scriptura meaning “writings”-referring to the Scriptures. Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian. The Bible is complete, authoritative, and true. “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16). for the first question.
That's one definition. But other Protestants and other creams that are older than this definition disagree with you. So where does Scripture solve the problem
@@CatholicTruthOfficial Thru evidential truth backed up with consistency.
Then why can't Protestants agree on what sola scriptura is?
@CatholicTruthOfficial why do you make a video about sola scripture , you looking for a way to make traditions of catholism to be valid
protestants don't care what you believe ,
you are experiencing a self esteem issue of feeling insecure so you create a video to get people to respond , just so you can lift your self up in pride thinking you won something
While I don't identify as a 'Protestant'-a term originally used as a pejorative in the context of the 16th-century church revival-it's important to clarify what 'Sola Scriptura' truly represents. This doctrine is not merely a modern invention but a significant theological assertion that emphasizes the Bible as the sole and ultimate source of truth, countering the unscriptural traditions that had infiltrated the church over the centuries.
Historically, teachings such as indulgences and the concept of purgatory were indicative of a works-based religion that strayed from the core message of Scripture. These practices suggested that salvation could be earned or that one could suffer in an intermediate state to purify oneself before entering heaven. In contrast, the Bible clearly teaches that the death of Jesus Christ on the cross was sufficient for our salvation, affirming that grace-not works-brings us into a right relationship with God.
Instead of rejecting 'Sola Scriptura,' it would be wise to open the Bible-any Bible, whether Catholic or non-Catholic-and learn what the New Testament teaches about the grace of God and the new birth. This approach can lead us back to the foundational truths as taught by the apostles and the early church.
Scripture as the sole and infallible rule a faith (a definition many Protestants reject) is a man-made tradition. It's 100% not biblical. Nowhere does Scripture say it's the sole or infallible rule of faith, and without biblical proof, it's unbiblical.
One must ask: when and why did "sola scriptura" emerge? It was to counter the drift that had taken place in the RCC. It is not a "mere modern invention" but a return to biblical authority and orthodoxy. John 17:17 reminds us God's Word is truth; not the RCC.
@CatholicTruthOfficial it is obvious that you take issue with scripture of it being " God breathed" or of "Holy Spirit inspiration " because catholic want to claim their own man made doctrines to be held as high as Holy Spirit or Messiahs words . Remember what Christ said to the pharisees and about them ?
simple point is this notion that God created catholicism as the first church true church and that is not true , catholicism did not exist until the 300's ad ,
problem comes with catholics trying to ' one up ' everyone else and trying to say they are the only true church, they parade their pope around as if he is Christ , ' in place of Christ ' and this is because of their tradition
Matthew 4
4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
now the Holy Spirit inspired writings are the " word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."
Even Catholic church accepts only the 27 books of New Testament as scripture. Septuagint Bible was accepted as word of God by Jesus as book of Scripture.
Protestant here. First, just so we're on the same page, Sola Scriptura has a very simple definition: "Scripture is our sole INFALLIBLE authority". There are other authorities like parents and church leaders, but the words of God are the only INFALLIBLE words we have today.
2:22 Sola Scriptura doesn't mean every belief will be explicit in scripture. No single verse for the trinity. But I'll try to answer what I think your question is getting at. Let's start from something I hope we can agree on: God giving us instruction is always more authoritative than a human giving us instruction. This has one exception: the apostles. Jesus gave them all the power to bind and loose, meaning that the apostles teachings are just as authoritative as scripture. Here's where we disagree: Roman Catholics believe we STILL have a person on earth who can speak like this, Sola Scriptura holders don't. And here we come to the answer to your question: we see God clearly giving the apostles binding and loosing, where's the chapter and verse where he gives Peter's successors binding and loosing?
To expand on that a little bit, God's word having higher authority is the default. We'd need God to explicitly tell us if we should treat a human's teachings with the same authority as his. He did this with the apostles. The burden of proof is on Rome to show that the Roman bishop was given this authority too, because I don't see that anywhere. The burden of proof is NOT on us to prove that God's word has the higher authority. That's the default. So I give you this "unanswerable" question: when did God say that Peter's successors could speak with the same authority as him?
5:21 This question can really apply to any verse, and is basically "how can you be sure you're interpreting scripture correctly". And the answer is- we can't! Lots of people have interpreted scripture lots of different ways, and that didn't just start in the 1500s. Sola Scriptura does NOT promise everyone will agree on what scripture means. This is what makes Protestantism so appealing to me: if we settle on an interpretation of something that later turns out to be wrong, we reform it! A great example of this: the age of the Earth. A lot of people have thought it was 6000 years throughout church history. But now with modern science, we know it's likely to be much older. We can simply admit, "hey, we've been interpreting this wrong!" Not so with Roman Catholic dogmas. Well, it's not supposed to be so anyway, 'No Salvation Outside the Church' has been taken on a doctrinal development roller coaster lately.
7:28 I was actually surprised this wasn't number two because it's so common, I was going to be so proud... The canon is not a problem at all for Sola Scriptura. I'll prove it with the old testament pre-Jesus. At this point in time, we had no "infallible" Roman bishop to tell us which books were canon, right? There was no infallible office pre-Rome. Hopefully we're agreed on that. So when God spoke through a prophet, how did the people know it was really God without the Roman bishop to tell them? And yet, when Jesus arrives on the scene, he seems perfectly comfortable binding people to what scripture says. Shouldn't they have been upset? Shouldn't they have said "no fair Jesus, we don't have an infallible bishop to discern the canon for us! We don't know what's inspired!" Having God's words be your highest authoritative does not require you to have an infallible guy on the side telling you which words are Gods.
If any unsure Protestants made it this far, please know: these are not new questions. They have answers. Are we really being asked to believe that Sola Scriptura-believing scholars and pastors don't have answers for these base-level questions? Yes we are, that's how internet apologists operate. "Protestants can't answer this, we have all the answers, you have none of the answers".
Jesus started Catholic church and has the fullness of truth.
Where is the verse that God took away these powers and authority from His Church, or that He will?
Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, then you will understand that the Catholic interpretation of scripture is correct, because you will agree with it.
Don’t you think your pastors are authoritative on scripture?
If not why do you have them if not to teach with authority?
Your point is a bit of an oxymoron.
On binding and loosing. Wouldn’t that cover succession? I mean the Apostles replaced Judas Escariot with Mathias?
And then why did the Apostles appoint their successors? Polycarp? Ignatius? Clement? All taught and ordained by the Apostles
Your position of no succession does not stand up to historical events
@@johnyang1420Jesus said nothing about Catholic. We are called to be Christian. The word Catholic isn’t in the Bible. The way to the Father is thru the Son and not in any church
As a born again Christian, I hold to sola scriptura, as in that the Bible (Word of God) is the final authority in all matters in faith and practice. I accept every church council ruling that are clearly inline with the scriptures, anything else is to be considered suspect and likely the traditions of man that have entered into the Church.
God bless
The Word of God is not in a book. The Word of God existed before there ever was a book.
Then again, there is not a single verse in the Bible that can back up Sola Scriptura, thus you are failing at your own logic since you are following a deliberately man made doctrine. Also, not a single Bible verse says that the Bible is the only and final authority in all matters of the faith. You cannot be a protestant and be consistent, it is just not possible.
Might I ask you how Protestants resolve differences in interpretation using sola scriputra? Are there doctrinal differences in Protestantism?
I’m curious as to how you know your specific interpretation is correct and the Church that God decided to work through to provide the scriptures is wrong?
How is it that I shouldn’t trust the Church Christ created, the Pilar and bulwark of truth, to interpret the scriptures that it compiled?
@@anitra7747As evidenced in history, disagreements on doctrine create more denominational Church splits.
@@barbwellman6686 I would say the evidence shows that sola scriptura has served to divide christians. I would venture to say that as Eve stepped out from under the authority of her husband so the Protestants have stepped out from the authority of the Catholic Church. The result is the same. There is a loss of knowledge, a separation from God’s active will and division. The fruits of sola scriptura is division. Divide and conquer, it benefits the enemy and has lead to a massive lack of conversion. We have just produced the most atheistic generation ever, which Christ foresaw and why He prayed for our unity. Therefore, our obstinance in our division places us contrary to Christ’s will in His prayer for unity.
I am a Christian, I renounce myself from belonging to any denomination, I am just a Christian a followr of Christ Jesus. Jesus teachings and His death and resurrection which is in the Holy Bible is our sole basis, practice or traditions which rectify Jesus' teachings and the Gospel are the only traditions we are upholding. Any other than those are unnecessary for they distract us from the truth.
Can I ask you How do you enter Heaven? And what are the qualifications to enter Heaven?
We'd be happy to answer your question after you answer the three that we asked in the video.
1. Since Protestants can't agree on what the Bible alone is and have different understandings of it, where does the bible alone solve this problem?
2. Protestants say that scripture is god-breathed, like in to Timothy 3:16, and yet the Greek word, Theopnustos, has two different meanings. So how do you know which meaning it is according to scripture?
3. How do you know which books belong in the Bible according to the Bible alone? Or do you have to use an authority outside of scripture?
@@CatholicTruthOfficial
1. Bible alone is the basis of our teachings, when we teach we connect it to the Scriptures. There are different understanding of one verse but that is our opinion alone, but there is one thing we agreed upon on our opinions, if the opinion emulates Christ Jesus then it is the best opinion, we made sure to go back to the scriptures.
2. Both means that they came from God. That only solidifies the fact that the Bible is infallible because its from God.
3. The one without 14 other books. The Holy Bible is already spread to millions and lots of Christians who are born again in Spirit used it, God allowed 14 books to be removed in the first place, which means they are unnecessary.
@@CatholicTruthOfficialWell, he answered your questions. Are you going to answer his?
@@Yjohanna Regarding #3: I am assuming you believe there are 66 books in the Bible(Catholics believe there are 73 books in the Bible). The question is asked: How do you know the Bible is composed of 66 books(or, whatever number who think it is)? Nowhere in the Protestant Bible does it say the Bible is made up of 66 books. So, one can not say the belief of 66 books(or however many) is based on the Protestant Bible. So, what are you basing your belief on? (Bonus question: What would you have based your beliefs on three years after Christ's Resurrection when not one book of the New Testament had been written?)
@@Channel-nq7eo We are basing it on our God, our God is alive and so is His Words, if we don't believe in the Bible, being a Christian would be in vain. The Bible is infallible since its from God, people who wrote it whether they have seen it or not as long as God willed them to write it, it will be perfect.
Show us Protestants that the merit of the saints gets us to heaven from the bible
Throw in your lies about how you supposedly don't worship Mary and "only" pray to her
Rev: 8:3
@toneyo4794 doesn't show anything about the merits of the Saints that would help anyone to heaven.
@@RG-qn2qm yes the “merits” of saints don’t get anyone to Heaven. But why ask the question? What I do and believe only helps me to Heaven. I pray for others but my merits have nothing to do with it. Catholicism doesn’t teach merits of others.
@toneyo4794 BS on Catholicism doesn't teach Merits...what earth do you live in? Are you Catholic and if you are you didn't get the memo....idiots
“But there is a spirit in man: And the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.”
Job 32:8
“The Spirit of God hath made me, And the breath of the Almighty hath given me life.”
Job 33:4
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.”
2 Timothy 3:16-17
“knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”
2 Peter 1:20-21 KJV
God inspired the scriptures through prophets. Case closed
Have you actually read and studied those verses? They don't approve the Bible alone. 2 Tim. 3:15-17 doesn't say that the Bible is the only or final authority or that we just need to go by the bible. It doesn't say any of that. Rather, this passage says Scripture is 'helpful' (not sufficient) in aiding a Christian. Many things are helpful in that regard, but it never says only thing we need.
Lastly, 2 Tim. 3:15-17 is talking about the Old Testament Scriptures, not the whole Bible. It describes the scriptures Timothy knew as a kid. Old Testament. There was no Bible at this time and there wouldn't be for 4 cenruries. The New Testament would even be finished for at least 6 decades. So the best argument you can make is that all we need is the Old Testament. That is what makes us perfect. But of course, the verses don't say any of that.
If we are going to take your claim literally here, employing the same logic, then all we need is perseverance. James 1:4 says that perseverance makes us "perfect and complete, lacking in nothing. So according to James all we need is perseverance to be perfect. And the Greek is far stronger than in 2nd Timothy.
Timothy was a Catholic Bishop. So Paul is instructing a Catholic Bishop.
Peter is condemning private interpretation and that's what Protestants do.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial
“And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.”
2 Peter 3:15-16
“Also other scriptures” Peter identifies Paul’s epistles as scripture also.
“If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.”
1 Corinthians 14:37
Prophets at the time were able to confirm if an epistle was Holy Spirit inspired
Why trust the Greek more? It’s not even the original. There are no originals
“Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: but we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:”
1 Corinthians 2:6-7
“to whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus:”
Colossians 1:27-28
“And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: that we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;”
Ephesians 4:11-14
“And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:”
Colossians 2:10
Made perfect in Christ.
Thanks
❤❤❤
You are very welcome Maggie! Thank you so much! We appreciate your generosity. You are in our prayers!
One question for you: how did the pope only found out that he was infallible in the 1800’s?
The Church didn't just "find out" in the 1800's. If this is an honest question it highlights a lack of understanding on how dogmas are declared and the history behind making something a dogma.
@@hirakisk1973they have no idea how it works. Had the apostles gone by sola Scriptura the gentiles would have been circumcised at the council of Jerusalem.
That’s a very good answer my friend
However it does fail when you consider St Peter’s rebuke from St Paul on this matter you referred to .
@@andrewdrew677 problem is that it has nothing to do with his teaching but more with his conduct so nice try. Also when Paul was appointed by the god he went down to Jerusalem to confer with cephas which is Aramaic which means rock . He stayed with him for 15 days. Even Jesus rebuked peter but that didn’t know stop him from making him chief shepherd over the rest of the apostles.
Dogmas only clarify a preexisting truth. Usually counsels occur when there is disputes among truth which results in clarification statements. It’s not an introduction of something new. This is one of those mistakes people don’t understand about Church teaching since the earliest counsels of the times of the apostles and early church fathers
The apostles have already documented the gospels and epistles of apostles that was Christianity started while catholicism started in fourth century face the facts
The apostles could not have documented everything Cincinnati Testament wasn't even finished being written until they had scattered all over the world. It was finally written when John was exiled in Patmos.
Jesus started the Catholic church and the church made the bible.
Jesus did NOT start catholicism is a religion that began in the years 300 , like about 313 ad ,
The Israelites and Jews in the first century were not catholic
@@CatholicTruthOfficial Wrong
@@enigmainwater2493Who compiled the books of the New Testament, and why were those particular texts chosen?
@@CatholicTruthOfficial You mean the translated the Bible to Latin.
Yeshua started a Messianic Hebrew church. The Hebrew church had Hebrew gospels. Jerome said that when in doubt of the Greek, go to the fountain. And the fountain was the Hebrew scriptures.
If the target audience is protestants, and since so many are so far removed from this debate, it would had been helpful to actually explain what the premise of the issue you see vs launching into a gotcha question. because the very similar questions can be applied to Catholics as you referenced the church in this video, so what church, what traditions do you refer to? As you did state correctly the people the letters were going to were Jews, so it would be those traditions, their church etc. so in essence the Catholic church itself has failed
Jewish Church?! You may have a second look in the bible?! There is ONLY ONE CHURCH INSTITUTED BY JESUS CHRIST. Which clearly IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. You may read some Church history. And church fathers. Not Martin Luther, who obviously did have selfish interests in his teachings. Breaking his chastity vow may clearly show this to one's open eyes. Well, which fruits did this bring?! Well, Luther gave is "wife" a manly name, as she was so bossy. Obviously not obedience, like the bible teaches... Wasn't it about the fruits, which show up the wrong prophets?!
@@kletterfreak814 Vow of chastity and where did that come from? oh yes a man who wanted more power and control, oh the irony that it is now the cause of Catholics down fall. While its amazing how God humor works, unfortunately what the Catholics have down has put a stink on the entirety of religion instead of where it needs to be solely directed at and the whole must suffer due to your pope fragile ego.
Take the log out of your eye before the speck of another.
@@kletterfreak814 Matthew Mark Luke John and every other book is by Jewish people that accepted Jesus as LORD and savior ,
@@seventysevens8065
Well, definitely, Paul didn't write to Jews only: He clearly mentions that the Gospels are as well for the Greeks, who were considered pagan before.
@kletterfreak814 That was after Paul's conversion , several years after the Christian church was established by Jews following the Hebrew OT and Christ Jesus , before Paul was converted to being a Christian he was persecuting Christians and putting them in prison for preaching the gospel of Jesus
all the 12 apostles were Jewish , and they did not want any gentiles in the Christian church , when Paul was converted and he came to the 12 saying they needed to allow gentiles into the Church , after the 12 agreed , they argued about if the gentiles should follow the Jewish laws
gentiles that have not accepted Christ as LORD and Savoir are still pagans
Jesus came for the lost sheep of Israel , but would accept gentiles if they came to Him and showed they had Faith in Him , Paul was chosen to be the apostle to the gentiles , and Jesus had to blind his eyes to get his attention , then healed him and told him to be the apostle to the gentiles
I am a Protestant believer who believes in the doctrine of scripture alone as the sole theological authority. My question is what beliefs or doctrines does the Catholic Church practice that come into conflict with the doctrine of scripture alone?
The largest is the recognition of Sacred Tradition as a major authority in the faith. Scripture alone rejects the authority of the Church, creating a massive diversion in core Christian beliefs. There are plenty more conflicts that sola scriptura has with the Catholic Church but that is the most substantial one to start with.
If you think you can know everything you need to know just by reading the Bible on your own, it means you think you yourself are infallible!
Scripture alone particularly falls short when it comes to modern issues like IVF, transgenderism, stem cell research, and contraception. There aren't clear answers to these things in the Bible.
@Lauren-v9m exactly
Well for one the leadership tries to cover up the child s*x a*use that runs rampant in their organization but the scripture says what is done in darkness comes to light. Same for protestant religions too though...
When I was about 12 or 13, long before even thinking a thought about Catholicism, being "dragged" to church, mostly Baptist and church of God etc., it was always "THE BIBLE", sola scriptura, that's the authority and of course "faith alone" and viola, saved forever... yet when I was being made to go to church during these years I would always ask, "if all I need is faith and if the Bible alone is the authority, why should we go to church, what need of a pastor?" And yet I was told that it was sinful not to go, like we were obligated, I think that in this inconsistency, the understanding of the need of a leader, a structure, a pastor, shepherd of some kind is still sensed or inherent, though they don't put it that way.
Welcome home!
The Bible isn’t the authority. Jesus Christ is. The Bible teaches us how to be born again
@@williamconner7431 Jesus said to "tell it to The Church" Matthew 18:17, ans Saint Paul said The Church is "the pillar and bulwark of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15).
Clearly Jesus reveals himself through The Church whish is the mystical body of Christ on earth.
And yes, Jesus does tell us how to be born again. See John 3:5
@puddleglum943 the obligation of a believer is to meet with his brothers and sisters to remember the death and resurrection of hhe Lord Jesus. You certainly do not need a paid ministry. They will pander to that particular churches way of thinking or guess what, they'll be out of a job. A paid ministry stops you thinking for yourself and you have to make your salvation sure.
The bible is the word of God. You need nothing else. Edict from churches are not God's word especially if they contradict the bible
@@2304rcbThe only thing is do not forget the assembly, but the church is not salvation.
Until I was 18, I was a member of the Roman Catholic Church! I left for several reasons, but the main Motivator was because the Catholic Church threatened to EX-communicate our Parich Monsignor since he was teaching teenagers directly from the New Testament. Among other reasons is what appeared to be intentional misinterpretations of Bible Verses. I was serious about the possibility of becoming a Catholic Missionary since they were discussing the subject. When I mentioned it during a break during Service, the lady behind me said No Wives, no girl friends, No Children, No Marriages! Being a relatively bright 11-year-old, I instantly replied, "GOD would NOT like that"!!! Her answer was, "This one is going to be a major problem"!!! I was a very well-behaved kid in school, catechism, and in life [not bragging, just informing you MY FATHER was wise and strict]. To shorten the number of concepts and the length of this long post. So, tell me where to find the word "Trinity" in the Bible. NOT every Biblical principle is written out word for word in the Bible. Sometimes, you must read more than just the specific word or chapter. PS: GOD assumes we have a little intelligence [If you have been observing current events, perhaps I should have stated extremely little intelligence."] Good Day!!!
That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Catholic priests teach people directly from the New Testament all the time. I've taught a Bible study for 20 years, and have taught directly from the bible. I don't think your information is accurate. It's probably second-hand source is not based on reality.
Your attitude and your response to that lady was exactly right. She was precisely wrong and ignorant of all things godly. I really would ask you to reconsider leaving the church that Jesus Christ himself established for a few people who really had no idea what they were talking about. Although you will find that in any church. Free reconsider. If you have any questions we'd be happy to help answer them.
First, to address what was said in the video, if catholic tradition goes against the Bible, you have to go with the Bible. The catholic church teaches fath plus works. My mom grew up catholic. She grew up with a lot of guilt and the fear of going to Hell.
Martin Luther was a catholic monk who used to beat himself with a whip to atone for his sins. In those days many Catholics would do the same, as well as walking on their knees until they were bloody and lying on a hard stone floor for hours, all in an effort to atone for their sins.When Luther came to understand the Gospel and sola fide, all of a sudden he didn't have to beat himself anymore. He knew that his sins were forgiven.
My mom came to understand the Gospel as a teenager.
Also, as a catholic she was discouraged from reading the bible.
If non-catholic tradition goes against the Bible then you have to go with the Bible. The Bible alone is Protestant tradition and goes against the bible. That is why we reject it.
Also, the Catholic church does not believe in faith Plus works. Show us in any document where we teach Faith plus works in those words. What the Catholic Church teaches is that we are saved by faith. It's just not an empty faith. If you have faith but you don't live it out, and you do evil Works instead of good works, and you don't follow Christ or his commandments, then it's a faith that doesn't save you. James is clear that faith without works is dead. He doesn't say you don't have real faith, or faith at all, he says you have faith but it's a dead faith that doesn't save.
Martin Luther suffered from scrupulosity. None of his other monk Brothers did. Just luther. Which is why he went off the edge and started a false religion with heresy. In fact both a superior and his brother is used to try to encourage him and talk to him about the love of God and tell him that he's being too hard on himself and he needs to give his sins to jesus. But Luther couldn't let it go and always saw Jesus as angry because of his father figure on earth. So it's not the Catholic church or the monks that were the problem, it was Luther who was the problem and continued to be a problem when he invented his own religion and teachings to try to make himself feel better in the sight of god. That's where faith alone and the Bible alone came from.
Either we are saved by faith alone or faith plus works. There is no middle ground. The Second Counsel of Trent says that anyone who believes in sola fide is anathema, or eternally cursed.
As a Protestant I agree with you that faith without works is dead. Most of the reformers taught that also.
Luther was not the only catholic to inflict harm on himself, though he took it further than most. The catholic church believes that if an infant dies before it has been baptized it goes straight to Hell. If someone commits a mortal sin and dies before he or she can confess to the priest, that person goes straight to Hell. My mom grew up as an Irish catholic terrified by the thought of going to Hell. It wasn't until later that she came to understand the Gospel as Luther did. I had a similar experience growing up with the fear of Hell always hanging over my head, and when I discovered sola fide it changed my whole life. Luther had the same experience. I don't understand why you hate it so much.
This is Sola Scriptura from the Bible...
2 Timothy 3:15
[15]And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
Scripture is sufficient for salvation
St. Peter explained that scripture is more reliable than man's experience.
Here he recalls his own great tradition...
2 Peter 1:17-18
[17]For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
[18]And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
Peter personally saw and heard, but said of the scripture....
2 Peter 1:19
[19]We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
Nothing else can equal the scripture.
That friends, is Sola Scriptura.
The problem with that is Timothy was written about 63 AD and Peter was written about 67 AD. The New Testament was not fully written and the actual canon was not chosen yet. So, he was referring to the Hebrew Old Testament scrolls that were also being established from three different sources.
Sola scripture is garbage
UM...No. that friend DOES NOT MENTION Only Scripture.
Nowhere does the bible say we will be judged on scripture 🤦🏾♂️
@@andreeattieh2963 agggrreeeeee
And so we continue to major on things that are prideful and lead to division.
Dear catholic brother, you have asked 3 questions and ONLY God our Father in heaven will give you the answers that are true.
No man can !
So, please preach the Gospel of the Kingdom of God to the world and make disciples. For if you do this, you have many like me who will stand with you.
When Protestants can't answer simple questions that undermine their core doctrines, they cry pride and division. The fact is they are already divided by the tens of thousands and are extremely prideful because they all think they're right in everyone else's wrong.
We can give answers for all of our Catholic doctrines, surely you should be able to give answers for the central doctrine of all of protestantism. We aren't just trying to be divisive, it's actually very important to realize that protestantism is not biblical and does not come from christ. It was an invention of man 15 centuries later which is why these don't have biblical support. We want you to come home to the true church of Jesus.
@CatholicTruthOfficial Am at home in Christ Jesus and you will be shocked at the end. Remain steadfast in your conviction. Not sure why anyone should protest when the Gospel is so simple.
Please go and preach the Gospel and make disciples.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial
"When Protestants can't answer simple questions that undermine their core doctrines, they cry pride and division. The fact is they are already divided by the tens of thousands and are extremely prideful because they all think they're right in everyone else's wrong."
Is this fruit of the Spirit or fruit of the flesh?
@@CatholicTruthOfficialCan you show in the Scripture or revelation that protestantism was an invention of man and not a move of God? I'm sure God didn't just stop guiding history after the days of the early church.
@@bingo7799look at the fruits of Protestantism: moral relativism, widespread acceptance of abortion, divorce and contraception. Most Catholics objectively do these things too, but the church teachings themselves remain steadfast against these things. You will know a tree by its fruit
In my own knowledge, I question if the Bible is actually completely God's word. But as far as the Bible alone, 2 Scriptures are Revelation 22:18-19, which states we are not to add or take away from "this prophesy". It might only refer to the entire book of Revelation, or it could be an extension of a passage that tells us we are not to add or take away from ANY of God's doctrines, Proverbs 30:5-6, "Every word of God is pure, He is a shield to those who trust in Him. DO NOT ADD to His words, lest He reprove you and you be found to be a LIAR".
Thank you for your comment. These are common misunderstandings.
Revelation 22 does not prove the Bible alone or the sufficiency of scripture either. This was written by John when he was exiled on the Island of Patmos. After he had finished writing the book of Revelation, he sealed it up with the warning not to add or take away from it because it was given to him directly by God. The Bible would not even be put together for another 300 years. So this passage is only talking about the Book of Revelation not the whole Blble.
Yes, the Bible is the word of God. If Scripture alone was the word of God, you would have a point, but the bible says it's not. _Jesus_ is the Word of God, and He gave us the Word of God _orally._ The vast majority of all God's words were _not_ written down but were oral and that the oral word being preached was his word too. 1 Thess. 2:13, Jn. 21:25, 2 Jn. 2:12, 3 Jn. 13-14, etc. So, God's word, yes, we absolutely believe God's Word, but God's word isn't only found in Scripture.
You also ignore Scripture because Scripture states that Jesus also started a church and gave his authority to the Church. Moreover, He said if we don't listen to the authority of the Church, then we reject Christ and God. Not to mention that Bible says to hold to godly Traditions too which is the word of God (1 Thess. 2:13, 2 Thess. 2:15, 1 Cor. 11:2, 2 Tim. 2:2, etc.)
You sound like so many Muslims who keep asking a similar question i.e. Can you show in The Bible where Jesus Christ says "I am God Worship Me."
How so? We never asked you to find the words sola scriptura in the Bible. So, I think this is a straan argument designed to avoid the fact that you can't answer our questions. 3 questions. You didn't answer any like we said you wouldn't. Prayers for you though.
I'm thankful for this.❤❤❤
Well, you wanted sincere answers, so here they are. As a Protestant believer, I am giving them to you:
1) Nowhere. The Bible is not a dictionary or an encyclopedia, so you won’t find a verse in it that would say, "The principle of Sola Scriptura is...";
2) We can’t. The term "God-breathed" could mean "inspired by God," or it could also mean "life-giving." Both interpretations are possible;
So, I’ve sincerely answered your first two questions. Now what? What was the point of asking them? If your intent is to argue that these answers somehow disprove the Sola Scriptura principle, then you are mistaken-they don’t.
You won’t find a definition of "soccer" or "boxing" in the Bible either. Nor will you find one "true" definition of these sports outside of the Bible. For instance, one could argue that FIFA has the ultimate authority over the rules of soccer. However, that doesn’t mean two high school teams playing soccer according to their own modified rules are not playing soccer. Similarly, the absence of a definition of soccer in the Bible doesn’t negate the existence or validity of the sport.
So, instead of looking for a formal definition of Sola Scriptura-let alone demanding that it be explicitly defined in the Bible-you need to look at the very essence of this principle. And that essence is simple: salvation is possible through Scripture alone. That is, salvation is achieved by believing in the truths and stories contained in the Scripture and a person does not need to believe in any extra-biblical traditions (e.g., the immaculate conception of Mary or her coronation) to be saved.
And this principle IS FOUND in the Bible-in the place that you have never cited in your video:
"Jesus performed MANY OTHER SIGNS in the presence of his disciples, WHICH ARE NOT RECORDED in this book. BUT THESE ARE WRITTEN THAT you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing YOU MAY HAVE LIFE IN HIS NAME." (John 20:30-31)
The Apostle John states here clearly that there are many other signs and events he did not include in his gospel. However, he also affirms that the written accounts that ARE included are sufficient for belief and salvation. What is also of importance here is the phrase "but these are written"-it highlights the sufficiency of Scripture alone, without requiring oral tradition to convey these truths.
So with this perspective on Sola Scriptura, it becomes clear that, unlike what you have said, 2nd Timothy 3:16 is NOT the "main argument" for Sola Scriptura. Whether Scripture is "God-breathed" or "life-giving" in that passage is not the crux of the matter. What matters is that salvation is attainable through faith in the gospel facts and stories written in Scripture.
Moreover, this does not mean that a person must know the entirety of Scripture to be saved. The gospel facts alone are sufficient for salvation. Someone can be saved by only accepting the truths presented in the Gospel of John, or by only accepting those in the Gospel of Luke, or by only accepting those in Paul’s epistles. It is not necessary to be familiar with James, Hebrews, or Revelation. Hence, the answer to your third question.
Thank you for your honest and sincere answers. Here's why it's important. Because this is a chord doctrinal matter of protestantism, and Protestants can't agree on what it means and are going each according to their own definitions, yet they say everything must be found in scripture and yet this Doctrine is not found in scripture.
Our other point of asking was to show that the Bible can't actually solve doctrinal issues like this. Our third issue is that Protestants want Catholics to show their doctrines and definitions word for word in Scripture, yes say they don't have to themselves.
Catholics can find their own doctrines in scripture even if not word for word, so we get that, yet the doctrine of the Bible alone is not even found in scripture implicitly.
As for the second question that you say you don't know, Protestants say the Bible alone is true because it's the only thing that's God breathed. If we don't know it's God breathed then we can't make this argument.
Have you seen any debates? 2 Tim. 3:16-17 is the main argument of Protestants that they hyperfocus on.
Your last error is saying that these things were written shows that these alone are necessary. And that's just false. How hard is it high like the sufficiency of scriptural alone? John didn't separate the scriptures from the church and the church is full understanding of the gospel. As opposed to Protestants 500 years later who are just going by the scriptures and don't have the church and don't have that full understanding from tradition that John passed on.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial What you're doing is the definition of straining at gnats, only to swallow a camel
@@CatholicTruthOfficialThe difference is a lot of your extra Biblical beliefs are actual dogma. A Catholic must believe in Marian doctrines that place to be saved, for example. Sola Scriptura just recognizes the authority of scripture in our lives. It is objective and unchanging. Sure, interpretation may differ, but the crux of salvation is clearly placed into scripture. So, when man changes the doctrines to fit an agenda we have an infallible source to fall back on.
In other words the words of Jesus and the original apostles, unchanged.
@@turquisestones that is the nature of catholics ...
@@turquisestones Why didn't Jesus promise a book for everyone to read on their own? Why wasn't the printing press invented until nearly 1400 years after Jesus walked the earth? How did all these Christians get saved for all these years when they couldn't read or own a Bible? The doctrine of Sola Scriptura came from a man..a Catholic monk who broke from Jesus Church and that's who you all follow.. not a good idea
“Do not go beyond what is written…” says protestants. But sola scriptura is “implied” in scripture, says them also.
One day, they’re strict on being explicit and on other days, on being implicit.
It’s ironic that Bible verse. Do not go past what is written “ if you look at Calvin comments on it, he doesn’t find any support for sola scriptura.
Another fun thing 1 Corinthians was written 56 AD
So that would also prove the following as extra: John’s Gospel, Acts, Romans, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, Titus, 1 & 2 Timothy, Hebrews, James, 1 & 2 Peter, 1, 2, & 3 John, Jude, and Revelation
And if "Bible alone" is all that's needed, why do Protestants write so many books?
@@JuanGonzalez-kb3gm you think the principle of the teaching changed over time? Paul states it’s a saying amongst the church. Therefore it is a rule of faith, the principle is still applicable.
Do not go beyond what is written or you will become a follower of one man over the other.
@ I agree with your statement. That’s the way the Catholic Church understood it, yet Protestants use that Bible verse to try to prove sola scriptura.
Where in the scripture does it say Sola scriptura the only rule of faith, where does it say what is supposed to be written and inspired. I come from Protestant background and found sola scriptura to be the best, till I figured out it was just a way for every liberal Protestant to interpret the Bible the way they want.
@@JuanGonzalez-kb3gm sola scriptura doesn’t mean the Bible is the “only” source of authority. That’s ’solo scriptura’ which no one in practice follows. And only the ignorant claim to follow.
Sola scriptura simply states the scriptures are the only infallible authority, and that external traditions authority is subservient to scripture.
The Holy Scriptures are the only extant 100% verified apostolic tradition that we have. It makes sense that they are our highest authority. However they are not the ‘only’ authority.
You stated that the Greek word “theopneustos”, which Paul used in 2Timothy 3:16 and is translated as “inspired by God” by most Bible translations, could also be translated as “life giving”. However, if Paul wanted to declare that all scripture is “life giving” in this verse, he would probably have used the Greek word “zōopoieō” as he did in 1Corinthians 15:45: “So, too, it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living being,” the last Adam a life-giving spirit.” New American Bible. In 2Timothy 3:16, it is clear that Paul was declaring that all scripture is inspired by God; therefore, we can trust it, rely on it, and use it “for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.”
As far as “sola scriptura,” please refer to the following scriptures:
Deuteronomy 4:2, “You shall not add to the word which I speak to you, neither shall you take away from it. Preserve the commandments of the Lord your God which I am teaching to you.” Catholic Public Domain Version
Deuteronomy 12:32, “You must diligently observe everything that I command you; do not add to it or take anything from it.” New Revised Standard Version
Proverbs 30:6, “Do not add anything to his words, lest you be reproved and be discovered to be a liar.” Catholic Public Domain Version
Revelation 22:18-19, “I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this book; if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away that person’s share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. New Revised Standard Version
Mark 7:8-9, ‘“You disregard God’s commandment but cling to human tradition. He went on to say, “How well you have set aside the commandment of God in order to uphold your tradition!”’ New American Bible
Mark 7:13, “…You nullify the word of God in favor of your tradition that you have handed on. And you do many such things.” New American Bible
The point someone raised about the Trinity, I believe, is valid. No where in Scripture is the word Trinity found. But, we can conclude, by reason, God being Tri-une. Even the Catholic church accepts this. Re: 2 Tim 3:16 God Breathe, Life giving, inspired - take your pick. Two key words in this passage is "All Scripture."All scripture is God Breathe / Life giving / inspired by "God." Check out John 6:63 (Jesus speaking). The only question that remains is are you willing to gamble your eternal destiny on other writings that are not God Breathe, Life giving, inspired by God? I test everything by the proven Word of God. So, just like the word Trinity, just like the word Rapture, I choose to cling to Scripture Only. Anything else is like throwing dice.
The point about the Trinity is not a valid one. We never asked you to find the words sola scriptura. And, for the record, Protestants ask Catholics every day where the word pope is, or where it says to pray to Mary etc and the same faulty questioning.
We are coming at it from a different approach. We said Protestants can't agree on the nature of sola scriptura or what it is. Thus, we are asking for where Scripture settles the matter or even talks about it. All Protestants do as add what they think it is themselves and then try to attach a Scripture to it. However, scripture itself never can settle the matter for Protestants. Not to mention, it's entirely unbiblical.
Besides that, the Trinity can be deduced from Scripture, but there is no biblical support for sola scriptura.
God breathed and life-giving are not always synonymous. It has nothing to do with gambling, it has to do with proper interpretation, and the tens of thousands of contradictory Protestant religions all show that the Bible alone doesn't work. They haven't solved a single problem doctrinally using the Bible in 500 years. That's why we need the church that Christ established and gave his authority to help us interpret it properly.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial Protestant is a Catholic word used to describe anyone who disagrees with the RCC. It is not a religion such as the RCC. Catholic want you to believe it is and therefore will bring all sorts of rubbish accusations against it thereby elevating themselves.
Too bad sola scriptura is made up
@@nosuchthing8 Too bad the RCC is man-made.
Later, however, when Peter came to Antioch I had to oppose him publicly, for he was then plainly in the wrong. It happened like this. Until the arrival of some of James’ companions, he, Peter, was in the habit of eating his meals with the Gentiles. After they came, he withdrew and ate separately from the Gentiles-out of sheer fear of what the Jews might think. The other Jewish Christians carried out a similar piece of deception, and the force of their bad example was so great that even Barnabas was affected by it. But when I saw that this behaviour was a contradiction of the truth of the Gospel, I said to Peter so that everyone could hear, “If you, who are a Jew, do not live like a Jew but like a Gentile, why on earth do you try to make Gentiles live like Jews?” (Galatians 2)
I believe Paul is calling your first pope a hypocrite.
And he was being a hypocrite. So what's the problem? People have called out the pope several times in history.
It doesn't help you to answer the questions we asked in the video that you are avoiding.
Here are the questions for you to make it easy for you.
1. Since Protestants can't agree on what the Bible alone is and have different understandings of it, where does the bible alone solve this problem?
2. Protestants say that scripture is god-breathed, like in to Timothy 3:16, and yet the Greek word, Theopnustos, has two different meanings. So how do you know which meaning it is according to scripture?
3. How do you know which books belong in the Bible according to the Bible alone? Or do you have to use an authority outside of scripture?
@@CatholicTruthOfficial "People have called out the pope several times in history."
"So what's the problem?"
Oh, it may have something (everything?) to do with ex cathedra matters, infallibility, no salvation outside the Catholic Church, visions, popes pushing their pagan views on creation...
Popes sin too. Catholics don't deny this. Infallibility is only when they are declaring a particular church teaching. It doesn't mean they are morally perfect all of the time.
Among the very best Catholic TH-cam channels. Solid work Catholic truth. Viva Cristo Rey!
I dont even talk theology or the bible with protestants until they can answer how over 45k denominations can all be right or where did the bibke come from? Cuz it wasn't christ.
No Protestant ever said 45k denominations are all correct.
The Bible came from the early church. This doesn’t make you Catholic as the orthodox can claim they were that early Church and Rome was in error.
If that’s your leading questions, Protestants probably don’t want to bother talking theology or Bible with you anyways
1. They aren’t all right
2. The scriptures were handed down by the apostles.
The canon was decided at a regional level at Rome/Carthage
But the modern Roman Catholic Church no longer holds a primary secondary distinction for the apocrypha and the primary 66 as the early church did during the canons codification.
Well, there are about 9 denominations, but the most profound are the born-again christian. But we are ALL part of them body of Christ. Listen to the scriptures of Vassula Ryden
@CleavetoAntiquity It is about relationship more than arguing over doctrine
1. If they accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and acknowledge that He died on the cross for the forgiveness of sins then they are right. The small difference I’ll let you deal with, like is the pope infallible or is Mary sinless? 2. The Bible came from the Hebrews since it already was circulating all around by the time the Catholic Church was established. Im sure you’re referring to canon although the books we see in the Bible were already known as scripture like when Jesus read from the scroll of Isaiah or when the writers of the New Testament referenced the Old Testament.
Your first question is a circular argument. Scripture does not say sola scriptura.
Scripture was decided at the Council of Nicaea in 325AD.
Martin Luther returned to Sola Scriptura because the Catholic Church were including too many additions such as indulgences.
We never asked if the bible uses the words Sola scriptura.
We said Protestants can't agree on the nature of sola scriptura or what it is. Thus, we are asking for where Scripture settles the matter or even talks about it. All Protestants do as add what they think it is themselves and then try to attach a Scripture to it. However, scripture itself never can settle the matter for Protestants. Not to mention, it's entirely unbiblical.
Scripture was not decided at Nicaea. It was decided first at the Catholic Council of Rome in 382 and finalized at the Council of Carthage in 397. No one believed in sola scriptura until the 1300s when it was invented. So Luther returned to nothing but heresy.
Scripture is authoritative and the standard from God for us to use to clarify doctrinal issues. 2 Timothy 3:16-17.
Except the Bible doesn't actually say that and neither does 2nd Timothy. If you read timothy, it says it's helpful in making Doctrine and correcting people. But the Bible also says the church does that, and the apostles were trained to do that as well and they trained others to do that. In fact in the bible, in Acts 15, the apostles made Doctrine not using the bible. It was by their own authority.
2 Tim. 3:15-17 is talking about the Old Testament Scriptures, not the whole Bible. It describes the scriptures Timothy knew as a kid. Old Testament. There was no Bible at this time, and there wouldn't be for 4 centuries. The New Testament would even be finished for at least 6 decades. So the best argument you can make is that all we need is the Old Testament. That is what makes us perfect. But of course, the verses don't say any of that.
And you have to ignore the fact that the Bible clearly says that we must hold to tradition (2 Thess. 2:15, 1 Cor. 11:2, 2 Tim. 2:2, etc) _and_ listen to the authority of the church. _Jesus_ says that if you don't listen to the church and it's authority, then you rejected Him and God (Lk. 10:16, Mt. 18:15-18, etc).
If we are going to take your claim literally here, employing the same logic, then all we need is perseverance. James 1:4 says that perseverance makes us "perfect and complete, lacking in nothing. So according to James all we need is perseverance to be perfect. And the Greek is far stronger than in 2nd Timothy
May I ask you on whose authority do you form your doctrine that you can go outside the scripture in order to formulate doctrine? Were the popes that launched the crusades God's mouthpieces or is the present pope who declared that Christians and Muslims worship the same God the mouthpiece of the Lord?
We rely on the authority of the church because Jesus gave his authority to the church. Not only that, but the Bible says if you don't listen to the authority of the church then you reject Jesus himself. So that's Divine authority. However, we still use scripture, it just must be properly interpreted, in other words, by the church Christ started.
@CatholicTruthOfficial The authority of the church ? so that would mean not just catholics
that is where catholics want to be dominate ,because they want exclusivity to themselves
@@CatholicTruthOfficial You are talking in circles. The pope is the head of the church according to Catholic teaching and yet you cannot defend the leadership of your church. If the vicar of Christ is unreliable who are you talking about when you say "The Church". Every word Jesus spoke is in red letters in the scriptures that all three major Christian denominations accept as authoritative Bible.
The fact is that traditions exist in all Protestant sects. Once a community based on a sola scriptura begins to exist, a set of traditions begin to be established. Then at one point there occurs splitting up on the basis of some individual's interpretation of some verse(s) ..this goes on
. That's how we have thousands of sects including Moons and JWs ...
Sola Scriptura is the idea scripture is the sole INFALLIBLE authority
Breaking with tradition in actual churches is more common than you think
Sola scriptura leads to one thing even the top famous phd theologian Protestant scholars will back and claim before you disagree which is that Sola Scriptura ultimately leads to the conclusion that the Bible is up to one’s own interpretation. No if ands or butts no saying we reproof in scripture with scripture because even the scripture your reproofing with other scripture is still being interpreted by your own understanding which we know is wrong. I’m not saying you can’t understand scripture I’m not saying scripture is impossible to comprehend without a PHD . I’m saying there is an ultimate authority on the scripture portions that are most commonly debated like tradition being bad or good and that authority can be trusted as the correct interpretation because it comes from apostolic teachings.
That’s why so many Protestant denominations have different interpretations they all decide that they don’t need an apostolic understanding if that apostolic understanding isn’t something written in the gospel that they can physically read .
The Bible says to hold to tradition by word of mouth OR by letter ,so tradition isn’t always bad it’s about context and some traditions where never written but where passed down from apostles by WORD OF MOUTH. Again it also says this in the Bible for the sola scriptura crowd.
Many Protestant bibles have changed the word tradition to the word teachings in particular verses especially when tradition is mentioned in a good sense. Oddly enough in the same updated bibles they leave the word as tradition only when it’s presented as a negative action . I wonder if it’s cause it makes Catholics look wrong lol .
Meanwhile in the original Greek tradition (paradosis) is what’s used in the New Testament such as in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 not the word teachings( didasko) as they change it to in many Protestant bibles. So then you see why tradition is read and thought of as a negative naughty thing and to never use as a reference to one’s faith for salvation. Simply because they always read it in a negative light.
It’s not very sola scriptura to be changing words that aren’t in the original scripture is it ? And you can’t say it’s the same meaning because then why not leave the word in those versus encouraging tradition alone and unchanged the same way those updated Protestant bibles coincidentally only left the word tradition as it’s normal text in the frowned upon verses???
When in fact the apostles were teaching tradition by word of mouth or by letter themselves and without it couldn’t accurately do the work Jesus told them to do such as Holy Communion . Tradition is only bad when it’s used to twist scripture to lord over people as the Pharisees did . Yet people will say “you see ah ha!” exactly what Catholics do when all the while condemning you for going outside of scripture exactly like the Pharisees tried to blame Jesus for .
Last the Church is a physical place not just a body of worshiping people because of it was just a body of worshiping people where would you go to get the truth from if every group scattered around the earth would have only gone by sola scriptura and thus having different interpretations since there would be no tradition or biblical authority with guidance ?
So even if you decide your still sola scriptura you can’t ignore Protestants change scripture when convenient and live by their own interpretation which scripture says is wrong . And you can read the entire chapter for each verse I’ve posted which I encourage because then you’ll say it’s out of context like all Protestants do when in a bind. Here are the versus backing my point.
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.
2 Thessalonians 2:15
15 So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.
2 Peter 1:20
20 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation
He'll never acknowledge it. What an absolutely brilliant post.
Not quite. John 15:26 says the Spirit guides us into all truth. He also inspired Gods Word (2 Tim 3:16-17) and 2 Peter 1:16-21 is how the Spirit guide the writers in their inspiration. No flaws and no inconsistencies.
@@dannymoore1530 Playing komm, süßer tod on the piano tonight for your ancestors who stole the language and culture of the native Americans you stole this land from.
2 Timothy 3:16-17. Colose 3:16. Luke 11:28. Hebrew 4:12. Matthew 4:4. Psalms 119:105. John 17:17. Matthew 24:35. Isaiah 40:8 n many more that must sola scriptura. But Catholic deny the word of God so Catholic can ignore Matthew 6:7, exodus 20:4-5, roman 3:23, etc
Not one of those mentioned the Bible alone or teach the Bible alone. They teach scripture, yes, but not scripture alone, and alone being the keyword. For example, 2 Tim. 3:15-17 doesn't say that the Bible is the only or final authority or that we just need to go by the bible. It doesn't say any of that. Rather, this passage says Scripture is 'helpful' (not sufficient) in aiding a Christian. Many things are helpful in that regard, but it never says only thing we need.
Lastly, 2 Tim. 3:15-17 is talking about the Old Testament Scriptures, not the whole Bible. It describes the scriptures Timothy knew as a kid. Old Testament. There was no Bible at this time and there wouldn't be for 4 cenruries. The New Testament would even be finished for at least 6 decades. So the best argument you can make is that all we need is the Old Testament. That is what makes us perfect. But of course, the verses don't say any of that.
@CatholicTruthOfficial All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. Doesn't say about Catholic dogma is given by inspiration of God nor for instruction in righteousness.
obviously u don't know how to read bible. Maybe because u worship statues makes u dumb, or u read too much fairytale made up by pope so called Catholic dogma.
@CatholicTruthOfficial so it's clear how silly ur slander. It's obviously easy to answer ur idiotic old questions. But it's hard for u to understand n follow the word of God. Let's people laugh by read what u gonna say about exodus 20:4-5, about ur heathen rosario prayer that against Matthew 6:7, or how u call a sins politician such as pope as holy father against roman 3:23. Let's people see how heretic u r. Can u answer that?
Dear Friend,
If you can show the Scriptural reference for indulgence, we could. Certainly, you cannot that does not mean that we also can not. Getting to know historical background the corrupt state of the because of man made doctrines such as indulgence and purgatory, it became a necessity to make a stand for Sola Scriptura... For it is safer than man made and popish false doctrines...
Thanks...
Purgatory and indulgences are biblical. Protestants just know only about 20 verses. That's their problem. We'd be happy to answer your questions right after you answer ours.
There is far more biblical evidence for Purgatory than sola scriptura, of which there is none.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial Dear Friend, I have answered already, by referring to the church history, how the Roman Catholic church then abused the people by selling the indulgences by preaching about the purgatory...
You really didn't. First time of the Catholic Church never sold indulgences. Second of all, the teaching of purgatory goes back to the earliest Christians and is biblical. Third, you didn't answer anything of the three questions of this video.
Mathew
There was a catholic church LONG before there was a canon. And before the gospels. So clearly sola scriptura is false.
Former protestant here. I honestly followed the trail of evidence which blew me away with how true Catholicism is. However, 2 things to note:
1. tribalism gave me inertia. I didn't want to go down the rabbit trail.
2. God overwhelmed me with grace. He basically commanded me to become Catholic. So I researched based on what felt like a strict command. It wasn't my own brilliance.
Conclusion: we have to pray for protestants. It's very hard to leave our tribes.
We are called to be Christian’s and not Catholic or Protestant. The word Catholic isn’t biblical
@@williamconner7431the word Protestant is not in the bible
How do you attain salvATION?
The RCC has many clear false doctrines. No idea how anyone can fall for that 🤦🏼♂️
Catholics are NOTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT Happy with the Bible ALONE !!!
2 Timothy 3:16-17 says: "ALL SCRIPTURE IS GOD-BREATHED and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work"1.
2 Peter 1:20-21 says : "Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. FOR PROPHECY NEVER HAD ITS ORIGIN IN THE HUMAN WILL, BUT PROPHETS, THOUGH HUMAN, SPOKE FROM GOD AS THEY WERE CARRIED ALONG BY THE HOLY SPIRIT"1.
Catholics ALSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO BELIEVE in the CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church) - a BOOK OF LIESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS !!!
It TEACHES that Mary:
#1) “did not lay aside this SAVING OFFICE, but by her manifold intercession continues to BRING US the gifts of ETERNAL SALVATION” (No. 969)
#2) Is “Queen over all things…” (Paragraph 966)
#3) Is “Mother of God” (Paragraph 495).
But ------------------- the Bible CLEARLYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY says: “… For the child within her was CONCEIVED by the Holy Spirit.” Matthew 1:20 …
HOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW can Mary be the “Mother” to SOMEONE CONCEIVED by SOMEONE ELSEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE ???????????????????
Mary was JUSTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT a “SURROGATEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE Mother” to the Lord GOD Jesus !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BEWARE my dear Catholics: Revelation 21:8 --- “But cowards, unbelievers, the corrupt, murderers, the immoral, those who practice witchcraft, idol worshipers, and ALL LIARS-their fate is in the FIERY LAKE OF BURNING SULFUR (about 2,192°F). This is the second death.”
One thing u failed to mention about 2nd Timothy 3:16 is that ALL is not the same as ONLY.
Point?
@darrellperez1029 point is that that is a better argument against that verse backing Sola Scripture then his Greek argument.
@MrJoebrooklyn1969 sola scriptura is false
@@MrJoebrooklyn1969 I see how you clarified it. Now I get you.
@darrellperez1029 i agree.
2 Thessalonians 2:15
"So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter."
Paul explicitly wrote that we are NOT to follow the Bible alone! He wrote that there is the written Scriptures but also an oral tradition that the Apostles passed down to others, which the Catholic Church (explicitly called so as early as 110 AD) has carried on to this day!
The word Catholic isn’t in the Bible. We are called to be Christian
Well you condemned nuda scriptura but not sola scriptura
@@Charliehopper684Show me where I did that. I only mentioned that the only way to the Father is thru Christ alone. To worship Him is in spirit and truth. To receive His spirit we must be born again. Christ himself quoted this. We are called to be CHRISian and not anything else. Do you deny salvation of our souls thru Christ himself?
@@williamconner7431 You're not who I replied to
@@Charliehopper684Thanks for clarification
These are the translations of 4 Catholic Bibles : Douay-Rheims Bible “All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice”,
Catholic Public Domain Version “All Scripture, having been divinely inspired, is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in justice,”
New American Bible “All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness”,
New Revised Standard Version “All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,”
How do we know that it's supposed to be interpreted that way? According to the Bible alone. Not according to Scholars outside the bible.
Apparently you don't trust Catholic interpreters of the Bible. So, how can you believe that the scriptures you cited concerning "traditions" are interpreted correctly? New American Bible:
"'In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines human precepts.’" Mark 7:7
@@CatholicTruthOfficial Ok what is your Catholic interpretation of this.
User, you didn't answer the question, you just avoided it. How do you know, according to the Bible alone, that it's supposed to be interpreted that way? Show us from scripture only.
Sola scriptura is a tradition of men. So Mark 7:7 fits this teaching perfectly.
Stever, we are asking his? And still waiting. Feel free to give her answer if you want to also. ;)
Criteria used to determine which scripture is inspired are 1. Whether Jesus or apostles quoted from them. 2. Whether the apostles or their close associates authored them. 3. Whether they are consistent with the teachings of Christ and the apostles. 4. Whether they contain outlandish unverified stories. In which case they were rejected.
The councils of Laodicea etc used the following criteria.
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
There are at least 12 books in the Bible that neither Jesus or the apostles quoted from, so how is that used for canonicity?
The last two are subjective and people would disagree on them, but it does sound as a whole, that the reason we know the Books of the bible, is because it was decided by an authority outside of the bible.
1: Already addressed. But you would also need to know what scripture is _to be_ quoted from! You don't even know what the OT is.
2: Who are these "close associates?" We don't even know who wrote the Gospels
3: How do we know what the teachings of Christ or the Apostles are? Are we going by what is written or what people say, Tradition. That is what we are supposed to be determining.
4: what is an outlandish story? The entire book of Revelations or raising someone from the dead, or Christ rising from the dead? Eating the flesh of our Lord and drinking His blood seemed to be pretty outlandish to many of the people who heard His command.
B1: again, how do we know the author and how do we know the association of the author with an Apostle? Only the letters Identify the writer.
B2: what does it matter if the body of Christ accepts a given book? the Body of Christ the Church accepted 73 books, but Marty whittled that down to 62 books. You are still missing books!
B3: that depends on what other books you have already determined to be inspired.
B4: that also depends on what the editor considers to be high moral and spiritual values.
All these things must be done in the blind as you have rejected any thing outside the Bible as having anything or anyone with authority.
The difference with your list of requirements is you have to apply them 1500 years later, quite alienated from any source of information and completely devoid of witness
.
Whereas the Church contained contemporaries with the NT scripture, (Even including the Apostles themselves, the actual writers.) Later writers who wrote what they had been taught from Apostles, and students of the Apostles.
These people have something to guide them on your list of requirements, and they did not have the self-imposed restriction that it must be in the Bible.
@@dave_ecclectic
1. Do you believe the current cannon (OT and NT) is correct?
2. Do you believe the current cannon (OT and NT) is inspired by the Lord and is infallible?
3. What was the point of the reformation?
@@mattb4249
1 whose canon
2 whose canon
3 There was no _point_ to the reformation. There was in fact no reformation at all.
Its result though was to deviate from what Jesus taught to what a few individuals chose to believe. In every case it is a reduction in the instructions Jesus gave us, some so drastic as to reduce the Bible to a sound bite and in some denominations to hold St. Paul's writings over all the others, including the Gospels.
Some even go so far not to be Christians at all, which is very ironic.
None of the heretics made the slightest attempt to reform the Church. Only one even addressed the Church.
Instead, they all invented their own churches something that continues if not till today very recently
2022
@@dave_ecclectic
1. The cannon that is consistent between churches that are part of Christendom that profess the Jesus of the scriptures as Lord God. This includes churches that may fall into one of the following groups of Christendom: The Church of the East, Oriental Orthodoxy, Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, Protestantism.
2. See 1.
3. If there was no point in the reformation, then why did it happen? Additionally, why was the Roman Church, which is the "one true church" unable to stop the so called heresies from happening as it had done in the past?
Answer to question 1. Scripture is simply the highest authority, not that we reject tradition wholesale, it is simply secondary in authority to the scriptures.
1 Corinthians 4:6
Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written.” Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other.
Question 2
The answer is simply, your interpretation is wrong, it means God breathed. That’s also how it’s always been translated something akin to “divinely inspired” even in the early church.
Next 🤷♂️
When you say that "we don't reject tradition wholesale", does that mean that you don't reject any tradition that is not explicitly written in the Bible?
@ no, traditions authority is simply subservient to scriptures authority.
That’s all Sola Scriptura is stating
Tradition is fallible, it can be wrong, scripture is the only 100% authentic verifiable apostolic tradition. It therefore holds the highest authority, and is infallible.
@@CleavetoAntiquity
I see. I remember that Apostle Paul once commended the christians in Corinth for being faithful to the "traditions" that they received from him (1 Corinthians 11:2).
I was just wondering...how did Paul communicate those "traditions" to the christians in Corinth? did he describe or outline those "traditions" in any of his letters to them ?
@@jerome2642 sure, that’s probably the most common question on this topic.
Scripture is Apostolic tradition, No not every teaching of the apostles was written down.
But it is the only remaining extant 100% confirmed Apostolic tradition we have.
Which is why we consider it to be the highest authority in matters of faith.
In this instance the only 100% verifiable apostolic tradition we have from Paul, is the Holy Scriptures.
Except we have seen tradition thrown out wholesale.
Sola scriptora 2 Peter 2,3. Also nowhere in scripture does it say to follow future traditions.
It says to hold to tradition alongside scripture. 2 Thess. 2:15. Therefore, not sola scriptura.
Here are the questions that we actually asked in the video that you didn't answer.
1. Since Protestants can't agree on what the Bible alone is and have different understandings of it, where does the bible alone solve this problem?
2. Protestants say that scripture is god-breathed, like in to Timothy 3:16, and yet the Greek word, Theopnustos, has two different meanings. So how do you know which meaning it is according to scripture?
3. How do you know which books belong in the Bible according to the Bible alone? Or do you have to use an authority outside of scripture?
@CatholicTruthOfficial Jesus said you nullify the word of God by your tradition. Which catholics do.
Joseph knew Mary not till she had brought forth her firstborn son. Which means she didn't have sex until after Jesus was born. He was Mary's firstborn son. She had other sons. She was a sinner in need of a Savior as she said herself. My heart rejoices in God my Savior. All other excuses the catholics think up is not valid. She also gave a sacrifice for sin. She also in Mark chapter 3 along with her relatives thought Jesus was out of his mind. She was full of grace but that does not make her sinless. If you do that you nullify all the other scriptures. She is and was not a virgin all or her life nor was Jesus her only child. Now go ahead and make your point and deny scripture by using future traditions of your church.
Yes, Jesus did say that the Pharisees nullify the word of God by their traditions. Their traditions. It's amazing how many times Protestants can ignore the verses of the New Testament that tell us to hold as Christians to Christian tradition. 2 Thess. 2:15, 1 Cor. 11:2, 2 Tim. 2:2, etc. We are clearly told as Christians to hold to tradition, so you can't say that Jesus just condemned tradition when he was talking only to the Pharisees and their traditions.
Jesus did not have any blood brothers or blood sisters. Mary had no other children. The Greek word for brother could mean brother, but it could also mean cousin, uncle, nephew, close friend, etc. You're assuming it's brother but without any evidence accept that thats what you want it to be. So just reading in English doesn't help your cause. The fact is when you look at the rest of scripture and the entirety of Christian history you realize that they are not Blood Brothers because no early Christian accepted that.
Second, when you compare the 4 crucifixion scenes and the Road to Emmeus, you see his "brothers" belong to another Mary. There were several Mary's at the cross. This is what all of the earliest Christians taught also. The were sons of Mary the wife of Cloepus.
Thus, they are not blood brothers which is why no Christian in history including the Reformers believed this.
Third, at the cross, Jesus gave his mother to John the Apostle, which would have never happened if he had other brothers and sisters according to Jewish custom.
Who would want to deny the authority of scripture? Hmmm....can yall think of anyone?
No one is denying the authority of Scripture. We are denying sola scriptura, that it's the only authority or the final authority, precisely because that is a mam-mde teaching and unbiblical.
Sounds like something that someone would say....
@@CatholicTruthOfficial Sounds like parsing of words.
See Deut 4:2, Proverbs 30:5-6, Mk 6:9 and Rev 22:18-19. Each of these has a particular context but taken together they establish a principle.Also in 2Tim 3 :17 the words 'complete, equipped' share a similar root emphasizing that the man of God is ready for EVERY good work. This includes what to believe and how to live.
When Catholics quote 2Thess 2:15 they ignore the fact that it is in the past tense and cannot refer to traditions accumulated 100s of years in the future.
Hence 'Sola scriptura'
.stands.
None of those say the bible alone friend. Not one. For example: Revelation 22 does not prove the Bible alone or the sufficiency of scripture either. This was written by John when he was exiled on the Island of Patmos. After he had finished writing the book of Revelation, he sealed it up with the warning not to add or take away from it because it was given to him directly by God. The Bible would not even be put together for another 300 years. So this passage is only talking about the Book of Revelation not the whole Blble.
Another big flaw. Have you actually read and studied those verses? They don't approve the Bible alone. 2 Tim. 3:15-17 doesn't say that the Bible is the only or final authority or that we just need to go by the bible. It doesn't say any of that. Rather, this passage says Scripture is 'helpful' (not sufficient) in aiding a Christian. Many things are helpful in that regard, but it never says only thing we need.
Lastly, 2 Tim. 3:15-17 is talking about the Old Testament Scriptures, not the whole Bible. It describes the scriptures Timothy knew as a kid. Old Testament. There was no Bible at this time and there wouldn't be for 4 cenruries. The New Testament would even be finished for at least 6 decades. So the best argument you can make is that all we need is the Old Testament. That is what makes us perfect. But of course, the verses don't say any of that.
1 John 5:7: "There are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit; and these three are one"
That didn't answer any of the three questions we asked.
Didn’t Jesus highly criticize man’s traditions? Catholics also like to exalt man (Pope, Bishops, etc…)another thing God hates. Jesus is the ONLY means to Salvation. Believing Him as Lord and Savior is the work of God.
Yes he did whenever it was misused. On the other hand he strongly opposed sticking to the literal and merciless interpretation of the written law.
Man's traditions aren't inherently bad unless they go above the Word of God.
Ironically, by your interpretations, you hold to a man-made tradition from the 16th century or later.
Evidence shows the early church was Catholic and "high-church". So if these traditions come from God, then they're not man-made and can not go against God.
Well, what if the Traditions are not mans? You mention (Pope, Bishops, etc…) These are all in the Bible and St. Paul even wrote 3 books to two Bishops. None of these are _mans_ traditions, they are Gods.
The 7 Sacraments are in the Bible and yet I doubt you follow any of them?
I believe you are wrong in God hates exalting other humans. You forget it was God who implemented the various priests and even the King of Israel.
Don't harm anyone who was 'anointed'.
So, where did you get the idea God hates respecting those leaders He implemented?
I thought that belief in our Lord was an act of Faith, while Salvation is the gift of God.
@@alexmcintosh4783
Alex,
It's evident you need to take more time reading the Bible. Tradition is part of the Church's source of Christian doctrine.
▪︎2 Thessalonians 2:15
15. Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the Traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
@@alexmcintosh4783 Alex, I saw the first 3 replies to your comment and all of them seem to be “correcting” you. Especially the one that said you need to study your bible more and used Paul’s words to the Thessalonians. We’ll let me just tell you…..YOU GOT IT RIGHT!! LORD YESHUA is the only way !!!!! These people who are so for traditions, don’t know what they are talking about. Catholic Church traditions are wrong and some are down right EVIL SIN. Such as their tradition of INDULGENCES. Soooo, follow LORD YESHUA and stay focused on him.
If you can find me proof that a tradition actually dates back to the Apostles, I will go with you. Otherwise, all we have that goes back to Paul and the Apostles is scripture. The real problem with the Catholic Church is that it is much like the Muslims in that if the Word of God contradicts a tradition, you go with the tradition. If the Quran and Hadith disagree, the Muslims go with the Hadith.
For instance, Mary in the Bible is a minor character of almost no importance except as a portal for God to enter his creation. When Jesus was at a party and told that Mary was there with his brother, he replied that he had no mother or brother. Yet in Catholic tradition this long dead woman is worshipped. Catholics pray to here. You pray only to a God and Mariolatry is worship of her and not just unbiblical but antibiblical.
Didn't answer any of the three questions. And you did exactly what we knew you would do is just try to attack Catholicism falsely rather than answering the questions that you can't answer.
Perhaps you are slow, but I thought it was clear that my answer was that I only accept as inspired what can be traced back to the disciples and those like Paul who have their seal of approval like Paul. If you do not have an actual meeting with God, you are not inspired. Hopefully that is clear.
As to an unfair attack, if you pray to someone or something then you are engaged in worship. Only God is entitled to worship. The catholic church encourages the worship of Mary. How is that an unfair criticism?
Its not Mary worship, its Mary veneration….your objection has been answered centuries ago
How has it been answered?
I venerate my dead parents. I think of them fondly and tell people how wonderful they were. I do not pray to them. Prayer is a form of worship. You build graven images of this insignificant dead woman and pray to her. That is worship and not veneration.
First of all, Mary is not dead. Christians are alive in Christ. We don't die. Secondly, she is prefigured constantly throughout the old testament. In the New Testament, she is the woman crowned with 12 stars in the book of Revelation. She prophecied correctly in Luke that "generations will call me blessed" like we say in the Hail Mary prayer. Also, you will notice that in the Davidic line of kingship, the mother of the king is the queen and this continues to this day. Mary is the Queen of Heaven and earth precisely because Jesus is the King of Heaven and Earth and Mary is YOUR mother too because you are a part of the body of Christ. We do not offer Christ's sacrifice to Mary--we offer Him to the Father alone. Prayer is not the same thing as worship. Prayer is making a request.
Show us Protestants the word purgatory in the Bible.
The word purgatory is not in the bible, but like the trinity, the concept is biblical.
Purgatory
The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches:
All who die in God’s grace, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven (1030) This seems so simple. It’s common sense. Scripture is very clear when it says, “But nothing unclean shall enter [heaven]” (Rev. 21:27). Hab. 1:13 says, “You [God]… are of purer eyes than to behold evil and cannot look on wrong…” How many of us will be perfectly sanctified at the time of our deaths? I dare say most of us will be in need of further purification in order to enter the gates of heaven after we die, if, please God, we die in a state of grace.
In II Maccabees 12:39-46, we discover Judas Maccabeus and members of his Jewish military forces collecting the bodies of some fallen comrades who had been killed in battle. When they discovered these men were carrying “sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear” (vs. 40), Judas and his companions discerned they had died as a punishment for sin. Therefore, Judas and his men “turned to prayer beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out… He also took up a collection… and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably… Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.”
Mt 5:25-26 Make friends quickly with your accuser, while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison; truly I say to you, you will never get out till you have paid the last penny
I Cor 3:11-15 If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved
1 John 5 16-17 reference to deadly (mortal) sin & non deadly sin (venial) sin
Luke 12 40-48 the four servants are treated differently, the faithful one gains Heaven, the second Hell & the other two, purgatory
Mt 18:34 In anger his master handed him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed.
II Mac 12:39-46 Mt 5:25-26 I Cor 3:11-15 1 John 5 16-17 Luke 12 40-48 Mt 18:34
@@RG-qn2qm
RG,
Gladly!
You can find it right next to "Sola Scriptura".
The reality is, that the concept of Purgatory actually is taught in Scripture.
In contrast, Sola Scriptura is not taught in the Bible; it's an invention created by Martin Luther, in 1521, in order to give free rein to himself for his personal interpretation of Scripture, as if he was infallible.
What's the result?
More than 30,000 different and divided human-created churches and sects around the world. The question is:
Who gave authority to such individuals to create separate churches in opposition to the one true Church, as described in:
Matthew 16:18
18. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build *My Church*, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
RG, as you can read, *My Church* means just one.
Therefore every single protestant church and sect is created in opposition to the Will of God.
Here's a passage describing Purgatory.
Matthew 5:25-26
25. Come to terms with your opponent in good time while you are still on the way to the court with him, or he may hand you over to the judge and the judge to the officer, and you will be thrown into prison.
26. In truth I tell you, You Will Not Get Out till you have PAID the last penny.
RG, in Heaven no payment is needed.
In Hell, no payment can cease eternal punishment.
In Purgatory, the grace of God is applied to those accused of venial sins upon dieing:
▪︎1 Corinthians 3:15
15. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be Saved, but only As through Fire.
Think!
Being saved, but through fire?
That is not Hell! Mr. RG, It's Purgatory.
Such is what happens to those who are saved and will eventually see God, after atoning for their imperfections in Purgatory.
To make it concise:
In Hell, no one is saved from the fire.
In Purgatory the fire cleanses the imperfect, but already "Saved", in order to be able to see God in perfect purity
Luke 12:57-59
57. “Why do you not judge for yourselves what is right?
58. If you are to go with your opponent before a magistrate, make an effort to settle the matter on the way; otherwise your opponent will turn you over to the judge, and the judge hand you over to the constable, and the constable throw you into prison.
59. I say to you, you will not be released until you have paid the last penny.”
As you can see, Purgatory is a place, where imperfect "saved people", are released after atoning for their imperfections.
May God bless your discernment.
Purgatory was invented using the books of Maccabees! That isn’t true scripture! Sola scriptura is in Timothy and one of the earliest church fathers claimed that traditions of the church were actually the writings!
@@Paul-zf8ob You obviously haven’t read the NT quotes that I provided.
I notice that you haven’t or can’t supply text in support of SS!
@Paul-zf8ob
Paul,
The Word "Bible" is not in the Bible.
Are you going to deny it?
Do you know who introduced the word Bible?
It was created by Pope Damasus in 382AD, to designate the 73-book Canon decided by the Council of Rome of 382AD.
Sadly, in 1521, Martin Luther and his cohorts, decided to remove Seven Deuterocanonical books from the original Christian Bible, placing them as an apendix at the end of their Bible, in order to adapt Scripture to their thinking; although without removing them.
However, It is worth noting that Protestants from the Reformation maintained the same 73 books in their Bible until 1826, when in the City of Edinburgh, the "European and Foreign Bible Society" decided to remove 7 Deuterocanonical books from The Old Testament, altogether.
The question that must be asked is:
Who gave them Apostolic authority?
No one!
They gave it to themselves.
Not Protestant, I am a Christian, on the first question I give you John 16:13 Jesus talking to his apostles says, " When the Spirit of truth comes, HE WILL GUIDE YOU INTO ALL THE TRUTH..." so the apostles would have ALL TRUTH, how much is ALL?
Next is Jude 3 " Contend for the faith which WAS ONCE FOR ALL DELIVERED TO THE SAINTS", what does ONCE FOR ALL MEAN?
2 Peter 1:3 " His divine power has granted to us ALL THINGS THAT pertain to life and godliness.." again, how much is ALL THINGS?
James 1:25 " But he who looks into the PERFECT LAW, THE LAW OF LIBERTY".
2 Tim 3:16 " All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, correction.....that the man of God may be complete.....
Col 4:12 " That you may stand mature and fully assured IN ALL THE WILL OF GOD"
Phil 4:9 Paul says, " What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me DO; AND THE GOD OF PEACE WILL BE WITH YOU", so if I DO what Paul says, God will be with me!!
Col 1:25 Paul says, " Of which I became a minister according to the divine office.......TO MAKE THE WORD OF GOD FULLY KNOWN", so Paul made the word of God fully known.
Acts 9:15 " Go, for Paul is a chosen instrument of mine, to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel"
Acts 22:14 " And he said, " The God of our fathers appointed Paul TO KNOW HIS WILL".
So, yes we do have ALL TRUTH, ALL THINGS THAT PERTAIN TO LIFE, the perfect law of liberty and we can stand fully assured in ALL THE WILL OF GOD and if I do what Paul says, God will be with me......
2 Tim. 3:15-17 doesn't say that the Bible is the only or final authority or that we just need to go by the bible. It doesn't say any of that. Rather, this passage says Scripture is 'helpful' (not sufficient) in aiding a Christian. Many things are helpful in that regard, but it never says only thing we need.
Lastly, 2 Tim. 3:15-17 is talking about the Old Testament Scriptures, not the whole Bible. It describes the scriptures Timothy knew as a kid. Old Testament. There was no Bible at this time and there wouldn't be for 4 cenruries. The New Testament would even be finished for at least 6 decades. So the best argument you can make is that all we need is the Old Testament. That is what makes us perfect. But of course, the verses don't say any of that.
We do agree that the holy spirit will guide the church into all truth, but not every individual christian. But that doesn't prove the Bible alone, none of these do. Almost none of these verses even mentioned in the bible. You're reading your theology into scripture.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial It says " ALL SCRIPTURE", The HS led the apostles into ALL TRUTH, so what does it mean " ALL TRUTH" and btw individual Christians are the church, and it says the apostles were led into ALL THE TRUTH!!! It is apparent you cannot answer.....Did the apostles have ALL TRUTH?? Yes they did, so then , we have ALL TRUTH.
Did God grant us ALL THINGS THAT PERTAIN TO LIFE AND GODLINESS, sure he did, so again we have ALL TRUTH.
Did Paul MAKE THE WORD OF GOD FULLY KNOWN, yes he did, so it has been made FULLY KNOWN.
If I do what Paul says, will God be with me? Yes he will.
2 Tim 3:15 " Sacred writings which were able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus", that would be the NT and the scripture would make THE MAN OF GOD COMPLETE, equipped for every good work.
You failed to answer any of the scriptures given, for again it is apparent you cannot answer......
@@DannyLoyd Are you saying Christians who contradict one another regarding salvation(for example) are to be defined as "the church" which is the "pillar and ground of the truth"?
You say "we have all truth". Who are the "we" people? And, are you concluding that the "we" people are in total agreement with regards to infant baptism, for example. "Once saved always saved" being another example.
2 Tim. 3: 15 - "And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy Scriptures, which can instruct thee unto salvation, through the faith which is in Christ Jesus." Please note: This is not referencing the New Testament. It is referencing the Old Testament.
Great references, Danny.
@@Channel-nq7eo Denominations are not the Lord's Church, they are man made like the Catholic Church. You do not have to be a member of any denomination to be saved, so why be one?
We have ALL TRUTH, but it is up to you to accept it and to teach it. Infant baptism is not taught in scripture, Jesus said in Mark 16:16 " He that believes and is baptized shall be saved", a baby cannot believe. In Acts 2:38 " Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus...", a baby cannot repent.
OSAS also is not taught in scripture, Heb 3:12 " Lest there be found in you an evil unbelieving heart causing you to fall away from the living God", so are they still saved? 1 Tim 4:1 " Depart from the faith.....giving heed to doctrine of demons"....so are they still saved?
The NT IS SCRIPTURE, AND IT SAYS ALL SCRIPTURE IS INSPIRED BY GOD. And in John 16:13 it says that the HS would guide the apostles into ALL THE TRUTH and that Jesus would give the words to the HS to speak...so the teachings of the apostles were GOD BREATHE...THEY CAME DIRECTLY FROM GOD!!!
Now find us where the Catholic Church is mentioned in scripture!!!
First, thank you for approaching these concerns with respect. These, and many other concerns Protestants have with the Catholic church.
I can use the same arguments with your positions. Example, no where in the Bible does it say, don't do drugs, don't kill (abort) babies, God isn't a Martian, thou shall not color one's hair, don't pick your nose while eating.... and on and on.
We come to believe/trust/see/understand what the bible says based on what it is saying, or NOT saying in many places.
The bible clearly says, in Matthew 23:9, "And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven": Like your point for sharing is not an attack, neither is mine.
Mine is this, 2 Timothy 2:23-26: "Stay away from foolish and stupid arguments. You know that these arguments grow into bigger arguments. As a servant of the Lord, you must not argue. You must be kind to everyone. You must be a good teacher, and you must be patient. You must gently teach those who don't agree with you". Titus 3:9: "Avoid genealogies, controversies, and quarrels over the Law. They settle nothing and lead nowhere". Proverbs 20:3: "Avoiding a fight is a mark of honor; only fools insist on arguing"
If you are as studied as you appear, you clearly understand why Martin Luther had concerns, and tried desperately to get the Catholic church to correct itself and get back to sola scriptura and the other sola's.
And with all due respect... anymore discussion IS a waste of my time.
To Catholic Truth... Mormons, JW's, and many, MANY other people groups have used your same arguments to have their position to be true as well, which would clearly take a stand against what YOU are choosing to believe. Though I do enjoy a good discussion like this, I see it always comes back to buying into man-crap or God's Word IS sufficient. PERIOD!!! I'll move on and trust God's word.
You could use the same arguments, but we don't make those arguments. It's the Protestants who are always asking to find every single thing in the bible, and it's the protestants, the non-catholics who say if it's not in the Bible then it's not true. That's why we are using their own illogical logic against them. We were the ones who specifically said everything is not in the Bible, and the church existed for 400 years before there was ever a single Bible.
Would that being said, if something contradicts the Bible and is not found within it, then it can't be true. Sola scriptura contradicts scripture and therefore is not true.
Jesus was not speaking literally in Matthew 23:9 when he said call no man father. He was using rabbinic hyperbole (similar to when Jesus said to cut out your eye if it causes you to sin). How do we know?
Because men are called the father from the beginning of the New Testament to the end, both in a physical and in a spiritual way. Mt. 15:4 says to honor your father and mother. Heb. 12:9 talks about our fathers in the flesh. Spiritualy speaking, Paul says in 1 Cor. 4:15 that he has become our _father_ in the gospel. Abraham is called our father in the faith 6 times just in Romans chapter 4 alone. So we know that all fatherhood whether physical or spiritual derives from God's fatherhood who is the ultimate and eternal father (Eph. 6).
Jesus discussed all the time with the Pharisees and Sadducees and the people. So discussions are not a waste of time. In fact we bring countless people back to the Church of Jesus Christ through these kind of discussions. As long as they are charitable and humble, we are happy to have them.
You are right that Luther had some concerns, and he wanted to reform some of the corruption in the church. Rightly so. However, he wasn't the right man for the job. Other men during his lifetime ended up reforming the church, but unfortunately, all he ended up doing was destroying the body of Christ, inventing heresies, and creating an insane amount of division in the church worse than before. He even admitted that what he did ended up having a far worse effect than the church was before he started.
Sola Scriptura is in all the Bible , if you have an ear to hear...
Jesus used the Word of God to overcome satan in the wilderness. He also told the Pharisees in John 5:38-39 KJV - And ye have not his WORD ABIDING IN YOU: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.
SEARCH THE SCRIPTURES; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
Mark 7:13 KJV - Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
Hebrews 10:7 KJV - Then said I, Lo, I come (in the VOLUME of the BOOK it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. (Psalm 40: 7)
1 Corinthians 4:6b KJV - ... not to think of men above that which is WRITTEN,...
Psalm 119:11 KJV - Thy WORD have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.
Not one of those verses proved sola scriptura. You're just reading your own theology into scripture. You mentioned God's word, yet the Bible says God's word is not only in Scripture. So it's a self-defeating argument.
Also, passages like 1 Cor 4:6 have nothing to do with sola scriptura. Don't go beyond what is written where? In the whole bible? Just in the book of Corinthians that Paul is writing to them about? The book of life which is the context of the passage? Which one is it, and how do you know according to scripture alone. Where does Scripture tell us what he's talking about?
The Catholic Church changed scripture.
Prove it
RCC finds Being gay or man sleeping with man is acceptable , the Pope has publicly said this and the vatican is rampant with it
There is more but it would be pointless because you will not accept the RCC is capable of error
seventy, you are lying or ignorant or both. We will assume you're just ignorant Beyond measure. Because you haven't done your research in your slandering the Catholic Church saying that we teach things that we never teach. Which is why you can't offer a single quote, a single document, or a single official teaching to back up your positions and claims.
Learn why the catholic churches were sued dozens of times because priests and bishops and cardinals all sexually abused young boys in their churches
they were not fired , they were just sent to different parishes so it would no longer be talked about
the church paid out many millions of dollars because they were guilty as charged
I love being Catholic.
Which church are true according to the Bible in this world? Because many churches are not true according to this scriptures, Matthew 7:21-23,Roman's 10;1-3,2Corintians 11:12-15,2thimoty 4:3-4,2Peter 2:1-3,1John 4:1.
@@vusimngomezulu2500Catholic is the one true church
Do you worship Mary ❓
@@johnyang1420We are called yo be Christian and to be born again. We do not follow a church
@@johnyang1420The word Catholic isn’t biblical
John 12:46-50
[46]I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness.
[47]“If anyone hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge that person. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world.
[48]There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; the very words I have spoken will condemn them at the last day.
[49]For I did not speak on my own, but the Father who sent me commanded me to say all that I have spoken.
[50]I know that his command leads to eternal life. So whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say.”
Yes, the Bible is the word of God. If Scripture alone was the word of God, you would have a point, but the bible says it's not. _Jesus_ is the Word of God, and He gave us the Word of God _orally._ The vast majority of all God's words were _not_ written down but were oral and that the oral word being preached was his word too. 1 Thess. 2:13, Jn. 21:25, 2 Jn. 2:12, 3 Jn. 13-14, etc. So, God's word, yes, we absolutely believe God's Word, but God's word isn't only found in Scripture.
You also ignore Scripture because Scripture states that Jesus also started a church and gave his authority to the Church. Moreover, He said if we don't listen to the authority of the Church, then we reject Christ and God. Not to mention that Bible says to hold to godly Traditions too which is the word of God (1 Thess. 2:13, 2 Thess. 2:15, 1 Cor. 11:2, 2 Tim. 2:2, etc.)
Matthew 15:3
[3]Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?
Idolatry
Baby baptism
Recited prayers
Relics
Worshipping the cross
Purgatory
Mass
Eucharist
Praying to Saints and Mary
Mary - mother of all delusion - Queen of heaven delusion
......List goes on..... For breaking the command of God.
And when Jesus says you will be judged on Jesus' words - what does it mean - Solo scripture-
Ephesians 5:24
Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
The Church needs to submit to Christ not that the Church can do whatever it wants.
First start with simple obedience over the command not to worship idols everything else one by one will fall in place.
We can't understand why Protestants selectively quote scripture. They will quote Matthew 7 where Jesus condemns the Pharisees and their traditions, and they completely and blindly ignore all of the strong statements to Christians that we are supposed to hold to tradition, Christian tradition that has come down from Christ. 2 Thess. 2:15, 1 Cor. 11:2, 2 Tim. 2:2, etc. We are clearly told as Christians to hold to tradition, so you can't say that Jesus just condemned tradition when he was talking only to the Pharisees and their traditions.
Infant baptism is biblical (Acts 2:38-39).
Eucharist biblical (Jn. 6:54-55, Mt. 26:26).
Purgatory biblical: 2 2 Macc. 12:43-46)
We don't worship them cross. Only God.
Relicas are biblical (2 Kings 2:14, Acts 5:15-16, Acts 19:11-12).
The Mass is biblical (Mt. 26). Even Protestant have prayer services which biologic are not biblical either.
O dear GOD, may the hearts of all Christians and hypocrats touched by the Holy Spirit
1. Sola Scriptura. Bible is sole infallible source. All scripture is God breathed. Simple.
2. Read the Bible.
So tell us, where does the bible say it's the soul infallible source Amarula faith. Show us that and we will leave the Catholic church.
Also, the word in to Timothy 3:16 for God breathed can also mean life-giving instead. It has two different definitions. So how do you know it means god breathed and not life-giving. Seems like you're reading your own Theology into scripture.
We've read the Bible for 30 years. Thats a terrible arguement.
"Where is Sola Scritura in the Bible?" Well, the 1st question really isnt the right question to ask. We could also ask "Where in the Bible does God prove His existence?" We don't see that either. Does that mean God does not exist? We do know that there is, in fact, the Word that comes from God. Several places in the Bible tell us so. Some examples are in Jeremiah, where he says "The Word of the Lord came to me", and Ezekiel, and other prophets throughout the Bible tell us that the Word of God is real. Another place is John Ch 1. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... The Bible itself presumes that the Word of God is real. We believe the Bible Prophets because Jesus quoted them. He also said that you have to listen to His Words and obey them if you want eternal life. So, it is just as silly to ask where in the Bible does it say "Sola Scriptura", the answer is EVERYWHERE.
By the way. There is a reason why the people accepted the teaching authority of Moses. It is because they saw the power of God, through God SPEAKING through Moses, (The people asked Moses to talk to God out of fear once they heard the voice of God in the mount) and they experienced it through His leadership. He proved time and time again that what God said to Him would come to pass. ALso, Moses wrote many important Bible Books, such as Job. Moses was a prophet, and the Bible says that God does nothing unless he first reveals what he is doing THROUGH HIS PROPHETS. I.e., the WORD of God.
Also, Jesus condemned the Pharisees for holding the traditions of men above the Word of God - (Mat 5:3, 6, Mark 7:8, 9) Paul, a pharisee, said he was zealous for the _traditions_ of his fathers but said he counted those traditions but DUNG, for the sake of gaining Jesus Christ. And by the way - it was Tradition that excluded all but Jews from being part of the commonwealth of Israel. Yet, we know that tradition was condemned by Pauls ministry, which was to the Gentiles.
I think the real reason you ask this question is because you want to give "tradition" equal authority with the WORD of GOD, and and you believe the pope has power as Christ on earth, Vicar. If the Bible is the sole authority (and it is) that would mean that the Pope is unnecessary, and he is. There is NO SUPPORT in the Bible for a Pope, except for a few places that the papacy distorts what the Bible says. Salvation is in one man, and it is not the Pope. He has absolutely nothing to do with man's salvation, which is totally the Work of God. The Pope is no more qualified for this task than any other man. The Pope is fallible, he is a mere man, and that is all.
There is only one potentate, as we read in the Book of 1 Timothy, and that is Jesus Christ.
Finally, you asked us not to condemn or say bad things about the Catholic Church. We do not. It isnt the people. It is the system that is evil. The people in the Catholic Church God wants to save. However, that said, it is kind of unfair for you to ask us not to at least mention the inappropriate and anti-scriptural message that the Church promotes because, the entire reason for your questions in this video is to support Catholic Dogma. So, you should expect "Respectful" push back, don't you think?
We have a LOT of reasons that we accept only the Bible, and not the words of mere men. Too many to be overthrown by such a simple, and yes, remedial question. "Where in the Bible is Sola Scriptura?" The answer? Everywhere.
Of course it's the right question. When you ask where Mary is in the bible, or Purgatory, or the pope, we don't say that's the wrong question just because it's inconvenient for us. We answer the question with scripture. Yet Protestants can't do that because their Central Doctrine is not found in scripture. Therefore, it's unbiblical.
For the life of us, we can't understand why Protestants selectively quote scripture. They will quote Matthew 7 where Jesus condemns the Pharisees and their traditions, and they completely and blindly ignore all of the strong statements to Christians that we are supposed to hold to tradition, Christian tradition that has come down from Christ. 2 Thess. 2:15, 1 Cor. 11:2, 2 Tim. 2:2, etc. We are clearly told as Christians to hold to tradition, so you can't say that Jesus just condemned tradition when he was talking to the Pharisees and their traditions.
As far as scripture being equal to tradition, what you don't seem to realize is that scripture is tradition. It's just tradition that has been written down. Tradition is the full body and teaching of Christ that he gave to us orally, and some of that was written down at a later date. But to understand what was written, you must understand the full body of knowledge that we've been given. So it's not that one is higher than the other, they both complement each other and work together, and both in conjunction with the teaching authority of the church that Christ gave us to help us properly and understand it.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial I understand where you are coming from, but "tradition" of the church is not "inspired". That is the difference.
When God spoke to the prophets, with the exception of a very few, their words were written down.
I realize that you want the Pope's words to be as if from God, but you have no evidence for that. In fact, some of what the Catholic system teaches is in direct contradiction of the Scriptures. Conflict is not equality. What you are asking Protestants to do - I mean true protestants - is to reject sound logic and common sense, to say nothing of disobedience and faithfulness to the Scriptures.
Remember, your video gave the challenge, and I answered.
I'll go so far as to say, very few Catholics know the Bible very well. They only know what the clergy tells them, which is what started the reformation in the first place.
I'm Seventh-Day Adventist, you seemed real sincere and my answer is not meant as an attack.
If I remember correctly, I think the creed "sola scriptura" came about from protestants that felt deceived by The Roman Catholic Church. They would read scripture and find contradictions with what the church taught and what was plainly written in the Bible.
The main purpose of "sola scriptura" is to avoid the teachings of tradition that is in CONFLICT with the word of God.
@4:01 Your examples here weren't good, they actually make a case for Bible only.
1.) Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible, he wasn't an authority outside of scripture, his writings were apart of scripture..
2.)Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for teaching their tradition over the writings of Moses which he called the "Word of God". (Mark 7:6-13)
(Mark 7:6-13) Makes the BEST case for sola scriptura. Here we have the Jewish elders teaching men a tradition that is in conflict with the word of God. And Jesus refers to the writings of Moses as the word of God. If we are being honest here, are there Catholic teachings that contradict Exodus 20:1-11?
The Bible is not saying we can't have teachers, but it tells us how to identify those who are genuine teachers.
Isaiah 8:20. If you don't speak according to the word there is no truth in you.
"Sola scriptura" can then be seen as the Bible being the PRIMARY authority, and teachers MUST speak according to scriptures, and tradition cannot contradict scripture. If protestants were going by scripture alone, they would keep the 7th Day Sabbath
I didn't understand your argument on 2 Timothy 3:16... you're essentially saying it can be read as " All scripture is LIFE GIVEN..." instead of "God Breathed" therefore not inspired by God.
I've read over 50 translations of that verse, not one version of the Bible translated it the way you claimed. Not even one versions translated close to "life given"
Here's the Catholic version
"All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteous"
I couldn't find "life given" for "theopneustos" in the Exhaustive Concordance. In fact the word "theopneustos" is derived from "theos" (which means God) and "pneo" (breathe). Even if there is a variation of the word that could lead to "life given". The word "theopneustos" still has "Theos" in it, you cannot remove "God" from a word that is literally saying "God-breathe". And this reminds me of Genesis 2:7, God breathed life into the dust and it became a living being. Even if it can be read "life-given" it's still referring to God.
OR
I could just read the word as it literally translates God-breathed, I think over 50 translations and even the Catholic version support me on this... You made this argument just to say a man has authority over the word of God.
Mark 7:6-13
‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far from Me.
7 And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men-the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.”
9 He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’ 11 But you say, ‘If a man says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban”-’ (that is, a gift to God), 12 then you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother, 13 making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.
We are talking about AUTHORITY: RCC says church and pope; Protestants say "God's Word" the Bible which is infallible and sufficient.
Sincere question: what is your point in asking these questions? If it's that beyond what's in scripture the Holy Spirit guides and indeed educates God's children, most catholics and protestants would likely agree. Excellent channel by the way.
The point is to help bring non-Catholic Christians back to the Original Church, founded by Jesus through Simon Peter and the Apostles.
And as for the Holy Spirit guiding Christians towards what's right, I've actually realized why that isn't true. If the hundreds of different denominations all claim to be following the Holy Spirit, then why do they all believe such different things about baptism, communion, etc.? Simply put, they cannot all be listening to the Holy Spirit. They are listening to themselves.
No bibiical reference to purgatory. Hebrews 9:27 counters that wishful thought. Recall Lazarus and the rich man who died and found himself in hell (Lk 16:20-25). We should heed the finality of God's judgment.
There's many biblical references to Purgatory but there's zero for the Bible alone which is why you couldn't answer the questions in this video. Hebrews 9:27 has nothing to do with Purgatory and we quote that verse all the time. It doesn't sound like you understand what Purgatory is.
Actually the rich man was in purgatory, he was in the waiting place, which was also in the same area as Paradise where the good thief went. Everyone went to the waiting place until Jesus died.
he says there are many but fails to show any , I have posted many verses , they all disappear when they prove him wrong ....
We don't need to provide them. He needs to first show that he understands what Purgatory is since he clearly doesn't. Second of all, we have a whole entire video proving Purgatory from the Bible, yet none of you Protestants can even produce one verse that proves the Bible alone. But that doesn't seem to bother you.
All of this does nothing except create division among the brethren , which is why protestants now exists , they were fed up with the fallacies that were pushed on them
As a former protestant, and now a devout Catholic I'm grateful for the True Church and it's great to have dialogue with our separated brothers and sisters ....
When I tell protestants about the Church mentioned in the Gospels they tell me that we are the church as members of the Body of Christ they failed to understand the context as Jesus stated when he told Peter you are rock and on this rock I will build my Church.....❤❤❤❤❤❤
Amen brother! ❤
Welcome home🔥✝️🕊🙏🌹🫶
Odd considering the word “Catholic” doesn’t appear in the Bible…but Baptist does.😉
@@JLCProductions1976 Are ya winning, son? Or ya crying on the internet cause almost nobody in the world believes you? Seeking out Catholic channels to harass, real big man here...I'm sure Jesus is real impressed with you...
Sit back and relax, cause Roman Catholic Church coming back in a huge way.
Trump's Cabinet (so far):
JD Vance - Catholic
John Ratcliffe - Catholic
RFK Jr - Catholic
Marco Rubio - Catholic
Elise Stefanik - Catholic
Sean Duffy - Catholic
Karoline Leavitt - Catholic
Tom Homan - Catholic
Linda McMahon - Catholic
Sebastian Gorka: Catholic
Lori Chavez-Deremer-Catholic
Other key figures:
Melania Trump - Catholic
JFK - Catholic
JFK jr - Catholic
Gen Flynn - Catholic
Carlo Vigano - Catholic
Mel Gibson - Catholic
Steve Bannon - Catholic
Clarence Thomas - Catholic
Amy Coney Barrett - Catholic
Brett Kavanaugh - Catholic
Rudy Giuliani - Catholic
Mike Lindell - Catholic
Jack Posobiec - Catholic
Kellyanne Conway - Catholic
John Kelly - Catholic
Mercedes Schlapp - Catholic
Matt Schlapp - Catholic
What a COINCIDENCE!!!! 🤣
Triggered?
@@JLCProductions1976 Jesus asked Peter three times if he loved him and Peter said "Yes". The Lord Jesus then told Peter to go and feed his flock. That's a weak argument, the word Catholic is not in the Bible hence Baptist are true Christians. If that's how all Prots are then I feel sorry for you guys.
Mark 7:6-9 describes the Catholic perfectly.
No it doesn't. 2 Thess. 2:15 does. Also, we didn't think you could answer the questions. ;)
@randygreear8556 100% correct.
They praise themselves and try to usurp God's authority using men's philosophies.
On account of this, I fear the being who is worshipped in the Vatican might be someone very different.
The bible itself does not argue for Sola Scriptura, the definition of Sola Scriptura is that the scriptures alone are the Sole authority for faith and practice, we don't reject tradition for the fact of being tradition because real tradition helps to compliment or clear bible passages, we are against false tradition that contradicts scripture.
@@RiosDeAguaVivaMD Where did you get your definition of SS from?
So you made that up. So much for sola scriptura.
God breathed or Life giving. It does not matter as long as it does not go against scripture.
It does matter, very much.
Ask a Catholic why the ten commandments in their bible are different than the KJV bible. And different than the Hebrew manuscripts? Ask a Catholic why Their cross still has Jesus hanging on it when, in fact, he's alive and Iives Heaven? Ask a Catholic why they believe in their traditions, knowing that a Pagan ruler, Constantine, brought pagan traditions and beliefs into the church, which are still practiced within the church every sunday. Ask a Catholic when did Jesus the Lord of the Sabbath change the day to Sunday the first day of the week?
Ask a SDA why they are still using the Bible they got from Catholics. Ask why they follow traditions of men. Ask why they don't worship on Sunday like ALL Christians. Ask why they still belirve debunked theories about Constantine. Ask why the are in a Church with proven False prophets...
Ask a Protestant to show us where in the Bible the 10 commandments are numbered. There are 13 Thou Shalts and thou shalt nots. 13, not 10. So, where does the Bible tell you how and where to combine them. We will wait.
@CatholicTruthOfficial
The Jewish Ten Commandments are from the book of Exodus in the Torah:
I am the Lord your God.
"I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of slavery." (Exodus 20:2)
You shall have no other gods before Me. You shall not make for yourself an idol.
"You shall not recognize other gods before Me. You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth." (Exodus 20:3-4)
You shall not take the name of God in vain.
"You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain." (Exodus 20:7)
Remember and observe the Sabbath and keep it holy.
"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant, your animal or your stranger within your gates." (Exodus 20:8-10)
Honor your father and mother.
"Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be prolonged in the land which the Lord your God gives you." (Exodus 20:12)
You shall not murder.
"You shall not murder." (Exodus 20:13)
You shall not commit adultery.
"You shall not commit adultery." (Exodus 20:13)
You shall not steal.
"You shall not steal." (Exodus 20:13)
You shall not bear false witness.
"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor." (Exodus 20:13)
You shall not covet your neighbor's wife or house.
"You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor." (Exodus 20:14)
@CatholicTruthOfficial Is it true Catholicism teach that Mary virginity was maintained and never had children after Jesus?
I would love to see a transcript of this program.
I love what you do. You just talk so fast that my aging mind cannot follow, let alone retain.
Click open the description area, then go down to where it shows in blue text "show transcript". Click this blue text and the transcript will open up for you.
Power videos all to go up as articles on our website also at some point.
Well done Brian. I'm praying for you. 🙏
Thanks so much!
What else would you want? Why do you need anything more than scripture? It sounds to me like you are falling into what I call a trap. A lot of people don’t believe in the teachings of the Bible as a whole. I’ve heard people say referring to scripture, “Jesus didn’t say that. Paul did.” This kind of thinking is based in the denial of truth and human philosophy, which is flawed. Who is it that wants you questioning scripture? If we (Christians) don’t use the holy Bible alone, we become separated by our own interpretations and philosophies. We develop a state of being at odds with each other. Who is it that wants believers to be at odds with each other? This whole video proves that point. You say that you are making this video out of love. But that is not true. If you were to look deeper inside yourself and are willing to be honest with yourself, you’d see that your reason for making this video is to prove someone wrong. This desire is born of sinful pride. The very nature of this video inspires sinful pride and malice towards others. The comments in the comment section prove that. Maybe I can’t answer your questions the way you want them answered. However, your questions are designed to catch someone in a trap they can’t possibly get out of. So the phrase “scripture alone” isn’t in the Bible. That’s where faith and discernment come into play. Protestants believe in “scripture alone” because when you allow human philosophy and, I say this lightly, interpretation, I know that some interpretation is required for the study of holy scripture, you open up some very dangerous pathways. As Christ believing Christians, we have to have a standard for truth. That standard is scripture. Scripture defines truth. We believe it to be the word of God and the word of God defines truth. But, you have to have faith that it is truth. If it is not the only definition or standard for truth then what is? Sinful man with his prideful philosophy? Do you really want to put your trust in that? I don’t. So, therefore, I believe in scripture alone as absolute truth. If man is allowed to define truth, inevitably, it will lead to sin and falleness. You commented that the Jews believed in the teachings of the Pharisees. Jesus called the Pharisees a bunch of hell bound vipers. Just because people believe in something doesn’t make it true. Obviously you are free to believe what you want to believe. I would caution you, however, to test everything against scripture.
What is your standard of truth? What YOU think the Bible says. That is why there are thousands of different denominations and more by the day. Every single group claims that they are interpreting it correctly through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Can't be. God isn't a God of confusion. Jesus Christ only established one Church. It was also a visible Church. In John 17, he says that the world will know he is the Messiah because of the oneness of believers.
The early Church heresies involved people interpreting scriptures for themselves and coming up with new interpretations. It is still happening today. It is why we see more and more heresies coming back in Protestantism (like denial of the Trinity).
@ I couldn’t agree more. My standard for truth is the holy scriptures. Nothing more and nothing less.
Where does the bible say that the scriptures are the only standard. Quote a chapter and verse for us on that.
You asked what else we would want, well, what Jesus gave us. Jesus gave us a teaching and preaching authoritative church. And in fact he said that he gave his exact same authority to the apostles and the leaders of the church, and not only that, but send me must listen to them or I'll be rejected Christ and god. So if you have the Bible but you don't have the church, then you don't have true christianity. The Bible didn't even exist for 400 years, but the church did. The church was teaching and preaching, correcting and reproving long before the New Testament was even written., and it's the church, the authoritative Church who authoritatively gave us the scriptures.
You said test everything against the scripture. Which one of the tens of thousands of Protestant denominations and personal interpretations are we going to test it by? Who is interpretation of scripture? Protestants have all gone by the Bible alone, all pray to the holy spirit for 500 years, and continue to have more and more disagreements by the day and the tens of thousands.
The answer to question one begins where Paul in Galatians 1:8 instructs "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed." This can ONLY be known from God's Holy Word. ANYTHING that is different in the slightest would be anathema and anything repetitive would be redundant and unnecessary. It is then concluded in Revelation when John instructs in verses 22:18-19 "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book".
This is further reinforced in Deuteronomy 4:2 "You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you".
REVELATION 22
Revelation 22 does not prove the Bible alone or the sufficiency of scripture either. This was written by John when he was exiled on the Island of Patmos. After he had finished writing the book of Revelation, he sealed it up with the warning not to add or take away from it because it was given to him directly by God. The Bible would not even be put together for another 300 years. So this passage is only talking about the Book of Revelation, not the whole Bible.
Same with Deuteronomy. It's not talking about the whole Bible since the whole Bible wasn't written. If you are going to hold to this logically, then there should have been no other books written after Deuteronomy because it says not to go beyond what is written at that time. So, by your logic, there should be no rest of the Old Testament written or New Testament.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial even if I granted you were correct about being only for those 2 books (which obviously I don't), you didn't address the greater point of Paul instructing to reject anything which contradicted their writing. Anything that disagrees is to be discarded and a simple restating is superfluous.
Amazing question that I don't have a answer for however do Catholics believe it is wrong to trust the new and old testaments of Jesus Christ over the teachings of humans
Thank you for your question. We think though that it's kind of a faulty one in the sense that everyone who interprets the scripture is for themselves as a man, or a woman. There are millions of non-catholic interpretations that disagree with each other. Therefore, could we say that they are listening to men and women?
What Catholic says that Jesus also started a teaching and preaching authoritative church, and Christ says he gave the apostles the exact same Authority that he had. Therefore, we believe the church that Christ established and guides by his holy spirit has the only proper authority to interpret the Holy Word of God. This will be the only way that it's not a man-made tradition or interpretation. Outside the church you have thousands and millions of personal interpretations. Does that help?
In the wilderness, Jesus was Sola Scriptura with Satan. Why? When someone comes at you with an authority (a sword) other than the written word of God, the believer will only find God's victory wielding the sword that is sharper than any other two-edged sword, the written word of God.
Jesus quoting Scripture is not sola scriptura any more than the Catholic church quoting scriptura is sola scriptura.
Also you didn't answer the questions of the video.
@CatholicTruthOfficial
Jesus was in a confrontation with Satan, and He did not converse with him about the Sanhedrin (church), the Oral Torah, Jewish history, and other diverse commentaries. Jesus countered with the sword of the Spirit (the written word of God). All the other swords cannot compete.
@@dannisivoccia2712 with the same token, Satan also used scripture to tempt Jesus. Are you saying Satan is not a devout follower of God, a “true sword “ bearer?
@fbrlajes
There are scriptures that take precedence over other scriptures. Satan tried to use a scripture verse on Jesus to put Him to the test. There was an evil intent behind Satan's posturing of the scripture verse that he used. Jesus discerned it immediately, and countered with a scripture verse that put away Satan's evil intent.
Paul wrote in 2nd Thessalonians that we have teachings that are written yes, but also teachings given by word of mouth, which implies there are Christian truths that are not explicitly written in the Bible.
Historic Protestant denominations agree, its the evangelicals who bastsrdize the name but they try to follow nuda scriptura
Mainline denominations have become liberal but were earlier "orthodox". The falling away is now taking place.
Protestantism is my interpretation over context
That’s a big problem. We need to be unified in the Church’s interpretation, not any individual’s personal opinion.
I don't know how that word is pronounced or how it's spelled.
Question 1: John 14:26 KJV
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
2Timothy 3:16 - 17 is Sola Scriptura. How did Jesus rebuke Satan? Did he refer to tradition? Did he defer to his divinity as God? No, he quoted scripture.
How does God give ilfe? By breathing. It means both.
Which books are canon? The ones in the Bible. Who gave us the Bible?
God did. Not the church. If the Church assembling the Bible made it the true Church we would still be following Judaism.
Actually, Jesus and the apostles referred to tradition many times. So this alone debunks your argument. If Jesus only and ever appealed it to scripture you would have a point, but he didn't.
Have you actually read and studied those verses? They don't approve the Bible alone. 2 Tim. 3:15-17 doesn't say that the Bible is the only or final authority or that we just need to go by the bible. It doesn't say any of that. Rather, this passage says Scripture is 'helpful' (not sufficient) in aiding a Christian. Many things are helpful in that regard, but it never says only thing we need.
Lastly, 2 Tim. 3:15-17 is talking about the Old Testament Scriptures, not the whole Bible. It describes the scriptures Timothy knew as a kid. Old Testament. There was no Bible at this time and there wouldn't be for 4 cenruries. The New Testament would even be finished for at least 6 decades. So the best argument you can make is that all we need is the Old Testament. That is what makes us perfect. But of course, the verses don't say any of that.
If we are going to take your claim literally here, employing the same logic, then all we need is perseverance. James 1:4 says that perseverance makes us "perfect and complete, lacking in nothing. So according to James all we need is perseverance to be perfect. And the Greek is far stronger than in 2nd Timothy.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial 1 - You are conflating Sola Scriptura with Solo Scriptura. The Prot position isn't Scriptura ONLY it is Scripture = the highest authority. This means you can have traditions and leaders etc, but a tradition or a leader cannot be held as high as scripture.
2 - 2 Tim. 3:15-17 - "that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." Complete means complete, so yes the highest authority. It doesn't even say you need anything else to be complete.
3 - God knows there would be more scripture to come, since he inspired it, which would apply to the NT as well. God is not bound by time and space.
4 - James 1:4 refers to persevering through hardship - trials of many kinds. The context prevents you from making the point you are attempting to make.
my answer to this video is:
Revelation 22:18 says, "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book"
The Catholic Church wrote that book and that verse is for only that book. The Catholic Church wrote all of the New Testament and added the whole thing to the Septuagint.
@@tabandken8562 the Roman Catholic church didn't exist and "wrote" nothing other than its catechism (to to explain/defend its self proclaimed authority)The Bible is a compilation/record of the tradition and writings of the Apostles("word and epistle")combined with Jewish scriptures
@brianwilliams-se5jy The Catholic Church was there from the beginning. The Catholic Church was started by Jesus.
Ignatius of Antioch
See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church (Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 8 [A.D. 110]).
Polycarp
And of the elect, he was one indeed, the wonderful martyr Polycarp, who in our days was an apostolic and prophetic teacher, bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna. (Martyrdom of Polycarp 16:2 [A.D. 155]).
Justin Martyr
For the men of former generations, who instituted private and public rites in honor of such as were more powerful, caused forgetfulness of the Catholic faith to take possession of their posterity (On the Sole Government of God 1 [inter A.D. 151-155]).
Irenaeus
The truth is to be found nowhere else but in the Catholic Church, the sole depository of apostolical doctrine. Heresies are of recent formation and cannot trace their origin up to the apostles (Against Heresies 3:4 [A.D. 189]).
The Muratorian Canon
He wrote, besides these, one to Philemon, and one to Titus, and two to Timothy, in simple personal affection and love indeed; but yet these are hallowed in the esteem of the Catholic Church (3 [inter A.D. 180-200]).
Tertullian
Where was Marcion then, that shipmaster of Pontus, the zealous student of Stoicism? Where was Valentinus then, the disciple of Platonism? For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago - in the reign of Antoninus for the most part - and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus, until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled (The Prescription Against Heretics 22, 30 [A.D.200]).
Clement of Alexandria
It is my opinion that the true Church, that which is really ancient, is one, and that in it those who according to God’s purpose are just, are enrolled…Therefore in substance and idea, in origin, in pre-eminence, we say that the ancient and Catholic Church is alone, collecting as it does into the unity of the one faith (Stromata 7:17 [A.D. 202]).
Origen
Let such things, however, be lightly esteemed by him who is desirous of being trained in divine learning, while retaining in its integrity the rule of the Catholic faith (On First Principles 3 [A.D. 225]).
Hippolytus
Behold, into how great impiety that lawless one has proceeded, by inculcating adultery and murder at the same time! And withal, after such audacious acts, they, lost to all shame, attempt to call themselves a Catholic Church! (Refutation of All Heresies 9:7 [A.D. 228]).
@@tabandken8562 fyi, St. Paul wrote most of the NT. No pope or Bishop wrote anything. No human added anything to God's thoughts.
Paul said this..
1 Corinthians 1:17
[17]For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
Does that sound Catholic at all?
2 Peter 1:21
[21]For the prophecy came not in any time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Proverbs 30:5-6
[5]Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
[6]Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
"Every word of God is pure" means it is of only one source, i.e. not a mixture.
There is nothing of man in it.
You can stop with your unfounded claims.
@@brianwilliams-se5jy Jesus est His One True Church, Mt 16 18-19 with Peter as His first representative or Prime Minister Isa 22:22 which is the pillar & foundation of Truth 1 Tim 3:15 which Ignatius named as Katholikos or Universal in 107AD which codified your bible in 382AD which has existed for 2000 yrs, in spite of sinful men & is the longest existing human institution. Fact check if you don’t believe me.
Catholic inspired authors, under the guidance of the HS, wrote the NT. The CC codified your bible in 382
Thanks for the video Bryan.. I came across an interesting statement.. the catholic church predates the bible as it is today... The bible was put together around 380AD.. so, since the church put it together, obviously, the church has authority to see what is inspired and what is not ..
Amen
Exactly. And for that reason it is unwise to strip the Church of its authority and hold it accountable to the Bible when the Church gave us the Bible.
Don't forget 70% of the Bible is the Old Testament (Tanakh) and points to Jesus in many ways.
I am not a Catholic. I believe that Jesus was God, died on the cross, was resurrected on the third day and that he died for my sins. I claim I am saved. Am I deluded, in error or I am saved?
A strong start but we must put on the whole armor of God. 2 Peter 1
4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. 5 And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; 6 And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; 7 And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity. 8 For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. 10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: 11 For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
Has your belief in Christ steered you away from wanting to sin against God?
To protestants, you're saved to Catholics and Orthodox you're unsaved
Leslie, those are good beliefs, core beliefs, but you also have some core beliefs that are not biblical. That's why we asked the three questions in the video. Can you answer them please?
Here are the questions for you to make it easy for you.
1. Since Protestants can't agree on what the Bible alone is and have different understandings of it, where does the bible alone solve this problem?
2. Protestants say that scripture is god-breathed, like in to Timothy 3:16, and yet the Greek word, Theopnustos, has two different meanings. So how do you know which meaning it is according to scripture?
3. How do you know which books belong in the Bible according to the Bible alone? Or do you have to use an authority outside of scripture?
Also you were not deluded, but you also don't have the full gospel. No, that's not enough to be saved because Jesus said you also need to be baptized. Mk. 16:16. So did Peter. Acts 2:38. 1 Pet. 3:21. And others.
Sola scriptura is Latin for "by Scripture alone." So why the question?
What does Scripture alone mean? Protestants can't agree on what it means. Something that means you only use the Bible and nothing else. Some say there are other authorities but the Bible is the highest authority. Others say it's the soul infallible Authority and Rule of faith. So there are many different definitions of what people say it is, but where does Scripture solve the problem of disagreement.
Matthew 4 : 4
Theology soundly laid out and understood is a good foundation for every true Christian, but that alone is not enough. It is the revelatory understanding of scripture that is necessary. Receiving a living revelation. Just as Jesus said to Peter, flesh and blood hath not revealed this unto you. Jesus wasn't making Peter a pope, he was saying upon this rock, the rock of revelation I will build my church. It is the revelation of the Holy Spirit that enlightens us and reveals truth, not tradition or men's religious theological understanding. This is how we are born again and know God by revelation.
In Mt. 16:18-19, Jesus makes Peter the head of the church. He calls PETER rock, not himself. He even changes his name from Simon to Peter, which means "rock." Complete coincidence? He could have changed it to anything but he changed it to a name which means Rock. Jesus even calls Simon the Rock at other times as well like in Jn. 1:42 as did Paul. (Cephas means Rock).
Also, Jesus intentionally traveled with the apostles hundreds of miles to Cesarea Philippi to do this, where there is a huge 500 foot rock. That is the exact spot that Jesus changed Simon's name to Rock and said that you are the rock upon which I will build my church. And at this very moment he gave him the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven giving him a primacy of authority.
Name changes are significant in Scripture. When Jesus changes his name from Simon to Peter, it symbolizes a change in status and a change in mission (like Abram to Abraham and Issac to Israel, etc). Peter was receiving a special call to be the head of the church which is why he alone singularly received the keys of the kingdom alone. The keys come from Isaiah 22 and symbolize the primacy of authority over the whole household of God.
Peter is mentioned in the bible 195 times. Saint John, 29 times, St. James 16 times. Peter does first miracle and the first speech. Peter receives the revelations from God. He has a special relationship with Christ who trains him. Acts 15:11. Peter alone settled the dispute. Lists of apostles are always Peter and 11. Peter and the others. Peter and the Apostles. He is always listed 1st and Judas last. Luke 5:1-10: Peter chosen for ministry as fisher of men. Luke 22:24-32. Leader of the brothers. John 21:1-17: chosen as shepherd of church under Christ.
Yup, Sola Skiptura is a Human tradition made by Martin Luther...
Up to this is day, many Counterfeit Pastors got very rich through The word of God.
Sadly, many Gullible members who still believe, adore and worship their human counterfeit Pastors...
Sad but this is the reality...
LuminousTwinHearts
Here you go stereotyping a few bad apples as if all denominations are greed filled pagans . Shall we stereotype the roman Catholic church as being filled with pedo priests ? Very few priests are abusers and to call the roman Catholic church to be filled with abusers is wrong just as your assertion that denominations are all after your money.
Yes I agree a lot of pastors got rich from good Christian’s.
But isn’t the pope worth about 16 million dollars and live in a palace . How did he get 16 million dollars ?
@@ThatGuy-nr5spno? The Pope is not worth 16 million dollars. I’m very curious where you pulled that number from. If anything, Pope Francis is on record as have a net worth of about how ever much his Timex watch is worth. He doesn’t own anything. As for living in a palace, its primary purpose is a Cathedral, the secondary purpose is a graveyard, and then it houses many many people, not just the Pope.
@ThatGuy-nr5sp
Pope doesn't have 16 million, all he have now is just borrow, after he retire , he will live as a normal citizens... And as a token of his service, if he still lives, he'll get a 1 or 2 coins of gold as payment then that's it...
@@ThatGuy-nr5sp the roman Catholic church is number two in richest churches in the world , oddly enough the cult Mormonism is number one as being richest.
You will find various pastors of some denominations being filthy rich but the riches are not from swindling the flock .
Having loads of money is not a sin or if it is then those of us who rent apartments must be righteous and those who own houses must be sinners?
Where in the Bible does it define Sola Roman Catholic? Where does it teach the Pope is the vicar of Christ? Where does the Bible teach to pray to anyone but God? I was raised Catholic. Now I am a Christian. Just like the Bereans, I search the Scriptures to test if the teachings of the Catholic church are true. The core Christian beliefs are true. But it's the add on teachings that are not supported by scripture that I question.
It is for Solascriptura protestants to prove that concept not the other way around. You're talking nonsense
@qanaqa33174 No, he is right as you know.
Lara, like every other Protestant on this thread, you know you can't answer the questions and so you just avoid them and try to ask other questions instead. Silly questions that the Catholic Church doesn't even believe.
Here are the questions for you to make it easy for you.
1. Since Protestants can't agree on what the Bible alone is and have different understandings of it, where does the bible alone solve this problem?
2. Protestants say that scripture is god-breathed, like in to Timothy 3:16, and yet the Greek word, Theopnustos, has two different meanings. So how do you know which meaning it is according to scripture?
3. How do you know which books belong in the Bible according to the Bible alone? Or do you have to use an authority outside of scripture?
If you had watched the video, which you didn't, you would know that the bereans were Jewish and didn't go by the Bible alone nor does that passage prove the Bible alone. It actually disproves it.
@@qanaqa33174Did you just call Catholic doctrine and dogma nonsense?😮
I would love nothing more than to bring my protestant best friend to the Catholic church.
Do it, I go to mass fairly regularly, and I'm not technically Catholic. We serve the same God, don't let this Pharisaical focus on nonsense divide us
That takes a lot of prayer and discussion, love, understanding, and patience. :)
there is no purgatory. don't pray to Mary.
@ Corinthians 3:11-15 Paul tells about purgatory. Mathew 5-23. Mathew 12:32 also do. Mary is the Queen of God we pray for each other why not Mary too
@@GmanfromTexas NOT REALLY! IT HAS TO TWIST IT TO USE IT! I COR. 3;11-15 TELLS OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE SAINTS (BORN AGAIN BELIEVERS) AFTER THE RAPTURE. OUR WORKS ARE JUDGED AND NOT US! MATTHEW 5:23-25 DEALS WITH PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS! IF YOU CHEERY PICK VERSES AT LEAST KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT!THIS IS WHAT CULTS DO.
because of Constantine, the Church became political and that power began to corrupt it. You can read the church fathers before Constantine like Origen, Justyn Martyr, etc. all had different ideas from one another and that’s okay. But none of them bowed to a pope, prayed to Marry, etc. But they all loved Jesus and made Him the center.
Also, how do you explain Eastern Orthodox, Waldensians, etc??
You made some big claims, but didn't back it up with any facts. The church did not become a political because of constantine. In the early church fathers agreed on all of the essentials. They discussed the rest, and yet the Catholic Church still only had one teaching. None of them believed in the Bible alone, Faith alone, denominationalism, alter calls, Sinners prayers, thinking they can choose what books belong in the Bible and so on.
I agree that the church did a good job canonizing a Bible that was written only by eye-witness apostles. That’s why I accept it.
@@CatholicTruthOfficialI’ll leave it to the individual to read the works of Origen, Justyn Martyr, etc. and see how they disagree about some things. Yes, all serious Protestants also agree with the essentials (the apostles creed.)
All the early Church fathers believed in the True Presence of the Eucharist, infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, tradition, the authority of the Church, and other things most Protestants wouldn't accept because the early Church was Catholic, not Protestant. They also were all part of the one same Church and didn't have 1000s of varying doctrines and beliefs like Protestants.
@@CatholicTruthOfficialhere are a couple counter examples for you to try on:
Polycarp 1:3
“though ye saw Him not, ye believe with joy unutterable and full of
glory; unto which joy many desire to enter in; forasmuch as ye know
that it is by grace ye are saved, not of works, but by the will of
God through Jesus Christ.”
“Let no one then think it strange, when we say that the Lord’s blood is figuratively represented as milk. For is it not figuratively represented as wine?” (Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, Book 1, Chapter 6).
Greetings . What is the Catholic teaching on scripture, it's necessity, source ,sufficiency and authority .
Thanks for the question. We believe Scripture is the Word of God. Inerrant. However, it must be properly interpreted and is not self-interpreting. Scripture tells us Jesus started a teaching and preaching authoritative church, and he said we must listen to the church or we are not Christian. Tbis, we believe we need both Scripture and the Church, and it's the church that has the authority from Christ to properly interpret Scripture.
Sola scriptura is in the passage immediately after the one that defined the Trinity.
Haha, nice
And used the very word Trinity
seems Allah got there first in Quran 5:44 and 5:49
Justification by faith alone, another Protestant hallmark, seems to be a hand-me-down from Sahih al-Bukhari 1338, Book 23, Hadith 93.
Discouragement of the Cross👉: Concerned it might lead to idol worship? It appears this sentiment is shared in Sahih al-Bukhari 5952, Book 77, Hadith 168.
I will never pray to mary, I only worship Jesus...
We only worship Jesus too. There's nothing wrong though with asking other people in the body of Christ to pray for you. Intercessory prayer is not worship, it's Biblical.
Mary was just a womsn--a good woman, but Jesud is our mediator.
Are you more holy than Mary the mother of Jesus.@@joannquaid6037
Funny how you use pray and worship as though they mean the same thing.
@@joannquaid6037
Jesus is our mediator to God. It is completely acceptable to have intercessors *TO* Jesus.
Or have you never asked others to pray for you or someone you know? Your not asking them to worship for you.
Sola Scriptura ⬇️
2 Timothy 3:16-17
English Standard Version
16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God[a] may be complete, equipped for every good work.
“Complete”
“Equipped for EVERY good work”
That’s definitive.
Funnily enough, Catholics have an extra 7 books in their Bible that was in dispute all throughout church history, even among Catholics 😅
The Protestant Bible contains the 66 books which were NEVER disputed.
Where does it say it is the only infallible rule of faith? Not even close.
So you are saying that the canon of the bible was were never settled in church history? So tell us who settled the canon of the bible you are using now and an whose authority was that done?
Exactly, the Bible is God's manual that serve as guidance for the believers.
Without a manual anyone can make up stories that suit their narrative, the very reason why they deny scripture only.
Lovegod, you didn't answer the question in the video. In fact, you didn't answer any of the three questions.
Have you actually read and studied those verses? They don't approve the Bible alone. 2 Tim. 3:15-17 doesn't say that the Bible is the only or final authority or that we just need to go by the bible. It doesn't say any of that. Rather, this passage says Scripture is 'helpful' (not sufficient) in aiding a Christian. Many things are helpful in that regard, but it never says only thing we need.
Lastly, 2 Tim. 3:15-17 is talking about the Old Testament Scriptures, not the whole Bible. It describes the scriptures Timothy knew as a kid. Old Testament. There was no Bible at this time and there wouldn't be for 4 cenruries. The New Testament would even be finished for at least 6 decades. So the best argument you can make is that all we need is the Old Testament. That is what makes us perfect. But of course, the verses don't say any of that.
If we are going to take your claim literally here, employing the same logic, then all we need is perseverance. James 1:4 says that perseverance makes us "perfect and complete, lacking in nothing. So according to James all we need is perseverance to be perfect. And the Greek is far stronger than in 2nd Timothy.
Those seven books you were talking about were there in the very first Bible ever made and every Bible ever since. They weren't taken out until the 1800s by protestants. Learn history.
In Ezekiel chapter 37, Ezekiel preached the word of to the bones they came alive and formed a great multitude. This supports the idea that the word of God is life giving (?)
You say that Sola Scriptura is a man-made tradition. Well, that's okay, because Sola Scriptura allows for sources of authority besides Scripture (only they can't contradict Scripture), and Sola Scriptura itself does not contradict Scripture.
It's odd, you say you're not going to attack or put down Protestants and you're not going to say, "we're right, you're wrong," and then you directly attack Protestants by saying "they have been duped." Bro, that is a put-down if I've ever heard one! By saying Protestants are duped, you're clearly implying they are wrong and you are right! I find your approach extremely duplicitous.
I also doubt your allegation that there is substantive disagreement among Protestant scholars over the meaning of Sola Scriptura; it's easy to find people who haven't been well taught and therefore confuse Sola with Solo (or Nuda) Scriptura, no doubt, but where are your quotes proving that knowledgeable, well-taught Protestants do this? How about some quotes from professors in Protestant seminaries or from recognized scholars? Allegations are as cheap and as durable as party balloons.
No controversy would ever have arisen if the Catholic Church had not strayed (on its own authority) into teachings which _deviated_ from the authority of the Bible. Sales of indulgences, for one. Salvation "by grace through faith" became salvation by pocketbook in the middle ages.
Pls prove SS from scripture!
Who told you what the bible is? Catholic church did in 4th century. Why deny that authority now?
@@johnyang1420 The church depends upon the Bible for its claim to authority. If the church gave us the Bible, then in the process of creating the Bible it created the documentation for its own authority. That's self-serving circular reasoning.
Jesus Himself treated the O.T. as a written source of authority. Jesus quoted the O.T. as His authoritative text in settling differences of opinion and in showing the Pharisees & Sadducees their doctrinal errors. Jesus described the record of these divinely inspired messages as “the word of God” (Matt. 15:6) and referred to it as “Scripture” (‘the writings’), and He declared that “Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35).
The N.T., insofar as the truthfulness of the propositions it teaches, is also authoritative. For one thing, 1/3 of the N.T. consists of quotes and references from the infallible, authoritative O.T. For another, a large portion of the N.T. contains quotes from Jesus, God the Son (you can't get more authoritative than the words which came from the lips of God, can you?) Of the remainder, most of it is passing on and expounding upon the teachings of Jesus which were heard from his lips by the Apostles.
The N.T. was penned (quilled, actually) by Apostles who had direct exposure to Jesus and who were able to learn from Him on a first-hand or second-hand basis, so they are far, far less likely to have been mistaken than subsequent churchmen might be; we also have good reason to assume that _Apostles who preferred to die for their belief and understanding of Jesus' teachings_ would not have lied in their writings.
Besides that, N.T. Scripture itself suggests that it is divinely inspired. We know from history that the Gospels and Epistles were recognized by the church, as early as 149 A.D., to be Scripture and authoritative.
When in the course of time a group of church leaders met to discuss things in a council, they took note of these points I've described, they wrote a list of these documents which were already universally accepted as authoritative among the churches, and they said 'let's not include any additional documents' because the other documents floating around at that time were seen to contain errors or fabrications. But their actions did not provide any extraordinary properties to those pre-existing, previously-accepted writings. Holy Scriptures were Holy Scriptures long before any Council convened to discuss the sum of their contents.
Sola Scripture - the belief that Scripture alone is infallible and the ultimate source of authority for Christian practice.
Your question is misleading. Catholics agree scripture is infallible and that it is a source of authority. The real question is can we say that other things are also infallible and on equal ground with Scripture for authority?
Do you honestly believe we should accept every tradition? This is not a good line of reasoning because of Scripture where Paul writes about being careful about being led astray by human tradition. Even looking at church history it seems that tradition can and has changed, so tradition must be judged. What then is tradition judged by? Is it not the scriptures?
Secondly, you claim the magisterium is infallible. Can you honestly say looking at church history that magisterium has always gotten everything correct at all times? No you would not want to say that because even popes have disagreed with one another. Someone had to be wrong in those disagreements. Many Catholics including bishops in teaching authority in the Catholic Church think pope Francis is getting it wrong right now. So then the magisterium to must be judged. Judged by what? Is it not the scriptures?
You also seem to mix in solo scriptura when you talk about sola scriptura. There is a difference, and not acknowledging the difference makes you feel unreliable.
Your second question really feels irrelevant because even the Catholic Church believes that Scripture. But let’s break down the word to answer your question.
θεόπνευστος - θεό = God πνευστος coming from πνεῦμα = Breath
Question number 3: again you are mixing solo scriptura with Sola Scriptura and it makes you look unreliable