Thankyou for watching! Please like, subscribe, and please remember to be respectful in the comments. Watch the ENTIRE VIDEO before making any comments please. We are here to have respectful dialogue and try to make progress where there has been roadblocks. Here is Anglican Ascetics pitching into the conversation on Joe Heschmeyer as well: th-cam.com/video/0NM4Xobux0E/w-d-xo.html See the cards at the end of the video for Javier Perdomo's videos. To all genuinely seeking to look into the question of if you should be one of the various Ecclesialist traditions or one of the Protestant or Evangelical traditions this video has the best advice that one could ever ask for: th-cam.com/video/DYmHyuhhv58/w-d-xo.html For background on the Joe Heschmeyer critique: Javier's initial Response: th-cam.com/video/6xmoPU_RGX0/w-d-xo.html&pp=ygUOamF2aWVyIHBlcmRvbW8%3D Joe's Response: th-cam.com/video/GlSkKi3chQA/w-d-xo.html Javiers Follow Up Response: th-cam.com/video/R7jie2hdqKM/w-d-xo.html&pp=ygUOamF2aWVyIHBlcmRvbW8%3D
How clear does Scripture have to be to be considered perspicuous? Jesus, at many times, spoke in parables and seemed to be purposefully unclear or indirect. These parables sometimes obscured meaning from certain listeners, which He explained to His disciples by quoting Isaiah, saying, “...seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand” (Matthew 13:13-15). Assuming scropture shares properties with Jesus's words, Scripture is generally clear, but understanding can be influenced by the listener's heart posture. For those open to learning, parables revealed; for others, they concealed. Reminder: Every word that came out of the mouth of Jesus was by definition the Word of God. While parables introduce a layer of nuance, they don’t fundamentally contradict the doctrine of perspicuity. They actually show how Scripture can simultaneously reveal truth and call listeners to a responsive heart, which is a key aspect of how Scripture works. I also believe the Holy Spirit plays a definitive role but since every Christian is a unique person, they interact with the Holy Spirit uniquely.
Watch my first video in the Perspicuity playlist for this definition, and we will at some point be doing a video on the Scripture interprets Scripture hermeneutic. There are murky parts of Scripture, the Reformers and those following their footsteps do not debate this, the modern ideas that do are separate from this.
3:31 The difference being that the Gnostics claimed to have held "hidden/secret" knowledge while the Catholic Church's beliefs/knowledge is easily accessible. It is not "secret", you don't need to be part of an elitist cult to know what knowledge Catholics possess. Similarly, the Church Fathers wrote about the Apostolic Traditions passed down, such as in the Didache or literally the book titled "The Apostolic Tradition".
To add to that, 4 Bible verses explicitly talk about the tradition of the Apostles, 1 Thess. 2:13, 2 Thess 2:15, 2 Thess 3:6 and 1 Cor 11:2. The same St.Iranaeus of Lyon you quoted also said: “As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same” (Against Heresies 1:10:2 And: “That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them [heretics], while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. . . . What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?” (ibid., 3:4:1) And: “It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors to our own times-men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about. “But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. “With this church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree-that is, all the faithful in the whole world-and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (ibid., 3:3:1-2). It is rather ironic to critique Joe by saying "he didn't take this part of Luther's writing into account" and then ignore the above quotes of Iranaeus on this topic.
If you read the Council of Trent they claim to have the authority of Oral tradition, not all of which was simply put out in the public. That was in fact part of the very contention in the Reformation. And watch my live stream from last month on Sola Scriptura, I address many Church Fathers there and this exact idea in more depth.
@@PracticalChristianLessons Thank you for your response. I have a final bone to pick with you, however. At around 2:00 you claim that the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture does not mean that Protestants will agree on everything, and then state that it actually means that Scripture is clear on all that is necessary for salvation and righteous living. That is exactly the claim Joe is critiquing. He explicitly states in his video that he is not claiming that the doctrine of perspicuity means that Protestants/Sola Scriptura believers will agree on everything (as Luther initially claimed) but rather on the essentials of salvation and righteous living. That is what he is critiquing. He gives numerous examples in his response video and the prior video of Protestants/Sola Scriotura believers who do not agree on what the essentials mean, nor what even is essential or non-essential, despite the fact that all of them agree on the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and the perspicuity of Scripture as you laid it out. He is not critiquing the claim that Scripture is clear on everything (strawman). He is critiquing the exact definition you gave for the perspicuity of Scripture.
@@geckosman That is not Joe's claim. He has made his critique more vague & includes Unitarians among those he is using as a point of disagreement. And as I said in the video, different traditions disagreeing, doesn't disprove this. We disagree on clear statements already. And as I said later. If disagreements disprove something, then the Ecclesialist stances are also defeated. In fact we can't know anything, because people all over the world at all times disagree on clear statements. It just happens, it's part of being human. But that is the fault of people, not the medium of communication. If you want to defeat perspicuity you 1, need a different argument as this disproves all of us, and 2 you need to compare Lutherans to Lutherans, Anglicans to Anglicans. Not low Church evangelicals to Unitarians. And it is very telling, most Protestants even across traditions do in fact agree on what is necessary for salvation, and grant that we are all within it. So even if we may disagree across traditions, we do have some areas of overlapping agreement.
@@PracticalChristianLessons Joe is critiquing the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, specifically the perspicuity of Scripture that goes along with it. He includes Unitarians as they also affirm the doctrine of Sola Scriptura along with the perspicuity of Scripture as you put it. It might be more apt to say "Sola Scriptura belivers" rather than Protestants, since you don't appear to think Unitarians are Protestant. Joe's definition is exactly the same as yours. He is critiquing the doctrine that all groups you mentioned (Unitarians, Lutherans, Calvinists, Presbyterians, etc.) hold in common. Since they hold this exact same belief in common it is not necessary to critique each one separately, as it would ultimately lead to the same argument being made multiplied with however many denominations there are. That is the reason he can make such a broad argument. Sola Scriptura is the foundation of Protestantism (along with Sola Fide) as we know it. The reason that he states that disagreements around doctrines necessary for Salvation among Protestants/Sola Scriptura believers (who all adhere to the same foundation of Sola Scriptura) disproves Sola Scriptura is because this means that Scripture isn't clear/is clear, we just can't really know what is means. And if Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith, and we cannot for certain know what it means, then there is a very big problem. Catholics and Orthodox disagreeing is not an issue in the same way as what Protestants disagree on, as the issues Catholics and Orthodox disagree about are due to the differences in Ecclesiology/Mariology/etc. A critique made about something both the Catholics and Orthodox agree on would not need to be made for both, while an issue they do disagree on would need to adress both separately (i.e. the Mary's sinlessness). Joe is critiquing the thing all the Protestants (and the Unitarians) agree on. I cannot understand why he has to critique each one separately, since they all affirm the docrine in the same way. The fact that the exact same method of determining what is essential to be saved is used (i.e. Sola Scriptura) and yet leads to all these myriads of outcomes (such as Unitarianism), is precisely the problem.
Yes, a confessional one. Watch my earliest videos and check the playlist on my channel, it is far from what many think of when they look at modern Arminian thought.
@PracticalChristianLessons Last question, what do you think of Arminians who deny the inerrancy of scripture like Liberal scholar Dr. Randal Rauser? There are also Conservative Protestants like Dr. Lydia McGrew who has some sort of combination of Arminian-Molinist thought but also denies the inerrancy of scripture. I will check your channel because the Calvinist Vs Arminian dialogue today can be full of straw men. Just for the record, I am a massa damnata Thomist so my initial biases are with the Calvinists though I would label myself an Augustinian as I prefer Augustine over Aquinas.
@@computationaltheist7267 So I have two thoughts. I don't know Lydia's work myself, but I find those who deny Inerrancy generally fall into two camps. I think to deny it either way is an error, but for some they only deny it in name. Group 1 - They are denying it for some reason but normally some undermining of Scripture is present. Whether that be liberal theological worldviews, or something else, and is often a slipper slope into grievous errors. As Wesley said, if the Bible has one error it might as well have 1000, and when someone realizes that it can lead to them just suddenly doubting many parts and throwing many things out. Group 2 - Reject it in name only. I think of figures like Kenneth Collins who denies it by name, but in his article when he describes his belief it is completely in line with the Chicago statement and general definition of it. I find often this stems from being too steeped in the world of Academia and the way they use terms, rather than looking at the larger theological sphere's. I hope my videos are insightful! When I've had dialogues with my Reformed friends and we start getting into the nitty gritty we often agree on 99% of things, and disagree on very little. I've been told I sound basically Reformed more times than I count, and often here, "I didn't Arminius taught that," or comments on modern Arminians being all about free will they didn't know there were other thoughts.
@@PracticalChristianLessons Thanks for your answers. I will have to subscribe to your channel so that I understand Arminianism. I think it has been straw manned through pop Reformed apologetics that it's Pelagian theology.
@@computationaltheist7267 It definitely has, it doesn't help many claim the title of being an Arminian, then proceed to be Pelagians. Part of why I started the channel was hoping to help call Arminians to return to the teachings that were held to and to reject the teachings that have strayed from that. That's why I still do readings from Arminius, you might find the current series going through his declaration helpful. And it's written in a way much easier to understand than his more scholastic writing.
Why would there be denominations or traditions among people who claim that Scripture is clear? And if you claim that there are sections of Scripture which are not clear then why not just give up and admit that sometimes Scripture seems clear and other times not so?
What you just defined as "giving up" is the Perspicuity of Scripture and what has been taught not only since the time of the Reformation but also since the days of the early Church. Watch the first in the series and I break it down a little bit more I believe.
@@PracticalChristianLessons Well the Scriptures do not claim themselves as clear and I'm not aware of any early church fathers making that claim either. The multiple heresies fought by the early church were mostly brought about through a bad interpretations of Scripture.
@@bridgefin I will be demonstrating this as both the Scriptural teaching and the teaching of the fathers throughout this series. Such as the Irenaeus quote at the start of this video, this is but one of many quotes to come. Irenaeus and many others said the heretics were twisting the Scriptures, often they used the phrase, "they twist the clear meaning" or some variation. Follow along to see for yourself 😃
@@PracticalChristianLessons I appreciate your reply. It's funny that you go to the early church fathers on perspicuity of Scripture when you disagree with them on essential matters of salvation. Maybe you think they were pushing your doctrine but then your contradictory beliefs prove that you both are wrong and inconsistent on the essentials.
@@bridgefin We'd also argue they agree with us on essential matters of salvation, and I put forth no contradictory beliefs or inconsistencies. My live stream from last month shows some strong basis in the father on Sola Scriptura, and I will in the future do one on Sola Fide as well. Feel free to follow along and watch them, you will find a surprising amount of things among the fathers completely consistent with not only my own tradition but the beliefs the Reformation sought to revive and renew within the Church🙂
Jesus fulfilled the tanakh not just teach it. He confirmed the scriptures the prophecies and Moses writings. Modern scholar's cause the division. Lastly the Hebrew culture and their own interpretation was not understood because the Roman Catholic church caused the church fathers who had more influences from Greek philosophy.
Thankyou for watching! Please like, subscribe, and please remember to be respectful in the comments. Watch the ENTIRE VIDEO before making any comments please. We are here to have respectful dialogue and try to make progress where there has been roadblocks.
Here is Anglican Ascetics pitching into the conversation on Joe Heschmeyer as well: th-cam.com/video/0NM4Xobux0E/w-d-xo.html
See the cards at the end of the video for Javier Perdomo's videos.
To all genuinely seeking to look into the question of if you should be one of the various Ecclesialist traditions or one of the Protestant or Evangelical traditions this video has the best advice that one could ever ask for: th-cam.com/video/DYmHyuhhv58/w-d-xo.html
For background on the Joe Heschmeyer critique:
Javier's initial Response: th-cam.com/video/6xmoPU_RGX0/w-d-xo.html&pp=ygUOamF2aWVyIHBlcmRvbW8%3D
Joe's Response: th-cam.com/video/GlSkKi3chQA/w-d-xo.html
Javiers Follow Up Response: th-cam.com/video/R7jie2hdqKM/w-d-xo.html&pp=ygUOamF2aWVyIHBlcmRvbW8%3D
Ayo Joshu-man, great video!
How clear does Scripture have to be to be considered perspicuous? Jesus, at many times, spoke in parables and seemed to be purposefully unclear or indirect. These parables sometimes obscured meaning from certain listeners, which He explained to His disciples by quoting Isaiah, saying, “...seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand” (Matthew 13:13-15). Assuming scropture shares properties with Jesus's words, Scripture is generally clear, but understanding can be influenced by the listener's heart posture. For those open to learning, parables revealed; for others, they concealed. Reminder: Every word that came out of the mouth of Jesus was by definition the Word of God.
While parables introduce a layer of nuance, they don’t fundamentally contradict the doctrine of perspicuity. They actually show how Scripture can simultaneously reveal truth and call listeners to a responsive heart, which is a key aspect of how Scripture works. I also believe the Holy Spirit plays a definitive role but since every Christian is a unique person, they interact with the Holy Spirit uniquely.
Watch my first video in the Perspicuity playlist for this definition, and we will at some point be doing a video on the Scripture interprets Scripture hermeneutic. There are murky parts of Scripture, the Reformers and those following their footsteps do not debate this, the modern ideas that do are separate from this.
3:31 The difference being that the Gnostics claimed to have held "hidden/secret" knowledge while the Catholic Church's beliefs/knowledge is easily accessible. It is not "secret", you don't need to be part of an elitist cult to know what knowledge Catholics possess. Similarly, the Church Fathers wrote about the Apostolic Traditions passed down, such as in the Didache or literally the book titled "The Apostolic Tradition".
To add to that, 4 Bible verses explicitly talk about the tradition of the Apostles, 1 Thess. 2:13, 2 Thess 2:15, 2 Thess 3:6 and 1 Cor 11:2.
The same St.Iranaeus of Lyon you quoted also said:
“As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same” (Against Heresies 1:10:2
And:
“That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them [heretics], while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. . . . What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?” (ibid., 3:4:1)
And:
“It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors to our own times-men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about.
“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles.
“With this church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree-that is, all the faithful in the whole world-and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (ibid., 3:3:1-2).
It is rather ironic to critique Joe by saying "he didn't take this part of Luther's writing into account" and then ignore the above quotes of Iranaeus on this topic.
If you read the Council of Trent they claim to have the authority of Oral tradition, not all of which was simply put out in the public. That was in fact part of the very contention in the Reformation. And watch my live stream from last month on Sola Scriptura, I address many Church Fathers there and this exact idea in more depth.
@@PracticalChristianLessons Thank you for your response. I have a final bone to pick with you, however.
At around 2:00 you claim that the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture does not mean that Protestants will agree on everything, and then state that it actually means that Scripture is clear on all that is necessary for salvation and righteous living.
That is exactly the claim Joe is critiquing. He explicitly states in his video that he is not claiming that the doctrine of perspicuity means that Protestants/Sola Scriptura believers will agree on everything (as Luther initially claimed) but rather on the essentials of salvation and righteous living.
That is what he is critiquing. He gives numerous examples in his response video and the prior video of Protestants/Sola Scriotura believers who do not agree on what the essentials mean, nor what even is essential or non-essential, despite the fact that all of them agree on the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and the perspicuity of Scripture as you laid it out.
He is not critiquing the claim that Scripture is clear on everything (strawman). He is critiquing the exact definition you gave for the perspicuity of Scripture.
@@geckosman That is not Joe's claim. He has made his critique more vague & includes Unitarians among those he is using as a point of disagreement. And as I said in the video, different traditions disagreeing, doesn't disprove this. We disagree on clear statements already. And as I said later. If disagreements disprove something, then the Ecclesialist stances are also defeated. In fact we can't know anything, because people all over the world at all times disagree on clear statements. It just happens, it's part of being human. But that is the fault of people, not the medium of communication.
If you want to defeat perspicuity you 1, need a different argument as this disproves all of us, and 2 you need to compare Lutherans to Lutherans, Anglicans to Anglicans. Not low Church evangelicals to Unitarians.
And it is very telling, most Protestants even across traditions do in fact agree on what is necessary for salvation, and grant that we are all within it. So even if we may disagree across traditions, we do have some areas of overlapping agreement.
@@PracticalChristianLessons Joe is critiquing the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, specifically the perspicuity of Scripture that goes along with it. He includes Unitarians as they also affirm the doctrine of Sola Scriptura along with the perspicuity of Scripture as you put it. It might be more apt to say "Sola Scriptura belivers" rather than Protestants, since you don't appear to think Unitarians are Protestant.
Joe's definition is exactly the same as yours. He is critiquing the doctrine that all groups you mentioned (Unitarians, Lutherans, Calvinists, Presbyterians, etc.) hold in common. Since they hold this exact same belief in common it is not necessary to critique each one separately, as it would ultimately lead to the same argument being made multiplied with however many denominations there are.
That is the reason he can make such a broad argument. Sola Scriptura is the foundation of Protestantism (along with Sola Fide) as we know it.
The reason that he states that disagreements around doctrines necessary for Salvation among Protestants/Sola Scriptura believers (who all adhere to the same foundation of Sola Scriptura) disproves Sola Scriptura is because this means that Scripture isn't clear/is clear, we just can't really know what is means. And if Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith, and we cannot for certain know what it means, then there is a very big problem.
Catholics and Orthodox disagreeing is not an issue in the same way as what Protestants disagree on, as the issues Catholics and Orthodox disagree about are due to the differences in Ecclesiology/Mariology/etc. A critique made about something both the Catholics and Orthodox agree on would not need to be made for both, while an issue they do disagree on would need to adress both separately (i.e. the Mary's sinlessness).
Joe is critiquing the thing all the Protestants (and the Unitarians) agree on. I cannot understand why he has to critique each one separately, since they all affirm the docrine in the same way.
The fact that the exact same method of determining what is essential to be saved is used (i.e. Sola Scriptura) and yet leads to all these myriads of outcomes (such as Unitarianism), is precisely the problem.
Just out of curiosity, are you an Arminian?
Yes, a confessional one. Watch my earliest videos and check the playlist on my channel, it is far from what many think of when they look at modern Arminian thought.
@PracticalChristianLessons Last question, what do you think of Arminians who deny the inerrancy of scripture like Liberal scholar Dr. Randal Rauser? There are also Conservative Protestants like Dr. Lydia McGrew who has some sort of combination of Arminian-Molinist thought but also denies the inerrancy of scripture.
I will check your channel because the Calvinist Vs Arminian dialogue today can be full of straw men. Just for the record, I am a massa damnata Thomist so my initial biases are with the Calvinists though I would label myself an Augustinian as I prefer Augustine over Aquinas.
@@computationaltheist7267 So I have two thoughts.
I don't know Lydia's work myself, but I find those who deny Inerrancy generally fall into two camps. I think to deny it either way is an error, but for some they only deny it in name.
Group 1 - They are denying it for some reason but normally some undermining of Scripture is present. Whether that be liberal theological worldviews, or something else, and is often a slipper slope into grievous errors. As Wesley said, if the Bible has one error it might as well have 1000, and when someone realizes that it can lead to them just suddenly doubting many parts and throwing many things out.
Group 2 - Reject it in name only. I think of figures like Kenneth Collins who denies it by name, but in his article when he describes his belief it is completely in line with the Chicago statement and general definition of it. I find often this stems from being too steeped in the world of Academia and the way they use terms, rather than looking at the larger theological sphere's.
I hope my videos are insightful! When I've had dialogues with my Reformed friends and we start getting into the nitty gritty we often agree on 99% of things, and disagree on very little. I've been told I sound basically Reformed more times than I count, and often here, "I didn't Arminius taught that," or comments on modern Arminians being all about free will they didn't know there were other thoughts.
@@PracticalChristianLessons Thanks for your answers. I will have to subscribe to your channel so that I understand Arminianism. I think it has been straw manned through pop Reformed apologetics that it's Pelagian theology.
@@computationaltheist7267 It definitely has, it doesn't help many claim the title of being an Arminian, then proceed to be Pelagians. Part of why I started the channel was hoping to help call Arminians to return to the teachings that were held to and to reject the teachings that have strayed from that. That's why I still do readings from Arminius, you might find the current series going through his declaration helpful. And it's written in a way much easier to understand than his more scholastic writing.
Why would there be denominations or traditions among people who claim that Scripture is clear? And if you claim that there are sections of Scripture which are not clear then why not just give up and admit that sometimes Scripture seems clear and other times not so?
What you just defined as "giving up" is the Perspicuity of Scripture and what has been taught not only since the time of the Reformation but also since the days of the early Church. Watch the first in the series and I break it down a little bit more I believe.
@@PracticalChristianLessons
Well the Scriptures do not claim themselves as clear and I'm not aware of any early church fathers making that claim either. The multiple heresies fought by the early church were mostly brought about through a bad interpretations of Scripture.
@@bridgefin I will be demonstrating this as both the Scriptural teaching and the teaching of the fathers throughout this series. Such as the Irenaeus quote at the start of this video, this is but one of many quotes to come. Irenaeus and many others said the heretics were twisting the Scriptures, often they used the phrase, "they twist the clear meaning" or some variation. Follow along to see for yourself 😃
@@PracticalChristianLessons
I appreciate your reply.
It's funny that you go to the early church fathers on perspicuity of Scripture when you disagree with them on essential matters of salvation. Maybe you think they were pushing your doctrine but then your contradictory beliefs prove that you both are wrong and inconsistent on the essentials.
@@bridgefin We'd also argue they agree with us on essential matters of salvation, and I put forth no contradictory beliefs or inconsistencies. My live stream from last month shows some strong basis in the father on Sola Scriptura, and I will in the future do one on Sola Fide as well. Feel free to follow along and watch them, you will find a surprising amount of things among the fathers completely consistent with not only my own tradition but the beliefs the Reformation sought to revive and renew within the Church🙂
Jesus fulfilled the tanakh not just teach it. He confirmed the scriptures the prophecies and Moses writings. Modern scholar's cause the division. Lastly the Hebrew culture and their own interpretation was not understood because the Roman Catholic church caused the church fathers who had more influences from Greek philosophy.
I'm sorry sir I'm quite confused, how is this comment related to my video? 😅
@PracticalChristianLessons jesus confirmed the tanakh without that the gospels would be invalid.
@@frederickanderson1860 I agree.
@@PracticalChristianLessons ok Thanks for your agreement