I remember, back when I was a brand new "born again" Christian, I met with a priest on campus to discuss faith with him. I brought up the "sola scriptura" argument. He tried to explain tradition to me. I was so full of prejudices that I never tried to understand what he was explaining. I had my own definition of the word "tradition" and applied it without discrimination. I felt thus justified in rejecting it, along with all the other Catholic beliefs. I do not think that priest failed me that day, I just wasn't open and ready. I was on a mission to evangelise him, not to be taught myself. Today - years later - I have converted back to Catholicism with a much better understanding of what is meant by the Church tradition. I know for a fact that misunderstanding of Church Tradition is great among protestants. As with many other things, they run with their own personal perception/interpretation, and it's true enough for them to live by. If it hasn't been done yet on this channel, for the sake of your protestant audience, it'd be very useful to explain what the Church means when referring to its tradition. Thank you, Keith, for your testimony. It has contributed greatly to my "re-conversion" to Catholicism.
I note that you gave a back hand to Sola Scriptura, promoting Tradition but never gave us your new found definition of Tradition. The Catholic Church teaches that Scripture is to be interpreted through the lens of Tradition. Please give us your new found definition of Tradition so we can be as blessed.
At 56 y/o, you have missed at least 40 yrs. of your life of not receiving Jesus in the Eucharist because of the lies and deception of Protestantism. I am not saying to make you feel bad but I just want stress to the millions of Protestants to wake up. You might be depriving yourself or your children of receiving Jesus in the Eucharist.
Neither is Pope. Neither Mary has a mantle.... neither is GOING TO MASS and bowing kissing plaster genuflecting Taking communion on the tongue etc. All Man made and MANY KNOW IT
@@lois2997 You didn't give anyone ANYTHING. God word been spiritually spoken for GENERATIONS. You all only sat down and PRINTED OUT THE WORDS and put them in what Is called the bible. The word of God is inspired by the holy ghost Which the Catholic church doesn't even know what HE IS AND very few if anyone in it Has HIM
I was recently watching a discussion between a Catholic and protestant and the protestant finally agreed (after some great explanations/apologetics from the Catholic) that not everything about salvation and our faith is explained explicitly in the bible. Then they moved on to the next subject which was intercession of Our Blessed Mother and the saints and the first thing out of her mouth was, "You're going to have to show me where this is in the scriptures because I can't find it anywhere" right after she finally agreed that not everything is explicitly explained to us in the bible. I wanted to scream, I had to turn it off.
Catholics just make things up with ZERO proof of anything .The immaculate conception of Mary , Mary was sinless ( blasphemy ) Mary was taken up bodily into Heaven . Then they pervert scripture to back up a claim..They say Rev .12 to prove Mary taken up when the woman in is actually the tribes of Israel . They purposely go against scripture .Peter was not the first Pope .In fact both Paul and James had a higher position of power among the apostles .Peter eas not the rock , the rock was the revelation that Jesus is the Christ . Priests can’t get married isn’t biblical and was never ever a thing for hundreds of years .
As I read through the varied comments, including mine, I'm struck with the lack of unity we share between the two camps. To my Protestant brethren, I ask, where is the visible church today that Jesus built on Peter? I see no chance for unity outside that visible church. Tell us where it is so we can all come together in it for the unity we desperately need? It should be obvious to us all that Scripture 'alone' does not foster that unity.
@kapitankapital6580 It's interesting that you state it that way. I am a sinner saved by grace so I ask your forgiveness from any sense of insincerity I may project. Your thought gave me a picture of Adam and Eve in the Garden where unity was destroyed by the sin of dispbedience and non-conformity. I'm also reminded of a comment from another video which read 'I will only attend a church that preaches what I believe'. Perhaps you have touched on one of our strongest barriers to unity. An unwillingness to conform to the plan God has laid out for us in His church.
The problem as that Protestants object to the acretions that have occured over time in the Roman Catholic church (the same could be said of the Orthodox). When you look more deeply into the early church fathers, you realize that they didn't hold to the same traditions the the modern RCC does today. Many of these traditions didn't even come in until as late as the 6th century or even later and Augustine himself has said that he found that the Scriptures are the only truly infallible source of teachings. Everything else is capable of error. It's amazing how Catholics say that Protestant ideas didn't spring up until Martin Luther, when there were many proto-protestant groups before then, that were stomped out, executed and tortured out of existence. Tell me where the unity is in that.
@@aaronadamson7463 Perhaps the so-called 'acretions' are merely what jesus called a leading into further truth. Much like the doctrine of the Trinity, the two natures of Christ and the Canon list of books in the Bible to name a few which all came after the Apostles lived. Maybe that's why the early church fathers didn't hold to the same traditions the modern RCC does today, Traditions like the three I listed above. Maybe the time and writings of the Aposltes was analogous to an acorn while the church today is the oak tree. As far as Augustine saying the Scripture is the only truly infallible source of teachings, I would have to personally conclude that either you mis-read Augustine of he spoke incorrectly. The church has never declared that everything any church father said was 100%. I do know the church considers Augustine reliable. What counts is what the church concludes and teaches. I came to the conclusion awhile back that Scripture is not, by itself, an infallible source of truth becasue Scripture is unable to interpret itself or to speak. For example, when Jesus said "this (bread) is My body", what does Scripture mean? Did Jesus mean the bread was His body (like all the early fathers said) or the bread represents His body (like Ulrich Zwingli said)? Now, you can say the bread represents His body or that it is His body but you are only making an assertion. Scripture alone is unable to settle the matter. Therefore, I cannot consider Scripture the only infallible source of truth. Something more is needed. That something, I contend, is tradition and church history. We know, from the early church writings, how they interpreted this verse and others. As far as proto-protestant groups, my main interest is in the writings of the Apostle Fathers. I date those wrtings from circa 70 AD to 180 AD. Except for completing Irenaus of Lyon' 'Against Heresies' written in 180 AD, I have read all the earlier writings including the Didache, Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp and Justin Martyr. All of these men either knew one or more of the Apostles or one of their disciples. It is said such men 'still had the words of the Apostles ringing in their ears'. Having read these writings, some more than once, I can tell you, in all sincerity, that those men were 100 % Catholic in name, beliefs, practices and teachings. Their writngs left me with 5 major characteristics that can only be found together in the Catholic Church today: The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, Baptismal Regeneration including infant baptism, a 3-tier church hiearchy of bishop, priest and deacon, the primacy of the church in Rome that all other churches had to agree with and the primacy of the chair of Peter and his successors. These men were all martyred fro refusing to renounce Jesus. In none of their writings did I find any modern Protestants who were, as you claim, stomped out. There are a few pagan writings from non-Christian Romans and the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus. There were also accounts of a number of heretics but their writings and beliefs only survived because the men I mentioned, expecially Irenaeus of Lyon, recorded their heterodox beliefs eg. Jesus was devine but not human or vice versa. I did hear a Reforrmd Baptist once claim a lineage back to Palageus but, of course, any serious Protestant scholar sees him as a heretic since he taught we could save ourselves. There are the best answers I can give. Hope they are helpful. I do ask that you forgive any sense of pride that I might have offered my answer with. I am a sinner in need of God's mercy. I only want the very best for each of us. God bless you in your own continued journey.
I feel like the spirit of Chesterton is saying to me while I'm watching this video: They declare that they will not recognize the authority of a pope, and then proceed to recognize that every man is his own pope.
@@Justas399Absolutely there is. All of the Apostles held the Office of Bishopric. That's why when the Apostles went to replace Judas, they said "Let another take his 𝙊𝙁𝙁𝙄𝘾𝙀." Peter also holds the Office of Bishop, HOWEVER, Christ gave Peter an ADDITIONAL Authority, which was not given to the other Bishops. This additional Authority was represented by THE KEYS to the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus didn't give Peter (and the successors in His particular office) *A* set of Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. Rather, Christ gave Peter *THE* Keys. Christ's OWN set of Keys.
The whole purpose of the New Testament letters sent to other churches was to control them from teaching their own ideas. You were a church in the 1st century because it was started by an apostle or a disciple of an apostle. When you got a “letter” it was from Paul or Peter and was meant for you to follow order or structure of their teachings. No church was created outside of disciples or apostles following apostolic teaching.
@@davissalaki8703they had the same scripture. But the interpretation was wrong so there was a need for correction. Now if you got your interpretation wrong and Peter and Paul are gone - who tells you you’re wrong?
@@davissalaki8703 --Those same "corrupt" gave you the Scriptures. Please tell me who assembled the NT, gave us the table of contents, etc. The Bible didn't come out of the sky
SOLA -SKIPTURA, only creates further more disunity and confusion.. A former Pastor here in the Philippines, He confessed that, Once a Pastor created his own Church. He can do whatever he wants, the teaching, the theologies, his rules, the organizational structure of his church, everything are all man made Doctrines.. The way he wanted his church to be structured..
Your point is self refuting. By definition if you take the Word of God as the only basis for which to construct doctrines you can't make up your own doctrines.
@@davissalaki8703 But you can certainly interpret the scriptures the way YOU want to, thereby creating your own doctrines by coming up with novel interpretations. The reformers came up with many doctrines through their interpretation of scripture that no one believed before, establishing new doctrines that did not exist before the 16th century.
@@davissalaki8703 yeah you can. It's literally is how protestantism works. Everybody reads the same verses and came up with their own understandings and think that they are right. Can't agree with the current pastor? Off we go to start our own churches.
Because it’s a self refuting protestant construct that wasn’t taught or believed for the first 1500 years of Christianity? I’m looking forward to you breaking this one down, brother!
Iraneus (oops I misspelled his name) thanks Skippy. writes; “We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.” What profile will you be using?
@@timrosen1618 Hey, Timmy! Why am I not surprised that you’d use a twisted reference to {Irenaeus}? And, if you’re going to misquote an Early Church Father, the least you could do is get his name right. Maybe read a bit of what Irenaeus *actually* wrote instead of relying on the amateurish, error-ridden Keith Mathison book. Irenaeus undoubtedly teaches *Apostolic Succession* in determining authentic Apostolic Tradition. He clearly teaches that we know what the Apostles taught, because their students, and all their successors are still around. There’s an unbroken line, protected by the Holy Spirit. Try reading ALL of the section in “Against Heresies”, you took your twisted “quote” from. Look at what Irenaeus is using this to disprove-the notion of a “secret Tradition.” His point is that we know exactly what the *Church* teaches, because we can see the visible, hierarchical Church. He then continues to show the primacy of the Roman See, saying that “it is a matter of necessity that every *Church* should agree with this *Church* on account of its *preeminent* authority.” Then, as a bishop himself, he goes on to trace the episcopal lienage of the Holy See. Your chopped up quote of Irenaeus is merely his expressing his belief in *material sufficiency* of Scripture (which I taught you about previously) and its inspiration and sufficiency to *refute heretics* and false doctrine in a general sense. An ECF’s statements should be read *in context* of ALL of his thought, instead of having small pieces taken out and then claiming that they “prove” something that they don’t. It’s a typical dishonest prot tactic to misrepresent what he wrote as a belief in sola Scriptura. You completely ignored his other statements concerning *Apostolic Tradition* or succession and the *binding authority* of the Church. You’ve lied by omission. Not at all surprising, nor is your arrogance within your ignorance. Not a good “profile” at all….
@@TheBadTrad Typos are not a sin, bearing false witness is. I have never read Keith Mathison. Where is the misquote? “We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation , than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God , handed down to us in the Scriptures , to be the ground and pillar of our faith . For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed perfect knowledge , as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles . For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostlesl were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge :”
@@TheBadTrad All, of this and as before in hundreds of words if not thousands, you could not identify anything Christ or his apostles said, did or taught that is not in scripture.
@@TheBadTrad “instead of having small pieces taken out of context and then claiming that they ‘prove’ something that they don’t” what was out of context, did Irenaeus not mean what he said? You can not demonstrate that Irenaeus believed Jesus or his apostles said, did or taught one thing outside of scripture. Give me a break.
As a Catholic revert of over 15 years i have seen many converts on TH-cam over the years and i must say you and Scott Hahn are the most effective in proclaiming the Fullness of the Gospel. on a personal note i want to say thanks for the example you and your wife set for cradle Catholics who may not understand the COURAGE it took to walk away from your former protestant ministry! once again my brother in Christ...THANKS!
I hope Keith sees your comment. It is quite a compliment for him to be placed at the level of Scott Hahn who I absolutely admire and who is so knowledgeable about the faith.
We are told by Protestants “Sola Scriptura is the only infallible source of truth”… I love to follow up with, “is that an infallible statement?” It gets their wheels turning…
Sola scriptura was popularized only in the yr 1500 which becomes the basis of founding thousands of man-made churches. Our Lord Jesus built His church (Matt 16:18). The pillar & foundation of truth ( 1 Tim 3:15)
Dr. David Anders on Called to Communion has pointed out that Luther did not methodically formulate Sola Scriptura. Instead, after he was pushed into a corner debating John Eck, he 'asserted' that he was rejecting all the Councils and doctors of the church and standing on Scripture alone. If you think about it, what Luther was saying was 'I'm going to reject how the Church has interpreted Scripture, for then 1500 years, and I am going to interpret it the way Luther wants to. We must also remember that Luther was the first to remove books from the Bible Canon. Think about that. Do you think you would do something like that now? That's what one 16th century Catholic Monk named Luther did.
We are not under the law and that was for the Hebrews, not us. John is wrong and so is Catholicism. The books that were allowed and are allowed came from the Acceptance of Judisim not men of Europe. The bible is fully understood by Born Again Christians, not Protestants or Catholics.
If I were Satan, and wanted to cast doubt and division amongst Christians, I think my plan would be just to throw them a book and tell them to each individually figure it out, and then to each preach their individual gospel. Which, as we know from the New Testament, was not Jesus' intention and was something the Apostles fought hard to prevent.
@@KeithNester Keith. Please pray. I seriously got into sins. I guess we all in trouble I listen to what YOU SAID I been back into a mess. I had the Holy ghost but wasn't battling and studying then DOING BAD. DESTRUCTION. movie TV I wasn't grounded and lost everything and feel displaced. This is upsetting ALL OF US. ME FUSSING AT God. THE HOLY GHOST RUNNING from my calling and yelling at other. I regret this and FEEL horrible. I go to church but WASN'T THINKING quickly let Satan trap me on the WRONG SIDE. no KIND OF refuge.
It’s not in the Bible. The craziest thing about sola scripture is: proving it’s not in the Bible doesn’t even disprove Protestantism or prove Catholicism, yet people cling to it when it’s clearly not in the Bible and several places in the Bible make it clear there are authoritative lines outside of the canon of scripture. The teachings Paul referred to in his letters which came before him (outside of his letters) for example.
@@jpgolda1900 What does all that have to do with "sola scriptura"? Lots of playing Scripture ping pong here. Posting scriptures and trying to fit them into a soteriology that sorry is not historic btw. Back to the topic, it is about "Sola-Scriptura" which was one of the major Doctrinal positions of all the Protestants in the 16th century. It is not historic or orthodox.
@@jpgolda1900You have to do certain things to merit it. Jesus promises if you meet certain requirements, you will be given the gift. Nothing you can do is worth so much that you can strictly earn it. That is why his sacrifice on the cross happened. But the only way you can dispute we merit salvation by certain acts is if you deny free will entirely like Calvinists and make God into some kind of tyrannical puppet master
@@palermotrapani9067 Nothing, just like when George Farmer asked Allie Beth Stuckey where it was in the Bible, she went into how Luther wrote his theses in Latin.
@@jpgolda1900 You say before you got “saved,” you did good works before out of fear of Hell, now you do it for love of Jesus. Can’t that just be maturing? As a child, didn’t you listen to your parents for fear of punishment, and as you grew, did things for your parents because you love them?
@@KeithNester It is not Sola scriptura. It is ONE DOCTRINE.....the Apostles holiness doctrine that Is not to be CHANGED and Yes it Is enough for us to be holy and we don't need another Doctrine or anything else for spiritual life. It is complete It doesn't even make sense saying Sola scriptura.
@@KeithNester Keith I apologize. Do you have the Holy ghost? Tell me how you receive the Holy ghost. I am asking because I have had the Holy ghost but fooled. Running too fast and not LISTENING GROWING destruction. BLIND an not thinking..
Amen! People make the Catholic faith to be so complicated and always searching to prove us wrong! So many questions of doubting. So many Thomas’s in the world, It is very simple……One day, they will find out!!
That’s the most ironic thing, right? 😂 Ours is so simple. Follow The Church’s teachings as God founded the church. No need to try to interpret the Word on your own. So many Aquinases😂
What a great concise dismantling of sola Scriptura. There will always be the “no true Scotsman” fallacy users, but as someone that was once a committed Westminster Confessional/ 3 Forms of unity Reformed person, this is is exactly what it is. And it falls flat. Interpretation isn’t supposed to be merely a science that depends on the minds of men, but a science that needs the Spirits confirmation. Thank you for this video. Pray for my family if you see this, I plan on being confirmed a soon as possible, but my wife is adamantly opposed and not willing to listen to anything remotely Catholic. Pray that we could have unity in our home.
I was in the exact same situation and also came from a Reformed tradition (PCA). I was confirmed into the Catholic Church in 2019, and my wife was confirmed at the Easter Vigil this year. It took her a lot longer to become fully convinced. Be patient, and don't think you can win her over with facts and well crafted arguments. The Spirit has to do the convincing. Live out your faith, and trust that God will soften her heart in due time. I'll be praying for y'all.
Sounds a little like what I'm going through. I don't think my significant other is into much of anything Catholic, despite certain beliefs she has that ARE (like not being sola scriptura, and believing in infant baptism).
Beautiful! I’m going to convert to RC after 30 years of being a Protestant. I’m so tired of the confusion and explosion of denominations… I’m going to finally join the True Church. ❤
Sorry to hear that you've been confused by Protestantism, but why would you want to join a church that EXPLICITLY REJECTS the biblical gospel? Sure, there are many CRAZY Protestant denominations that have likewise abandoned the gospel, but why not find a solid biblical church that holds to the essentials of the Christian faith? It's not that hard. Rome, at the Council of Trent, officially placed an anathema on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Here's the exact citation. Remember, according to Rome, this is from an infallible, ecumenical council (not just some priest's opinion). Council of Trent, Session VI (January 13, 1547), Canon XXX: "If anyone saith that, after the grace of Justification has been received, to every penitent sinner the guilt is remitted, and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such wise, that there remains not any debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world, or in the next in Purgatory, before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened (to him); let him be ANATHEMA". How tragic!
@Robert Berger It's tragic that you couldn't even understand a citation from the Council of Trent (the canons & decrees from that council are allegedly infallible according to Rome). And it's tragic that you'd rather learn from Augustine than examine the Scriptures for yourself to see if "mother church" is teaching error (she is!).
@@michaelj5168 No, obviously Jesus cannot lie, but He's not talking about the church in Matthew 28:20. Obviously Jesus is no longer physically here on earth, but true believers are indwelt by the Holy Spirit (Who is God). So Jesus' promise to be "with you always, even to the end of the age" is perfectly fulfilled until He returns bodily.
Prior to medieval Christian claims in regards to the Apostles, the Pharisees had already set an example of developing dogma based on an alleged authoritative oral tradition having been passed down alongside Scripture from Moses himself. A principle that was condemned by none other than Jesus Himself: "You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition!" In all of Biblical history, not one mention is made about authoritative oral tradition as a compliment to Scripture. During the Apostolic Age, both Christ and the Apostles always appealed to Scripture as the final authority for any claims or practices under consideration. This is logical since only the Apostles and Prophets were understood as authoring Scripture and therefore having such authority. Priests, though appointed by God, were always commanded to follow Scripture rather than add traditions to it. Prominent early Church Fathers recognized this principle, asserting that the true Catholic Church must always act in harmony with Scripture whenever "small matters" of tradition, as St. Basil the Great (d. 379) identified such issues, aren't specifically addressed. Thus, anything truly alien to Scripture or its theological principles must be abandoned. For example, here is St. Basil describing such considerations as he experienced them in his era: "For instance, to take the first and most general example, who is there who has taught us in writing to sign with the sign of the cross those who have trusted in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ? What writing has taught us to turn to the East at the prayer? Which of the saints has left us in writing the words of the invocation at the displaying of the bread of the Eucharist and the cup of blessing? For we are not, as is well known, content with what the apostle or the Gospel has recorded, but both in preface and conclusion we add other words as being of great importance to the validity of the ministry, and these we derive from unwritten teaching. Moreover we bless the water of baptism and the oil of the chrism, and besides this the catechumen who is being baptized. On what written authority do we do this? Is not our authority silent and mystical tradition? Nay, by what written word is the anointing of oil itself taught? And whence comes the custom of baptizing thrice? And as to the other customs of baptism from what Scripture do we derive the renunciation of Satan and his angels? Does not this come from that unpublished and secret teaching which our fathers guarded in a silence out of the reach of curious meddling and inquisitive investigation? Well had they learnt the lesson that the awful dignity of the mysteries is best preserved by silence. What the uninitiated are not even allowed to look at was hardly likely to be publicly paraded about in written documents" (The Holy Spirit, 27:66). Obviously, such "small matters" tradition alone can legitimately support as Scripture is not violated. However, St. Basil also says this about Scripture and doctrine: "Enjoying as you do the consolation of the Holy Scriptures, you stand in need neither of my assistance nor of that of anybody else to help you to comprehend your duty. You have the all-sufficient counsel and guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead you to what is right" (Letter 283). St. Jerome (d. 420) also describes acceptable traditions in very harmonious and practical terms: in light if Scripture "Don't you know that the laying on of hands after baptism and then the invocation of the Holy Spirit is a custom of the Churches? Do you demand Scripture proof? (Note that what he refers to here as a custom is actually described multiple times in the Book of Acts!). And even if it did not rest on the authority of Scripture the consensus of the whole world in this respect would have the force of a command (Obviously because of very clear consistency since he used a Scriptural example of what a Church custom might legitimately look like). For many other observances of the Churches, which are due to tradition, have acquired the authority of the written law, as for instance the practice of dipping the head three times in the layer, (a neutral practice implied by Jesus's "Great Commission" formula and later found in the Didache) and then, after leaving the water, of tasting mingled milk and honey in representation of infancy (Old Testament symbols); and, again, the practices of standing up in worship on the Lord's day (standing is in the Book of Ezra), and ceasing from fasting every Pentecost; and there are many other unwritten practices which have won their place through reason and custom. So you see we follow the practice of the Church, although it may be clear that a person was baptized before the Spirit was invoked" (Jerome, Dialogue Against the Luciferians, 8). Keeping these principles of relating tradition to Scripture in view, we can now make sense of the writings of other early Fathers.... Clement of Alexandria (d. ca. 216) said, “But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits, will not desist from the search after truth, till they get the information from the Scriptures themselves” (Stromata 7:16). Hippolytus of Rome (d. 235) said, “There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures and no other source” (Against the Heresy of One Noetus 9). Hilary of Poitiers (d. 367): “Everything that we ought to say and do, all that we need, is taught us by the Holy Scriptures ” (On the Trinity, 7:16). St. Athanasius (d. 375) said, “The Holy Scriptures, given by inspiration of God, are of themselves sufficient toward the discovery of truth. (Orat. adv. Gent., ad cap.) “The holy Scripture is of all things most sufficient for us” (To the Bishops of Egypt 1:4)." "The Catholic Christians will neither speak nor endure to hear anything in religion that is a stranger to Scripture; it being an evil heart of immodesty to speak those things which are not written,” (Exhort. ad Monachas). “Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith’s sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture.” (De Synodis, 6). St. Basil of the Great (d. 379) said, “Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on which side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favour of that side will be cast the vote of truth” (Letter 189:3). St. Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 386) said, "We ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures...Let us then speak nothing concerning the Holy Ghost but what is written; and if anything be not written, let us not busy ourselves about it. The Holy Ghost Himself spoke the Scriptures; He has also spoken concerning Himself as much as He pleased, or as much as we could receive. Be those things therefore spoken, which He has said; for whatsoever He has not said, we dare not say" (Catechetical Lectures, 4.17ff). St. Gregory of Nyssa (d. 394) said, "What then is our reply? We do not think that it is right to make their prevailing custom the law and rule of sound doctrine. For if custom is to avail for proof of soundness, we too, surely, may advance our prevailing custom; and if they reject this, we are surely not bound to follow theirs. Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words (Dogmatic Treatises, Book 12. On the Trinity, To Eustathius). St. Ambrose (d. 396) said, “How can we use those things which we do not find in the Holy Scriptures?” (Ambr. Offic., 1:23). St. Augustine (d. 430) said, "For the reasonings of any men whatsoever, even though they be [true Christians], and of high reputation, are not to be treated by us in the same way as the canonical Scriptures are treated. We are at liberty, without doing any violence to the respect which these men deserve, to condemn and reject anything in their writings, if perchance we shall find that they have entertained opinions differing from that which others or we ourselves have, by the divine help, discovered to be the truth. I deal thus with the writings of others, and I wish my intelligent readers to deal thus with mine (Letters, 148.15). “For in regard to the divine and holy mysteries of the faith, not the least part may be handed on without the Holy Scriptures. Do not be led astray by winning words and clever arguments. Do not even listen to me if I tell you anything that is not supported by or found in the Scriptures” (Exposition on Psalm 119). John Cassian (d. 435): “We ought not to believe in and to admit anything whatsoever which is not in the canon of Scripture or which is found to be contrary to it” (Conferences, 14.8).
You are right for not acepting the SOLA SCRIPTURA belief. Also, keep the passion for Christ going.We are his mouth, eyes, ears, hands, legs to make his Gospel known to all his breathing creatures.
Very good points in this. I find it hard to argue with much if any of that. As someone who MIGHT be returning to official Catholicism, please pray for me in my discernment. My wife and her not necessarily being open to the Catholic Church is part of what's holding me back, I humbly admit. I'm not sure what to do
Luther formed his own church, which is to say that Luther was equal to Jesus. How absurd and insulative that is. What comes to mind is what Jesus said in Matt 7:21-23
@@michaelj5168 He was an Augustinian monk who taught at a high school. Luther was excommunicated for disobedience of his superior Bishop. Imagine the conversation between Luther and Jesus...Luther claiming that both churches are the same; that Luther's church is better than the one founded and headed by Jesus, God.
@@KeithNester 2 Timothy 3:16-17. This is what along with Galatians 1:8-9 mean. It s DOCTRINE. WE ARE TO STICK WITH the doctrine. The Catholic church doesn't do this. You are vexed because You know something Is WRONG with What the Catholic church is telling you. Martin Luther is not who true believer even talk about. You all constantly go on and on about Sola scripture and Martin Luther. True born again believer don't do that. Only you all. The Catholic church is FALSE and based on man made religion yet YOU will continue spin in circles because you DON'T HAVE THE HOLY GHOST.
@@rochelleperry2242 The Catholic Church is the world’s largest cult and has a big part to play in the Great Tribulation. I don’t recommend anyone sticking around to find out.
Remember, the ORAL/SPOKEN Tradition was the foundation of the Early Churches in Asia Minor after Christ ascended back to heaven around 30 - 33 A.D., long before the completion of the Individual Manuscripts and the Epistles around 110 A.D... God's CHURCH in CHRIST started without WRITTEN TRADITION. The Epistles/Letters of Paul, Peter, James, Jude, and John started only around 55 - 65 A.D. before Peter was martyrdom in 65 A.D., and Paul was beheaded in Rome around 67 A.D... the 4 Gospels from Matt., Mark, Luke, and John including the Acts of the Apostles started only "AFTER" the 2nd Temple was destroyed by the Pagan Roman Empire around 70. A.D. while the Revelation to John at Patmos was written at the end of the 1st Cent. A.D. (around 94-101 A.D.)... Facts and Truth, HISTORICALLY speaking... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen.
I understand where you are coming from but I think that only works at first glance. The early church was working off of these same testimonies and teachings. They may not have had them written down but they were still following them. There may have been a time in which the church survived on the individual teachings of the apostles and the bishops but God obviously was raising up scripture for a purpose that supersedes tradition. Probably because tradition gets polluted over time. The early church, before the canon was decided upon, the church was beginning to fumble around and late forgeries were being used. The need of the church to counter these uninspired books, teaches us that the church was in fact relying on scripture as a primary source for doctrine. Just as a side note, you have the dates reversed for Peter and Paul's death. Paul died first then Peter. The dating you provide for the books are secular dating schemes. These are primarily built on a hidden premise: Prophecies don't happen. The book of Mark is accepted by most in and out of the church as being the first gospel and in it, Jesus predicts the destruction of the temple. Secular scholars can't allow a prophecy, so they assume that the book must have been written after 70 AD. They then build a dating timeline from that point. It isn't likely correct if our Lord could, in fact, predict the future. There is plenty of internal evidence for an earlier dating, as well. Primarily the quoting of Luke by Paul in 2 places. This would put Luke before Paul which would also put Matthew and Mark before 65 AD as well. Not only that but the Acts of the Apostles, written by Luke, neither mentions the destruction of the Temple, nor the death of Paul. The book ends with Paul in house arrest, and the story feels incomplete. These two things suggest strongly a much earlier date to the books. John is likely the only one that post-dates the temple and the early church fathers would agree.
Denigrating Scripture,. GOD' word explains GOD' true intentions for us? Criticism without any alternative is Atheism at it's finest! What is your alternative to Sola Scriptura which is Christ Alone, Grace Alone, Faith Alone and Scripture alone is the infallible source of Authority for Christian Faith, Practice and Truth.???
@@jakehccc1 no one is denigrating Scripture or the true intentions of God. It has been proven over and over by the writings of the Early Church Fathers who were taught by the APOSTLES the clear teachings and definitions of the writings of scripture.
@@thepic12 Where in Scripture do you find: Purgatory, Priests having the power and Authority to forgive sin in the confessional, praying to and for dead people (Saints, Mary), Works are a necessary requirement in Salvation, Paying of indulgences so Priests can get you into Heaven, the elevation of Mary above Christ, Tradition dictates the interpretation of the Word of GOD - Scripture. Chapter and Verse Please.
@WeaponOfChoice I have no clue what you are trying to say in response to my post. Please make you points clear. In respect to Christians not having a bible of their own, you are Correct. The Roman Catholic Church didn't, allow their followers to have copies of the Scriptures. The Scriptures were read and interpreted in church. How does that relate to my post?
@@KeithNester You didn't believe it because you are sold DELUSIONS and another CHRIST. It is obvious you don't have the Holy ghost. If you did you would not constantly HAIL MARY and use rosaries to KEEP TRACK OF prayers and arguing about the KJV BIBLE. You are told lies. You didn't get the Holy ghost while you were a minister in the first religion you were in and then you went to a Cult called Catholism and run up on John Macarthur and COME UP with a Doctrine that you don't understand. You don't understand Catholism really ajd and you don't want to accept the truth or GOD would give it to you..
When Jesus sent out his apostles into the world to spread His word (Luke 9), there was no new testament scripture. The new testament was written much later. The apostles relied not on the Bible but on their faith and their experiences from having known Our Savior. Some of them probably couldn’t read or write.
Or, we could just say truth is only found in the Catholic Church, while in other (heretical Protestant and schismatic) "churches" bits and pieces of truth are found, but mixed with damning errors.
@bridgefin *You failed to answer once again. If Roman Catholicism is truth or Church of the Bible, why was there not a single New Covenant believer saved in a Roman Catholic way in the whole Bible? Why is that so? Please explain coherently intelligently.* - submit to Roman pope to be saved - devote to Roman Mary to be saved - be in Roman Church to be saved - partake Roman sacraments to be saved - baptise in Roman baptism to be saved - do lots of works to be saved you said You don't know how salvation works. What you think is salvation is false. You will not be saved by any of your false solas.
A few months ago I learned that sola scriptura wasn’t in the Bible and I knew I had to take a deep dive in church history. Now I’m getting confirmed on the Easter Vigil 😁
It's sad that you rejected Sola Scriptura without even knowing what it is. This video does NOT help anyone to understanding it because the guy talking about it does NOT understand it either (he even admits that at the very beginning). But there's STILL time for you to embrace the TRUE biblical gospel (i.e. justification by the imputation of Christ's righteousness).
@@johnclaiborne2749 I was a big sola scriptura supporter my whole life. I know what it is and Kieth Nester most definitely knows what is. He was a protestant pastor for 20 years. The Bible is true and beautiful but it is NOT our only form of authority and infallible rule of faith. There is nothing in scripture that says it is our only form of authority or that we get all doctrine from scripture. You also don’t see sola scriptura or anything like it for that matter among the early Christians. It is a manmade tradition that has been disastrous.
@@emoore1439 No, there is NOTHING else that we posses today that is God-breathed revelation other than Scripture. Canons & decrees from church councils, papal encyclicals, papal bulls, etc. - NONE of that is God-breathed. And because Scripture is ontologically unique, everything else must be tested in light of what Scripture teaches. Just look at the disaster that is Pope Francis, or look at the ridiculous "dogmas" that the Roman Catholic Church has dreamed up (such as the "dogma" of the Bodily Assumption of Mary). That's now a de fide "dogma" that one MUST believe under the threat of anathema. And yet it's nowhere found in Scripture, and unheard of in the first several hundred years of church history.
Great Job Keith! I say its not Sola Scriptura that one argues its Sola interpretation. They dont realize it but what that are saying is “My interpretation of Scripture is Authoritative” its how I interpret what the inerrant word says even though I am infallible and people still come up with different interpretations …… As Catholics we uphold to the truth and authority of Scripture. We believe in the Truth of Scripture. And we believe in the context in which scripture is truth and that is in the means of the Holy Church guided by the Holy Spirit to keep to the Truths of scripture. The Church cannot contradict scripture. And you cannot have scripture without the Church. The two pillars work in tandem. So, I would claim if we are going by what Scripture teaches, only the Church has the Authority of having scripture. The Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth.
The RCC has contradicted Scripture in a number of different places. Christ never promised any church not to err. Christ did promise to guide a church into all the truth but He did promise that to His apostles in John 16:12-13 BTW- the RCC has never officially nor infallibly interpreted the Scriptures. No such work exist.
@@Justas399You proved the point Jesus would lead his Church into the truth and Hades would not prevail against. Jesus leads his Church. Where has the Catholic Church not followed Scripture? And where does your claim come for it has not infallibly interpreted scripture? And back to you how can we have the New Testament writings without an infallible ruling to why the 27 books were chosen?
@@katieforrest5748 The two wellsprings of Divine Revelation are Divine Tradition (the ORAL teaching of Jesus, the guidance of the Holy Spirit) and Scripture. See the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation.
Keith- Every Protestant in some way accepts Sola Scriptura. It's completely a different way of thinking and is a form of spiritual blindness. Do you have any suggestions how to approach this issue that would have been particularly helpful for you before your conversion? It's such a self-serving belief. Thanks!
1 Timothy 3:15 states that the Church is the foundation and pillar of truth. Yes, the Bible says to look to the church for truth. I have heard of several protestants become flabbergasted when this was pointed out.
@@Hokum48 That assumes you understand Scripture. Which if you are Protestant, you can't. Because you don't have the Apostles and their direct successors to guide you in your understanding. Scripture was written by Catholics, for Catholics.
@@PaulDo22 hi thanks for the reply. I am not Protestant but attend a non-denominational church. Not sure why you said I can't understand scripture. At my church we study book by book verse-by-verse through the whole bible. And the true gospel is by grace we have been saved through faith, not of ourselves; it's a gift of God not of works lest anyone should boast. That we are justified by faith! Jesus plus nothing equals sal a tip. In Genesis we are told Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him as righteousness. That was long before circumcision and Isaac. Jesus told the thief on the cross today he'll be with him in paradise.
@@Hokum48 Right, that's the problem. That's a false gospel taught to you by men who were not commissioned by Christ. Nobody ever heard of a "non-denominational" church until they were invented out of thin air in the last 50 years. How can you trust them if they weren't founded by Jesus Christ? Who are you going to trust, them or the Catholic Church that wrote the Gospels and established the Scriptures?
@KeithNester *Who says doctrines are solely interpreted by Roman ct magisterium and Roman ct pope?* you said Where does the Bible say that the Bible itself defines what the Bible means?
@@KeithNester Funny! You don't seem to understand that that's the well-known verse that woke Martin Luther up to the recognition of justification by imputation of Christ's righteousness. Luther was actually examining the original Greek words (dikaios, dikaiosune) which mean "to count as righteous" rather than relying on the Latin translation which means "to make righteous". It was a huge awakening for Luther because he understood that God credits the true believer with God's own righteousness (something that Catholicism still rejects to this very day).
@@KeithNester But denying the fact that we can ONLY stand before God clothed in a foreign righteousness (i.e. Christ's righteousness), and that that perfect righteousness ONLY comes through "faith alone" is what still separates biblical Christianity from Rome's erroneous teachings. That's the wonderful truth Luther discovered that was obscured and hidden for centuries.
@@johnclaiborne2749 Read your comment!!! I was awaken to 2 John never realized that was letter from John to Jesus mother. You have the elect lady who John loved and all who knew the truth in Jesus. Then verse 7 and concern that those who were dening Jesus came in Flesh were antichrist. If you redefine Jesus mother as a goddess and being son of God you take his humanity denie the flesh.. What is so unbelievable is Rome can't understand that. The last verse is 13 were John mentioned Jesus mother sister Mary that comes from John 19:25. What noticed in some study Jesus never calls mother by name it's woman or mother. Who would name two of daughters both Mary.
Right on!!! Keith, keep it up. May God continue to bless you and all you are allowing Jesus to do through you. It is high time to rediscover the fullness of Christianity and the real church of Jesus. For all rediscover the Roman Catholic Church. She is the Univeral Christian Church. Thanks. You have become my friend.
Exactly. The main 2 problems with Sola Scriptura are: 1: Where in the Scripture is the doctrine of Sola Scriptura taught? 2: Where do the scriptures tell us what the canon of scripture is? Sola Scriptura is self defeating.
Keith, thank you. I'd love to hear your thoughts on the Reformation--not that we protestants have it all right (there's are frightening dangers to everyone being their own Pope. . .), but the historical and continual need for the Church to be critiquing itself as the Body of Christ. Sola Scripture was an attempt to find an authority for that critique of the Tradition of the Church (which I believe we clearly require). And to be clear, as a protestant, when I say Church, I mean it in the Ecumenical sense, so I'm not pointing fingers at Catholics any more than I'm pointing fingers at United Methodist, etc. . .
Thank you for being respectful of Catholicism. It seems (to me) that many Protestants really have much disdain for The Church. We may disagree on some things, but thanks again for NOT being that way. God Bless.
Scripture says The Faith was deposited with the Church "once and for all," and that the Church is the pillar and bulwark of Truth. The continual critique the Church must evaluate herself on is: "how well have we lived up to the Faith?" not "what can we do to rediscover the Faith or reinvent it?"
@@wms72 I would concur with that. The historical setting of the reformation was that it seems that such a critique (how well have we lived up to the Faith?) was a least not very robust and at worst not happening, at least not in Germany. . .which is why I'd love to hear Keith's perspective. I expect it to be as faithful and thoughtful as I've found his conversation on this issue to be.
St Jerome has a good quote about this issue: “Let them not flatter themselves if they think they have scripture authority for their assertions since the devil himself quoted scripture. And the essence of the scripture is not the letter but the meaning.” Every heretic can quote scripture, but by what authority can he say he has access to the essence of scripture. The argument rests on authority and tradition, but protestants want to use a dishonest rhetorical trick to cover for themselves at he expense of the Church. They have authorities. They have traditions. Now let them justify them and show whether they have a provenance back to the apostles. Of course, they can't Ps: They act as if "scripture" must only mean a book that everyone can have equal access to which is obvious nonsense. Either you have to come up with some reason why the Holy Spirit is then doing such a bad job or have the bad faith non-disprovable beliefs of a Calvinist. When someone is "following the scripture" this means they have the right essence not that they just twist words to do whatever they want.
@@davissalaki8703 You rely on translators. You also rely on human institutions preserving the essence of the scripture. If current civilization were totally wiped off the map and someone in 1000 years got a copy of the Bible, they wouldn't know what to do with it. They wouldn't have access to the normal means the scripture is transmitted. Since the meaning is transmitted from human to human in language and through institutions, and not directly beamed into our head via the Holy Spirit, we should make sure we're following the institution that actually has authority and which is guaranteed to be guided by the Holy Spirit instead of being prideful and individualistic.
I love when some1 quotes a chapter and verse and I just say or think..Do they even know that the Church through the Holy Spirt organized and confirmed the Bible...and also a priest actually numbered each chapter and verse..before that there were just straight writings...no chapters..no verses
@@concrete3030 Even better is that the gospels are anonymous at least within the texts themselves. Not only is the canon in total formed extrabiblically, the criteria most protestants will give, that the books of the NT must have been written by an apostle or associate of the apostles, is only known extrabiblically
I find it perplexing that a person can trust the Catholic Church. Once you know the bible things such as praying to or through Mary or the "saints". Baptising babies when Jesus was baptised as an adult and telling their priests & bishops that they can't get married. When scripture specifically states that a deacon or a bishop must be the husband of one wife.
John the Baptist was older than Jesus by just six months, he baptised Jesus when Jesus was 30 years but he died before the crucifixion of Jesus. When Jesus was a baby no one was baptizing .Johnn the Baptist was just an immediate front runner of Jesus to prepare the way. Like everything new, the adults adults always join first. However Jesus did not prohibit the baptism of babies or infants he even admonished his apostles who wanted to keep children away from him. In baptism, the church brings children to Jesus.
@@godsmasonbyraymasonbuildin4200, be reminded that the bible did not start Christianity. Christianity was here for 3 centuries before the bible was promulgated/ new testament. There is no word "Bible" anywhere in the Bible. Can we say bible is in biblical? Who authorised the early church to introduce the Bible, then chapters and verses. However the argument is Paul baptised entire households. Were there no children?
@bridgefin *Remain unchallenged: Doctrines come from the teachings and practices of Jesus and APostles. Jesus and Apostles demonstrated taking doctrines from Scriptures Only and not from any other source. This is already Sola Scriptura.* *Demonstrated = doctrine.*
The question I use to shut down sola scriptura claims is to ask “is there any such thing as a self-interpreting book?” The answer is no. So what matters as it pertains to the Bible is who has the right interpretation. That is a question of authority. All Protestants will make the claim the Holy Spirit will give you the right interpretation, but not only do they have 80,000+ denominations, it’s very difficult to impossible to find 2 Protestants in the same Church who agree on the interpretation of even every most critical passage. In the end, Sola Scriptura is just an elegant Latin phrase that really means Sola Self. Protestants often want the false comfort of being their own personal Magisterium.
The chaos in rome has come to over 100,000 different sects. Even Francis says atheists will go to Heaven if they are good, the catechism teaches the Muslims are going to Heaven. Rome has no firm foundation.
Sola Scriptura is the recipe for DIY Christianity. I once was a member of a Church which practiced arranged marriages. The cited the arranged marriage of Isaac in the Old Testament as proof. So thanks to Sola Scriptura all kinds of crazy new doctrines are being constructed and the old dead heresies are returning. Thanks Luther.
@@davissalaki8703 Really? Why do you have thousands of Denominations then? If all were really biblical they would be of the same mind but they are not. Sola Scriptura is like Communism. It works as a theory but the reality of its implementation is not as intended. Sola Scriptura should come with a warning label.
@@juanisaac5172that’s a bold statement. You’re right that solo scriptura is like communism. In theory it may be good but in reality, it doesn’t hold up. You get a billion interpretations or worst, the most literal translation of a single verse in scripture void of any context.
@billlee2194 *Even Roman religion without Sola Scriptura have differences in doctrines and sects.* Roman Catholic sects Is Roman Catholicism united in doctrines? Hardly. Different sects of Roman religion practised differently and hold different beliefs. We see RC apologists critiquing RC friars online on YT and many more. Did Roman Catholicism hold one doctrine over 2000 years? Hardly. Doctrines were invented over the millennial especially after each “coronation” of Roman pope. Roman popes always had new doctrines and not from Scriptures. Do Roman Catholics believe in One Doctrine? Hardly. Some believe current pope is an antipope. Some don’t. Some believe current Roman religion is the Apostate Church based on Rev 17-18. Some don’t. Some believe papacy is vacant. Some don’t. Two third do not believe in Transubstantiation. One third do. Some believe in predestination, some don’t. And more … Sedevacantism' is a term used to describe a belief held by those who identify as members of the Catholic Church yet claim that the office of the pope is currently vacant and has been vacant since a certain point in history. Adherents to this belief are called sedevacantists. Is SSPX a Sedevacantist? Society of St. Pius X Is Not Sedevacantist | Catholic Answers Q&A Answer: No they are not, because sedevacantists believe there is no valid pope. The Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) recognizes the validity of all legitimate popes, including Pope John II, under whom its founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, and the four bishops he unlawfully ordained were excommunicated in 1988. What is the difference between SSPX and SSPV? (In case these acronyms are unfamiliar to you: SSPX is the Society of St. Pius X, the Lefebvrist group; SSPV is the Society of St. Pius V, a sedevacantist offshoot of the SSPX; CMRI is the Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen, a sedevacantist group started by illicitly ordained bishop Robert McKenna.) Roman Catholic orders and societies Assumptionist Order (4 C) Augustinian Order (10 C, 16 P) B Brothers Hospitallers of Saint John of God Order (12 P) Brothers of Christian Instruction of St Gabriel (1 C, 4 P) C Canons regular (5 C, 22 P) Canossian Order (1 C, 4 P) Carmelite Order (10 C, 18 P) Catholic charities (4 C, 55 P) Clerics regular (6 C, 14 P) Congregation of Marian Fathers of the Immaculate Conception (16 P) Congregations of Holy Cross (4 C, 14 P) D Dominican Order (10 C, 32 P) E Catholic ecclesiastical decorations (4 C, 11 P) F Franciscan orders (7 C, 4 P) G Gilbertine Order (1 C, 8 P) L Legion of Christ (2 C, 28 P, 4 F) M Order of the Blessed Virgin Mary of Mercy (3 C, 9 P) Michaelite Fathers Order (4 P) Minim (religious order) (1 C, 1 P) Missionaries of La Salette Order (3 P) Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate (2 C, 92 P) O Oblate Sisters of St. Francis of Sales (1 P) Opus Dei (4 C, 30 P) Order of Fontevraud (2 C, 11 P) Order of Saint Benedict (6 C, 21 P) Sons of Divine Providence (6 P) P Passionist Order (1 C, 9 P) Pauline Family (9 P) Paulist Order (17 P) Piarist Order (4 C, 11 P) R Regnum Christi (2 C, 26 P, 4 F) Resurrectionist Congregation (16 P) S Congregation of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary (1 C, 3 P) Salesian Order (6 C, 24 P) Salvatorian Order (2 C, 2 P) Secular canons (1 C, 2 P) Sisters of Charity of Australia (1 C, 9 P) Sisters of the Company of Mary, Our Lady (2 P) Society of African Missions (1 C, 23 P) Society of Christ Fathers (3 P) Society of Jesus (11 C, 81 P) Society of St. Edmund (1 C, 2 P) Society of St. Joseph of the Sacred Heart (4 C, 11 P) T Teutonic Order (7 C, 26 P) Theatines (3 C, 21 P) Trappist Order (5 C, 10 P) Trinitarian Order (1 C, 17 P) V Religious institutes in the Vincentian tradition (2 C, 9 P) you said Another denomination denies that God is three persons in one nature. At least one denomination believes baptism is necessary for salvation. Some denominations believe our moral living does not affect salvation. Some denominations believe it does. They each claim to get their beliefs from Scripture.
It's important to remember that the Bible is a Catholic document. The teachings of the Catholic Church are grounded on Sacred Scripture and the meaning of Sacred Scripture is interpreted through the Holy Spirit, which guides us into all knowledge. The Catholic Church cannot, and does not contradict Scripture, but affirms it with certainty as being the inerrant divinely inspired word of God. Even the Apostles did not understand Jesus until after the Pentecost when they received the Holy Spirit, and they lived with Jesus. The New Testament could not have been written unless the Apostles received the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The Church could not exist unless it was founded by Jesus and the authority given to the Apostles to preach. Not only is the Bible the most secure source of truth, it is the official and original teaching document of the Catholic Church. For me, it was actually through a thorough study of the Bible that I naturally arrived at the Catholic faith. The Bible was my original companion and guide, and through my Catholic faith, I more fully and deeply understand the meaning of the words on the pages. The Catholic Church teaches in the Catechism (p. 113) that "Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ"! The Bible mentions a Church which was founded on Peter, the laying on hands of the priests to confirm the Holy Spirit, the body and blood of Jesus in the Eucharist, the Virgin birth of Jesus, worship on the Lord's Day (Sunday), ordination of Bishops and Deacons, Anointing of the Sick by priests, Confession, etc. The "Apocrypha" (which we Catholics call "Deuterocanon") was still included in most Bibles (even the Authorized King James Version) until 1885 when the English Revised Version replaced it, and one of the reasons was to save on printing costs. In fact, until the 1800s, most Protestant Bibles had 80 books, not 66 (which is 7 more than the 73 Catholic books). But many Protestants today incorrectly believe that Catholics added those 7 books, or that those books are exclusively Catholic! A careful study of the history of the Bible and of Church History will lead you nowhere else but to the Catholic Church.
The bible is a GOD MADE and ORDAINED inspired by the holy ghost books only printed by the Catholic church. ****That is all . period. And majority of them have no clue what it means yet claiming they are the true faith 😂
Actually the Apocrypha wasn't included in the Jewish canon of Books that were authentic which is why they were not included in original "old testament"
Feel free to give us your expertise by explaining where exactly Purgatory can be found in Scripture, Joe! It's not in Scripture nor are the indulgences, buying your way into heaven that was sold in the Catholic Church up until the 18th Century. Why isn't it done today, Joe?
Uh... You know that "Outside the Catholic Church, there is no salvation" is a dogma of the Faith? Protestants don't go to Purgatory. We hope they will be saved by coming to the true Church, otherwise there is worse than Purgatory for them... Saint Paul said that those who follow a different doctrine are anathema, and the Catholic Church dogmatically anathematized all Protestants at the Council of Trent.
Keith, I admire you discussing this topic. You have done a great job. Please keep up your persuing the Truth. Praying for you daily. 🙏🙂🙏 Wow, you get some very arrogant people thinking they know better. I have to pray for charity.
Bro, you have no idea how angry God is when the Scriptures are supplanted by so many unbiblical and anti-biblical teachings coming from the Roman Catholic Church. This guy is simply helping to keep people pinned down in their spiritual blindness.
@@titounoundici So you're not aware that, say, the Roman Catholic Church's dogma of the Bodily Assumption of Mary is NOWHERE found in Scripture, and yet the RCC is telling us that we MUST believe that teaching under the threat of anathema? Maybe you don't understand what "dogma" or "anathema" even mean?
@@johnclaiborne2749 "under the threat of anathema"? No, the declaration doesn't state like that. It says: "Se qualcuno, etc., è venuto meno alla fede divina e cattolica". So, according to your approach at the bible, if something is not explicitly said, that same issue is impossible. So we must believe that prophets like Enoch and Elijah were assumped in heaven, according to the Bible, but since nothing is stated about the woman who "found favor with God" (a bad traduction of "full of grace", kecharitomene), than you give for sure that there has been no Mary's assumption. Wow, that is beyond catholics' highest QI. But although the bible clearly states that women are not allowed to "shepard a flock", you protestants do permit it anyway and appoint women as pastors. And out of their mouths come the most astonishing errors and jaw-dropping heresies, etc. And though the gospel forbids divorce, protestant pastors heedlessly divorce. So, it seems like they have a secret way to understand the bible. Or they maybe know how to cleverly twist its words? Well, we are not bound to hell out of this. Nor are the eastern orthodox catholics. Nor you too, don't worry.
@@titounoundici If you're done rambling nonsense, maybe you can address my point. And if you want to simply take shots at Protestants, maybe you should first deal with the pedophile priests who have been raping thousands of boys. A dogma is a teaching that's definitional to the faith. In other words, one can't reject a dogma and still be considered a Christian. The deity of Christ is one example. But no Apostle ever taught or believed in the Bodily Assumption of Mary - it has nothing to do with the Christian faith! But along comes the RCC, in 1950, and tells the world that this is a dogma that MUST be accepted and believed by everyone. Here's the citation from Pope Pius XII in the Apostolic Constitution titled "Munificentissimus Deus": "If anyone ... should dare either to deny this, or voluntarily call into doubt what has been defined by Us, he should realize that he has cut himself off entirely from the divine and Catholic faith".
So, I have listened to a lot of John MacArthur and he has said some extremely and biblical things. You can watch the council of Trent and he covers a lot of this, but I think it goes to show where a lot of protestant ministers have made themselves the ultimate authority versus turning towards God. I was in the protestant, Southern Baptist, and Penecostal realm for quite a while, and I believe I am safe and accurate, and what I am saying. God bless.
The council of trent states Canon 9, If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema. Paul wrote in Romans 5:1 therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Help me out here, much love!
Mc arthur teaches dispensionalism, "that the Holy Spirit ceased every action after the death of Apostle john"...however he uses the bible, inspired and breathed upon by the Holy Spirit that the Catholic church made in 382AD!!! Go figure!!! Dispenssionalism!!!
I only started reading the bible few months ago. Last year i literally couldn't understand much. After confesion and nightly rosaries. Now, I am able to actually read it. Each time I ask Holly Ghost for explanation and usuallu get it within a day. Everything is in the bible but you must be constantly develop your spirituality to undesrtand the message.
Sola Scriptura defended from scripture. What is the ultimate authority against which all other truth claims are judged? 1 Corinthians 4:6 - “…in us (Paul and Apollos) you may learn not to go beyond what is written…” (Cf. 2 Peter 1:19-21, Psalm 19:7) In this passage, Paul is submitting himself and Apollos as examples of servants of Christ and faithful stewards of the gospel who do everything according to the God-breathed word of God (2 Timothy 3:16), and nothing beyond it (Cf. 2 Timothy 2:15). This submission demonstrates that the traditions that they spoke, as well as their writings that would eventually form the canon of the New Testament (Cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 3:6, 1 Corinthians 11:2, 1 Corinthians 15:4 referring to the books of Matthew and Mark) were in accordance with what has been written by the prophets who came before them. Paul is explaining that what has been written (scripture) forms the basis of our judgment (Cf. Acts 17:11, Mark 7:6-9). It is the same concept expressed in John 7:24, "do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment." And how do we know that we are judging with a righteous judgment? When it is in accordance with what has been written. And this is not a new concept, Isaiah spoke of this in Isaiah 8:20, "to the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn." Over and over again, it is the word of God (both written and spoken) that is said to be the basis for truth, and it is the ultimate authority that stands over all. John 17:17 - Sanctify them by the truth; Your word is truth (Cf. John 15:3) Proverbs 30:6 - Do not add to His words Lest He reprove you, and you be proved a liar. Deuteronomy 4:2 - You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of Yahweh your God which I am commanding you. Deuteronomy 12:32 - Whatever I am commanding you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it. Revelation 22:18 - I bear witness to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book. The word of God must never be transgressed for the sake of any tradition! Matthew 15:3 - Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? Colossians 2:8 - See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, and not according to Christ. Therefore, if any tradition is said to be on equal grounds with scripture, it MUST be shown to be God’s word, according to what has been written, and the instant someone attempts to do so, they admit scripture is the ultimate authority.
Hi Keith, thanks for this... please understand the following comes from a protestant who is on his way to becoming a catholic, I mean no disrespect... the thing I struggle with is what if the church changed its position on something suddenly, doesn't that call their authority into question? For example the church has changed its position on suicide since we've gained a better understanding of mental illness... or another example I guess would be the changes brought about by Vatican II (not that I myself know what they necessarily are, I'm still new to all of this)... or casting a glance at the future, what if the church capitulated to woke culture, some accuse the current Pope of doing that. It seems to me that authority shouldn't be able to change its mind every hundred years or so...
You are so absolutely correct in your caution. It is easy to destroy yet provide no alternatives, that Keith Nester evidently found in his search for Truth, yet he didn't tell us what that alternative was exactly. I left the Catholic Church for many multiples of reasons; Purgatory, Praying to and for the dead, Priests that have the power and Authority to forgive Sin in the confessional, Elevating Mary above Christ, Tradition is above Scripture and so many other doctrines that are Heretical as they are not found anywhere in Scripture. If you Don't believe it, you only have to read the Catechism, the Official Doctrines and teachings of the Catholic C. Such arrogance taught me so well, I left the Catholic Church particularly since, I would be excommunicated from the church for not believing one no less each and every one of these things listed that are not to be found anywhere in Scripture. The absolute worst; Paying of indulgences (Money) so the priest can buy your way into Heaven if, only you have enough money. That doctrine ended in the 18th Century. Why; if it was so True, Scriptural and today remains a part of Doctrine which isn't today practiced! Why? Sola Scriptura despite all of the rhetoric is simply: Christ Alone, Grace Alone, Faith Alone, Scripture Alone that is the Sole Infallible Source of Authority for Christian Faith, Practice and Truth without reading into the text creating a Structure/Doctrine that wasn't "expressly stated or powerfully inferred ". Unless it is clearly expressed or powerfully inferred, we are adding words, phrases and Doctrines to the word of GOD. Revelations tells us what happens when we participate in that, be it intentional or not. We need to be extremely cautious in what we teach others as if it's Truth, Doctrine.
My thing with sola scriptura is you cant find anyone that actually lives by it. Name the protestant group that believes in confession, binding and loosing, forgiveness or retention of sin by the church, that remarriage after divorce is adultery, bringing arguments for the church to settle, mary as the queen mother in revelation, purification through fire in corinthians, works and faith like it says in james, saints offering prayers in heaven, warnings for taking the eucharist unworthily etc. These doctrines are all found and pretty clear in scripture. Yet i havent seen a protestant that believes any of them... scripture is their ultimate authority and they ignore it in these places. If they hold to sola scriptura but ignore scripture when it says something they dont agree with, then rhey arent really holding to sola scriptura. Just cherry picking what they like and dont like.
Your "thing" with Sola Scriptura ignores the fact that we're all still sinful human beings whose traditions, lack of diligent study, lack of reliance on the Holy Spirit, etc. gets in the way of proper exegesis and understanding of the Scriptures. But that does NOT mean that there's something wrong with Sola Scriptura (which posits that ONLY the Scriptures can be identified as God-breathed revelation). By the way, even the Apostle Peter stated that some of the Apostle Paul's writings were hard to understand (2 Peter 3:16). Does that mean that the problem was with Peter or with the Scriptures? The answer's obvious.
@johnclaiborne2749 I didn't say there was anything wrong with scripture. Look at Philip and the eunuch in acts.... the spirit sends Philip to him and he asks do you understand what you're reading? He says how can I unless someone shows me. In a similar way Peter is saying that some people twist scripture to their destruction. The idea here is we need guidance in understanding scripture so that we won't be deceived by those who twist it. Sola scriptura requires that another authority besides scripture is needed to understand it. If the protestant were to take scripture seriously on these points, they would realize that the Bibles teachings are actually contrary to the man made tradition of sola scriptura.
@johnclaiborne2749 Also you didn't explain why no protestant follows the Bible on the doctrines I pointed out in my original post. I'm curious about that.... when Paul warns you not to take the eucharist unworthily.... if you do you may get sick or die. What do you think constitutes as abuse of the eucharist? Grape juice instead of wine? What about the worthy aspect.... what does a person do to become worthy of the eucharist? Who would be unworthy and how could you tell of you were? Many apparently took the eucharist and suffered the consequences, seems like something that happen fairly easily. Just curious about your thoughts on that one.
@@timboslice980 No, you implied that because there are differences in the interpretation of Scripture as well as differences in church practice that that supposedly means there's something wrong with Sola Scriptura. The Catholic Church has done plenty of Scripture-twisting to come up with the denial of justification by imputation, the inventing of Marian Dogmas, etc.
@@timboslice980 Plenty of churches, including the Baptist church I attend, follow the biblical doctrines you mentioned and plenty more. When Paul warns not to take the Lord's supper in an unworthy manner, my church certainly abides by that command. That has nothing to do with "grape juice" vs "wine". And you don't seem to understand Sola Scriptura - it does NOT require another authority because Sola Scriptura recognizes that THERE IS NO higher authority than the God-breathed Scriptures.
Jen you are so CORRECT. THEY HAVE another Mary and Jesus Another doctrine..they keep talking about Sola scriptura and all but don't get it is the Apostles doctrine that Peter taught He wasn't THE ROCK. HE was the one Jesus used to start to build the churches..based on the holiness doctrine. They love to say Peter was Pope and he was the Rock that the church was built. It is all mouth vomiting. Same word over and over
Thank you for this video. I am as well a Catholic, and I’m still learning to respond to others who insist that the Bible alone is what we need. This video helps. After growing up in the church, then leaving, I’ve returned and now reading both the Bible and the catechism. I watch Called to More, Bishop Baron, now your videos, In between the two books for more insight.
Other than the holy ghost WHAT DID JESUS USE??? HE DIDN'T USE A CATECHISM He didn't go to Pope and HE DIDN'T ASK MARY ANYTHING pertaining to salvation..... NEITHER DID THE APOSTLES YOU all listening to men who don't follow Jesus or the apostles and wonder why EVERYONE CALL CATHOLIC CULTS 🤷
I'd strongly suggest that you focus on understanding what the Bible teaches WITHOUT having to filter it through the lens of Roman Catholicism. I too was a devout Catholic for many years, but got saved when I finally understood the true, biblical gospel. Roman Catholicism teaches a false, man-centered, works-based "gospel" that can only damn.
No person is good enough to go to Heaven based on works. It’s only because of what Jesus Christ did on the Cross that it’s possible for anyone to be with him up in Heaven.
8:01-8:17 "Show me where it says this in the Bible..." Answer: "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." - 2 Tim 3:16-17 Notice the part where it says, "that the man of God may be *complete* equipped for *every* good work."
@@theosophicalwanderings7696yes but this verse is in reference to the Hebrew Scriptures. Not the New Testament. Which had not been fully written or codified .
“You, however, have followed my teaching, my conduct, my aim in life, my faith, my patience, my love, my steadfastness, my persecutions and sufferings that happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium, and at Lystra-which persecutions I endured; yet from them all the Lord rescued me. Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, while evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” 2 Timothy 3:10-17
Oh my goodness...the Catholic church is not the interpreter of the scriptures. Mark 7:5-13 Jesus makes it very clear to the Jewish religious leaders which were like the Catholics, thinking that they were the authority, making up man-made traditions with their authority. But in Mark 7:13, Jesus clearly let these leaders know where the authority is, its in the word of God. God doesnt give any man total authority, because man will always abuse that authority.
@toddgallo - if this is true then think about the implications after answering this question… History shows us that Jesus didn't leave us a bible, the apostles didn't tell us which books belong in the bible, the church fathers never agreed on the 27 books of the NT through the 4th century, not only did they not agree but their list of would-be NT canons were GROWING during this time. So, if it wasn't the Catholic/Orthodox church that compiled the 27 books of the NT in the 5th century, just 75 years AFTER the council of Nicaea which began the Trinitarian docrtine, and then with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and preserved these scriptures by laboriously hand copying them over and over throughout the centuries before the invention of the printing press, the “rule of faith” for many, please tell us, show us, who did? And if this church no longer exists today, what good is the text which came forth from her if she couldn't sustain herself?
humans are FALLIBLE that is why the Roman Catholic system doesn't like Sola Scriptura and that is why they Murdered millions for having a bible or for just opposing their false teachings...it is very easy to crush the roman doctrines...most catholics don't really study diligently prayerfully for guidance from God as they search the truth in the scriptures....
I was Church of Christ most of my adult life. It hardly gets more sola scriptura than that! Many won't even allow a fellowship hall/kitchen in the church building because "it's not in the Bible", and churches have even split over the issue! And most congregations are a capella because instruments aren't mentioned in New Testament worship. (Neither are church buildings, but SHHHH, don't tell them that!) So imagine my surprise, during my conversion process, when I was brought to realize that "sola scriptura" is NOT IN THE BIBLE! And for it to be in there, WHAT exactly is the Bible would have to be spelled out IN the Bible! It's NOT! We didn't even have a final New Testament canon until 393 and 397 AD. And that was through Councils held by the -- da da-da DA! -- Catholic Church! Yes indeed, imagine my surprise! Most of us in the Church of Christ hold the Catholic Church to be a bunch of "traditions of men" people and not real Christians. If this were true, then the validity of the whole New Testament canon itself would have to be discarded! Just one of the several "Things that make you go hmmmm!?!?" moments on my way to becoming Catholic! (And the idea of having someone in the Church to be "referee" on Bible interpretation, indeed, even a Magisterium, makes total sense! Just LOOK at the Protestant world today: division upon division, with the apparent attitude that creating further divisions over even trivial things is no big deal! We don't have this issue in the Catholic Church)
@@dvdortiz9031 And that it is! But it's interesting, then, that Damasys I made that statement when he did, since the Bible was 11 years yet to be officially defined by its canon in 393. Even so, this would not validate the "sola scriptura" concept since the Bible itself never specified that doctrine itself. And the Catholic Church has always affirmed Sacred Tradition as also being of divine origin, though not inspired in the same exact manner as the Bible.
We definitely have people trying to cause divisions in the Catholic Church, but instead of twisting and misinterpreting the scriptures like Protestants do, they misinterperet Church documents from councils and encyclicals and cretae their own version of Catholicism. For example, they take that dogma of no salvation outside the Church to mean that all those who have never stepped foot inside a physical building of the Catholic Church will not be saved when that's not what it means at all. It's referring to the Mystical Body because the Church is both visible and invisible, physical and metaphysical, just like Christ's body. They also don't understand the difference between doctrines and disciplines and think the latter can never change when that's completely false and not what the Church or the Bible teaches at all.
Sola scriptura started with with the Old Testament. In psalms, for David talks all perfect and pure the Lords law is next Jesus says it is written, and that all things are written about him. He is the word that became flesh. If he is enough for our salvation, then him, as the word is enough for our salvation as well, Paul further reiterates do not go beyond what is written
Deuteronomy 4:2 KJV "You shall not add unto the Word which I command you, neither shall you diminish ought from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you." Deuteronomy 12:32 KJV "What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: you shall not add thereto, nor diminish from it." Revelation 22:18 KJV "For I testify unto every man that hears the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." Mark 7:9 KJV "And He said unto them, Full well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your own tradition." Mark 7:13 KJV "Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which you have delivered: and many such like things you do." John 14:15 KJV "If you love me, keep My commandments." John 14:21 KJV "He that hath My commandments, and keeps them, he it is that loveth Me: and he that loveth Me shall be loved of My Father, and I will love him, and will manifest My self to him."
What heretics like you don't realize is the fact that verses you quoted, (when taken in to the proper context) applies to the particular set of laws or commandments God gave.
@@Jamric-gr8gr So are you saying GOD only cares for some of HIS Words and not all of them??? Heretics add and take away form GOD's Words. How many sources of authority do you and place them equal to GOD HIMSELF in Holy Scripture. Have you ever heard this? Matthew 4:3 KJV And when the tempter came to HIM, he said, If you be the SON of GOD, command that these stones be made bread. 4 But HE answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of GOD.
The Chosen shows a disciple actually frantically and busily scurrying about truly writing down things as they happened. This looks fine and acceptable but is in fact and substance a heresy. A happy error, but still an error. Someone there is intentionally pursuing Sola scripture and leaving out the period ( maybe decades) between when it happened and when it was scribed. Very dishonest. Does away completely with oral and written tradition. ✡️🇮🇱🇮🇷😘🍷🍞🙏🇻🇦🇨🇦✝️
It's just a smokescreen to avoid any criticism of and to avoid having to justify their tradition. Why should we believe in your tradition? Uh, uh, just read the Bible, it's obvious... No one actually believes in what they claim sola scriptura is. How could you get the substance of a book from the book itself? You would at least need to acknowledge that you need a correct linguistic tradition outside of it, and what we care about is not the ink on the page unlike protestants who make the Bible into an idol to justify their heresy. What we care about is the substance behind the words and what means can we have to reach that substance.
As long as the Old Oral/Verbal Tradition does not contradict God's Written Tradition, God still allowed them to be practiced... However, if it does contradict, then God's Written Tradition which is more AUTHORITATIVE must supersede, overrule, and stop the practice immediately... (ref. 2 Timothy 3:16)... The Oral and Written Traditions must be UNITED as ONE without confusion and division... One (United) God, One WORD (Scripture/Bible), and One TRUTH... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen.
@@jvlp2046 Divine Tradition is the oral teaching of Jesus, Who wrote NOTHING down, except in the dirt. The Catholic Church treasures the oral Word of God preached by Jesus and His Apostles, but protestants threw it away, contradicting 2Thessalonians2:15, 2Timothy2:2, and Titus1:9.
@@wms72 Remember, the ORAL/SPOKEN Tradition was the foundation of the Early Churches in Asia Minor after Christ ascended back to heaven around 30 - 33 A.D., long before the completion of the Individual Manuscripts and the Epistles around 110 A.D... God's CHURCH in CHRIST started without WRITTEN TRADITION. The Epistles/Letters of Paul, Peter, James, Jude, and John started only around 55 - 65 A.D. before Peter was martyrdom in 65 A.D., and Paul was beheaded in Rome around 67 A.D... the 4 Gospels from Matt., Mark, Luke, and John including the Acts of the Apostles started only "AFTER" the 2nd Temple was destroyed by the Pagan Roman Empire around 70. A.D. while the Revelation to John at Patmose was written at the end of the 1st Cent. A.D. (around 94-101 A.D.)... Facts and Truth, HISTORICALLY speaking... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen.
Remember, the ORAL/SPOKEN Tradition was the foundation of the Early Churches in Asia Minor after Christ ascended back to heaven around 30 - 33 A.D., long before the completion of the Individual Manuscripts and the Epistles around 110 A.D... God's CHURCH in CHRIST started without WRITTEN TRADITION. The Epistles/Letters of Paul, Peter, James, Jude, and John started only around 55 - 65 A.D. before Peter was martyrdom in 65 A.D., and Paul was beheaded in Rome around 67 A.D... the 4 Gospels from Matt., Mark, Luke, and John including the Acts of the Apostles started only "AFTER" the 2nd Temple was destroyed by the Pagan Roman Empire around 70. A.D. while the Revelation to John at Patmos was written at the end of the 1st Cent. A.D. (around 94-101 A.D.)... Facts and Truth, HISTORICALLY speaking... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen.
Sola Scriptura is so deeply embedded into protestant theology, which is very unfortunate as it only takes very minimal reason and logic to realize how false of a doctrine that is.
For centuries the Catholic church denied Christians the Bible and made a crime to read it...the church would've put me in prison for reading the Bible...SALVATION is in CHRISTO SOLO... I PUT MY MY TRUST IN THE WORD OF GOD...NOT the fallible Catholic Church...thank God we are free to read and believe only in the Holy Scriptures...NOT the words of corrupt priest...or POPE...
You are so wrong. The Catholic Church preserved and protected the Bible for centuries. If not for the Catholic Church you wouldn’t even have the Bible. Do some actual research instead of believing lies.
@@KeithNester With all due respect, STOP BABBLING NONSENSE! You are the one who needs to do some serious research instead of simply allowing yourself to be spoon-fed by whatever Catholicism tells you to believe. Roman Catholicism as we see it today did not exist in the early church. How do we know that? Because there was a PLURALITY of bishops in Rome, and there wasn't a "monarchical" (i.e. one-man) episcopate in Rome until about 140 AD (over 100 years after Christ's ascension). I've explained this to you several times, but you keep ignoring my explanation because it undercuts Rome's claim (as well as yours). Here it is again, copied from a previous post: You need to educate yourself regarding not just the formation of the Canon of Scripture, but how the canon is identified at various points in time. If you understand the unique ontological nature of Scripture, you'd recognize the fact that the canon was "closed" immediately after the final writer wrote the final word (which would be the Book of Revelation). Why? Because at that point in time, God had finished "breathing out" all of the Scripture that He intended to breathe out. So even if NOT A SINGLE person on the planet knew that that God-breathed revelation existed, it would still be a closed canon. But then there's a "functional" definition of canon - when did believers start treating the writings as Scripture? And then, finally, there's the "exclusive" definition of canon - when was it formally defined by the catholic (small "c") church? It's interesting that if you want to get hung up on the claim that we need the RCC to officially (and infallibly) define the canon for us lest we be lost in confusion, then guess when that happened? Not until the Council of Trent in April, 1546 (which included the Apocrypha)! But again, "rank and file" believers discovered which books belonged in the canon, and they didn't need, or look to, the RCC to tell them.
@@ezekielchapter18 Hippo and Carthage were local councils, NOT ecumenical councils. Your comment actually proves my point. Rank-and-file Christians were able to identify which writings were God-breathed (i.e. Scripture) long before the church "officially" declared them as such. And we can even point to such things as the "Muratorian fragment" (roughly 170 AD) which identifies almost all of the New Testament books as canonical.
@@johnclaiborne2749 I said Hippo and Carthage were regional councils, that means local. I didn't think the New Testament was disputed maybe I'm wrong ,but I do know that The Ethiopian Orthodox Church has a canon of 81 books . So those rank and file Christians most of whom were illiterate had a huge variance in what they believe is scripture.
That's a pretty fired up video, my Catholic brother. Keith speaking at 14:46-47: "We need Philip, one of the apostles." Response: In context with the Ethiopian eunuch, the general view is that this Philip is one of the first seven deacons. Earlier in Acts 8:12-19 he is part of a group in Samaria that requests the apostles to come and administer the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands, which Peter and John respond to. If he was Philip the apostle, he would have been able to administer the sacrament of confirmation on his own.
That was an excellent outline of the reasons why we don't believe in Sola Scriptura, well done! I have a friend who is ex-Catholic, and now considers herself " Christian" who says that the Holy Spirit has shown her what the Bible means and that the only authority is the Bible. I told her that's exactly what the rest of these denominations say, that they're all "Spirit-led" yet they all disagree so how can that be? She says they may disagree, but not on "salvation issues". Yet when I show her that they do disagree even on salvation issues, she doesn't agree, saying they're not saved pr chosen which is why they don't understand the true Gospel.
Yes, we Protestants have a tendency to ignore any evidence that goes against our beliefs, I must admit. Having the idea that each person should interpret the Bible themselves naturally leads to a lot of different interpretations. One advantage that you Catholics have is having a strong leader in the Pope that everyone can be united around. In Protestant circles we have to form a new denomination every time we don't agree on doctrine. I will admit that we definitely don't all agree on salvation issues since some of us believe in "once saved always saved" and others of us believe that people can lose their salvation.
@@PolymorphicPenguin lemme present this to you Is there anywhere in the Bible that objectively tells you how to interpret the Bible? I don't see one, and I think that's the main problem with sola scriptura
@@dustins382 That's a definite weakness of sola scriptura and part of why there is so much disagreement. Should everything in the Bible be taken literally, or is everything meant to be figurative? Or maybe some things literal and others figurative? The Catholic approach offers more uniformity of interpretation.
@@PolymorphicPenguin yes it is the main source of so much division. Whereas in Apostolic churches (I'm Orthodox, not Roman Catholic but we agree on this topic) we have a plethora of holy fathers and tradition to lean on, both of which we believe the Holy Spirit has guided (Matt 16:18, 1 Tim 3:15, 2 thess 2:15). The other problem is the authority of the canon of scripture. The only way Protestants can have scripture is "borrowed capital" from the church's authority declaring what scripture is, then consensus among each other on their own authority. This sadly turns truth into consensus, rather than one based on history, authority, and canons that were guided by the Holy Spirit. (Acts 15, "we see it good to us and the Holy Spirit")
@@PolymorphicPenguin if you're interested in a nice book I read not to long ago, "Thirsting for God in a land of shallow wells" by Matthew Gallatin. He shares his experience in protestantism and the questions he had along the way, and how these questions led him to the Orthodox Church. I very much enjoyed it and how he laid out these questions are questions I think every protestant can relate to and should consider. God bless.
Hence we have 45,000 different Protestant denominations all trying to be right about what they think. Kinda crazy if you asked me. Martin Luther and John Calvin would be Roman Catholic if they were alive today. No doubt about it in my mind. Look at me. I'm Catholic now. So is Dr Scott Hahn, Peter Kreeft, Steve Ray, and so many former Protestant Pastors who have come to the realization that they must be Catholic. And its not the individual people in the Catholic Church who convinced them. People are all sinners including the Pope. Its Jesus our Savior who founded the Church .
St. Paul taught about standing firm and holding on to the Oral/Verbal Traditions and Written Scriptures including Epistles, in the condition that both must not have CONTRADICTION with each other. (ref. 2 Thessalonians 2:15)... However, if there were contradictions, the WRITTEN Traditions must supersede (overrule) the ORAL Traditions... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus. Amen.
I remember, back when I was a brand new "born again" Christian, I met with a priest on campus to discuss faith with him. I brought up the "sola scriptura" argument. He tried to explain tradition to me. I was so full of prejudices that I never tried to understand what he was explaining. I had my own definition of the word "tradition" and applied it without discrimination. I felt thus justified in rejecting it, along with all the other Catholic beliefs. I do not think that priest failed me that day, I just wasn't open and ready. I was on a mission to evangelise him, not to be taught myself. Today - years later - I have converted back to Catholicism with a much better understanding of what is meant by the Church tradition.
I know for a fact that misunderstanding of Church Tradition is great among protestants. As with many other things, they run with their own personal perception/interpretation, and it's true enough for them to live by.
If it hasn't been done yet on this channel, for the sake of your protestant audience, it'd be very useful to explain what the Church means when referring to its tradition.
Thank you, Keith, for your testimony. It has contributed greatly to my "re-conversion" to Catholicism.
They are spiritually blind
The word is Tradition!!! With 'T', of which the Bible is only the written portion!!!
The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life!! The Holy Spirit dwells in the Church since 33AD, the foundation and pillar of Truth 1Timothy 3:15!
I note that you gave a back hand to Sola Scriptura, promoting Tradition but never gave us your new found definition of Tradition. The Catholic Church teaches that Scripture is to be interpreted through the lens of Tradition. Please give us your new found definition of Tradition so we can be as blessed.
@@jakehccc1 still crying johnnny I am not surprised, no free ticket to heaven
Just got confirmed into the Catholic Church this past January at 56 years old. This topic needed to be addressed and you did a great job, God Bless!
Welcome.
At 56 y/o, you have missed at least 40 yrs. of your life of not receiving Jesus in the Eucharist because of the lies and deception of Protestantism. I am not saying to make you feel bad but I just want stress to the millions of Protestants to wake up. You might be depriving yourself or your children of receiving Jesus in the Eucharist.
@@MyJustOpinion That's what continues to make me angry.
Congratulations, brother
Welcome to the house of the Father!!!
Welcome Home!
Greetings from Mexico, brother in Christ! excellent video. God bless your path.
Funny thing about sola scriptura.... it's not found in the Bible
What else in your church is considered to be inspired and inerrant and how do you know?
@@Justas399 we know because Jesus gave the authority to His apostles, making them the first bishops.
Neither is Pope. Neither Mary has a mantle.... neither is GOING TO MASS and bowing kissing plaster genuflecting
Taking communion on the tongue etc. All Man made and MANY KNOW IT
@@jackieo8693 The Apostles are not Bishops.
A Bishop is different than an Apostle
Two different offices
@@lois2997 You didn't give anyone ANYTHING. God word been spiritually spoken for GENERATIONS. You all only sat down and PRINTED OUT THE WORDS and put them in what Is called the bible. The word of God is inspired by the holy ghost
Which the Catholic church doesn't even know what HE IS AND very few if anyone in it Has HIM
I was recently watching a discussion between a Catholic and protestant and the protestant finally agreed (after some great explanations/apologetics from the Catholic) that not everything about salvation and our faith is explained explicitly in the bible. Then they moved on to the next subject which was intercession of Our Blessed Mother and the saints and the first thing out of her mouth was, "You're going to have to show me where this is in the scriptures because I can't find it anywhere" right after she finally agreed that not everything is explicitly explained to us in the bible. I wanted to scream, I had to turn it off.
It happens all the time.
Ends when youre losing change the subject😂😂😂😂
I think I watched the same video and had the same thoughts 😊
It’s their default.
Catholics just make things up with ZERO proof of anything .The immaculate conception of Mary , Mary was sinless ( blasphemy ) Mary was taken up bodily into Heaven .
Then they pervert scripture to back up a claim..They say Rev .12 to prove Mary taken up when the woman in is actually the tribes of Israel .
They purposely go against scripture .Peter was not the first Pope .In fact both Paul and James had a higher position of power among the apostles .Peter eas not the rock , the rock was the revelation that Jesus is the Christ .
Priests can’t get married isn’t biblical and was never ever a thing for hundreds of years .
As I read through the varied comments, including mine, I'm struck with the lack of unity we share between the two camps. To my Protestant brethren, I ask, where is the visible church today that Jesus built on Peter? I see no chance for unity outside that visible church. Tell us where it is so we can all come together in it for the unity we desperately need? It should be obvious to us all that Scripture 'alone' does not foster that unity.
Funny how cries for unity always turn into demands for conformity.
@kapitankapital6580 It's interesting that you state it that way. I am a sinner saved by grace so I ask your forgiveness from any sense of insincerity I may project.
Your thought gave me a picture of Adam and Eve in the Garden where unity was destroyed by the sin of dispbedience and non-conformity.
I'm also reminded of a comment from another video which read 'I will only attend a church that preaches what I believe'.
Perhaps you have touched on one of our strongest barriers to unity. An unwillingness to conform to the plan God has laid out for us in His church.
The problem as that Protestants object to the acretions that have occured over time in the Roman Catholic church (the same could be said of the Orthodox). When you look more deeply into the early church fathers, you realize that they didn't hold to the same traditions the the modern RCC does today. Many of these traditions didn't even come in until as late as the 6th century or even later and Augustine himself has said that he found that the Scriptures are the only truly infallible source of teachings. Everything else is capable of error. It's amazing how Catholics say that Protestant ideas didn't spring up until Martin Luther, when there were many proto-protestant groups before then, that were stomped out, executed and tortured out of existence. Tell me where the unity is in that.
@@billlee2194 and His church just so happens to be YOUR church?
@@aaronadamson7463 Perhaps the so-called 'acretions' are merely what jesus called a leading into further truth. Much like the doctrine of the Trinity, the two natures of Christ and the Canon list of books in the Bible to name a few which all came after the Apostles lived.
Maybe that's why the early church fathers didn't hold to the same traditions the modern RCC does today, Traditions like the three I listed above. Maybe the time and writings of the Aposltes was analogous to an acorn while the church today is the oak tree.
As far as Augustine saying the Scripture is the only truly infallible source of teachings, I would have to personally conclude that either you mis-read Augustine of he spoke incorrectly. The church has never declared that everything any church father said was 100%. I do know the church considers Augustine reliable. What counts is what the church concludes and teaches.
I came to the conclusion awhile back that Scripture is not, by itself, an infallible source of truth becasue Scripture is unable to interpret itself or to speak.
For example, when Jesus said "this (bread) is My body", what does Scripture mean? Did Jesus mean the bread was His body (like all the early fathers said) or the bread represents His body (like Ulrich Zwingli said)? Now, you can say the bread represents His body or that it is His body but you are only making an assertion. Scripture alone is unable to settle the matter. Therefore, I cannot consider Scripture the only infallible source of truth. Something more is needed. That something, I contend, is tradition and church history. We know, from the early church writings, how they interpreted this verse and others.
As far as proto-protestant groups, my main interest is in the writings of the Apostle Fathers. I date those wrtings from circa 70 AD to 180 AD. Except for completing Irenaus of Lyon' 'Against Heresies' written in 180 AD, I have read all the earlier writings including the Didache, Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp and Justin Martyr. All of these men either knew one or more of the Apostles or one of their disciples. It is said such men 'still had the words of the Apostles ringing in their ears'.
Having read these writings, some more than once, I can tell you, in all sincerity, that those men were 100 % Catholic in name, beliefs, practices and teachings. Their writngs left me with 5 major characteristics that can only be found together in the Catholic Church today: The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, Baptismal Regeneration including infant baptism, a 3-tier church hiearchy of bishop, priest and deacon, the primacy of the church in Rome that all other churches had to agree with and the primacy of the chair of Peter and his successors. These men were all martyred fro refusing to renounce Jesus.
In none of their writings did I find any modern Protestants who were, as you claim, stomped out. There are a few pagan writings from non-Christian Romans and the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus. There were also accounts of a number of heretics but their writings and beliefs only survived because the men I mentioned, expecially Irenaeus of Lyon, recorded their heterodox beliefs eg. Jesus was devine but not human or vice versa.
I did hear a Reforrmd Baptist once claim a lineage back to Palageus but, of course, any serious Protestant scholar sees him as a heretic since he taught we could save ourselves.
There are the best answers I can give. Hope they are helpful. I do ask that you forgive any sense of pride that I might have offered my answer with. I am a sinner in need of God's mercy. I only want the very best for each of us. God bless you in your own continued journey.
I feel like the spirit of Chesterton is saying to me while I'm watching this video: They declare that they will not recognize the authority of a pope, and then proceed to recognize that every man is his own pope.
Wow!
No office of a papacy in the NT church.
@@Justas399Absolutely there is. All of the Apostles held the Office of Bishopric. That's why when the Apostles went to replace Judas, they said "Let another take his 𝙊𝙁𝙁𝙄𝘾𝙀." Peter also holds the Office of Bishop, HOWEVER, Christ gave Peter an ADDITIONAL Authority, which was not given to the other Bishops. This additional Authority was represented by THE KEYS to the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus didn't give Peter (and the successors in His particular office) *A* set of Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.
Rather, Christ gave Peter *THE* Keys. Christ's OWN set of Keys.
@@Justas399 says the follower of another American man made religion
@@michelleishappy4036 Perfectly stated!
The whole purpose of the New Testament letters sent to other churches was to control them from teaching their own ideas. You were a church in the 1st century because it was started by an apostle or a disciple of an apostle. When you got a “letter” it was from Paul or Peter and was meant for you to follow order or structure of their teachings. No church was created outside of disciples or apostles following apostolic teaching.
Sure, which is why we should stick to Scripture written by actual apostles. Not corrupt men that swooped in later trying to gain power and control
@@davissalaki8703they had the same scripture. But the interpretation was wrong so there was a need for correction. Now if you got your interpretation wrong and Peter and Paul are gone - who tells you you’re wrong?
@@davissalaki8703such as Luther and Calvin
@@davissalaki8703such as Luther and Calvin
@@davissalaki8703 --Those same "corrupt" gave you the Scriptures. Please tell me who assembled the NT, gave us the table of contents, etc. The Bible didn't come out of the sky
SOLA -SKIPTURA, only creates further more disunity and confusion..
A former Pastor here in the Philippines, He confessed that, Once a Pastor created his own Church. He can do whatever he wants, the teaching, the theologies, his rules, the organizational structure of his church, everything are all man made Doctrines.. The way he wanted his church to be structured..
I love the way you say "SOLA SKIPTURA!" 🤣🤣🤣
Your point is self refuting. By definition if you take the Word of God as the only basis for which to construct doctrines you can't make up your own doctrines.
@@davissalaki8703 But you can certainly interpret the scriptures the way YOU want to, thereby creating your own doctrines by coming up with novel interpretations. The reformers came up with many doctrines through their interpretation of scripture that no one believed before, establishing new doctrines that did not exist before the 16th century.
@@davissalaki8703 The Bible is HOLY and INFALLIBLE. But the questions is whose Interpretation of the Scripture are INFALLIBLE.
@@davissalaki8703 yeah you can. It's literally is how protestantism works. Everybody reads the same verses and came up with their own understandings and think that they are right.
Can't agree with the current pastor? Off we go to start our own churches.
Because it’s a self refuting protestant construct that wasn’t taught or believed for the first 1500 years of Christianity?
I’m looking forward to you breaking this one down, brother!
Iraneus (oops I misspelled his name) thanks Skippy. writes; “We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.” What profile will you be using?
@@timrosen1618 Hey, Timmy! Why am I not surprised that you’d use a twisted reference to {Irenaeus}?
And, if you’re going to misquote an Early Church Father, the least you could do is get his name right.
Maybe read a bit of what Irenaeus *actually* wrote instead of relying on the amateurish, error-ridden Keith Mathison book.
Irenaeus undoubtedly teaches *Apostolic Succession* in determining authentic Apostolic Tradition. He clearly teaches that we know what the Apostles taught, because their students, and all their successors are still around. There’s an unbroken line, protected by the Holy Spirit.
Try reading ALL of the section in “Against Heresies”, you took your twisted “quote” from.
Look at what Irenaeus is using this to disprove-the notion of a “secret Tradition.” His point is that we know exactly what the *Church* teaches, because we can see the visible, hierarchical Church. He then continues to show the primacy of the Roman See, saying that “it is a matter of necessity that every *Church* should agree with this *Church* on account of its *preeminent* authority.” Then, as a bishop himself, he goes on to trace the episcopal lienage of the Holy See.
Your chopped up quote of Irenaeus is merely his expressing his belief in *material sufficiency* of Scripture (which I taught you about previously) and its inspiration and sufficiency to *refute heretics* and false doctrine in a general sense.
An ECF’s statements should be read *in context* of ALL of his thought, instead of having small pieces taken out and then claiming that they “prove” something that they don’t.
It’s a typical dishonest prot tactic to misrepresent what he wrote as a belief in sola Scriptura. You completely ignored his other statements concerning *Apostolic Tradition* or succession and the *binding authority* of the Church.
You’ve lied by omission. Not at all surprising, nor is your arrogance within your ignorance. Not a good “profile” at all….
@@TheBadTrad Typos are not a sin, bearing false witness is. I have never read Keith Mathison. Where is the misquote? “We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation , than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God , handed down to us in the Scriptures , to be the ground and pillar of our faith . For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed perfect knowledge , as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles . For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostlesl were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge :”
@@TheBadTrad All, of this and as before in hundreds of words if not thousands, you could not identify anything Christ or his apostles said, did or taught that is not in scripture.
@@TheBadTrad “instead of having small pieces taken out of context and then claiming that they ‘prove’ something that they don’t” what was out of context, did Irenaeus not mean what he said? You can not demonstrate that Irenaeus believed Jesus or his apostles said, did or taught one thing outside of scripture. Give me a break.
As a Catholic revert of over 15 years i have seen many converts on TH-cam over the years and i must say you and Scott Hahn are the most effective in proclaiming the Fullness of the Gospel. on a personal note i want to say thanks for the example you and your wife set for cradle Catholics who may not understand the COURAGE it took to walk away from your former protestant ministry! once again my brother in Christ...THANKS!
I hope Keith sees your comment. It is quite a compliment for him to be placed at the level of Scott Hahn who I absolutely admire and who is so knowledgeable about the faith.
God is sending many to wake us up, all types of people, all ages, all tongues.
We are told by Protestants “Sola Scriptura is the only infallible source of truth”…
I love to follow up with, “is that an infallible statement?”
It gets their wheels turning…
Interesting point indeed
That’s great. Lol
I once did the same thing in philosophy class.
"I don't believe in free will."
"Are you choosing not to believe in it?"
Logic is fun.
Could they respond like... "not infallible, just true statement" (whatever it means)?
@@karol__rol If not infallible/inerrant, then possible it is not true and "just true" doesn't apply, by definition.
Thank you very much for this Keith! Godbless you! From Philippines❤
Sola scriptura was popularized only in the yr 1500 which becomes the basis of founding thousands of man-made churches.
Our Lord Jesus built His church (Matt 16:18). The pillar & foundation of truth ( 1 Tim 3:15)
Dr. David Anders on Called to Communion has pointed out that Luther did not methodically formulate Sola Scriptura. Instead, after he was pushed into a corner debating John Eck, he 'asserted' that he was rejecting all the Councils and doctors of the church and standing on Scripture alone. If you think about it, what Luther was saying was 'I'm going to reject how the Church has interpreted Scripture, for then 1500 years, and I am going to interpret it the way Luther wants to. We must also remember that Luther was the first to remove books from the Bible Canon. Think about that. Do you think you would do something like that now? That's what one 16th century Catholic Monk named Luther did.
I am a protestant and have been studying Catholicism. This video really hit me hard. Very eye opening. Thank you.
We are not under the law and that was for the Hebrews, not us. John is wrong and so is Catholicism. The books that were allowed and are allowed came from the Acceptance of Judisim not men of Europe. The bible is fully understood by Born Again Christians, not Protestants or Catholics.
Man doesn't get to have the final say. We are flawed. We need the Message as the final authority.
If I were Satan, and wanted to cast doubt and division amongst Christians, I think my plan would be just to throw them a book and tell them to each individually figure it out, and then to each preach their individual gospel. Which, as we know from the New Testament, was not Jesus' intention and was something the Apostles fought hard to prevent.
Throw in Eternal Security and Dispensationalism for some real fun.
Keith thank you so much for what you’re doing and may God bless you brother.
Sola scriptura is the claim that of all the authorities on Christian living, scripture is the only one that is infallible. Why is this hard to accept?
AMEN 🙏🫶🙌✨️
Another interesting and informative video Keith. Thank you!
Thanks for this Keith. Gives me something to think about. 💫🙏💫
Thank you!
@@KeithNester Keith. Please pray. I seriously got into sins. I guess we all in trouble I listen to what YOU SAID
I been back into a mess. I had the Holy ghost but wasn't battling and studying then DOING BAD. DESTRUCTION. movie TV I wasn't grounded and lost everything and feel displaced. This is upsetting ALL OF US. ME FUSSING AT God. THE HOLY GHOST RUNNING from my calling and yelling at other. I regret this and FEEL horrible. I go to church but WASN'T THINKING quickly let Satan trap me on the WRONG SIDE. no KIND OF refuge.
@@rochelleperry2242 I'll pray for you. God's mercy is new everyday. Turn to him and he will restore you.
It’s not in the Bible. The craziest thing about sola scripture is: proving it’s not in the Bible doesn’t even disprove Protestantism or prove Catholicism, yet people cling to it when it’s clearly not in the Bible and several places in the Bible make it clear there are authoritative lines outside of the canon of scripture. The teachings Paul referred to in his letters which came before him (outside of his letters) for example.
@@jpgolda1900 What does all that have to do with "sola scriptura"? Lots of playing Scripture ping pong here. Posting scriptures and trying to fit them into a soteriology that sorry is not historic btw.
Back to the topic, it is about "Sola-Scriptura" which was one of the major Doctrinal positions of all the Protestants in the 16th century. It is not historic or orthodox.
@@jpgolda1900You have to do certain things to merit it. Jesus promises if you meet certain requirements, you will be given the gift. Nothing you can do is worth so much that you can strictly earn it. That is why his sacrifice on the cross happened. But the only way you can dispute we merit salvation by certain acts is if you deny free will entirely like Calvinists and make God into some kind of tyrannical puppet master
@@palermotrapani9067 Nothing, just like when George Farmer asked Allie Beth Stuckey where it was in the Bible, she went into how Luther wrote his theses in Latin.
@@jpgolda1900 You say before you got “saved,” you did good works before out of fear of Hell, now you do it for love of Jesus. Can’t that just be maturing? As a child, didn’t you listen to your parents for fear of punishment, and as you grew, did things for your parents because you love them?
@@jpgolda1900 what are “works of the law”
I’ve missed most of the live, but God bless you for speaking the truth. I’ve subscribed. 🙏🏼✝️🕊️
Thank you so much!
@@KeithNester It is not Sola scriptura. It is ONE DOCTRINE.....the Apostles holiness doctrine that Is not to be CHANGED and Yes it Is enough for us to be holy and we don't need another Doctrine or anything else for spiritual life. It is complete
It doesn't even make sense saying Sola scriptura.
@@rochelleperry2242 I have no clue what you mean. I’m not sure you are understanding what I am talking about.
Denigrating GOD' word in Scripture is speaking Truth??? Said like a true Atheist!
@@KeithNester Keith I apologize. Do you have the Holy ghost? Tell me how you receive the Holy ghost. I am asking because I have had the Holy ghost but fooled. Running too fast and not LISTENING GROWING destruction. BLIND an not thinking..
Amen! Thank you for this brilliant explanation Keith!
Keith you are a wonderful brother in Christ!❤
Amen! People make the Catholic faith to be so complicated and always searching to prove us wrong! So many questions of doubting. So many Thomas’s in the world, It is very simple……One day, they will find out!!
That’s the most ironic thing, right? 😂 Ours is so simple. Follow The Church’s teachings as God founded the church. No need to try to interpret the Word on your own. So many Aquinases😂
What a great concise dismantling of sola Scriptura. There will always be the “no true Scotsman” fallacy users, but as someone that was once a committed Westminster Confessional/ 3 Forms of unity Reformed person, this is is exactly what it is. And it falls flat. Interpretation isn’t supposed to be merely a science that depends on the minds of men, but a science that needs the Spirits confirmation. Thank you for this video. Pray for my family if you see this, I plan on being confirmed a soon as possible, but my wife is adamantly opposed and not willing to listen to anything remotely Catholic. Pray that we could have unity in our home.
Thank you so much!
Will keep you in my prayers.
I was in the exact same situation and also came from a Reformed tradition (PCA). I was confirmed into the Catholic Church in 2019, and my wife was confirmed at the Easter Vigil this year. It took her a lot longer to become fully convinced. Be patient, and don't think you can win her over with facts and well crafted arguments. The Spirit has to do the convincing. Live out your faith, and trust that God will soften her heart in due time. I'll be praying for y'all.
@@KeithNester Can you please do a video on the Traditional Latin Mass and the Norvus Ordo Mass.
Sounds a little like what I'm going through. I don't think my significant other is into much of anything Catholic, despite certain beliefs she has that ARE (like not being sola scriptura, and believing in infant baptism).
Thanks!
Beautiful! I’m going to convert to RC after 30 years of being a Protestant. I’m so tired of the confusion and explosion of denominations… I’m going to finally join the True Church. ❤
Sorry to hear that you've been confused by Protestantism, but why would you want to join a church that EXPLICITLY REJECTS the biblical gospel? Sure, there are many CRAZY Protestant denominations that have likewise abandoned the gospel, but why not find a solid biblical church that holds to the essentials of the Christian faith? It's not that hard. Rome, at the Council of Trent, officially placed an anathema on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Here's the exact citation. Remember, according to Rome, this is from an infallible, ecumenical council (not just some priest's opinion).
Council of Trent, Session VI (January 13, 1547), Canon XXX: "If anyone saith that, after the grace of Justification has been received, to every penitent sinner the guilt is remitted, and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such wise, that there remains not any debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world, or in the next in Purgatory, before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened (to him); let him be ANATHEMA".
How tragic!
Are you saved?
@Robert Berger It's tragic that you couldn't even understand a citation from the Council of Trent (the canons & decrees from that council are allegedly infallible according to Rome). And it's tragic that you'd rather learn from Augustine than examine the Scriptures for yourself to see if "mother church" is teaching error (she is!).
@@johnclaiborne2749nonsense. Then you’re saying Jesus lied when He said I will be with you until the end of time! Meaning His Church
@@michaelj5168 No, obviously Jesus cannot lie, but He's not talking about the church in Matthew 28:20. Obviously Jesus is no longer physically here on earth, but true believers are indwelt by the Holy Spirit (Who is God). So Jesus' promise to be "with you always, even to the end of the age" is perfectly fulfilled until He returns bodily.
Prior to medieval Christian claims in regards to the Apostles, the Pharisees had already set an example of developing dogma based on an alleged authoritative oral tradition having been passed down alongside Scripture from Moses himself. A principle that was condemned by none other than Jesus Himself: "You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition!"
In all of Biblical history, not one mention is made about authoritative oral tradition as a compliment to Scripture. During the Apostolic Age, both Christ and the Apostles always appealed to Scripture as the final authority for any claims or practices under consideration. This is logical since only the Apostles and Prophets were understood as authoring Scripture and therefore having such authority. Priests, though appointed by God, were always commanded to follow Scripture rather than add traditions to it.
Prominent early Church Fathers recognized this principle, asserting that the true Catholic Church must always act in harmony with Scripture whenever "small matters" of tradition, as St. Basil the Great (d. 379) identified such issues, aren't specifically addressed. Thus, anything truly alien to Scripture or its theological principles must be abandoned.
For example, here is St. Basil describing such considerations as he experienced them in his era: "For instance, to take the first and most general example, who is there who has taught us in writing to sign with the sign of the cross those who have trusted in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ? What writing has taught us to turn to the East at the prayer? Which of the saints has left us in writing the words of the invocation at the displaying of the bread of the Eucharist and the cup of blessing? For we are not, as is well known, content with what the apostle or the Gospel has recorded, but both in preface and conclusion we add other words as being of great importance to the validity of the ministry, and these we derive from unwritten teaching. Moreover we bless the water of baptism and the oil of the chrism, and besides this the catechumen who is being baptized. On what written authority do we do this? Is not our authority silent and mystical tradition? Nay, by what written word is the anointing of oil itself taught? And whence comes the custom of baptizing thrice? And as to the other customs of baptism from what Scripture do we derive the renunciation of Satan and his angels? Does not this come from that unpublished and secret teaching which our fathers guarded in a silence out of the reach of curious meddling and inquisitive investigation? Well had they learnt the lesson that the awful dignity of the mysteries is best preserved by silence. What the uninitiated are not even allowed to look at was hardly likely to be publicly paraded about in written documents" (The Holy Spirit, 27:66).
Obviously, such "small matters" tradition alone can legitimately support as Scripture is not violated. However, St. Basil also says this about Scripture and doctrine: "Enjoying as you do the consolation of the Holy Scriptures, you stand in need neither of my assistance nor of that of anybody else to help you to comprehend your duty. You have the all-sufficient counsel and guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead you to what is right" (Letter 283).
St. Jerome (d. 420) also describes acceptable traditions in very harmonious and practical terms: in light if Scripture "Don't you know that the laying on of hands after baptism and then the invocation of the Holy Spirit is a custom of the Churches? Do you demand Scripture proof? (Note that what he refers to here as a custom is actually described multiple times in the Book of Acts!). And even if it did not rest on the authority of Scripture the consensus of the whole world in this respect would have the force of a command (Obviously because of very clear consistency since he used a Scriptural example of what a Church custom might legitimately look like). For many other observances of the Churches, which are due to tradition, have acquired the authority of the written law, as for instance the practice of dipping the head three times in the layer, (a neutral practice implied by Jesus's "Great Commission" formula and later found in the Didache) and then, after leaving the water, of tasting mingled milk and honey in representation of infancy (Old Testament symbols); and, again, the practices of standing up in worship on the Lord's day (standing is in the Book of Ezra), and ceasing from fasting every Pentecost; and there are many other unwritten practices which have won their place through reason and custom. So you see we follow the practice of the Church, although it may be clear that a person was baptized before the Spirit was invoked" (Jerome, Dialogue Against the Luciferians, 8).
Keeping these principles of relating tradition to Scripture in view, we can now make sense of the writings of other early Fathers....
Clement of Alexandria (d. ca. 216) said, “But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits, will not desist from the search after truth, till they get the information from the Scriptures themselves” (Stromata 7:16).
Hippolytus of Rome (d. 235) said, “There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures and no other source” (Against the Heresy of One Noetus 9).
Hilary of Poitiers (d. 367): “Everything that we ought to say and do, all that we need, is taught us by the Holy Scriptures ” (On the Trinity, 7:16).
St. Athanasius (d. 375) said, “The Holy Scriptures, given by inspiration of God, are of themselves sufficient toward the discovery of truth. (Orat. adv. Gent., ad cap.) “The holy Scripture is of all things most sufficient for us” (To the Bishops of Egypt 1:4)." "The Catholic Christians will neither speak nor endure to hear anything in religion that is a stranger to Scripture; it being an evil heart of immodesty to speak those things which are not written,” (Exhort. ad Monachas). “Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith’s sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture.” (De Synodis, 6).
St. Basil of the Great (d. 379) said, “Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on which side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favour of that side will be cast the vote of truth” (Letter 189:3).
St. Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 386) said, "We ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures...Let us then speak nothing concerning the Holy Ghost but what is written; and if anything be not written, let us not busy ourselves about it. The Holy Ghost Himself spoke the Scriptures; He has also spoken concerning Himself as much as He pleased, or as much as we could receive. Be those things therefore spoken, which He has said; for whatsoever He has not said, we dare not say" (Catechetical Lectures, 4.17ff).
St. Gregory of Nyssa (d. 394) said, "What then is our reply? We do not think that it is right to make their prevailing custom the law and rule of sound doctrine. For if custom is to avail for proof of soundness, we too, surely, may advance our prevailing custom; and if they reject this, we are surely not bound to follow theirs. Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words (Dogmatic Treatises, Book 12. On the Trinity, To Eustathius).
St. Ambrose (d. 396) said, “How can we use those things which we do not find in the Holy Scriptures?” (Ambr. Offic., 1:23).
St. Augustine (d. 430) said, "For the reasonings of any men whatsoever, even though they be [true Christians], and of high reputation, are not to be treated by us in the same way as the canonical Scriptures are treated. We are at liberty, without doing any violence to the respect which these men deserve, to condemn and reject anything in their writings, if perchance we shall find that they have entertained opinions differing from that which others or we ourselves have, by the divine help, discovered to be the truth. I deal thus with the writings of others, and I wish my intelligent readers to deal thus with mine (Letters, 148.15). “For in regard to the divine and holy mysteries of the faith, not the least part may be handed on without the Holy Scriptures. Do not be led astray by winning words and clever arguments. Do not even listen to me if I tell you anything that is not supported by or found in the Scriptures” (Exposition on Psalm 119).
John Cassian (d. 435): “We ought not to believe in and to admit anything whatsoever which is not in the canon of Scripture or which is found to be contrary to it” (Conferences, 14.8).
You are right for not acepting the SOLA SCRIPTURA belief.
Also, keep the passion for Christ going.We are his mouth, eyes, ears, hands, legs to make his Gospel known to all his breathing creatures.
Very good points in this. I find it hard to argue with much if any of that. As someone who MIGHT be returning to official Catholicism, please pray for me in my discernment. My wife and her not necessarily being open to the Catholic Church is part of what's holding me back, I humbly admit. I'm not sure what to do
Praying for you and your wife. Hopefully both of you can pray together about it and discern.
I'll pray for you also! May the Holy Spirit inspire you both! ✨️
You are the head of your family, not your wife.
@@jonathanmorris2283 don't give me that nonsense.
Fantastic video, my brother, thank you for your ministry and Godly walk and may God bless you and your family.
Amen! Thank you Keith for your ministry!
Luther formed his own church, which is to say that Luther was equal to Jesus. How absurd and insulative that is. What comes to mind is what Jesus said in Matt 7:21-23
Poor Luther was a tormented soul with huge hangups. We should pray for him
@@michaelj5168 He was an Augustinian monk who taught at a high school. Luther was excommunicated for disobedience of his superior Bishop.
Imagine the conversation between Luther and Jesus...Luther claiming that both churches are the same; that Luther's church is better than the one founded and headed by Jesus, God.
Keith, thank you!!!
Thank you!
@@KeithNester 2 Timothy 3:16-17. This is what along with Galatians 1:8-9 mean. It s DOCTRINE. WE ARE TO STICK WITH the doctrine. The Catholic church doesn't do this. You are vexed because You know something Is WRONG with What the Catholic church is telling you. Martin Luther is not who true believer even talk about. You all constantly go on and on about Sola scripture and Martin Luther. True born again believer don't do that. Only you all. The Catholic church is FALSE and based on man made religion yet YOU will continue spin in circles because you DON'T HAVE THE HOLY GHOST.
@@rochelleperry2242 The Catholic Church is the world’s largest cult and has a big part to play in the Great Tribulation. I don’t recommend anyone sticking around to find out.
Remember, the ORAL/SPOKEN Tradition was the foundation of the Early Churches in Asia Minor after Christ ascended back to heaven around 30 - 33 A.D., long before the completion of the Individual Manuscripts and the Epistles around 110 A.D... God's CHURCH in CHRIST started without WRITTEN TRADITION.
The Epistles/Letters of Paul, Peter, James, Jude, and John started only around 55 - 65 A.D. before Peter was martyrdom in 65 A.D., and Paul was beheaded in Rome around 67 A.D... the 4 Gospels from Matt., Mark, Luke, and John including the Acts of the Apostles started only "AFTER" the 2nd Temple was destroyed by the Pagan Roman Empire around 70. A.D. while the Revelation to John at Patmos was written at the end of the 1st Cent. A.D. (around 94-101 A.D.)...
Facts and Truth, HISTORICALLY speaking... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen.
I understand where you are coming from but I think that only works at first glance. The early church was working off of these same testimonies and teachings. They may not have had them written down but they were still following them. There may have been a time in which the church survived on the individual teachings of the apostles and the bishops but God obviously was raising up scripture for a purpose that supersedes tradition. Probably because tradition gets polluted over time. The early church, before the canon was decided upon, the church was beginning to fumble around and late forgeries were being used. The need of the church to counter these uninspired books, teaches us that the church was in fact relying on scripture as a primary source for doctrine.
Just as a side note, you have the dates reversed for Peter and Paul's death. Paul died first then Peter.
The dating you provide for the books are secular dating schemes. These are primarily built on a hidden premise: Prophecies don't happen.
The book of Mark is accepted by most in and out of the church as being the first gospel and in it, Jesus predicts the destruction of the temple. Secular scholars can't allow a prophecy, so they assume that the book must have been written after 70 AD. They then build a dating timeline from that point. It isn't likely correct if our Lord could, in fact, predict the future.
There is plenty of internal evidence for an earlier dating, as well. Primarily the quoting of Luke by Paul in 2 places. This would put Luke before Paul which would also put Matthew and Mark before 65 AD as well. Not only that but the Acts of the Apostles, written by Luke, neither mentions the destruction of the Temple, nor the death of Paul. The book ends with Paul in house arrest, and the story feels incomplete. These two things suggest strongly a much earlier date to the books. John is likely the only one that post-dates the temple and the early church fathers would agree.
Amen! Thank you for all you do to correctly explain Gods true intentions for us!
Denigrating Scripture,. GOD' word explains GOD' true intentions for us? Criticism without any alternative is Atheism at it's finest! What is your alternative to Sola Scriptura which is Christ Alone, Grace Alone, Faith Alone and Scripture alone is the infallible source of Authority for Christian Faith, Practice and Truth.???
@@jakehccc1 no one is denigrating Scripture or the true intentions of God. It has been proven over and over by the writings of the Early Church Fathers who were taught by the APOSTLES the clear teachings and definitions of the writings of scripture.
@@thepic12 Where in Scripture do you find: Purgatory, Priests having the power and Authority to forgive sin in the confessional, praying to and for dead people (Saints, Mary), Works are a necessary requirement in Salvation, Paying of indulgences so Priests can get you into Heaven, the elevation of Mary above Christ, Tradition dictates the interpretation of the Word of GOD - Scripture. Chapter and Verse Please.
@WeaponOfChoice I have no clue what you are trying to say in response to my post. Please make you points clear. In respect to Christians not having a bible of their own, you are Correct. The Roman Catholic Church didn't, allow their followers to have copies of the Scriptures. The Scriptures were read and interpreted in church. How does that relate to my post?
@WeaponOfChoice You are Correct, however His followers, known as the Apostles did found many churches throughout the known world.
Thank you! Greetings from McAllen Tx.
One of my favorite places!
@@KeithNester ❤️
@@KeithNester You didn't believe it because you are sold DELUSIONS and another CHRIST. It is obvious you don't have the Holy ghost. If you did you would not constantly HAIL MARY and use rosaries to KEEP TRACK OF prayers and arguing about the KJV BIBLE.
You are told lies. You didn't get the Holy ghost while you were a minister in the first religion you were in and then you went to a Cult called Catholism and run up on John Macarthur and COME UP with a Doctrine that you don't understand. You don't understand Catholism really ajd and you don't want to accept the truth or GOD would give it to you..
When Jesus sent out his apostles into the world to spread His word (Luke 9), there was no new testament scripture. The new testament was written much later. The apostles relied not on the Bible but on their faith and their experiences from having known Our Savior. Some of them probably couldn’t read or write.
The fullness of truth is found in the Catholic Church,
period.
Amen!!!
No. It doesn't. Sorry but false CHRIST are rampant in.the Catholic church..
John 14:6
As YOU WISH!❌
Or, we could just say truth is only found in the Catholic Church, while in other (heretical Protestant and schismatic) "churches" bits and pieces of truth are found, but mixed with damning errors.
Another excellent presentation filled with solid instruction, here. Thanks very much, Keith!
Denigrating Scripture is solid instruction?
@@jakehccc1 To those who worship the bible as their own false god, anything out of a Catholic's mouth would be considered unacceptable.
@bridgefin *You failed to answer once again. If Roman Catholicism is truth or Church of the Bible, why was there not a single New Covenant believer saved in a Roman Catholic way in the whole Bible? Why is that so? Please explain coherently intelligently.*
- submit to Roman pope to be saved
- devote to Roman Mary to be saved
- be in Roman Church to be saved
- partake Roman sacraments to be saved
- baptise in Roman baptism to be saved
- do lots of works to be saved
you said
You don't know how salvation works. What you think is salvation is false. You will not be saved by any of your false solas.
A few months ago I learned that sola scriptura wasn’t in the Bible and I knew I had to take a deep dive in church history. Now I’m getting confirmed on the Easter Vigil 😁
Welcome home!
It's sad that you rejected Sola Scriptura without even knowing what it is. This video does NOT help anyone to understanding it because the guy talking about it does NOT understand it either (he even admits that at the very beginning). But there's STILL time for you to embrace the TRUE biblical gospel (i.e. justification by the imputation of Christ's righteousness).
@@johnclaiborne2749 I was a big sola scriptura supporter my whole life. I know what it is and Kieth Nester most definitely knows what is. He was a protestant pastor for 20 years. The Bible is true and beautiful but it is NOT our only form of authority and infallible rule of faith. There is nothing in scripture that says it is our only form of authority or that we get all doctrine from scripture. You also don’t see sola scriptura or anything like it for that matter among the early Christians. It is a manmade tradition that has been disastrous.
@@emoore1439 No, there is NOTHING else that we posses today that is God-breathed revelation other than Scripture. Canons & decrees from church councils, papal encyclicals, papal bulls, etc. - NONE of that is God-breathed. And because Scripture is ontologically unique, everything else must be tested in light of what Scripture teaches.
Just look at the disaster that is Pope Francis, or look at the ridiculous "dogmas" that the Roman Catholic Church has dreamed up (such as the "dogma" of the Bodily Assumption of Mary). That's now a de fide "dogma" that one MUST believe under the threat of anathema. And yet it's nowhere found in Scripture, and unheard of in the first several hundred years of church history.
@@emoore1439 💯
Great Job Keith! I say its not Sola Scriptura that one argues its Sola interpretation. They dont realize it but what that are saying is “My interpretation of Scripture is Authoritative” its how I interpret what the inerrant word says even though I am infallible and people still come up with different interpretations …… As Catholics we uphold to the truth and authority of Scripture. We believe in the Truth of Scripture. And we believe in the context in which scripture is truth and that is in the means of the Holy Church guided by the Holy Spirit to keep to the Truths of scripture. The Church cannot contradict scripture. And you cannot have scripture without the Church. The two pillars work in tandem. So, I would claim if we are going by what Scripture teaches, only the Church has the Authority of having scripture. The Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth.
The RCC has contradicted Scripture in a number of different places. Christ never promised any church not to err. Christ did promise to guide a church into all the truth but He did promise that to His apostles in John 16:12-13
BTW- the RCC has never officially nor infallibly interpreted the Scriptures. No such work exist.
@@Justas399You proved the point Jesus would lead his Church into the truth and Hades would not prevail against. Jesus leads his Church.
Where has the Catholic Church not followed Scripture? And where does your claim come for it has not infallibly interpreted scripture? And back to you how can we have the New Testament writings without an infallible ruling to why the 27 books were chosen?
@@katieforrest5748 The two wellsprings of Divine Revelation are Divine Tradition (the ORAL teaching of Jesus, the guidance of the Holy Spirit) and Scripture. See the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation.
@@Justas399 How can you make your assertions?
@@wms72 By Scripture.
Can you give me a couple of examples of a ORAL teaching of Jesus not recorded in the NT and how you know?
Keith- Every Protestant in some way accepts Sola Scriptura. It's completely a different way of thinking and is a form of spiritual blindness. Do you have any suggestions how to approach this issue that would have been particularly helpful for you before your conversion? It's such a self-serving belief. Thanks!
1 Timothy 3:15 states that the Church is the foundation and pillar of truth. Yes, the Bible says to look to the church for truth. I have heard of several protestants become flabbergasted when this was pointed out.
@@trudyfriedrich7416 So if traditions contradict the bible then what? What is the authority? Man or scripture?
@@Hokum48 That assumes you understand Scripture. Which if you are Protestant, you can't. Because you don't have the Apostles and their direct successors to guide you in your understanding. Scripture was written by Catholics, for Catholics.
@@PaulDo22 hi thanks for the reply. I am not Protestant but attend a non-denominational church. Not sure why you said I can't understand scripture. At my church we study book by book verse-by-verse through the whole bible. And the true gospel is by grace we have been saved through faith, not of ourselves; it's a gift of God not of works lest anyone should boast. That we are justified by faith! Jesus plus nothing equals sal a tip. In Genesis we are told Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him as righteousness. That was long before circumcision and Isaac. Jesus told the thief on the cross today he'll be with him in paradise.
@@Hokum48 Right, that's the problem. That's a false gospel taught to you by men who were not commissioned by Christ. Nobody ever heard of a "non-denominational" church until they were invented out of thin air in the last 50 years. How can you trust them if they weren't founded by Jesus Christ? Who are you going to trust, them or the Catholic Church that wrote the Gospels and established the Scriptures?
Thanks Keith for keeping me on track again.
@KeithNester *Who says doctrines are solely interpreted by Roman ct magisterium and Roman ct pope?*
you said
Where does the Bible say that the Bible itself defines what the Bible means?
Romans 1:17 The just shall live by faith! Romans 10:17 FAITH comes by hearing and hearing the word of God!
I love faith!! Thanks for sharing.
@@KeithNester Funny! You don't seem to understand that that's the well-known verse that woke Martin Luther up to the recognition of justification by imputation of Christ's righteousness. Luther was actually examining the original Greek words (dikaios, dikaiosune) which mean "to count as righteous" rather than relying on the Latin translation which means "to make righteous". It was a huge awakening for Luther because he understood that God credits the true believer with God's own righteousness (something that Catholicism still rejects to this very day).
@@johnclaiborne2749 I understand well that we need faith. Just because being accept faith “alone” doesn’t mean I don’t think faith is important.
@@KeithNester But denying the fact that we can ONLY stand before God clothed in a foreign righteousness (i.e. Christ's righteousness), and that that perfect righteousness ONLY comes through "faith alone" is what still separates biblical Christianity from Rome's erroneous teachings. That's the wonderful truth Luther discovered that was obscured and hidden for centuries.
@@johnclaiborne2749 Read your comment!!! I was awaken to 2 John never realized that was letter from John to Jesus mother. You have the elect lady who John loved and all who knew the truth in Jesus. Then verse 7 and concern that those who were dening Jesus came in Flesh were antichrist. If you redefine Jesus mother as a goddess and being son of God you take his humanity denie the flesh.. What is so unbelievable is Rome can't understand that. The last verse is 13 were John mentioned Jesus mother sister Mary that comes from John 19:25. What noticed in some study Jesus never calls mother by name it's woman or mother. Who would name two of daughters both Mary.
Sola scriptura debate … so hot right now!
Lester Jesus says it is written so it is the words
Well argued, well presented. God bless you Keith.
Right on!!! Keith, keep it up. May God continue to bless you and all you are allowing Jesus to do through you. It is high time to rediscover the fullness of Christianity and the real church of Jesus. For all rediscover the Roman Catholic Church. She is the Univeral Christian Church. Thanks. You have become my friend.
That was brilliant. Thank you
❤
Exactly. The main 2 problems with Sola Scriptura are:
1: Where in the Scripture is the doctrine of Sola Scriptura taught?
2: Where do the scriptures tell us what the canon of scripture is?
Sola Scriptura is self defeating.
Don't confuse the morons with logic reason and facts. Billy Bob from Alabama has all the answers.
Keith, thank you. I'd love to hear your thoughts on the Reformation--not that we protestants have it all right (there's are frightening dangers to everyone being their own Pope. . .), but the historical and continual need for the Church to be critiquing itself as the Body of Christ. Sola Scripture was an attempt to find an authority for that critique of the Tradition of the Church (which I believe we clearly require). And to be clear, as a protestant, when I say Church, I mean it in the Ecumenical sense, so I'm not pointing fingers at Catholics any more than I'm pointing fingers at United Methodist, etc. . .
Thank you for being respectful of Catholicism. It seems (to me) that many Protestants really have much disdain for The Church. We may disagree on some things, but thanks again for NOT being that way. God Bless.
James, I like your attitude
@@vinceschenden7349 Sadly, you are correct. And you are welcome. Grace to you and Peace.
Scripture says The Faith was deposited with the Church "once and for all," and that the Church is the pillar and bulwark of Truth. The continual critique the Church must evaluate herself on is: "how well have we lived up to the Faith?" not "what can we do to rediscover the Faith or reinvent it?"
@@wms72 I would concur with that. The historical setting of the reformation was that it seems that such a critique (how well have we lived up to the Faith?) was a least not very robust and at worst not happening, at least not in Germany. . .which is why I'd love to hear Keith's perspective. I expect it to be as faithful and thoughtful as I've found his conversation on this issue to be.
The Church predates the New Testament
By 350 yrs.
No canon existed until then. At the Council of Carthage is where the NT was first compiled. Find me something before that
The burden of proof is on you if you’re saying something exists. I can’t prove something doesn’t exist without showing you every document before 350.
Great video which has really helped me understand this issue better
Sola Scripture just code language for "My interpretation is Lord."
You are a heretic and you need to repent.
St Jerome has a good quote about this issue: “Let them not flatter themselves if they think they have scripture authority for their assertions since the devil himself quoted scripture. And the essence of the scripture is not the letter but the meaning.”
Every heretic can quote scripture, but by what authority can he say he has access to the essence of scripture. The argument rests on authority and tradition, but protestants want to use a dishonest rhetorical trick to cover for themselves at he expense of the Church. They have authorities. They have traditions. Now let them justify them and show whether they have a provenance back to the apostles. Of course, they can't
Ps: They act as if "scripture" must only mean a book that everyone can have equal access to which is obvious nonsense. Either you have to come up with some reason why the Holy Spirit is then doing such a bad job or have the bad faith non-disprovable beliefs of a Calvinist. When someone is "following the scripture" this means they have the right essence not that they just twist words to do whatever they want.
So we need an elitist to get between us and the Word of God? Lol, I don't think so buddy.
@@davissalaki8703 You rely on translators. You also rely on human institutions preserving the essence of the scripture. If current civilization were totally wiped off the map and someone in 1000 years got a copy of the Bible, they wouldn't know what to do with it. They wouldn't have access to the normal means the scripture is transmitted. Since the meaning is transmitted from human to human in language and through institutions, and not directly beamed into our head via the Holy Spirit, we should make sure we're following the institution that actually has authority and which is guaranteed to be guided by the Holy Spirit instead of being prideful and individualistic.
I love when some1 quotes a chapter and verse and I just say or think..Do they even know that the Church through the Holy Spirt organized and confirmed the Bible...and also a priest actually numbered each chapter and verse..before that there were just straight writings...no chapters..no verses
@@concrete3030 Even better is that the gospels are anonymous at least within the texts themselves. Not only is the canon in total formed extrabiblically, the criteria most protestants will give, that the books of the NT must have been written by an apostle or associate of the apostles, is only known extrabiblically
@@NSOcarth and @thethreatenedswan you guys nailed it. If St Jerome and St Augustine can agree on something, that means a lot! 😂
Surely with an infallible interpretor that's been around for 2,000 years there's an infallible interpretation of the Scriptures right?
Cut and paste approach to the Bible is the hallmark of the protestant faiths. Bad tailoring...MAKE it fit. 😮
I find it perplexing that a person can trust the Catholic Church. Once you know the bible things such as praying to or through Mary or the "saints". Baptising babies when Jesus was baptised as an adult and telling their priests & bishops that they can't get married. When scripture specifically states that a deacon or a bishop must be the husband of one wife.
John the Baptist was older than Jesus by just six months, he baptised Jesus when Jesus was 30 years but he died before the crucifixion of Jesus. When Jesus was a baby no one was baptizing .Johnn the Baptist was just an immediate front runner of Jesus to prepare the way. Like everything new, the adults adults always join first. However Jesus did not prohibit the baptism of babies or infants he even admonished his apostles who wanted to keep children away from him. In baptism, the church brings children to Jesus.
@@josephssewagudde8156 Show me the scripture where babies are baptised?
@@godsmasonbyraymasonbuildin4200 , Paul baptised entire households. Should we assume households are devoid of children?
@@josephssewagudde8156 No one is saying children can't be baptised. The issue here is that babies being baptised is unbiblical.
@@godsmasonbyraymasonbuildin4200, be reminded that the bible did not start Christianity. Christianity was here for 3 centuries before the bible was promulgated/ new testament. There is no word "Bible" anywhere in the Bible. Can we say bible is in biblical? Who authorised the early church to introduce the Bible, then chapters and verses. However the argument is Paul baptised entire households. Were there no children?
@bridgefin *Remain unchallenged: Doctrines come from the teachings and practices of Jesus and APostles. Jesus and Apostles demonstrated taking doctrines from Scriptures Only and not from any other source. This is already Sola Scriptura.*
*Demonstrated = doctrine.*
The question I use to shut down sola scriptura claims is to ask “is there any such thing as a self-interpreting book?” The answer is no. So what matters as it pertains to the Bible is who has the right interpretation. That is a question of authority. All Protestants will make the claim the Holy Spirit will give you the right interpretation, but not only do they have 80,000+ denominations, it’s very difficult to impossible to find 2 Protestants in the same Church who agree on the interpretation of even every most critical passage. In the end, Sola Scriptura is just an elegant Latin phrase that really means Sola Self. Protestants often want the false comfort of being their own personal Magisterium.
The chaos in rome has come to over 100,000 different sects. Even Francis says atheists will go to Heaven if they are good, the catechism teaches the Muslims are going to Heaven. Rome has no firm foundation.
@@timrosen1618 can you show me where in the catechism it says that? I have never seen it.
@@Electric_ You have to open the catechism.
@@timrosen1618 show me where or you’re a liar doing Satan’s will against Christ’s Church
@@Electric_ I believe it is around paragraph 841 or so.
Sola Scriptura is the recipe for DIY Christianity. I once was a member of a Church which practiced arranged marriages. The cited the arranged marriage of Isaac in the Old Testament as proof. So thanks to Sola Scriptura all kinds of crazy new doctrines are being constructed and the old dead heresies are returning. Thanks Luther.
Self refuting argument. Obviously trying to follow a Biblical standard does not allow for DIY Christianity
@@davissalaki8703 Really? Why do you have thousands of Denominations then? If all were really biblical they would be of the same mind but they are not. Sola Scriptura is like Communism. It works as a theory but the reality of its implementation is not as intended. Sola Scriptura should come with a warning label.
@@juanisaac5172that’s a bold statement. You’re right that solo scriptura is like communism. In theory it may be good but in reality, it doesn’t hold up. You get a billion interpretations or worst, the most literal translation of a single verse in scripture void of any context.
@billlee2194 *Even Roman religion without Sola Scriptura have differences in doctrines and sects.*
Roman Catholic sects
Is Roman Catholicism united in doctrines?
Hardly. Different sects of Roman religion practised differently and hold different beliefs. We see RC apologists critiquing RC friars online on YT and many more.
Did Roman Catholicism hold one doctrine over 2000 years?
Hardly. Doctrines were invented over the millennial especially after each “coronation” of Roman pope. Roman popes always had new doctrines and not from Scriptures.
Do Roman Catholics believe in One Doctrine?
Hardly. Some believe current pope is an antipope. Some don’t. Some believe current Roman religion is the Apostate Church based on Rev 17-18. Some don’t. Some believe papacy is vacant. Some don’t. Two third do not believe in Transubstantiation. One third do. Some believe in predestination, some don’t. And more …
Sedevacantism' is a term used to describe a belief held by those who identify as members of the Catholic Church yet claim that the office of the pope is currently vacant and has been vacant since a certain point in history. Adherents to this belief are called sedevacantists.
Is SSPX a Sedevacantist?
Society of St. Pius X Is Not Sedevacantist | Catholic Answers Q&A
Answer: No they are not, because sedevacantists believe there is no valid pope. The Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) recognizes the validity of all legitimate popes, including Pope John II, under whom its founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, and the four bishops he unlawfully ordained were excommunicated in 1988.
What is the difference between SSPX and SSPV?
(In case these acronyms are unfamiliar to you: SSPX is the Society of St. Pius X, the Lefebvrist group; SSPV is the Society of St. Pius V, a sedevacantist offshoot of the SSPX; CMRI is the Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen, a sedevacantist group started by illicitly ordained bishop Robert McKenna.)
Roman Catholic orders and societies
Assumptionist Order (4 C)
Augustinian Order (10 C, 16 P)
B
Brothers Hospitallers of Saint John of God Order (12 P)
Brothers of Christian Instruction of St Gabriel (1 C, 4 P)
C
Canons regular (5 C, 22 P)
Canossian Order (1 C, 4 P)
Carmelite Order (10 C, 18 P)
Catholic charities (4 C, 55 P)
Clerics regular (6 C, 14 P)
Congregation of Marian Fathers of the Immaculate Conception (16 P)
Congregations of Holy Cross (4 C, 14 P)
D
Dominican Order (10 C, 32 P)
E
Catholic ecclesiastical decorations (4 C, 11 P)
F
Franciscan orders (7 C, 4 P)
G
Gilbertine Order (1 C, 8 P)
L
Legion of Christ (2 C, 28 P, 4 F)
M
Order of the Blessed Virgin Mary of Mercy (3 C, 9 P)
Michaelite Fathers Order (4 P)
Minim (religious order) (1 C, 1 P)
Missionaries of La Salette Order (3 P)
Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate (2 C, 92 P)
O
Oblate Sisters of St. Francis of Sales (1 P)
Opus Dei (4 C, 30 P)
Order of Fontevraud (2 C, 11 P)
Order of Saint Benedict (6 C, 21 P)
Sons of Divine Providence (6 P)
P
Passionist Order (1 C, 9 P)
Pauline Family (9 P)
Paulist Order (17 P)
Piarist Order (4 C, 11 P)
R
Regnum Christi (2 C, 26 P, 4 F)
Resurrectionist Congregation (16 P)
S
Congregation of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary (1 C, 3 P)
Salesian Order (6 C, 24 P)
Salvatorian Order (2 C, 2 P)
Secular canons (1 C, 2 P)
Sisters of Charity of Australia (1 C, 9 P)
Sisters of the Company of Mary, Our Lady (2 P)
Society of African Missions (1 C, 23 P)
Society of Christ Fathers (3 P)
Society of Jesus (11 C, 81 P)
Society of St. Edmund (1 C, 2 P)
Society of St. Joseph of the Sacred Heart (4 C, 11 P)
T
Teutonic Order (7 C, 26 P)
Theatines (3 C, 21 P)
Trappist Order (5 C, 10 P)
Trinitarian Order (1 C, 17 P)
V
Religious institutes in the Vincentian tradition (2 C, 9 P)
you said
Another denomination denies that God is three persons in one nature.
At least one denomination believes baptism is necessary for salvation.
Some denominations believe our moral living does not affect salvation. Some denominations believe it does.
They each claim to get their beliefs from Scripture.
It's important to remember that the Bible is a Catholic document. The teachings of the Catholic Church are grounded on Sacred Scripture and the meaning of Sacred Scripture is interpreted through the Holy Spirit, which guides us into all knowledge. The Catholic Church cannot, and does not contradict Scripture, but affirms it with certainty as being the inerrant divinely inspired word of God. Even the Apostles did not understand Jesus until after the Pentecost when they received the Holy Spirit, and they lived with Jesus. The New Testament could not have been written unless the Apostles received the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The Church could not exist unless it was founded by Jesus and the authority given to the Apostles to preach. Not only is the Bible the most secure source of truth, it is the official and original teaching document of the Catholic Church.
For me, it was actually through a thorough study of the Bible that I naturally arrived at the Catholic faith. The Bible was my original companion and guide, and through my Catholic faith, I more fully and deeply understand the meaning of the words on the pages. The Catholic Church teaches in the Catechism (p. 113) that "Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ"! The Bible mentions a Church which was founded on Peter, the laying on hands of the priests to confirm the Holy Spirit, the body and blood of Jesus in the Eucharist, the Virgin birth of Jesus, worship on the Lord's Day (Sunday), ordination of Bishops and Deacons, Anointing of the Sick by priests, Confession, etc. The "Apocrypha" (which we Catholics call "Deuterocanon") was still included in most Bibles (even the Authorized King James Version) until 1885 when the English Revised Version replaced it, and one of the reasons was to save on printing costs. In fact, until the 1800s, most Protestant Bibles had 80 books, not 66 (which is 7 more than the 73 Catholic books). But many Protestants today incorrectly believe that Catholics added those 7 books, or that those books are exclusively Catholic! A careful study of the history of the Bible and of Church History will lead you nowhere else but to the Catholic Church.
The bible is a GOD MADE and ORDAINED inspired by the holy ghost books only printed by the Catholic church. ****That is all . period. And majority of them have no clue what it means yet claiming they are the true faith 😂
Actually the Apocrypha wasn't included in the Jewish canon of Books that were authentic which is why they were not included in original "old testament"
The bible is anti-Catholic.
Excellent Keith. Perfect explanation. It's a good thing that purgatory exists, or a lot of these protestants would be lost forever.
Feel free to give us your expertise by explaining where exactly Purgatory can be found in Scripture, Joe! It's not in Scripture nor are the indulgences, buying your way into heaven that was sold in the Catholic Church up until the 18th Century. Why isn't it done today, Joe?
Uh... You know that "Outside the Catholic Church, there is no salvation" is a dogma of the Faith? Protestants don't go to Purgatory. We hope they will be saved by coming to the true Church, otherwise there is worse than Purgatory for them... Saint Paul said that those who follow a different doctrine are anathema, and the Catholic Church dogmatically anathematized all Protestants at the Council of Trent.
@@kaiserdamasus1978 yes, I know.
@@joejackson6205 actually the Catholic church and them Popes ALL ARE ACCURSED an teach a false doctrine
@@joejackson6205lol he just (9 months ago) got you with that. You don’t even know your own faith
Thanks for sharing and for the affirmation
Keith, I admire you discussing this topic. You have done a great job. Please keep up your persuing the Truth. Praying for you daily. 🙏🙂🙏
Wow, you get some very arrogant people thinking they know better. I have to pray for charity.
Well done Keith, you really hammered it out nicely, thumps up.
Bro, I am stunned. You have no idea of how God is using you. Fr. Al
Bro, you have no idea how angry God is when the Scriptures are supplanted by so many unbiblical and anti-biblical teachings coming from the Roman Catholic Church. This guy is simply helping to keep people pinned down in their spiritual blindness.
@@johnclaiborne2749 "you have no idea"??? You do? Did He tell you? Come on, John, be serious. You are attributing God what just fits men, not deity.
@@titounoundici So you're not aware that, say, the Roman Catholic Church's dogma of the Bodily Assumption of Mary is NOWHERE found in Scripture, and yet the RCC is telling us that we MUST believe that teaching under the threat of anathema? Maybe you don't understand what "dogma" or "anathema" even mean?
@@johnclaiborne2749 "under the threat of anathema"? No, the declaration doesn't state like that. It says: "Se qualcuno, etc., è venuto meno alla fede divina e cattolica". So, according to your approach at the bible, if something is not explicitly said, that same issue is impossible. So we must believe that prophets like Enoch and Elijah were assumped in heaven, according to the Bible, but since nothing is stated about the woman who "found favor with God" (a bad traduction of "full of grace", kecharitomene), than you give for sure that there has been no Mary's assumption. Wow, that is beyond catholics' highest QI. But although the bible clearly states that women are not allowed to "shepard a flock", you protestants do permit it anyway and appoint women as pastors. And out of their mouths come the most astonishing errors and jaw-dropping heresies, etc. And though the gospel forbids divorce, protestant pastors heedlessly divorce. So, it seems like they have a secret way to understand the bible. Or they maybe know how to cleverly twist its words? Well, we are not bound to hell out of this. Nor are the eastern orthodox catholics. Nor you too, don't worry.
@@titounoundici If you're done rambling nonsense, maybe you can address my point. And if you want to simply take shots at Protestants, maybe you should first deal with the pedophile priests who have been raping thousands of boys.
A dogma is a teaching that's definitional to the faith. In other words, one can't reject a dogma and still be considered a Christian. The deity of Christ is one example. But no Apostle ever taught or believed in the Bodily Assumption of Mary - it has nothing to do with the Christian faith! But along comes the RCC, in 1950, and tells the world that this is a dogma that MUST be accepted and believed by everyone. Here's the citation from Pope Pius XII in the Apostolic Constitution titled "Munificentissimus Deus": "If anyone ... should dare either to deny this, or voluntarily call into doubt what has been defined by Us, he should realize that he has cut himself off entirely from the divine and Catholic faith".
So, I have listened to a lot of John MacArthur and he has said some extremely and biblical things. You can watch the council of Trent and he covers a lot of this, but I think it goes to show where a lot of protestant ministers have made themselves the ultimate authority versus turning towards God. I was in the protestant, Southern Baptist, and Penecostal realm for quite a while, and I believe I am safe and accurate, and what I am saying. God bless.
The council of trent states Canon 9, If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema. Paul wrote in Romans 5:1 therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Help me out here, much love!
Mc arthur teaches dispensionalism, "that the Holy Spirit ceased every action after the death of Apostle john"...however he uses the bible, inspired and breathed upon by the Holy Spirit that the Catholic church made in 382AD!!! Go figure!!! Dispenssionalism!!!
I only started reading the bible few months ago. Last year i literally couldn't understand much. After confesion and nightly rosaries. Now, I am able to actually read it. Each time I ask Holly Ghost for explanation and usuallu get it within a day. Everything is in the bible but you must be constantly develop your spirituality to undesrtand the message.
The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in its entirety is not in the Bible
That is why thre are 100,000 sectas around, each preaching error and collecting tithes
@@wms72 poor blind man!!!
John 6:53!!! You belong in John 6:66!!!
Sola Scriptura defended from scripture. What is the ultimate authority against which all other truth claims are judged?
1 Corinthians 4:6 - “…in us (Paul and Apollos) you may learn not to go beyond what is written…” (Cf. 2 Peter 1:19-21, Psalm 19:7)
In this passage, Paul is submitting himself and Apollos as examples of servants of Christ and faithful stewards of the gospel who do everything according to the God-breathed word of God (2 Timothy 3:16), and nothing beyond it (Cf. 2 Timothy 2:15). This submission demonstrates that the traditions that they spoke, as well as their writings that would eventually form the canon of the New Testament (Cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 3:6, 1 Corinthians 11:2, 1 Corinthians 15:4 referring to the books of Matthew and Mark) were in accordance with what has been written by the prophets who came before them.
Paul is explaining that what has been written (scripture) forms the basis of our judgment (Cf. Acts 17:11, Mark 7:6-9). It is the same concept expressed in John 7:24, "do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment." And how do we know that we are judging with a righteous judgment? When it is in accordance with what has been written. And this is not a new concept, Isaiah spoke of this in Isaiah 8:20, "to the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn."
Over and over again, it is the word of God (both written and spoken) that is said to be the basis for truth, and it is the ultimate authority that stands over all.
John 17:17 - Sanctify them by the truth; Your word is truth (Cf. John 15:3)
Proverbs 30:6 - Do not add to His words Lest He reprove you, and you be proved a liar.
Deuteronomy 4:2 - You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of Yahweh your God which I am commanding you.
Deuteronomy 12:32 - Whatever I am commanding you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it.
Revelation 22:18 - I bear witness to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book.
The word of God must never be transgressed for the sake of any tradition!
Matthew 15:3 - Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?
Colossians 2:8 - See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, and not according to Christ.
Therefore, if any tradition is said to be on equal grounds with scripture, it MUST be shown to be God’s word, according to what has been written, and the instant someone attempts to do so, they admit scripture is the ultimate authority.
You speak like a Seventh Day Adventist!!!
@@josephcadieux715
I do not know any seventh day adventists, so you are going to have to elaborate on what you mean.
Just as Christ prayed for the unity, people of all believes may come together. It's indeed the will of the Almighty God
Hi Keith, thanks for this... please understand the following comes from a protestant who is on his way to becoming a catholic, I mean no disrespect... the thing I struggle with is what if the church changed its position on something suddenly, doesn't that call their authority into question? For example the church has changed its position on suicide since we've gained a better understanding of mental illness... or another example I guess would be the changes brought about by Vatican II (not that I myself know what they necessarily are, I'm still new to all of this)... or casting a glance at the future, what if the church capitulated to woke culture, some accuse the current Pope of doing that. It seems to me that authority shouldn't be able to change its mind every hundred years or so...
You are so absolutely correct in your caution. It is easy to destroy yet provide no alternatives, that Keith Nester evidently found in his search for Truth, yet he didn't tell us what that alternative was exactly. I left the Catholic Church for many multiples of reasons; Purgatory, Praying to and for the dead, Priests that have the power and Authority to forgive Sin in the confessional, Elevating Mary above Christ, Tradition is above Scripture and so many other doctrines that are Heretical as they are not found anywhere in Scripture. If you Don't believe it, you only have to read the Catechism, the Official Doctrines and teachings of the Catholic C. Such arrogance taught me so well, I left the Catholic Church particularly since, I would be excommunicated from the church for not believing one no less each and every one of these things listed that are not to be found anywhere in Scripture. The absolute worst; Paying of indulgences (Money) so the priest can buy your way into Heaven if, only you have enough money. That doctrine ended in the 18th Century. Why; if it was so True, Scriptural and today remains a part of Doctrine which isn't today practiced! Why? Sola Scriptura despite all of the rhetoric is simply: Christ Alone, Grace Alone, Faith Alone, Scripture Alone that is the Sole Infallible Source of Authority for Christian Faith, Practice and Truth without reading into the text creating a Structure/Doctrine that wasn't "expressly stated or powerfully inferred ". Unless it is clearly expressed or powerfully inferred, we are adding words, phrases and Doctrines to the word of GOD. Revelations tells us what happens when we participate in that, be it intentional or not. We need to be extremely cautious in what we teach others as if it's Truth, Doctrine.
@@jakehccc1 Do you believe in OSAS?
Please define for us what OSAS is exactly instead of using an Acronym, so we know exactly what you are referencing.
@john clements I Google it and got obstructive sleep apnea syndrome... somehow I don't think that's what he meant... 😉
@@jakehccc1 - where in the Catechism does it elevate Mary above Christ?
Love you, man!!! if you’re ever near Tampa please have a cup of coffee with me.
My thing with sola scriptura is you cant find anyone that actually lives by it. Name the protestant group that believes in confession, binding and loosing, forgiveness or retention of sin by the church, that remarriage after divorce is adultery, bringing arguments for the church to settle, mary as the queen mother in revelation, purification through fire in corinthians, works and faith like it says in james, saints offering prayers in heaven, warnings for taking the eucharist unworthily etc. These doctrines are all found and pretty clear in scripture. Yet i havent seen a protestant that believes any of them... scripture is their ultimate authority and they ignore it in these places. If they hold to sola scriptura but ignore scripture when it says something they dont agree with, then rhey arent really holding to sola scriptura. Just cherry picking what they like and dont like.
Your "thing" with Sola Scriptura ignores the fact that we're all still sinful human beings whose traditions, lack of diligent study, lack of reliance on the Holy Spirit, etc. gets in the way of proper exegesis and understanding of the Scriptures. But that does NOT mean that there's something wrong with Sola Scriptura (which posits that ONLY the Scriptures can be identified as God-breathed revelation). By the way, even the Apostle Peter stated that some of the Apostle Paul's writings were hard to understand (2 Peter 3:16). Does that mean that the problem was with Peter or with the Scriptures? The answer's obvious.
@johnclaiborne2749 I didn't say there was anything wrong with scripture. Look at Philip and the eunuch in acts.... the spirit sends Philip to him and he asks do you understand what you're reading? He says how can I unless someone shows me. In a similar way Peter is saying that some people twist scripture to their destruction. The idea here is we need guidance in understanding scripture so that we won't be deceived by those who twist it. Sola scriptura requires that another authority besides scripture is needed to understand it. If the protestant were to take scripture seriously on these points, they would realize that the Bibles teachings are actually contrary to the man made tradition of sola scriptura.
@johnclaiborne2749 Also you didn't explain why no protestant follows the Bible on the doctrines I pointed out in my original post. I'm curious about that.... when Paul warns you not to take the eucharist unworthily.... if you do you may get sick or die. What do you think constitutes as abuse of the eucharist? Grape juice instead of wine? What about the worthy aspect.... what does a person do to become worthy of the eucharist? Who would be unworthy and how could you tell of you were? Many apparently took the eucharist and suffered the consequences, seems like something that happen fairly easily. Just curious about your thoughts on that one.
@@timboslice980 No, you implied that because there are differences in the interpretation of Scripture as well as differences in church practice that that supposedly means there's something wrong with Sola Scriptura. The Catholic Church has done plenty of Scripture-twisting to come up with the denial of justification by imputation, the inventing of Marian Dogmas, etc.
@@timboslice980 Plenty of churches, including the Baptist church I attend, follow the biblical doctrines you mentioned and plenty more. When Paul warns not to take the Lord's supper in an unworthy manner, my church certainly abides by that command. That has nothing to do with "grape juice" vs "wine". And you don't seem to understand Sola Scriptura - it does NOT require another authority because Sola Scriptura recognizes that THERE IS NO higher authority than the God-breathed Scriptures.
We all have to remember that the early church and the Apostles did not have a New Testament. They WERE the New Testament!
I must be missing the book of Andrew and Judas then
@@davissalaki8703must be missing the whole thing coz new testament means new covenant. The Church is the new covenant
Jen you are so CORRECT. THEY HAVE another Mary and Jesus
Another doctrine..they keep talking about Sola scriptura and all but don't get it is the Apostles doctrine that Peter taught
He wasn't THE ROCK. HE was the one Jesus used to start to build the churches..based on the holiness doctrine. They love to say Peter was Pope and he was the Rock that the church was built. It is all mouth vomiting. Same word over and over
Thank you for this video. I am as well a Catholic, and I’m still learning to respond to others who insist that the Bible alone is what we need. This video helps. After growing up in the church, then leaving, I’ve returned and now reading both the Bible and the catechism. I watch Called to More, Bishop Baron, now your videos, In between the two books for more insight.
Other than the holy ghost WHAT DID JESUS USE???
HE DIDN'T USE A CATECHISM
He didn't go to Pope and HE DIDN'T ASK MARY ANYTHING pertaining to salvation..... NEITHER DID THE APOSTLES
YOU all listening to men who don't follow Jesus or the apostles and wonder why EVERYONE CALL CATHOLIC CULTS 🤷
I'd strongly suggest that you focus on understanding what the Bible teaches WITHOUT having to filter it through the lens of Roman Catholicism. I too was a devout Catholic for many years, but got saved when I finally understood the true, biblical gospel. Roman Catholicism teaches a false, man-centered, works-based "gospel" that can only damn.
@@johnclaiborne2749 Lying is a sin.
@@georgepierson4920 Correct! I'm so glad you were able to figure that out.
No person is good enough to go to Heaven based on works. It’s only because of what Jesus Christ did on the Cross that it’s possible for anyone to be with him up in Heaven.
Sola Scriptura is just the claim that the Church can err.
8:01-8:17 "Show me where it says this in the Bible..."
Answer: "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." - 2 Tim 3:16-17
Notice the part where it says, "that the man of God may be *complete* equipped for *every* good work."
@@theosophicalwanderings7696yes but this verse is in reference to the Hebrew Scriptures. Not the New Testament. Which had not been fully written or codified .
True the devil is smarter than man, it causes confusion.
“You, however, have followed my teaching, my conduct, my aim in life, my faith, my patience, my love, my steadfastness, my persecutions and sufferings that happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium, and at Lystra-which persecutions I endured; yet from them all the Lord rescued me. Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, while evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”
2 Timothy 3:10-17
Oh my goodness...the Catholic church is not the interpreter of the scriptures. Mark 7:5-13 Jesus makes it very clear to the Jewish religious leaders which were like the Catholics, thinking that they were the authority, making up man-made traditions with their authority. But in Mark 7:13, Jesus clearly let these leaders know where the authority is, its in the word of God. God doesnt give any man total authority, because man will always abuse that authority.
@toddgallo - if this is true then think about the implications after answering this question…
History shows us that Jesus didn't leave us a bible, the apostles didn't tell us which books belong in the bible, the church fathers never agreed on the 27 books of the NT through the 4th century, not only did they not agree but their list of would-be NT canons were GROWING during this time. So, if it wasn't the Catholic/Orthodox church that compiled the 27 books of the NT in the 5th century, just 75 years AFTER the council of Nicaea which began the Trinitarian docrtine, and then with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and preserved these scriptures by laboriously hand copying them over and over throughout the centuries before the invention of the printing press, the “rule of faith” for many, please tell us, show us, who did? And if this church no longer exists today, what good is the text which came forth from her if she couldn't sustain herself?
humans are FALLIBLE that is why the Roman Catholic system doesn't like Sola Scriptura and that is why they Murdered millions for having a bible or for just opposing their false teachings...it is very easy to crush the roman doctrines...most catholics don't really study diligently prayerfully for guidance from God as they search the truth in the scriptures....
I was Church of Christ most of my adult life. It hardly gets more sola scriptura than that! Many won't even allow a fellowship hall/kitchen in the church building because "it's not in the Bible", and churches have even split over the issue! And most congregations are a capella because instruments aren't mentioned in New Testament worship. (Neither are church buildings, but SHHHH, don't tell them that!)
So imagine my surprise, during my conversion process, when I was brought to realize that "sola scriptura" is NOT IN THE BIBLE! And for it to be in there, WHAT exactly is the Bible would have to be spelled out IN the Bible! It's NOT! We didn't even have a final New Testament canon until 393 and 397 AD. And that was through Councils held by the -- da da-da DA! -- Catholic Church! Yes indeed, imagine my surprise! Most of us in the Church of Christ hold the Catholic Church to be a bunch of "traditions of men" people and not real Christians. If this were true, then the validity of the whole New Testament canon itself would have to be discarded!
Just one of the several "Things that make you go hmmmm!?!?" moments on my way to becoming Catholic!
(And the idea of having someone in the Church to be "referee" on Bible interpretation, indeed, even a Magisterium, makes total sense! Just LOOK at the Protestant world today: division upon division, with the apparent attitude that creating further divisions over even trivial things is no big deal! We don't have this issue in the Catholic Church)
382AD council of Rome, Pope Damasus I withbhis authority bestowed on himnby Jesus Christ declared the bible to be the Word of God!!!!
@@dvdortiz9031 And that it is! But it's interesting, then, that Damasys I made that statement when he did, since the Bible was 11 years yet to be officially defined by its canon in 393.
Even so, this would not validate the "sola scriptura" concept since the Bible itself never specified that doctrine itself. And the Catholic Church has always affirmed Sacred Tradition as also being of divine origin, though not inspired in the same exact manner as the Bible.
We definitely have people trying to cause divisions in the Catholic Church, but instead of twisting and misinterpreting the scriptures like Protestants do, they misinterperet Church documents from councils and encyclicals and cretae their own version of Catholicism. For example, they take that dogma of no salvation outside the Church to mean that all those who have never stepped foot inside a physical building of the Catholic Church will not be saved when that's not what it means at all. It's referring to the Mystical Body because the Church is both visible and invisible, physical and metaphysical, just like Christ's body. They also don't understand the difference between doctrines and disciplines and think the latter can never change when that's completely false and not what the Church or the Bible teaches at all.
Sola scriptura started with with the Old Testament. In psalms, for David talks all perfect and pure the Lords law is next Jesus says it is written, and that all things are written about him. He is the word that became flesh. If he is enough for our salvation, then him, as the word is enough for our salvation as well, Paul further reiterates do not go beyond what is written
Deuteronomy 4:2 KJV "You shall not add unto the Word which I command you, neither shall you diminish ought from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you."
Deuteronomy 12:32 KJV "What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: you shall not add thereto, nor diminish from it."
Revelation 22:18 KJV "For I testify unto every man that hears the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."
Mark 7:9 KJV "And He said unto them, Full well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your own tradition."
Mark 7:13 KJV "Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which you have delivered: and many such like things you do."
John 14:15 KJV "If you love me, keep My commandments."
John 14:21 KJV "He that hath My commandments, and keeps them, he it is that loveth Me: and he that loveth Me shall be loved of My Father, and I will love him, and will manifest My self to him."
Martin Luther: Hold my beer 🍺
What heretics like you don't realize is the fact that verses you quoted, (when taken in to the proper context) applies to the particular set of laws or commandments God gave.
@@Jamric-gr8gr So are you saying GOD only cares for some of HIS Words and not all of them??? Heretics add and take away form GOD's Words. How many sources of authority do you and place them equal to GOD HIMSELF in Holy Scripture. Have you ever heard this? Matthew 4:3 KJV And when the tempter came to HIM, he said, If you be the SON of GOD, command that these stones be made bread. 4 But HE answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of GOD.
How do one response to Luther arrogant attitude from 1520 diet of Worms when declared Scriptures alone? Every Protestant love that rebellious tone.
He was really declaring Luther alone.
Scripture alone has no authority until it is interpreted and, therein lies the problem. Who's interpretation is correct?
The Chosen shows a disciple actually frantically and busily scurrying about truly writing down things as they happened. This looks fine and acceptable but is in fact and substance a heresy. A happy error, but still an error.
Someone there is intentionally pursuing Sola scripture and leaving out the period ( maybe decades) between when it happened and when it was scribed.
Very dishonest.
Does away completely with oral and written tradition.
✡️🇮🇱🇮🇷😘🍷🍞🙏🇻🇦🇨🇦✝️
It's just a smokescreen to avoid any criticism of and to avoid having to justify their tradition. Why should we believe in your tradition? Uh, uh, just read the Bible, it's obvious... No one actually believes in what they claim sola scriptura is. How could you get the substance of a book from the book itself? You would at least need to acknowledge that you need a correct linguistic tradition outside of it, and what we care about is not the ink on the page unlike protestants who make the Bible into an idol to justify their heresy. What we care about is the substance behind the words and what means can we have to reach that substance.
Some believe the bible fell put of heaven.. and its KJV only lol
As long as the Old Oral/Verbal Tradition does not contradict God's Written Tradition, God still allowed them to be practiced... However, if it does contradict, then God's Written Tradition which is more AUTHORITATIVE must supersede, overrule, and stop the practice immediately... (ref. 2 Timothy 3:16)...
The Oral and Written Traditions must be UNITED as ONE without confusion and division... One (United) God, One WORD (Scripture/Bible), and One TRUTH...
Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen.
@@jvlp2046 Divine Tradition is the oral teaching of Jesus, Who wrote NOTHING down, except in the dirt. The Catholic Church treasures the oral Word of God preached by Jesus and His Apostles, but protestants threw it away, contradicting 2Thessalonians2:15, 2Timothy2:2, and Titus1:9.
@@wms72 Remember, the ORAL/SPOKEN Tradition was the foundation of the Early Churches in Asia Minor after Christ ascended back to heaven around 30 - 33 A.D., long before the completion of the Individual Manuscripts and the Epistles around 110 A.D... God's CHURCH in CHRIST started without WRITTEN TRADITION.
The Epistles/Letters of Paul, Peter, James, Jude, and John started only around 55 - 65 A.D. before Peter was martyrdom in 65 A.D., and Paul was beheaded in Rome around 67 A.D... the 4 Gospels from Matt., Mark, Luke, and John including the Acts of the Apostles started only "AFTER" the 2nd Temple was destroyed by the Pagan Roman Empire around 70. A.D. while the Revelation to John at Patmose was written at the end of the 1st Cent. A.D. (around 94-101 A.D.)...
Facts and Truth, HISTORICALLY speaking... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen.
Remember, the ORAL/SPOKEN Tradition was the foundation of the Early Churches in Asia Minor after Christ ascended back to heaven around 30 - 33 A.D., long before the completion of the Individual Manuscripts and the Epistles around 110 A.D... God's CHURCH in CHRIST started without WRITTEN TRADITION.
The Epistles/Letters of Paul, Peter, James, Jude, and John started only around 55 - 65 A.D. before Peter was martyrdom in 65 A.D., and Paul was beheaded in Rome around 67 A.D... the 4 Gospels from Matt., Mark, Luke, and John including the Acts of the Apostles started only "AFTER" the 2nd Temple was destroyed by the Pagan Roman Empire around 70. A.D. while the Revelation to John at Patmos was written at the end of the 1st Cent. A.D. (around 94-101 A.D.)...
Facts and Truth, HISTORICALLY speaking... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen.
Sola Scriptura is so deeply embedded into protestant theology, which is very unfortunate as it only takes very minimal reason and logic to realize how false of a doctrine that is.
For centuries the Catholic church denied Christians the Bible and made a crime to read it...the church would've put me in prison for reading the Bible...SALVATION is in CHRISTO SOLO...
I PUT MY MY TRUST IN THE WORD OF GOD...NOT the fallible Catholic Church...thank God we are free to read and believe only in the Holy Scriptures...NOT the words of corrupt priest...or POPE...
You are so wrong. The Catholic Church preserved and protected the Bible for centuries. If not for the Catholic Church you wouldn’t even have the Bible. Do some actual research instead of believing lies.
@@KeithNester With all due respect, STOP BABBLING NONSENSE! You are the one who needs to do some serious research instead of simply allowing yourself to be spoon-fed by whatever Catholicism tells you to believe. Roman Catholicism as we see it today did not exist in the early church. How do we know that? Because there was a PLURALITY of bishops in Rome, and there wasn't a "monarchical" (i.e. one-man) episcopate in Rome until about 140 AD (over 100 years after Christ's ascension). I've explained this to you several times, but you keep ignoring my explanation because it undercuts Rome's claim (as well as yours). Here it is again, copied from a previous post:
You need to educate yourself regarding not just the formation of the Canon of Scripture, but how the canon is identified at various points in time. If you understand the unique ontological nature of Scripture, you'd recognize the fact that the canon was "closed" immediately after the final writer wrote the final word (which would be the Book of Revelation). Why? Because at that point in time, God had finished "breathing out" all of the Scripture that He intended to breathe out. So even if NOT A SINGLE person on the planet knew that that God-breathed revelation existed, it would still be a closed canon. But then there's a "functional" definition of canon - when did believers start treating the writings as Scripture? And then, finally, there's the "exclusive" definition of canon - when was it formally defined by the catholic (small "c") church? It's interesting that if you want to get hung up on the claim that we need the RCC to officially (and infallibly) define the canon for us lest we be lost in confusion, then guess when that happened? Not until the Council of Trent in April, 1546 (which included the Apocrypha)! But again, "rank and file" believers discovered which books belonged in the canon, and they didn't need, or look to, the RCC to tell them.
382 council of Rome set a 73 book canon, then regional councils of Hippo 393 and Carthage 397 confirmed the 73 books as canon.
@@ezekielchapter18 Hippo and Carthage were local councils, NOT ecumenical councils. Your comment actually proves my point. Rank-and-file Christians were able to identify which writings were God-breathed (i.e. Scripture) long before the church "officially" declared them as such. And we can even point to such things as the "Muratorian fragment" (roughly 170 AD) which identifies almost all of the New Testament books as canonical.
@@johnclaiborne2749
I said Hippo and Carthage were regional councils, that means local.
I didn't think the New Testament was disputed maybe I'm wrong ,but I do know that The Ethiopian Orthodox Church has a canon of 81 books . So those rank and file Christians most of whom were illiterate had a huge variance in what they believe is scripture.
It’s Protestant heretical blasphemy
That's a pretty fired up video, my Catholic brother.
Keith speaking at 14:46-47: "We need Philip, one of the apostles."
Response: In context with the Ethiopian eunuch, the general view is that this Philip is one of the first seven deacons. Earlier in Acts 8:12-19 he is part of a group in Samaria that requests the apostles to come and administer the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands, which Peter and John respond to. If he was Philip the apostle, he would have been able to administer the sacrament of confirmation on his own.
Philip the deacon was a lower case apostle (one who is sent, as all Catholics are), but not a Bishop level Apostle.
@@wms72 an apostle, deacon, and Bishop are three different distinct offices.
The only thing fired up Is him yelling and screaming I DON'T KNOW WHAT I BELIEVE AND I AM LOST AND VEXED because I believe Catholism.
That was an excellent outline of the reasons why we don't believe in Sola Scriptura, well done! I have a friend who is ex-Catholic, and now considers herself " Christian" who says that the Holy Spirit has shown her what the Bible means and that the only authority is the Bible. I told her that's exactly what the rest of these denominations say, that they're all "Spirit-led" yet they all disagree so how can that be? She says they may disagree, but not on "salvation issues". Yet when I show her that they do disagree even on salvation issues, she doesn't agree, saying they're not saved pr chosen which is why they don't understand the true Gospel.
Yes, we Protestants have a tendency to ignore any evidence that goes against our beliefs, I must admit. Having the idea that each person should interpret the Bible themselves naturally leads to a lot of different interpretations. One advantage that you Catholics have is having a strong leader in the Pope that everyone can be united around. In Protestant circles we have to form a new denomination every time we don't agree on doctrine. I will admit that we definitely don't all agree on salvation issues since some of us believe in "once saved always saved" and others of us believe that people can lose their salvation.
@@PolymorphicPenguin lemme present this to you
Is there anywhere in the Bible that objectively tells you how to interpret the Bible?
I don't see one, and I think that's the main problem with sola scriptura
@@dustins382 That's a definite weakness of sola scriptura and part of why there is so much disagreement. Should everything in the Bible be taken literally, or is everything meant to be figurative? Or maybe some things literal and others figurative? The Catholic approach offers more uniformity of interpretation.
@@PolymorphicPenguin yes it is the main source of so much division. Whereas in Apostolic churches (I'm Orthodox, not Roman Catholic but we agree on this topic) we have a plethora of holy fathers and tradition to lean on, both of which we believe the Holy Spirit has guided (Matt 16:18, 1 Tim 3:15, 2 thess 2:15).
The other problem is the authority of the canon of scripture. The only way Protestants can have scripture is "borrowed capital" from the church's authority declaring what scripture is, then consensus among each other on their own authority. This sadly turns truth into consensus, rather than one based on history, authority, and canons that were guided by the Holy Spirit. (Acts 15, "we see it good to us and the Holy Spirit")
@@PolymorphicPenguin if you're interested in a nice book I read not to long ago, "Thirsting for God in a land of shallow wells" by Matthew Gallatin. He shares his experience in protestantism and the questions he had along the way, and how these questions led him to the Orthodox Church. I very much enjoyed it and how he laid out these questions are questions I think every protestant can relate to and should consider.
God bless.
Hence we have 45,000 different Protestant denominations all trying to be right about what they think. Kinda crazy if you asked me. Martin Luther and John Calvin would be Roman Catholic if they were alive today. No doubt about it in my mind. Look at me. I'm Catholic now. So is Dr Scott Hahn, Peter Kreeft, Steve Ray, and so many former Protestant Pastors who have come to the realization that they must be Catholic. And its not the individual people in the Catholic Church who convinced them. People are all sinners including the Pope. Its Jesus our Savior who founded the Church .
St. Paul taught about standing firm and holding on to the Oral/Verbal Traditions and Written Scriptures including Epistles, in the condition that both must not have CONTRADICTION with each other. (ref. 2 Thessalonians 2:15)...
However, if there were contradictions, the WRITTEN Traditions must supersede (overrule) the ORAL Traditions... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus. Amen.
Sola scriptura is a man made tradition...on point. As simple as that. Thank you sir and may Godbless us all 😊