I know this is weak - but I like icons, I like the aesthetics of holy images :( I'm not going to 'worship' them. They 'remind' me of my faith but yep - I'd like to say to God, they look great in my home! (and frankly, they seem far less grievous to my soul than supporting same sex unions or even women priests).
What do you do if you are aNGLICAN since birth, and now your church here in Canada has changed and is allowing things like same-sex marriage and gender identity and a bunch of things that are contrary to scripture what do you do do you do your prayer book on your own and pray for CHURCH because it’s not just one CHURCH. It is the entire ANGLICAN CHURCH of Canada now allowing things like same-sex marriage and women priests which go against the teaching of God and the more worldly my church becomes the less I want to go there but the more I want to cling to God and my prayer book but now I don’t get communion so what would you suggest?
@@newkingdommedia9434 Dear River Devereux I recommend to understand better the Catholic position you read the following three books by Catholic apologist and former Reformed theologian Robert Sungenis - Robert A. Sungenis Most Popular Not by Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura 66 Paperback $3428 Top Robert A. Sungenis titles for you Not by Faith Alone: A Biblical Study of the Catholic Doctrine of Justification Not by Faith Alone: A Biblical Study of the Catholic Doctrine of Justification 4.5 58 Not by Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura Not by Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura 4.5 66 Not by Bread Alone: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for the Eucharistic Sacrifice of the Catholic Mass Not by Bread Alone: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for the Eucharistic Sacrifice of the Catholic Mass 5.0 23
I will be watching this when I have time. @ Riven, I was wondering, have you read the book Anglican Theology by Mark Chapman? If so, I was wondering what your thought on it was.
The BCP removed that practice and replaced it with a Lenten service. I'm actually fine with ashes though, so long as one just sees them as a symbol and not as actually bestowing grace.
Holy Scripture may be infallible, but it needs to be his interpreted. Hence the multitude of churches and sects which differ in their interpretations of lots of things. Does the doctrine of Sola Scriptura forbid beliefs which are not explicit in Scripture (like the Trinity: the only explicit reference to it is a gloss, because it is not in the oldest manuscripts) but do not contradict what is explicit in Scripture? The Assumption of Mary is not in Scripture but does not contradict Scripture. After all, Enoch - about whom we know nothing except that he walked with God - was assumed into heaven. Mary is perhaps slightly more important than Enoch.
We can believe in the canonised books of the Bible because after 300 years of dispute, there was an organ of infallible teaching authority to declare which books were inspired. Chirst established His Church on Peter and the apostles and their successors, and guaranteed it would teach His truth, in His Name, in every generation, until the end. "The church is the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1Tim 3:15), and not private interpretation. Without it there is doctrinal chaos.
@@DD-bx8rb In courts of law, where independent witnesses agree is strong evidence of truth which agrees with Article VI of the 39 Articles. Hebrews 12:1“Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,”
@@jamessheffield4173 The is no divine guarantee for the Canon as mutilated by the Protestant heretics. Only a divinely appointed authority can decide which books are inspired. Luther removeed 7 books of the OT which the early church held as scripture, and which Christ and the apostles refer to in NT scripture. And from the NT Luther cut out James, Jude, Revalation and Hebrews though he later reinstated them after threats from his co-religionists. Without a divinely appointed infallible teaching authority there is doctrinal chaos. For Christ to deliver the truth, as he promised, there must be infallibility. Truth by its very nature is infallible, and does not confuse. Luther simply replaced "Church as Final Authority" with "Private Interpratation of the Written Tradition As Final Authority". "The church is the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1Tim 3:15, and NOT private interpretation. And please don't give me the tired old assertion that "foundation" should be rendered "defender". That one was embarrassingly dropped long ago.
notwithstanding the repeated claim that the differences between the various denominations witin Evangelical Protestantism pertain to minor issues and are not important doctrinal differences, such begs an important question-how are we to adequately answer HOW we know what is and what is not an important doctrinal Difference? Furthermore, we know for a fact that this is false; there ARE manydoctrinaldisagreements among various Protestant groups that are salvific in nature, not secondary such as church government or exclusive psalmody. Such differences include baptismal regeneration, infant baptism, mode of baptism, the nature of communion, the nature of justification, the nature of sanctification, the nature of righteousness in justification, eternal security, the nature of the atonement (limited or universal) can God's saving grace be resisted, whether repentance is necessary for salvation, the nature of sola scriptura, speaking in tongues, the nature of original sin, free will or determinism,, cessationism, and the nature of sola scriptura itself. None of these -and many other doctrines are minor disagreements-, rather they represent substantive, fundamental differences among Protestants who all follow sola scriptura. This makes scripture a mere chimera and what is more what validates 2 Tim. 3:16? Remember the Koran makes similar statements about its own efficacy and spiritual truth.
We can believe in the canonised books of the Bible because after 300 years of dispute, there was an organ of infallible teaching authority to declare which books were inspired. Chirst established His Church on Peter and the apostles and their successors, and guaranteed it would teach His truth, in His Name, in every generation, until the end. "The church is the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1Tim 3:15), and not private interpretation. Without it there is doctrinal chaos.
@@grneal26 Thanks for your comment. We actually know of no manuscripts of the NT existing now that is written on papyrus, only fragments. The originals, as they came from the hand of apostle and evangelist, have totally disappeared. And this is a key reason why the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura is flawed. I will explain further: 1. ALL apostolic teaching was oral and was the truth which Christ would bring to every generation. Some of that was eventually written down as scripture. And so we do not profess to rest our revealed truth on the "Bible- alone" and we would be just as we are, and what we are, if there were no Bibles at all. Christ promised "He who hears you, hears me" and that "His church would never fail". He said nothing about preserving copies of the written Tradition. 2. The first Christians, like us now, have the living, infallible Church to teach and guide us through the mouth of St Peter and the Apostles and their succcessors; their oral teaching, copies of what eventually became written down as scripture, and the true meaning of it as well. 3. Throughout the first centuries there was not the same necessity for preserving the originals, and mere copies of the original inspired writings was good enough. When a more beautiful or correct copy was made, an earlier rough one was allowed to perish. The first Christians had no superstitious or idolatrous veneration for the sacred Scriptures, such as prevails among Protestants. They did not consider it necessary for salvation that the very handwriting of Paul or Matthew should be preserved, inspired by God though these men certainly were. They had the living, divinely guaranteed teaching authority of the church, promised to every generation. The story of translations is a wonderful illustration of the living teaching church, and the futility of the heretical doctrine of Bible Alone.
@@DD-bx8rb I think you misunderstand the notion of scripture. These are the only teachings of Christ and the apostles we have. Jesus ascended and the apostles are dead so the only way to know what they said is by what they wrote, correct? What other word from them do we have from them that Rome has infallibly defined? The original autographs are gone, true;however, we can be sure with the thousands of manuscripts and quotes of the church fathers we have an amazing provenance of both testaments. What provenance do we have for sacred tradition or oral tradition as Rome defines it? Where do you get the notion that Christ established an infallible church? How God preserved His word among the Jews is the template of how He did so among the early church. There was an old covenant with scriptures pertaining to them, likewise, there is a new covenant with scriptures pertaining to them. How are we to know what the teachings of Christ and His apostles were if there isn’t an objective medium given to God’s people? How would an institution composed of sinful people be trustworthy of preserving those teachings given the nature of man to corrupt truth. Even when scriptures are given, man adds to them in order to nullify them (Matthew 15:1-9). How did the church produce the scriptures when the scriptures themselves were given by God (2 Timothy 3:16)? Is the church subject to God’s word or is God’s word subject to the church? Considering that God’s word contains God’s authority doesn’t it stand to reason that church authority must be subject to God’s authority.?
Christ gives st Peter and his successors the authority of binding and loosing Matthew 18:18, John 20:23, Matthew 16:18-20, John 21:15-19 and St Paul tells St Timothy to hold hold fast to the traditions he has passed on as an apostle, both written and orally 2 Thessalonians 2:15, In the letter to St Timothy Paul writes that the Church not the Scripture is the pillar and foundation of the of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15) nor is the scripture as some Christians claim, fully self- interpreting. as 2 Peter notes, for example, in St Paul's letter there are things hard to understand that the Ignorant and unstable distort to their destruction, just as they do the other scriptures (2 Peter 3:16). The Catholic Church avoids such dangers by relying on authoritative interpretation of the sacred magisterium in the light of Tradition by authority of Christ of sending them to teach and baptize. no prophecy of scripture is a matter of self interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy spirit spoke under the influence of God (2 Peter 1:20), so respect Gods choice of choosing apostles and sending the Holy spirit upon them on pentecost, nothing is impossible, if the Holy spirit could make Simon Peter infallible in the first Council of the Church, the council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) why not his successors by special authority given by Jesus as the one who holds the keys to heaven whatever is bond or loosened by his successors is also bound or loosened in heaven (Matthew 16:18) I wonder the Sola Scriptura you are studying if you can't recognize all these in the Scriptures you have been studying since Childhood, any way this is a punishment to protestants for disobedience to authority instituted by Christ. finally the sacred tradition, sacred Scripture and teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God's most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls so violation of any leads to disorder as the protestant churches are facing now
Hello! Matthew 18 begins with a question from the Disciples/Apostles about who is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven. Peter is not the answer. Again, in verse 18 all present are addressed, not Peter alone; likewise John 20:23. The rick in Matthew 16 its Peter's confession of faith in Christ, the binding power is also granted to the other Apostles. See above passages. John 21:15-19 is a three-fold reconciliation of Peter after this three-fold denial of knowing Christ. The traditions mentioned in 2 Thess 2:15 are known to the whole Church. They are not secrets teachings entrusted to Bishops which did not yet exist as distinct from the Presbyters. 1 Tim 3:15 says the Church is the pillar, and foundation of Truth, not the definer of Truth. 2 Peter 3:16 is what you are doing, no offense intended. 2 Peter 1:20 only rejects subjective interpretations. Not proper exegesis. In Acts 15, James presides over the Council, others speak after Peter, and Janes wraps things up.
The alleged three-fold authorities of the RCC don't work because the Pope decides on all of it. Also we Magisterial Protestants have unity in all essentials. Thank you for reading all of this, I look forward to your reply.
1 Tim 3:15 says the church is "a pillar and bulwark of truth". Meaning defender of truth, not foundation. It also has the article "a" not "the". You're misquoting.
@@allisvanity...9161 On the contrary, in Matthew 18:18, all apostles were given the keys, but only Peter is made the Rock as well as getting the keys, in Matt 16:18-19
The problem I have with the idea of Sola Scriptura, is what constitutes the scripture itself is a product of Church tradition. It was various Ecumenical councils which determined what the canon was in the first place. Sola Scriptura is a self-defeating argument, since what constitutes the scripture was determined not by scripture but by the Church.
Sola Scriptura is only means that the Bible is supreme, and infallible. It is not a rejection of traditions that do not contradict it. EDIT: The RCC did not have an infallible list of the canon until April of 1546. The early Church never disputed the four Gospels, Acts, and the Epistles of Paul.
@@Zwerchhau If you are thinking of 2 Thessalonians 2:15, and related verses; the context is the Apostle Paul addressing a whole Church. He is not imparting secret teachings to Bishops that were not yet distinct from Presbyters. The traditions would have been basic theology, and an early liturgy, and such.
@@Zwerchhau The context of James 2:14-26 is a dead faith, one that produces no fruit. It must also be noted that James was writing long before the advent of Systematic Theology; therefore he uses the word justification differently from Paul. The RC interpretation does not hold because it creates a contradiction between Paul, and James. Please see Romans 3:28, & 5:1
We can believe in the canonised books of the Bible because after 300 years of dispute, there was an organ of infallible teaching authority to declare which books were inspired. Chirst established His Church on Peter and the apostles and their successors, and guaranteed it would teach His truth, in His Name, in every generation, until the end. "The church is the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1Tim 3:15), and not private interpretation. Without it there is doctrinal chaos.
Where did Jesus say that the church was established on the successors to the apostles? On the apostles (including Peter, sure) but where do we see apostolic succession as Rome defines it?
@@TomPlantagenet Christ PROMISED and GUARANTEED that all generations would have the SAME access to the truth as the first believers (NOT the different doctrinal conclusions produced by Sola Scriptura). The NT clearly teaches that the aposltes had successors. How else would the truth be taught to all generations? The Holy Spirit protects the Church, just as the Holy Spirit protested infallible men through which to give us infallible scripture. Read your Bible, Protestant: To make sure the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after their deaths through a successio, Paul told Timothy, “What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first 4 generations of apostolic succession: his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach, and those it would teach. Look at 1 Timothy 1:6 and 4:14, where Paul reminds Timothy that the apostolic succession had been conferred on him through the laying on of hands. Notice in 1 Timothy 5:22 that Paul advises Timothy not to be hasty in handing on this apostolic authority to others. In Titus Paul describes the apostolic authority Titus had received and urges him to act decisively in this leadership role. Look at Acts 1:21-26, where you’ll see the apostles, immediately after Jesus’ Ascension, acting swiftly to replace Judas with a sucessor. They prayed for guidance, asking God to show them which candidate was “chosen to take the place in this apostolic ministry from which Judas turned away.” After choosing Matthias they laid hands on him to confer apostolic authority. Hebrews 6:1-3 presents insight into the doctrine of apostolic succession: "Therefore, let us leave the elementary doctrines of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of [1] repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, with [2] instruction about ablutions [i.e., baptisms], [3] the laying on of hands, [4] the resurrection of the dead, and [5] eternal judgment. And this we will do if God permits". Significantly, with the advent of the Protestant rebellion of the 16th C, each of these five topics have manifold different definitions depending upon the Protestant sect, or quasi-Christian sect, you may belong to. Thank you Sola Scriptura.
You cannot pick and choose whta suits you best and ditch the rest. Christ never did thta to us! You are not Catholic, it makes zero sense to try to justify in some mental gymnastics that you are. If Christ fid whta you are doing, He would have cut you off and the rest of us off a long time ago. Please, be consistent and stop being hypocritical to His Church.
![โรงเรียนห้ามรัก โดนจับได้ตาย...!! [เอิร์นไดเม่]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4u02Sbr556Q/mqdefault.jpg)
Another banger! Love these sermons, very unique In the TH-cam world. Please continue blessing us with these.
Thank you!
Great video coming from a former Greek Orthodox. Scripture is truth and no one can change that. Amen❤😊
The evolution of your background decor over time has been interesting to watch. Great video!
Cheers!
I know this is weak - but I like icons, I like the aesthetics of holy images :( I'm not going to 'worship' them. They 'remind' me of my faith but yep - I'd like to say to God, they look great in my home! (and frankly, they seem far less grievous to my soul than supporting same sex unions or even women priests).
What do you do if you are aNGLICAN since birth, and now your church here in Canada has changed and is allowing things like same-sex marriage and gender identity and a bunch of things that are contrary to scripture what do you do do you do your prayer book on your own and pray for CHURCH because it’s not just one CHURCH. It is the entire ANGLICAN CHURCH of Canada now allowing things like same-sex marriage and women priests which go against the teaching of God and the more worldly my church becomes the less I want to go there but the more I want to cling to God and my prayer book but now I don’t get communion so what would you suggest?
Is that the Reformation Study Bible behind you?
It is indeed. I cannot recommend it enough.
@@newkingdommedia9434 Dear River Devereux I recommend to understand better the Catholic position you read the following three books by Catholic apologist and former Reformed theologian Robert Sungenis -
Robert A. Sungenis
Most Popular
Not by Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura
66
Paperback
$3428
Top Robert A. Sungenis titles for you
Not by Faith Alone: A Biblical Study of the Catholic Doctrine of Justification
Not by Faith Alone: A Biblical Study of the Catholic Doctrine of Justification
4.5
58
Not by Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura
Not by Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura
4.5
66
Not by Bread Alone: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for the Eucharistic Sacrifice of the Catholic Mass
Not by Bread Alone: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for the Eucharistic Sacrifice of the Catholic Mass
5.0
23
I will be watching this when I have time. @ Riven, I was wondering, have you read the book Anglican Theology by Mark Chapman? If so, I was wondering what your thought on it was.
How do you feel about Lent and specifically receiving the ashes on Ash Wednesday?
The BCP removed that practice and replaced it with a Lenten service. I'm actually fine with ashes though, so long as one just sees them as a symbol and not as actually bestowing grace.
Holy Scripture may be infallible, but it needs to be his interpreted. Hence the multitude of churches and sects which differ in their interpretations of lots of things.
Does the doctrine of Sola Scriptura forbid beliefs which are not explicit in Scripture (like the Trinity: the only explicit reference to it is a gloss, because it is not in the oldest manuscripts) but do not contradict what is explicit in Scripture? The Assumption of Mary is not in Scripture but does not contradict Scripture. After all, Enoch - about whom we know nothing except that he walked with God - was assumed into heaven. Mary is perhaps slightly more important than Enoch.
All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them Canonical. 39 Articles of Religion
We can believe in the canonised books of the Bible because after 300 years of dispute, there was an organ of infallible teaching authority to declare which books were inspired. Chirst established His Church on Peter and the apostles and their successors, and guaranteed it would teach His truth, in His Name, in every generation, until the end. "The church is the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1Tim 3:15), and not private interpretation. Without it there is doctrinal chaos.
@@DD-bx8rb In courts of law, where independent witnesses agree is strong evidence of truth which agrees with Article VI of the 39 Articles. Hebrews 12:1“Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,”
@@jamessheffield4173 The is no divine guarantee for the Canon as mutilated by the Protestant heretics. Only a divinely appointed authority can decide which books are inspired. Luther removeed 7 books of the OT which the early church held as scripture, and which Christ and the apostles refer to in NT scripture. And from the NT Luther cut out James, Jude, Revalation and Hebrews though he later reinstated them after threats from his co-religionists. Without a divinely appointed infallible teaching authority there is doctrinal chaos. For Christ to deliver the truth, as he promised, there must be infallibility. Truth by its very nature is infallible, and does not confuse. Luther simply replaced "Church as Final Authority" with "Private Interpratation of the Written Tradition As Final Authority". "The church is the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1Tim 3:15, and NOT private interpretation. And please don't give me the tired old assertion that "foundation" should be rendered "defender". That one was embarrassingly dropped long ago.
but how do we define what is "scripture"? is it only the canonized books of the Bible?
notwithstanding the repeated claim that the differences between the various denominations witin Evangelical Protestantism pertain to minor issues and are not important doctrinal differences, such begs an important question-how are we to adequately answer HOW we know what is and what is not an important doctrinal Difference? Furthermore, we know for a fact that this is false; there ARE manydoctrinaldisagreements among various Protestant groups that are salvific in nature, not secondary such as church government or exclusive psalmody. Such differences include baptismal regeneration, infant baptism, mode of baptism, the nature of communion, the nature of justification, the nature of sanctification, the nature of righteousness in justification, eternal security, the nature of the atonement (limited or universal) can God's saving grace be resisted, whether repentance is necessary for salvation, the nature of sola scriptura, speaking in tongues, the nature of original sin, free will or determinism,, cessationism, and the nature of sola scriptura itself. None of these -and many other doctrines are minor disagreements-, rather they represent substantive, fundamental differences among Protestants who all follow sola scriptura. This makes scripture a mere chimera and what is more what validates 2 Tim. 3:16? Remember the Koran makes similar statements about its own efficacy and spiritual truth.
We can believe in the canonised books of the Bible because after 300 years of dispute, there was an organ of infallible teaching authority to declare which books were inspired. Chirst established His Church on Peter and the apostles and their successors, and guaranteed it would teach His truth, in His Name, in every generation, until the end. "The church is the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1Tim 3:15), and not private interpretation. Without it there is doctrinal chaos.
@@DD-bx8rb infallible? Surrreee. It’s not like there are 3,000 different translations of the Bible. No chaos at all!
@@grneal26 Thanks for your comment. We actually know of no manuscripts of the NT existing now that is written on papyrus, only fragments. The originals, as they came from the hand of apostle and evangelist, have totally disappeared. And this is a key reason why the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura is flawed. I will explain further:
1. ALL apostolic teaching was oral and was the truth which Christ would bring to every generation. Some of that was eventually written down as scripture. And so we do not profess to rest our revealed truth on the "Bible- alone" and we would be just as we are, and what we are, if there were no Bibles at all. Christ promised "He who hears you, hears me" and that "His church would never fail". He said nothing about preserving copies of the written Tradition.
2. The first Christians, like us now, have the living, infallible Church to teach and guide us through the mouth of St Peter and the Apostles and their succcessors; their oral teaching, copies of what eventually became written down as scripture, and the true meaning of it as well.
3. Throughout the first centuries there was not the same necessity for preserving the originals, and mere copies of the original inspired writings was good enough. When a more beautiful or correct copy was made, an earlier rough one was allowed to perish. The first Christians had no superstitious or idolatrous veneration for the sacred Scriptures, such as prevails among Protestants. They did not consider it necessary for salvation that the very handwriting of Paul or Matthew should be preserved, inspired by God though these men certainly were. They had the living, divinely guaranteed teaching authority of the church, promised to every generation. The story of translations is a wonderful illustration of the living teaching church, and the futility of the heretical doctrine of Bible Alone.
@@DD-bx8rb I think you misunderstand the notion of scripture.
These are the only teachings of Christ and the apostles we have. Jesus ascended and the apostles are dead so the only way to know what they said is by what they wrote, correct? What other word from them do we have from them that Rome has infallibly defined?
The original autographs are gone, true;however, we can be sure with the thousands of manuscripts and quotes of the church fathers we have an amazing provenance of both testaments. What provenance do we have for sacred tradition or oral tradition as Rome defines it?
Where do you get the notion that Christ established an infallible church?
How God preserved His word among the Jews is the template of how He did so among the early church. There was an old covenant with scriptures pertaining to them, likewise, there is a new covenant with scriptures pertaining to them. How are we to know what the teachings of Christ and His apostles were if there isn’t an objective medium given to God’s people? How would an institution composed of sinful people be trustworthy of preserving those teachings given the nature of man to corrupt truth. Even when scriptures are given, man adds to them in order to nullify them (Matthew 15:1-9).
How did the church produce the scriptures when the scriptures themselves were given by God (2 Timothy 3:16)? Is the church subject to God’s word or is God’s word subject to the church? Considering that God’s word contains God’s authority doesn’t it stand to reason that church authority must be subject to God’s authority.?
N. T. Wright is wrong. Women’s ordination is a violation of the order of creation before the fall of mankind.
Christ gives st Peter and his successors the authority of binding and loosing Matthew 18:18, John 20:23, Matthew 16:18-20, John 21:15-19 and St Paul tells St Timothy to hold hold fast to the traditions he has passed on as an apostle, both written and orally 2 Thessalonians 2:15, In the letter to St Timothy Paul writes that the Church not the Scripture is the pillar and foundation of the of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15) nor is the scripture as some Christians claim, fully self- interpreting. as 2 Peter notes, for example, in St Paul's letter there are things hard to understand that the Ignorant and unstable distort to their destruction, just as they do the other scriptures (2 Peter 3:16). The Catholic Church avoids such dangers by relying on authoritative interpretation of the sacred magisterium in the light of Tradition by authority of Christ of sending them to teach and baptize. no prophecy of scripture is a matter of self interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy spirit spoke under the influence of God (2 Peter 1:20), so respect Gods choice of choosing apostles and sending the Holy spirit upon them on pentecost, nothing is impossible, if the Holy spirit could make Simon Peter infallible in the first Council of the Church, the council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) why not his successors by special authority given by Jesus as the one who holds the keys to heaven whatever is bond or loosened by his successors is also bound or loosened in heaven (Matthew 16:18) I wonder the Sola Scriptura you are studying if you can't recognize all these in the Scriptures you have been studying since Childhood, any way this is a punishment to protestants for disobedience to authority instituted by Christ. finally the sacred tradition, sacred Scripture and teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God's most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls so violation of any leads to disorder as the protestant churches are facing now
Hello!
Matthew 18 begins with a question from the Disciples/Apostles about who is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven. Peter is not the answer. Again, in verse 18 all present are addressed, not Peter alone; likewise John 20:23. The rick in Matthew 16 its Peter's confession of faith in Christ, the binding power is also granted to the other Apostles. See above passages. John 21:15-19 is a three-fold reconciliation of Peter after this three-fold denial of knowing Christ.
The traditions mentioned in 2 Thess 2:15 are known to the whole Church. They are not secrets teachings entrusted to Bishops which did not yet exist as distinct from the Presbyters. 1 Tim 3:15 says the Church is the pillar, and foundation of Truth, not the definer of Truth.
2 Peter 3:16 is what you are doing, no offense intended. 2 Peter 1:20 only rejects subjective interpretations. Not proper exegesis. In Acts 15, James presides over the Council, others speak after Peter, and Janes wraps things up.
The alleged three-fold authorities of the RCC don't work because the Pope decides on all of it. Also we Magisterial Protestants have unity in all essentials.
Thank you for reading all of this, I look forward to your reply.
1 Tim 3:15 says the church is "a pillar and bulwark of truth". Meaning defender of truth, not foundation. It also has the article "a" not "the". You're misquoting.
Also the council didn't make Peter infallible. In fact, the opposite. Paul said when he arrived he rebuked Peter.
@@allisvanity...9161 On the contrary, in Matthew 18:18, all apostles were given the keys, but only Peter is made the Rock as well as getting the keys, in Matt 16:18-19
Mere Christianity is a great book. Not the Bible, but well worth reading.
The problem I have with the idea of Sola Scriptura, is what constitutes the scripture itself is a product of Church tradition. It was various Ecumenical councils which determined what the canon was in the first place. Sola Scriptura is a self-defeating argument, since what constitutes the scripture was determined not by scripture but by the Church.
Sola Scriptura is only means that the Bible is supreme, and infallible. It is not a rejection of traditions that do not contradict it.
EDIT:
The RCC did not have an infallible list of the canon until April of 1546. The early Church never disputed the four Gospels, Acts, and the Epistles of Paul.
@@allisvanity...9161 But the bible itself contradicts Sola Scriptura
@@Zwerchhau
If you are thinking of 2 Thessalonians 2:15, and related verses; the context is the Apostle Paul addressing a whole Church. He is not imparting secret teachings to Bishops that were not yet distinct from Presbyters. The traditions would have been basic theology, and an early liturgy, and such.
@@allisvanity...9161 No, I'm referring to James 2:24, where it explicitly contradicts Sola Fide.
@@Zwerchhau
The context of James 2:14-26 is a dead faith, one that produces no fruit. It must also be noted that James was writing long before the advent of Systematic Theology; therefore he uses the word justification differently from Paul. The RC interpretation does not hold because it creates a contradiction between Paul, and James.
Please see Romans 3:28, & 5:1
No audio?
Should be working, I can hear it on my end.
@@newkingdommedia9434 Okay, it's there now.
But the Scriptures say that The Church is the pillar and ground of Truth.....
And as per foundation and pillar architecture of the Roman Empire, it only supports the truth. Not define.
@@HisLivingStone241That literally makes zero sense. Christ and His Body is Truth itself. Stop
@YahuahsRefiner my reading faithful flows from the words of Paul himself, and how the words of his blessed friend Timothy would understand them.
That's a misquote. It says "a pillar and bulwark", meaning the church is a defender of truth.
@@HisLivingStone241 The church defines truth. "He who hears you, hears me". Defining truth is part of being pillar and foundation of the truth.
We can believe in the canonised books of the Bible because after 300 years of dispute, there was an organ of infallible teaching authority to declare which books were inspired. Chirst established His Church on Peter and the apostles and their successors, and guaranteed it would teach His truth, in His Name, in every generation, until the end. "The church is the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1Tim 3:15), and not private interpretation. Without it there is doctrinal chaos.
Where did Jesus say that the church was established on the successors to the apostles? On the apostles (including Peter, sure) but where do we see apostolic succession as Rome defines it?
@@TomPlantagenet Christ PROMISED and GUARANTEED that all generations would have the SAME access to the truth as the first believers (NOT the different doctrinal conclusions produced by Sola Scriptura). The NT clearly teaches that the aposltes had successors. How else would the truth be taught to all generations? The Holy Spirit protects the Church, just as the Holy Spirit protested infallible men through which to give us infallible scripture. Read your Bible, Protestant:
To make sure the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after their deaths through a successio, Paul told Timothy, “What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first 4 generations of apostolic succession: his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach, and those it would teach.
Look at 1 Timothy 1:6 and 4:14, where Paul reminds Timothy that the apostolic succession had been conferred on him through the laying on of hands.
Notice in 1 Timothy 5:22 that Paul advises Timothy not to be hasty in handing on this apostolic authority to others. In Titus Paul describes the apostolic authority Titus had received and urges him to act decisively in this leadership role.
Look at Acts 1:21-26, where you’ll see the apostles, immediately after Jesus’ Ascension, acting swiftly to replace Judas with a sucessor. They prayed for guidance, asking God to show them which candidate was “chosen to take the place in this apostolic ministry from which Judas turned away.” After choosing Matthias they laid hands on him to confer apostolic authority.
Hebrews 6:1-3 presents insight into the doctrine of apostolic succession: "Therefore, let us leave the elementary doctrines of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of [1] repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, with [2] instruction about ablutions [i.e., baptisms], [3] the laying on of hands, [4] the resurrection of the dead, and [5] eternal judgment. And this we will do if God permits". Significantly, with the advent of the Protestant rebellion of the 16th C, each of these five topics have manifold different definitions depending upon the Protestant sect, or quasi-Christian sect, you may belong to. Thank you Sola Scriptura.
You don't believe the bible is infallible. No Christian does.
PLEASE COME HOME ENOUGH YOUR SYMBOL SERVICES WILL BECOME THE EUCARIST NO CATHOLIC CANNOT GO TO THEIR WORSHIP SERVICES ENOUGH OF THE FLUFF REPENT NOW
You cannot pick and choose whta suits you best and ditch the rest. Christ never did thta to us! You are not Catholic, it makes zero sense to try to justify in some mental gymnastics that you are. If Christ fid whta you are doing, He would have cut you off and the rest of us off a long time ago. Please, be consistent and stop being hypocritical to His Church.