Debunking "Bible Alone" with the Bible
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 ส.ค. 2024
- Is sola scriptura in SCRIPTURE? Joe Heschmeyer debunks the unbiblical belief that only the Bible can be trusted.
More Catholic Apologetics: catholic.com
Listen to Joe's podcast that gets into the nitty-gritty of sola scriptura: catholic.com/a...
We all have to remember that the early church and the Apostles did not have a New Testament. They WERE the New Testament!
Oh, that's good. :)
This is true to some extent; however, they still had the OT scriptures that validated and gave testimony to what the Appostles preached; Namely, that Christ is the Holy one of Israel who was promised and foretold by the prophets.
The new testament came by God using the 12 to usher in the new covenant with God as was written. In those days says the Lord I will come and dwell in their midsts and there I will call my people!
@@danielhaas9469 So are you validating or refuting ' Sola Scriptura ' ?
@JG Daillet I am pointing out that scripture cannot be broken as what God says and therefore all the promises and predictions of God becoming man to save it is all in the OT.
This is how we know that the Lord is God by giving us well in advance the future events of the coming Messiah. Therefore, what the 12 taught and preached was nothing new but a proclamation of the fulfillment of what came before happened.
@@danielhaas9469 Yes . That's why the New Testament wasn't written down yet : the Holy Apostles used The Old Testament to write it .
After I saw the false teachings in my church (Protestant denomination), I decided to study what the early church was like. Then I studied the history of the Bible. After knowing Bible history, I knew Sola scriptura was a false teaching. I didn't need scripture to prove it to me. But there are plenty of scripture that proves Sola scriptura false. Matthew 16 :13-19, Matthew 18:17, 1 Timothy 3:15, 2 Peter 1:20-21
I am truly blessed to be Catholic
Not a single one of those passages proves sola scriptura is false. You are just repeating argument and lies you have heard which don't even make sense. Example? Sure Lets take one often used from your list "1 timothy 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou ought to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."
Most catholic using this verse don't even read the verse after it - which lays out the great truth of the church - the coming of christ.and the gospel.
1Ti 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
So Its not for some future truth - the foundation of the truth is in the first century testimony of the revelation of Christ and his teachings - not a thing to do with popes hundreds of years later as if Paul was talking about truth he didn't even have yet. Furthermore you all make another error....
The church in the new testament is ALL BELIEVERS in Christ. MULITLE passages identify the church as ALL believers. Catholics try to switch the meaning of church in the verse to their idea of church leadership as in popes and priests but that not in the text. Similarly all your other verses are a flop. However at least you were honest - you didn't come to your position from reading the early church new testament but from studying your alleged - history of the bible" which almost always means you read spin from writers not scripture.
@@ImtoolVideos
Oh, hello, MikeTrain! Still up to your old tricks, are you?
Why do you ignore Christ’s teaching where He said that unless we eat His flesh & drink His blood we have no life in us? The Lamb of God Who takes away the sin of the world - Our Great Paschal Lamb says we abide in Him when we eat His flesh & drink His blood - & that His flesh is real food, & His blood is real drink. If that is the case, how do you fare? When was the last time you ate & drank as He’d said we should to abide in Him?
Something to consider - when the Israelites were told to prepare the lamb & eat it & to use its blood in the prescribed way, what would happen if they didn’t do these? They died.
Guess what? If you don’t eat the flesh of the Lamb of God & drink His blood, how do you think you’ll have life when Christ Himself told you otherwise?
Come home. Clearly this shows that all “believers” are not alike, & Christ said as much here:
From Mt 7:
21 *Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven* .
22 *Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works* ?
23 *And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity* .
From Jn 15:
1 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.
2 *Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away* : and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.
3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.
4 *Abide in me, and I in you* . *As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me* .
5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: *He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing* .
6 *If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned* .
7 *If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you* , ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.
8 Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples.
9 As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love.
10 *If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love* .
11 These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full.
An awful lot of IFs & commands to “abide in Him”, & to not abide in Him has eternal consequences.
From Jn 6:
53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, *Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you* .
54 *Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day* .
55 *For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed* .
56 *He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him* .
57 *As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me* .
58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
@@kainosktisis777 Who said I don''t? I get it. You can't debate the actual issue so you wish to distract to another topic. So look whose up to using tricks? quick question - If you can answer I'll go with your distraction. if you can;t then you get debunked on both topics.. I eat his flesh and drink his blood just as much as you do and I can verify it with actual proof just as much as you can --- oops! no? Heres the question - when last have you verified that you actually eat the blood and flesh of christ because last time I checked I've never seen a mass with a priest with actual human flesh in his hands - Fraud anyone? or you can point me to the text where jesus said its only his blood and flesh AFTER you ingest it ( and so no one can know if you did or didn't) because in the New testament Jesus says this is his blood and flesh while its still in his hands when he broke it and handed the cup. MY bet is you will answer with church rhetoric and no actual evidence you have EEVERRR eaten his flesh, try and change the subject again or --- we will just hear crickets.
I wish I could be a Catholic. I would love to be part of the Unity and rich history of the Catholic church.
The problem I have is the Catholic church has elevated tradition ABOVE Scripture. Jesus in Mark 7:8 rebukes religious leaders for putting the traditions of man above Scripture.
The Catholic church makes requests of dead saints, which is necromancy, which in an abomination in the Bible. The Bible says Jesus is the ONLY mediator between God and man.
The Catholic church says Mary was a virgin without sin. The Bible says ALL have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God. Jesus is God and was the only sinless Man. Mary had sins that Jesus died for. Mary also had other children because the Bible says Jesus had brothers and sisters.
The Catholic church teaches it is not Grace through Faith alone apart from works that saves you, as the Bible teaches. They teach you have to follow all the rules laid out in the Catholic church to be saved.
@@TJMcCarty Saints are not supposed to replace Jesus as the mediator, but they are the ones who were the closest to God, so it would be wise to ask them to pray for us just like how you'd ask a friend to pray for your sick family member to heal.
You're right, we all fall short to the glory of God as we're all sinful, but that doesn't mean that she wasn't a virgin her whole life. The term "brothers" and "sisters" in the past do not mean the same as nowadays, Jesus did not have brothers and sisters from Mary and Joseph. This is easily confirmed by how scoffers used to call Jesus "the son of a carpenter" (notice how they call Him "the son.." rather than "a son..."). Also another proof is how when Jesus was younger and went to the temple we heard absolutely nothing about His so-called blood related 'siblings' for they would've been with Mary and Joseph. If you want proof about the different meaning of brothers and sisters in the past compared to now, you'd have to see the Hebrewic origins of the word and how it was used, and an example is how in the Old Testament Lot would call Abraham his brother but they were not direct brothers.
I disagree with the last part, the Catholic Church follows the Bible fair and square, you can feel free to not put tradition over scripture as you claim, you're not forced to be super into traditional as a Catholic. One thing's certain is how one should indeed follow the "rules" from the Catholic Church as those "rules" are actually the Bible themselves (don't forget who composed the Bible... yes it's the Catholic Church, those are the rules one should follow). Hope this helps and may God bless you 🙏
I'm a Protestant recently came to the conclusion that Sola scriptura falls short. (It is at best an espotimological framework, not an implicit doctrine)
This video is a helpful summation. The other thing I would add is why would God instruct people to be reliant on written word if 95% of the population at the time and for most of history was illiterate?
Furthermore, how can I be reliant on the bible as the sole rule of faith when we don't even have an official agreeance untill the 4th Century?
This seems almost cruel to have this be the basis, especially for the Early Christians.
Also you have to admit, interpretation of scripture is everything to protestants. You'll have an evangelist saying baptize babies since the apostles baptized entire households. Then you have baptists saying all specific examples of baptism are adults. Scripture doesn't tell us which of these views is correct. Are infants granted mercy? What about kids over the age of 7? Where in scripture is any of that found? The Bible suggests that if there is a disagreement amongst us that cannot be resolved.... that we are to take it before the church to settle. The only way this works is if the church is an authority. Scripture doesn't say debate the issue exegete the text, and if that fails to resolve the issue, start another church. The church is given a higher authority in this instance than scripture because of their respective authoritative roles.
@weaponofchoice-tc7qs That's what the magisterium has been doing for 2000 years. Interpreting scripture and tradition for each generation. Ensuring the same doctrines are upheld and explored to their fullest understanding. Scripture is timeless, the positive to that is nobody's going to be able to change what's being said. If they do they'll be found like the Jehovahs witnesses. The negative to that is every generation that comes along gets new ideas about what the old words mean. The Bible will say don't take the eucharist unworthily or sickness and death Wil follow. Name the protestant group that takes this passage seriously or has any coherent understanding of what this means besides catholics and EOs?
Not once in scripture does it ever imply babies were baptized .Not once ever .
You're one step closer to becoming Catholic, Dylan. :) You're always welcome home.
@@billymimnaugh3998 Not once in scripture does it ever imply baies cannot be baptized. Except where St. Peter does say 'the promise is for you and YOUR CHILDREN'.
If you believe protestant’s are Christian then you believe Jesus founded 48,000 protestant churches??? In truth it’s 48,000 protestant CULTS. Question where do protestant’s do there so called baptising? Question what are they so called baptised into?
Look at us... talking about the same thing in our recent uploads.
Great minds think alike 🧠
You guys are very good !!!!
But only How To Be Christian has a floating Martin Luther head living behind the couch.
@@MystoRobot The reformation is still using catholic doctrine like the trinity and it has no name for God still. Yahuah and Yahusha = Father and Son. You can learn from mans doctrine but truth only comes from Yahs word. It's a rabbit hole finding truth.
@@MystoRobot because sometime Luther is on his side
I love watching protestant ministers and and lay people...not to point out erroneous interpretations but to grow in the Grace Christ gave us all.
I can say I'm so glad I'm a Catholic! ❤
God bless you. I am happy to be in His Body.
Well that's not nice.
(1 Corinthians 4:6) (1 Corinthians 15:3) both say to go by Scripture alone
@@Nick-wn1xw that was half a year ago when I was deceived by protestantism
Someone writes : “the Catholic religion does not come from GOD”. First of all, there is no "Catholic religion"!! we must talk about “CATHOLIC CHRISTIANITY”! Then, Christianity comes from JESUS CHRIST himself!! Because JESUS CHRIST, the son of God who died ON the CROSS and rose 3 days later. JESUS himself founded the Christian worship : the EUCHARIST and consecrated the first priests. The Gospel is very clear. The teachings of the Catholic Church are conform 100% to the Gospel. 100% !
Scripture
Tradition
History
Whose tradition and whose history?
@@geordiewishart1683
You already knew, your just plain mockery..
People like you, no need to explain.. l know your kind.
@@geordiewishart1683 Catholic Church that Jesus started , were do you think the Mass comes from ,The Last Supper , Eucharist and Bishops in the first century , St. Ignatius 50-108 AD. Quote " Where Jesus Christ is , there is the Catholic Church , Ignatius and Polycarp were in direct line with the apostles and John taught them they even knew the Mary was a perpetual virgin no brothers or sisters , Why would God let Jesus's DNA and blood be contaminated by any Humans and be buried in the ground in Rev. 12 that Is Mary .
Miracles - Eucharistic, Incorruptible bodies of the saints, image of Our Lady of Guadalupe, Miracle of the Sun in Fátima, etc. Etc.
@@geordiewishart1683
Tradition handed down by Christ through His Apostles & down through the ages through
the Apostles’ successors.
Scripture whose canon was discerned through through the Church & the Christian Bible completed by the late 4th century.
History with the birth of the Church dating back to Pentecost.
As a former Protestant (Now Catholic) I agree with the general premise of the arguments presented here but I think we also need to be fair in how we present the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. The emphasis of Sola Scriptura is on scripture being "the sole *infallible* rule of faith" not on relying on scripture alone as a source of doctrine. We therefore need a little bit more nuance in how we critique the doctrine. The focus of our critique needs to centre on why scripture is not the only *infallible* source of revelation rather than why scripture is not the *only* source of revelation.
Oh thank you, I was just gonna write that I think this argument is not really hitting the protestant position. I am not a protestant but I remember a debate and I think this point was brought up, that the whole "where does it say the bible is enough in the bible" is not totally fair. Thanks for speaking up!
The point is a good one; but ... there is no one single and universally agreed on "Protestant position" about this (or anything else, I sometimes think, except perhaps the bits that are also already Catholic, like the creeds). Some Protestant individuals and even some groups do hold to the more extreme position; and others finesse the "sola" so much that it hardly means what it says at all. But your point is valid: in apologetics people have to be more precise and careful lest they fail not only truth but also charity.
Fallible Protestant's interpret an infallible Bible. Fallible Catholic's submit to the Church to interpret infallibly an infallible Bible AND Tradition.
The Seat of Peter, which Jesus Himself entrusted the KEYS of the kingdom of heaven and the church, has infallible teaching.
thus you need
• Apostolic Teaching
• Scripture
• Teaching Authority
Thank you so much for that Joe. You hit the nail on this one. It was so hard for me to defend the catholic position because they keep interrupting me every 10 seconds so they could raise more objections. I give up having to deal with uncharitable behavior in an interfaith dialog, it's easier to send a link to your podcasts, whether or not they bother to view it. 😅
😂 That's what I call ' a monologue ' .
Amen to that! Protestant theology is so erroneous and very facepalm. It's rather annoying the way they attack Catholicism based off their own interpretation of scripture. @_@ Thanks for the video, because a poor protestant fellow just two days ago randomly started commenting on one of my videos with the typical anti-Catholic, Protestant theology, so interesting timing. :)
Also, who video edited this video? I got a good chuckle at 0:24 with the quick, garbled translation on screen from what he said. 😆
Prostestants stole everything from the Catholics … plus some 30000 have converted to Catholicism anyway
Protestant theology comes only from scripture.
Catholic theology seems to take inspiration from all manner of pagan religions.
Eg prayer beads
@@geordiewishart1683 but who wrote the bible , even today there are so many Protestant's rewriting bibles , changing words for different meanings to there beliefs so now the bibles becomes fallible , that is why tradition ,is important it is true , Even Muslims have prayer beads .
@@ronaldeglewski3073 Revelation 22:18-19
@@geordiewishart1683
Perhaps to the unlearned & misinformed, it appears pagan, but when closely examined, it is VERY JEWISH.
For thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.
Psalm 138:2.
2 Timothy 2:15
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
Psalm 119:103.
How sweet are thy words unto my taste! Yea, sweeter than honey 🍯 to my mouth.
Psalm 119:105
Thy word is a 🔦 unto my feet, And a light💡 unto my path.
John 17:17
Thy word is truth. ⚖
Everything you just said is Catholic teaching. None of those scriptures say that scripture is the sole authority. You wouldn’t have the Bible without sacred tradition. You can’t divorced the two. Especially since the Bible says to “CLING to the TRADITIONS we taught you, whether by word or by letter”-Paul
@@trevorsrq6179 The following are some of the words which tell us how God would have us regard his word:
Pure -perfect -sure -truth- eternal- forever settled in heaven - it sanctifies- it causes spiritual growth- it is God breathed- it is authoritative- it gives wisdom unto salvation - it makes simple wise- it is living an active- it is a guide-it is a fire- it is a hammer- it is a seed- it is a sword of the Spirit
- it gives knowledge of god- it is a lamp to our feet- a light to our path- that which produces reverence for God- it heals- makes free- illuminates- produces faith- regenerates- converts the soul brings- brings conviction of sin- restraints from sin- is spiritual food- is infallible- inerrant- irrevocable- it searches the heart and mind- produces life- defeats satan- proves truth - refutes error - is Holy - equips for every good work- is the Word of the living God.
Psalm 119:9-11, 38, 105, 133, 160.
Psalm 19:7-11
Psalm 111:7-8
Isaiah 40:8
Ephesians 5:26
2 Timothy 3:15-17
Jeremiah 5:14, 23:29
Matthew 13:18-23
Ephesians 6:17
Psalm 107:20
Titus 2:5
1 Peter 1:23 , 2:2
Acts 20:32
John 8:23 ,10:35 , 17:17
It is impossible to find a more convincing argument for the sufficiency of Scripture than these descriptions. And no such language is ever used about tradition in the Scriptures.
We are told in explicit terms that Scripture is inspired, but never is that said of tradition. On the contrary, when the New Testament speaks of tradition it does so in words of warning (Matthew 15:2-6; Mark 7:3-13; Colossians 2;8 1 Peter 1:18; Galatians 1:14).
Any claim that such belief in scripture was created by Paul and other disciples must also be rejected. It is the express teaching of christ Jesus himself. Christianity is founded upon the person and the work of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God. His attitude to the scriptures is supremely important. Since he is God, then all that He teaches must be true and authoritative.
@@markwilson1724ll of these things you mention is about God's Word. The mistake you make is thinking that God's Word is restricted only to the scriptures! In many places (such as 2 timothy) it is talking about scripture, but in others, it is talking about oral teaching!
1 thes 2:13
"And for this reason we too give thanks to God unceasingly, that, in receiving the word of God from hearing us, you received not a human word but, as it truly is, the word of God, which is now at work in you who believe."
1 peter 1:24-25
"for:
“All flesh is like grass,
and all its glory like the flower of the field;
the grass withers,
and the flower wilts;
but the word of the Lord remains forever.”
This is the word that has been proclaimed to you."
The Word of God is not restricted to what is written! The Word of God is also PREACHED! that's why Paul exhorts the thessalonians to hold fast to the things the Apostles teach whether it be written or preached! Because in both cases, it is "GOD BREATHED!"
@@matthewoburke7202 How would you know if it was God's word if it wasn't written 🤔
Be a good Berean & search the scriptures to see if these things are true.
Acts 17:11 😉👌
@@markwilson1724 the passages i gave you state that the word is "Proclaimed" or recieved by "Hearing us." The implication is that it was transmitted by word of mouth!
1 thess 3:6
"We instruct you, brothers, in the name of [our] Lord Jesus Christ, to shun any brother who conducts himself in a disorderly way and not according to the tradition they received from us."
Amen, & to that goes authoritative interp, hence Magisterium, the Councils, the Creeds, the Catechism, the beautiful tradition including the great martyrs of the full holy faith Catholicism
SOLA SCRIPTURA NOLA SCRIPTURAE ( 2 Peter 1: 20-21)........🇺🇸🇺🇲🇻🇦📖⛪❤️🙏🛐👼😇✝️☦️🕊️❤️
@@WeaponofChoice-hx2hn Amen and Roger That, Solid Copy, " Weapon of Choice". My Weapons System ( WPNSYS): Colt M4A1 SOPMOD Carbine in 5.56 mm x 45 NATO , and , Psalm 144:1.
@@WeaponofChoice-hx2hn Amen and Roger That, Solid Copy, Brother. Keep The Faith. Always Faithful Always Forward. GOD Bless America In The Name of Jesus Christ.
Mark 7:7-9
7 They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules.’
8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.”
9 And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!
Yeah, that pretty much sums up Protestantism.
That verse is about Protestantism. Totally unbiblical since Protestants reject the authority of Jesus Christ and His Church. Protestants do what is right in their own eyes.
this verse describes people breaking away from the original church christ started (catholicism and orthodoxy before the schism) and following the leadership of man made religions started by ordinary people, such as protestantism
The problem is that catholic application of tradition and council authority has caused them to teach things that are in opposition to the bible. That is why sola scriptura is an important hermeneutic. It does not mean that you can't follow the advice of a council or tradition but that these are not elevated above scripture. Only scripture is infallible not councils or popes or traditions. Even Peter was not infallible. In Mt 16: 13-23 we see Jesus rebuke Peter as Satan after you claim he was named pope. The bible clearly teaches many RC doctrines are false. Mary veneration, mediation, sinlessness and assumption, indulgences, Jesus being called down and sacrificed over and over again in the mass to start with. Teaching a Jesus that is insufficient to redeem and save amounts to teaching a different gospel and Paul says that is anathema.
Love see your idiocy on display
The church doesn’t teach anything that is opposite of the Bible; only your 505 yr old or less understanding of it & misunderstanding of Catholic doctrine. Trent never anathematized the Gospel, only the invented Protestant version of it. When everything is understood, in proper context, everything makes sense and fits together like a perfect puzzle that man could never construct himself, but rather is of God. Catholicism is the most Christocentric and Biblical Christianity there is & affirms every word of scripture is true-why would we teach anything that could be easily refuted with the Bible of that were true? Context. Protestants proof text out of context and create pretexts. They are deceived for the simplicity that is in Christ. They rely on their “Theology” and intellect & miss the mark.
No, we’re not re-sacrificing Jesus-you didn’t even get the basic tenants of the faith right in this post-No wonder you’re so confused! Protestants just keep parroting misinformation to each other & know nothing about Catholicism
@@trevorsrq6179 Read end of Heb. 9 - 10:18 and tell me you still want or need to to sacrifice Jesus again and again or have purgatory for starters.
@@jameswalter3136That’s not what the Mass is. That’s why we can say with 100% certainty that you’re wrong and that it doesn’t go against the Scriptures.
2 TIMOTHY 3:16..."ALL SCRIPTURE" IS GIVEN BY INSPIRATION OF GOD, AND IS PROFITABLE FOR DOCTRINE, FOR REPROOF, FOR CORRECTION, FOR INSTRUCTION IN RIGHTEOUSNESS: THAT THE MAN OF GOD MAY BE PERFECT,THROUGHLY FURNISHED UNTO ALL GOOD WORKS. THE PURE HOLY WORD OF GOD IS ALL A BORN AGAIN BELIEVER NEED AND NOT MAN-MADE TRADITIONS NOR CHURCH "FATHERS" INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURES...!!
🤯
It is also written scripture:
2 Peter 1:20-21
20 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 because no prophecy ever came by human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
2 Thessalonians 2:15
15 So then, brothers and sisters,[a] stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.
Or straight from Jesus:
Matthew 18:15-17
15 “If another member of the church[a] sins against you,[b] go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one.[c] 16 But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the CHURCH; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the CHURCH, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
And if you read 2Peter, the last three letters of John, and the equally short letter of Jude all together they make it clear scripture doesn’t at all condone disrespecting authority. John seems to have had quite enough of it… Jude goes soo far as to say those who abuse these freedoms are a part in Korah’s rebellion from Numbers chapter 16. (That’s worth a prayerful read also) Korah felt he didn’t need Moses, only the law. God had strong thoughts on that too.
Just your man-made interpretation?
This doesn’t prove sola scriptura at all. All this passage says is that the whole Bible is given by God. This doesn’t imply that it is the only source of God’s Will.
Matthew 16:18-19 “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
AND IS PROFITABLE FOR DOCTRINE don't see alone their By the way you reject works..THE MAN OF GOD MAY BE PERFECT,THROUGHLY FURNISHED UNTO ALL GOOD WORKS
It is the Catholic Church that put the list of the Books of the New Testament. Why not the Gospel of Thomas ? Why not the Gospel of Philip ? Why not the Gospel of Peter?, are not in the list of NT. Because Jesus established the Catholic Church which became the gatekeeper as many heresies spurting and sprouting in the early church, the Holy Spirit uses the Church of Jesus to detect the Apostolic hallmarks in those Gospels.
The books chosen by the councils were those that were clearly apostolic in nature. Where books were not clearly apostolic in nature they were not canonized … they are still allowed to be read but they are not seen as being truly authored by the apostles they claim to be even though they may illustrate the workings of the early church.
Jesus instituted a universal church to be made up of all believers around the world.
But this church, to include all believers regardless of how they might label themselves, was not what we today recognise as the Roman Catholic church.
The church in Rome was a far cry from the Church of Rome.
I say there is no salvation outside Christ.
Catholics claim there is no salvation outside of the Church.
Which is more Christian?
@@geordiewishart1683 If you say there is no salvation outside Christ, that means there is no salvation outside His Church, which is the Catholic Church. So, basically you are saying the same thing...
@@geordiewishart1683 Christian writings from the first and second century disagree with you. What the apostles taught and what the church practiced are the same things the Catholic Church does to this day.
You name your denomination and we will see how close to Christ and the first church you actually are. I know you won’t because you are afraid of the scrutiny as what you practice doesn’t stand up to what Christ asked people to do
@@geordiewishart1683Jesus said unless you eat this bread which is my body and drink this wine which is my blood, you shall not have eternal life in you. None of the 40,000+ man made Faiths believe this teaching of Jesus Christ, yet the Satanists go to great lengths to steal the consecrated hosts because unlike all the man made Faiths they know it is the True presence of Jesus Christ. Only in Christ's Church.
Saying Grace alone faith alone and bible alone is heresy a heretic gospel
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.
Why did St. Paul say, "Hold on to both the Spoken/Oral Tradition and Written (Epistles/letters) Tradition?"... (ref. 2 Thessa 2:15)... because St. Paul knew he would not see the Final Completion of the WRITTEN TRADITION after his martyred down (beheaded) in around 64 A.D. ... The Last to be written down were the Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation in around 110 A.D.
According to John 21:25... there were many EVENTS that Christ Jesus had done but were not written down for the whole world can not contain them... Therefore, God had summarized all the EVENTS that Christ Jesus had done and had chosen only those with GREAT IMPORTANCE to Mankind's SALVATION to be written down by Inspired MEN (not women) guided by the Holy Spirit and completed them in around 110 A.D.
Other written books after the Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation around 110 A.D. onward were no longer included in the WORD OF GOD (Holy Scriptures)... such as the written Gospel of Peter, Thomas, Magdalene, Mary, Judas, Enoch, Pontius Pilate, etc...
After the Written WORD of God was Finally COMPLETED in around 110 A.D., it became more AUTHORITATIVE than the Oral Tradition. (ref. 2 Timothy 3:16)... As long as the Oral Tradition does not contradict the Written Tradition, that means, God still wanted them to be practiced... However, if not, the Written Tradition must supersede, overrule, and remove that particular Oral Tradition to be practiced by True Christians...
This was God's WILL (Prerogative), for if it (Oral) is still required/needed, God would allow them to be written down in the first place... logically speaking.
The Oral and Written Traditions must be UNITED as ONE w/o Division/Confusion... One (United) God, One WORD (Scripture), and One (Spiritual) TRUTH...
St. Paul warned all True Christians, "DO NOT GO/EXCEED WHAT IS WRITTEN," and God's CURSE for those who will DO. (ref. 1 Corin. 4:6 & Gal. 1:8)...
Facts and Truth, Biblically and logically speaking... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen.
Very briefly and beautifully you have summed up the arguments against Sola Scriptura. Thank you.
How did God rule over Israel? Through the TORAH, right? How could Israel have a written source of authority without, I don't know, the church to decide whether Leviticus belonged in the TORAH?
You NEVER see Jesus quote from an other texts than the ones deemed canonical by both the Jews themselves and protestants. In 2 Thess 2:15 Pauls speaks about the teachings of HIM and the other APOSTLES. And as protestants we just say that canon was closed after the time of the apostles.
According to Sola Scriptura whatever Jesus SAID was not authoritative. He might have been if he had only written it down!
Another great verse debunking Sola Scriptura is Matthew 16:19, “I[Jesus] will give you[Peter] the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
The Seat of Peter, which Jesus Himself entrusted the KEYS of the kingdom of heaven and the church, has infallible teaching.
thus you need
• Apostolic Teaching
• Scripture
• Teaching Authority
Who is the definition of solo scriptura it’s like denying that Jesus is part of the Trinity and only Jesus is part of the Trinity. The Catholic Church also teaches to submit to the religious leaders and I’m pretty sure that the Bible wants that.
2 Thessalonians 2:15 [15] “So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.” [were taught, not going to be taught]. One body of truth, give in two ways, either by word or letter. Not two different truths. Demonstrate what the Thessalonians were already taught, as Paul says. The content that was orally transmitted, must in content differ from what was written, that would be 1 Thessalonians. Or all of Paul’s other writings or that of any of the other apostles wrote.
2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by US, either by word of mouth or by letter.
Here St Paul says to the church at Thessalonica that they ought to keep to the traditions that were taught by “us” referring to Paul and his apprentices, Paul was only in Thessalonica for about 3 sabbath days (3 weeks) and we have basically all of his traditions in the book of acts detailing his trip there. So no, this verse is not telling that we need to hold to ALL traditions, however, tradition is important, but it needs to submit to the Bible. Example: an ancient tradition (around 1-2 century A.D) was that someone needed to fast for 2 day prior to being baptized. This tradition is not held in any church today, if so very few. Why? Because it’s not anywhere in scripture.
Genuine question
If the Pope or the Church teaches something contrary to the Bible then which do you believe?
Check out the debate with James white and voice of reason!
But if the church or the pope teaches doctrine contradictory to the Bible (which it hasn’t) then Catholicism would be false
Sorry Sam I didn't really see you, until after i commented. 😢 I find it hard to fight for the gospel. Its so easy for y'all.😞
This is off subject but I just heard that before his assassination John F Kennedy went to confession. Maybe he had a feeling of what was to pass. 🙏
Amazing explanation guys!
The early church was about the tradition's of men It led to a popular belief that Jesus is your Savior, and that it is of the flesh that you are saved. The Son of God did not teach this. The Son of man did not teach this. only the world, and the tradition's of men teach this. God is Spirit, and holy. He doesn't need your traditions. A Spirit became flesh and died for you, and for two thousand years you have made it of the flesh.
If you say the bible alone can be debunked , and add beliefs that contradicts the bible, then that is debunked.
So the question I have and I do submit to the majestierium of the church. How does it relate to the written Catechism of the church. Is there a point to be made there since it was written after the books of the Bible?
If I understand your question correctly, this should answer it: catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/is-the-catechism-extra-stuff
@@catholiccom very helpful thank you so much!
@@dylanschweitzer18 Like asking Hitler for advice on what to do with Jews. Stay away from their doctrines and read the Bible without their shit in it. Jesus does not like catholic religion as it takes away from him.
The Catechism explains the faith.
Instead of digging through Scripture & not knowing where to find the answers, the Catechism is the faith explained in a specific format that follows the Nicaean Creed & has the Scriptural & historical support for the teachings.
@@kainosktisis777 You need to read scripture yourself and trust in Gods word. Constantine started your church and you are lied too about what you believe. There won't be 1 catholic that passes through the narrow gate and that's a fact not 1 no matter how good they are as you directly defy Yahuah and what he tells us. Man doesn't have the authority to change anything he said no matter who they were. The disciples and apostles were there to spread his word not change it. A little research and you'd see instead of defending your cult religion. Easter and christmas are pagan traditions and not even on the proper dates. So many signs of things being wrong yet you still defend it because the church fathers said this and that. They have 0 authority and were serving satan and you trusting them over Yah is on you. I told you to check the 10 commandments already and I know you didn't because you wouldn't be here defending satan and his cult if you did. 2030 Yahusha returns and if you are alive you will be receiving his wrath the same as all the unbelievers and haters. You are wasting your time defending that shit to me as I know what's truth or not as the Spirit gives that straight away. I don't have to pretend I have it either like catholics do. satans best religious deception is you guys and you will always believe him because he is your god that you worship and he says solas scripture is to be avoided as you'd find truth then.
Revelation 22:18 NIV
"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll."
Believing something along with the Bible does not mean you're adding anything to it.
@@kathrynstocco1117
Mark 7:13 NIV
"Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”
@@kathrynstocco1117 Actually yes because it means that you don't consider that the Bible is sufficient in doctrinal matters.
If anything that says no one should modify revelations.
It explicitly says "this scroll"
Remember that Revelations was very nearly excluded from the Bible altogether
The Bible wasn't even put together when that was written, and as @alonsoACR said - the verse specifically says "this scroll".
We have to remember people bare their own fruit according to the New testament.. to be called Christian first then Christian Catholic as the birth of the church
The church has had a few problems- not the bible.
The bible's only problem is that no two people get the same meaning out of it.
I firmly stand by sola scriptura. The problem with this video is they fail to understand what sola scriptura means. I mean no offense by this, most Catholics and protestants don’t understand it actually. It don’t mean that scripture is the only authority. Tradition, saints, history, and influential Christian teachers all still bear authority but non are infallible except scripture. Scripture is the highest authority and all other are checked by it. Sola scriptura doesn’t mean it’s the only authority.
So you haven't understood the meaning of "Sola Scriptura"- it means Scripture alone.
That is the literal translation but that has never been what it meant in doctrine. It means it is the only infallible authority!
@Josiah McCarley The Magesteirum of the Church that wrote & put together the Bible is also an Infallible Authority. No wonder Protestants interpret Scripture in their own terms & came up with several contradicting interpretations leading to several denominations all with different interpretations of the Bible.
Why would you firmly stand behind a 505 year old tradition of men that was started by a guy who wanted to burn 4 books of the New Testament and likely damned himself by removing seven books of the Old Testament (per the warning in revelation about being blotted out the Lamb’s Book of Life) & said our Lord fornicated with the woman at the well & to be a sinner and sin boldly? He started your tradition, you have to either be all in or all out-you can’t pick and choose what you like from Luther or you have no credibility.
@@trevorsrq6179 *a guy who wanted to burn 4 books of the New Testament and likely damned himself by removing seven books of the Old Testament*
Luther didn't remove anything. But since its your claim please provide the documentation where he did this. Thanks
...the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be COMPLETE, equipped for every good work.
2 Timothy 3:15-17
Complete is a synonym for sufficient. As for 2 Thessalonians 2:15, the traditions mentioned are known to the whole Church. Not secrets told to Bishops that did not yet exist.
to bad you reject good works
@@bibleman8010
We don't, verse 17 mentions good works, also:
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
Ephesians 2:8-10 ESV
@@allisvanity...9161 Lie i said proties reject works
@@bibleman8010
We believe that we are saved by Faith alone, but saving Faith is never alone. Good deeds are the consequence, not a cause of being born again.
@@allisvanity...9161 sorry you cant find luthers invention of faith alone in the bible
WHAT DOES “FAITH” REALLY MEAN???🤦♂🤦♂
To properly interpret Sacred Scripture you have to understand the verse IN CONTEXT of what the author was intending to convey during his particular time period and culture not ours, the verse within the chapter, the chapter within the book, and the book within the Bible as a whole. Are you aware St. Paul as ”a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth” 1 Timothy 2:7 was constantly writing to defend Gentiles from Mosaic Ceremonial “Works of the Law” (circumcision). Are you aware St. Paul in Romans and Galatians was arguing for the Gentiles to be accepted strictly on "faith" in Jesus Christ through using Abraham as an example who was “justified” and made “righteous” on “faith” yet still uncircumcised???
St. Paul was emphasizing in Romans only "ONE SIDE" of a two sided coin (One side FAITH and the other side WORKS). St. Paul used the "faith" side to argue for the Gentiles to be accepted and grafted in. The other side of the coin "WORKS" was written about in the Book of James (Book of James was written for people like you who were misinterpreting St. Paul in Romans). James 2:24 "You see a man is justified by works, and NOT BY FAITH ALONE". AGAIN, THE BIBLE, THE WORD OF GOD SAYS "NOT BY FAITH ALONE". "Faith and Works" which Jesus Christ clearly taught and the Catholic Church continues to teach in obedience.
For example, you all seem to miss Paul's introduction in Romans 2:6-7 "FOR HE WILL RENDER TO EVERY MAN ACCORDING TO HIS WORKS: TO THOSE WHO BY PATIENCE IN WELL-DOING SEEK FOR GLORY AND HONOR AND IMMORTAILY, HE WILL GIVE ETERNAL LIFE".
Now, wait a minute you just said all I have to do is "believe"???
Luke 6:37-38 and Matthew 7:1-2 "Judge NOT, that you be not judged. For with the Judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get". So now, I cannot judge harshly otherwise I will be judged harshly by GOD.
Matthew 7:21-23 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord’, shall enter the Kingdom of Heaven, BUT HE WHO DOES THE WILL OF MY FATHER IN HEAVEN”. Now, I have to do the Father’s will to even enter the “Kingdom of Heaven”???
Matthew 10:33 “But WHOEVER DENIES ME BEFORE MEN, I WILL ALSO DENY BEFORE MY FATHER who is in heaven”. Now, I have to never deny Jesus before men or risk rejection myself???
Mark 16:16 “He who believes AND IS BAPTIZED will be saved. See 1 Peter 3:21 also. Now, I have to be baptized to be saved???
John 13:34 “A NEW COMMANDMENTS I GIVE TO YOU, THAT YOU LOVE ONE ANOTHER; EVEN AS I HAVE LOVED YOU, THAT YOU ALSO LOVE ONE ANOTHER. THIS IS ALL SHALL KNOW THAT YOU ARE MY DISCIPLES, IF YOU HAVE LOVE FOR ONE ANOTHER”. Now, no love then I am not a disciple??? How did Jesus love us and now He commands us to do the same??? Did Jesus say I love you “one time” and do nothing else??? Nope, Jesus Christ showed us what LOVE IS by being selfless sacrificial, and emptying Himself out on the cross for us!!!
Luke 8:21 “My mother and MY BRETHREN ARE THOSE WHO HEAR THE WORD OF GOD AND DO IT”. Wait a minute, now I have to “DO” what I am told in the WORD of GOD to be considered a “part” of GOD’s family???
1 John 3:18-19 “Children, let us love not in word and speech, BUT IN DEED AND IN TRUTH. BY THIS WE SHALL KNOW ARE WE OF THE TRUTH”. What does this clearly say about a one-time verbal profession of faith???
Matthew 7:19 "EVERY TREE THAT DOES NOT BEAR GOOD FRUIT IS CUT DOWN AND THROWN INTO THE FIRE" Now, I have to bear good fruit otherwise I risk damnation???
John 15:8 “By this my Father is glorified, that YOU BEAR MUCH FRUIT, AND SO PROVE TO BE MY DISCIPLES”. Once again, I have to “bear fruit” and now “prove to be” Jesus Christ’s disciple.
Colossians 1:10 “LEAD A LIFE WORTHY OF THE LORD, FULLY PLEASING TO HIM, BEARING FRUIT IN EVERY GOOD WORK and increasing knowledge of GOD” There’s that “FRUIT” thing again that one must “do” to be “FULLY PLEASING” to GOD.
Revelation 2:4-5 “But I have this against you, that you have ABANDONED THE LOVE YOU HAD AT FIRST. Remember then from what you have fallen, REPENT AND DO THE WORKS YOU DID AT FIRST. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place”. Now, we have to through our repentance “DO WORKS” otherwise a “remove your lampstand” consequence will befall us??? Does that sound like we will still be saved without “WORKS”???
John 5:29 “THOSE WHO HAVE DONE GOOD, TO THE RESURRECTION OF LIFE, AND THOSE WHO HAVE DONE EVIL, TO THE RESURRECTION OF JUDGMENT”. Now, I have to do “GOOD” and avoid “EVIL” or sin to avoid “JUDGMENT”???
John 3:5”TRULY, TRULY I SAY TO YOU, UNLESS ONE IS BORN OF WATER AND THE SPIRIT, HE CANNOT ENTER THE KINGDOM OF GOD". Now, I have to be REBORN of "Water (Baptism) and SPIRIT (Laying of Hands)" to even enter the ONE “Kingdom of GOD”???
John 6:54 "HE WHO EATS MY FLESH AND DRINKS MY BLOOD HAS ETERNAL LIFE". Now, I have to eat the “Lamb of GOD” (John 1:29, 1 Corinthians 5:7, 1 Peter 1:19) to be saved???
1 Corinthians 11:27-29 “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the LORD in an UNWORTHY MANNER will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the LORD. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks WITHOUT DISCERNING THE BODY EATS AND DRINKS JUDGMENT UPON HIMSELF”. Now, I have to be “worthy” to partake of the “Lamb of GOD” otherwise I risk JUDGMENT???
James 1:22, 25 “BE DOERS OF THE WORD, AND NOT HEARERS ONLY, DECEIVING YOURSELVES”…”BUT HE WHO LOOKS IN THE PERFECT LAW (referring to John 13:34), THE LAW OF LIBERTY, AND PERSEVERES, BEING NO HEARER THAT FORGETS BUT A DOER THAT ACTS, HE SHALL BE BLESSED IN HIS DOING”. James who was one of the three most beloved disciples in Jesus’s “inner circle” what does he clearly teach here???
Romans 15:18 “For I will not dare to speak of anything except what Jesus Christ has accomplished through me TO LEAD THE GENTILES TO OBEDIENCE BY WORD AND DEED”. St. Paul now emphasizing I need to be OBEDIENT BY WORD AND DEED???
Philippians 2:12 "Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, WORK OUT YOUR OWN SALVATION WITH FEAR AND TREMBLING". Wait a minute, I thought you said St. Paul said all I need to do is "believe" and I am saved??? The Bible and St. Paul here is telling me I have to continue in "Good Works" to "WORK OUT YOUR SALVATION"???
Acts 26:20 “Declared…..that they should repent and turn to GOD and PERFORM DEEDS WORTHY OF THEIR REPENTANCE”
2 Thessalonians 1:8 “INFLICTING VENGENCE upon those who do not know GOD and those WHO DO NOT OBEY THE GOSPEL OF OUR LORD JESUS”. Now, I have to OBEY THE GOSPEL OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST”???
2 Corinthians 5:10 “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, SO THAT EACH MAY RECEIVE GOOD OR EVIL, ACCORDING TO WHAT HE HAS DONE IN THE BODY”. So, now I HAVE TO DO GOOD???
*John 3:36 “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, BUT WHOEVER DISOBEYS THE SON WILL NOT SEE LIFE, BUT THE WRATH OF GOD REMAINS UPON HIM”.*
*John 5:29 “THOSE WHO HAVE DONE GOOD, TO THE RESURRECTION OF LIFE, AND THOSE WHO HAVE DONE EVIL, TO THE RESURRECTION OF DEATH”*
John 8:51 “Truly, Truly, I say to you, IF ANY ONE KEEPS MY WORD, he will never see death”
Hebrews 5:9 “He became the source of eternal salvation TO ALL WHO OBEY HIM”.
Acts 5:32 “And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit WHOM GOD HAS GIVEN TO THOSE WHO OBEY HIM”
I could go on and on, but I think you get the point. "Believe" is a loaded word full of expectations for the sons and daughters of GOD. "BELIEVE" really means to "OBEY". Faith is only the first step towards Heaven, and LOVE is the second step which is an ACTION out of OBEDIENCE. FAITH AND WORKS just as the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church teaches.
I happened to open up Acts, written by Luke as a follow up to Luke. Act’s emphasized the work of the Holy Spirit in the Christian community. But 3000 years later Protestant reformers trashed every Christian that existed before Martin Luther. Since Americans are so dumb, this means not only trashed RC church but all the Orthodox and the very early Coptic Christians from Egypt.. Why do say this, I would have expected the Holy Spirit to have protected the early Christian communities as written in Acts. But Protestants do not believe this. They think Christ made big BooBoo. You know: errored in founding Christian church.
*But 3000 years later Protestant reformers trashed every Christian that existed before Martin Luther.*
Talk about a boo boo.
Waldensians and Hussite, never heard about them ?
Orthodoxy claims to be the true church as well as Catholics as well as Ethiopians and many more. Who has reason ?
As the Godhead has three persons constituting one God, so does the word of God have three parts constituting one word of God: the written word of God (logos), the rhema word of God (Holy Spirit-breathed), the word of God who became flesh (Jesus). All three constitute Sola Scriptura, because all three are forever written in heaven.
Holy spirit is not a separate entity. GOD is Father and Son. YAHWEH and JESUS. Names are Important and if the holy spirit was another part of GOD he'd have one. It's GODS spirit that lives in us when we find out how. I have it in my heart I know what I'm on about. There is no three just the 2. Not 1 priest or person teaching people fake doctrine will be in heaven and anyone that believes what they teach won't be there either. Don't listen to me go and do some research for yourselves. We aren't too far off Jesus returning either so I'd find the truth sooner rather than later. I'm writing this out of love as Hell isn't somewhere I want anyone to go. I hate Religion not the people in it. I'm sure the host is a good person too just believes mans word over our Creators.
Tell us how the Holy Spirit is not God.
@@dannisivoccia2712 Tell me how he is. I'm not saying He isn't real I'm just saying he's not the 3rd part of a trinity that is a 2 part Father and Son. Nowhere in the old testament does it say anything about a trinity. It's 2 read the Bible yourself and see.
@@dannisivoccia2712 Matthew 10:20 btw. Don't just believe you need to seek what's true or not. All you have to do is check when the trinity came about. All the old pagan religions had the trinity. Can't be the spirit of the father and be his own person at the same time.
@@Bouncer83
You introduced the claim that the Holy Spirit is not part of the Godhead. The burden of proof is on you to show how He is not from the Scriptures.
Can I hold that I believe all doctrine is found in the scriptures at least in a shadow that is taught in tradition such as our ladies assumption etc?
That's a good question. I'm not an apologist (I just manage the channel), but in my quick research it seems that they are closely connected and supported by scripture. here's an excerpt from Dei Verbum (more info in the scripture and tradition link below).
“Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit. To the successors of the apostles, sacred Tradition hands on in its full purity God’s word, which was entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit.
“Thus, by the light of the Spirit of truth, these successors can in their preaching preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same devotion and reverence.”
Here are some in-depth articles written by those smarter than I:
www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-biblical-roots-of-the-marian-doctrines
www.catholic.com/tract/scripture-and-tradition
Hope that lengthy reply helps!
I am pretty sure you can. This should be the difference between formal sufficiency and material sufficiency. The materials efficiency would be that everything that needs to be known is in the Bible is just not explicitly laid out.
For Mary's assumption specifically, you can look to the paralels between her and the ark of the Covenant. Mary is the ark of the New Covenant, and the Ark is in heaven, as we see in Revelation.
@@360Roko In the OT, the ark appeared a few times then it stopped being mentioned. In NT, Mary was mentioned a few times then stopped being mentioned. See any similarities. Though I think that argument is a bit flawed cuz I could apply that to any other person in the Bible. But Mary is the ark of the new covenant so it only follows that she is the one the ark in OT was pointing to.
Watch Trent Horn debated Steve Christie where Steve claimed that the Scripture CONTRADICTS the Marian Dogmas but somehow skip the 1st one, Theotokos...that will be good for you to study. God bless
By saying that tradition over the scripture alone, then question about praying and bowing to Mary for example, is it tradition from the early first century when the church was established or during centuries later have been developed?
What the apostle Paul was really saying at 2 Thessalonians 2:15 is that there were some traditions, or teachings that Paul urged Christians to maintain. However, these all were BASED ON THE SCRIPTURES and were totally in harmony with them! Obviously, the traditions he spoke of weren’t the ones held by false religion and promoted as if they were as valuable as what’s found in the Scriptures.
Rather, Paul was referring to the teachings that he and others had received from Jesus as well as what God moved the apostle to transmit, and which became part of the inspired Scriptures. Jesus referred only to the Scriptures when he rebuked Satan in Matthew 4:1-11 by saying: “It is written.” And he said: “Your Word is Truth” at John 17:17.
Hebrews 4:12 tells us that “the word of God is ALIVE and exerts power.”
Psalm 119:160: “The very essence of your word is truth.”
Psalm 119:105: “Your word is a lamp to my foot, and a light for my path.”
No, he was saying that there would also be extra biblical tradition. Jesus did miracles that weren’t in scripture & said His followers would do far greater ones. You don’t see these miracles in Protestantism. Catholicism is full of them. You wouldn’t have the Bible without tradition. You can’t divorce the 2. Scripture, tradition, magisterium-you need all three; it’s the only thing that makes sense. Someone Hass to be the authority or you have the countless heresies that have come from Protestantism. Kenneth Copeland is a direct consequence of the DEFORMation. Protestantism is to walk in the way of Korah’s rebellion. No one could even read or had a Bible for a millennia. Pretty bad plan for salvation if we went by the Bible alone, not to mention there is no private interpretation of scripture. Denominations have no right to exist before God. There is only one doctrine, one Church, one interpretation of the Bible. One of Lord, one baptism, one faith-in one accord.
But how is that contrary to the Catholic position that authentic tradition never contradicts scripture and vice versa? Jesus never wrote anything, but He "handed down" (literal meaning of "tradition") what the church eventually wrote down and which the church declared was the revealed, inspired and inerrant "word of God".
Where does it say that in the bible?
Exactly, thank you!
You are adding to what 2 Thess. 2:15 is saying. Paul is clearly saying that whatever they teach orally or by written letter should be held to. No indication that the oral teaching needs to be "based on Scriptures" only. But yes, traditions need to not conflict with Scripture, but that can be subjective depending on how you interpret Scripture. For example, if I say that calling Mary the Mother of God does not conflict with Scripture, what would you answer?
the problem with the roman catholic church, is that it relies on non-scriptural references: church tradition (the 1st century Christian church's traditions are NOT the same as current roman catholic "traditions", most of which became doctrine in the 12th century or later. the 1st century Christian church's traditions were bases on scripture, not the man-made traditions of the roman catholic church. selected works (but not complete) of "early church fathers" (not inspired by the Holy Spirit), the roman catholic counsels (like the counsel of trent, which rejects that salvation is by faith in Christ alone) and it's catechism, which is riddled with false dogma.
Nice job trying to justify your own idolatry. Didn’t work.
IN CHRIST ALONE, all the rest is misleading , The gospel message is simple, jesus died for those who will believe in him they shall be save . Not Clavin or the pope ..And your attempts to please him. Repent and worship him in Thanksgiving.
so we don’t need the bible?
No salvation outside the Catholic church. Become Catholic
Cyril of Jerusalem; “But take thou and hold that faith only as a learner and in profession, which is by the Church delivered to thee, and is established from all Scripture. For since all cannot read the Scripture, but some as being unlearned, others by business, are hindered from the knowledge of them; in order that the soul may not perish for lack of instruction, in the Articles which are few we comprehend the whole doctrine of Faith…And for the present, commit to memory the Faith, merely listening to the words; and expect at the fitting season the proof of each of its parts from the Divine Scriptures. For the Articles of the Faith were not composed at the good pleasure of men: but the most important points chosen from all Scriptures, make up the one teaching of the Faith. And, as the mustard seed in a little grain contains many branches, thus also this Faith, in a few words, hath enfolded in its bosom the whole knowledge of godliness contained both in the Old and New Testaments. Behold, therefore, brethren and hold the traditions which ye now receive, and write them on the table of your hearts”.
This is a straw man. I’m sure it’ll play well for Catholic faithful, but I don’t take it seriously. Not all doctrine, but specifically doctrine that is necessary for salvation. That is what sola scriptura is. This clip sets up a straw man. I’m interested in Catholicism but generally don’t watch this apologist since it seems to be a pattern.
Roman apologists often engage in word games and logical fallacies. When Paul spoke of traditions, he spoke of what he received directly from the post resurrected Jesus. He also complemented the Bereans for testing even him by going to scripture. Has anyone in the Roman church claimed direct contact with and instruction from Jesus?
Doesnt this refute the Catholic doctrine of material sufficiency? I thought the Catholic Church gets all of their doctrines materially from the deposit of faith. And material sufficiency is the belief that all doctrines are at least materially present within scripture. So you are admitting they arent?
That would be yourself, or someone else, misunderstanding what material sufficiency is, or what it means.
It's not synonymous with Sola Scriptura, which is what I think your question assumes.
Material sufficiency is not a formal doctrine, nor is it defined by the Church.
However, what material sufficiency is is that scripture contains or implies all that is needed for salvation. That's one particular definition of it, at least.
This is notably different from the protestant view of sola scriptura, which is perspicuity, and formal sufficiency. To be formally sufficient, scripture would have to contain all that is necessary for salvation *BUT ALSO* not require any additional context to understand it.
However, the key takeway is that it is not formally taught by the Church, so your question has no basis.
Material sufficiency is also not a doctrine. It’s a view that a person is allowed to hold.
@@InhabitantOfOddworld
I couldn’t have said this better. Well done 👍🏽.
@JG Daillet Another false accusation, I never claimed the Church taught circumcision, for salvation.
Rome has officially defined scripture as theopneustos, but has not defined oral tradition as theopneustos, how can something that is not theopneustos be equal to something that is theopneustos?
The Bible contains the way of salvation already in it. Everything else is a secondary issue.
That’s funny.
How exactly did you figure out what was primary and what was secondary?
Did you figure that out from the bible?
I only ask because various protestant denominations have different ideas about what is primary and what is secondary, yet they all refer to the same bible.
@@charlesudoh6034 where your soul will spend for eternity sounds like a primary issue
@@SniffingOutPharisees-DanielP
Thats true. However, there are various issues pertaining to that subject. The role of the Holy Communion in that, the role of Baptism in that etc.
The question is do you think various protestant denominations disagree on only secondary issues but are in agreement on primary issues?
I ask that because while some denominations might see the disagreement on baptism as a secondary issue because they don’t believe it actually contributes to salvation, others might see the disagreement as a primary issue because they believe it actually contributes to your salvation.
This is what I meant by various protestant denominations can’t agree on what is primary and secondary yet they all refer to the same bible.
who do you think put the bible together and decide what is to be included and not in the bible.?????/
@@charlesudoh6034 GODS word is what matters. No church has authority over men. Church is important so we have unity not to teach us their way of thinking. These guys are correct you'd know if you knew GOD. I could read a 1000 different interpretations of the bible and still know what's from GOD and what isn't as the Holy Spirit shows me truth.
I believe that you have this the wrong way.
In fact, Luther was stating that you can’t say something is Godly or God approved just because you believe it is.
Jesus said the only way to Hod is through him. Catholics believe that a Saint will speak on your behalf.
The use of Saints to intimidate is not scriptural.
So you debunked sola scriptural? Then why did your church rely on the bible alone to say that "sacred scripture" is equal to this bible alone? Was there no other book out there? The Koran was available wasn't it? I recently heard Tim Staples day that Sola Scriptura is a man made tradition. So let's get this straight. YOUR church used a man tradition to give your "sacred tradition" credibility and believability? Really? Truth is that YOUR church has unwittingly confirmed SOLA SCRIPTURA. you guys are just too smart for yourselves. In trying to refute it, you confirm it. The bible defends itself and we keep defending it. Unlike catholicism that perverts and corrupts.
This doesn’t track very well.
- Irenaeus (AD 180): 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. (Against Heresies, 3:1.1)
- Athanasius (AD 296-373): The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth. (Against the Heathen, 1:3)
- Augustine (AD 354-430): It is to the canonical Scriptures alone that I am bound to yield such implicit subjection as to follow their teaching, without admitting the slightest suspicion that in them any mistake or any statement intended to mislead could find a place. (Letters, 82.3)
- Augustine (AD 354-430): He [God] also inspired the Scripture, which is regarded as canonical and of supreme authority and to which we give credence concerning all the truths we ought to know and yet, of ourselves, are unable to learn. (City of God, 11.3)
- Cyril of Jerusalem (AD 310-386): For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures. (Catechetical Lectures, IV:17 in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers)
- Gregory of Nyssa (AD 330-395): We are not entitled to such license, namely, of affirming whatever we please. For we make Sacred Scripture the rule and the norm of every doctrine. Upon that we are obliged to fix our eyes, and we approve only whatever can be brought into harmony with the intent of these writings. (On the Soul and the Resurrection, quoted in Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971], p. 50.)
- Augustine of Hippo (AD 354-430): Let them show their church if they can, not by the speeches and mumblings of the Africans, not by the councils of their bishops, not by the writings of any of their champions, not by fraudulent signs and wonders, because we have been prepared and made cautious also against these things by the Word of the Lord. (On the Unity of the Church, 16)
- John Chrysostom (AD 347-407): Wherefore I exhort and entreat you all, disregard what this man and that man thinks about these things, and inquire from the Scriptures all these things; and having learned what are the true riches, let us pursue after them that we may obtain also the eternal good things. (Homily 13 on 2 Corinthians)
- Basil the Great (AD 329-379): Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the Word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth. (Letter 189 to Eustathius the physician)
Except that statement isn't Scripture, it's Tradition. Using the Tradition to establish a doctrine that Scripture alone, and not Scripture AND Tradition, is the source of doctrine seems like a contradiction in terms.
@@7349yt catholics wont except scripture alone.
Is the gospel primary or is tradition primary? If tradition derives authority from its self the the argument becomes circular. If it derives authority from an infallible source then what source is that? If authority is declared by fallible men or counsels made of sinful fallible men then the argument remains circular. However if authority is declared by God then where do we get Gods words? Words of priests??? Tradition of councils???? Or, reliable trust worthy documents? Early church fathers???? But then this creates circular reasoning still.
See the logic, or lack of??? This is why scripture as the single authority rule of faith unhinges the church. God is then only sovereign so long as men agree he is by reason of cooperating grace. Earning Moratoria grace. But theres a problem. Scripture doesn’t teach merited grace.
Therefore the church declares its self infallible, uses the very series of manuscripts to say its infallible all the while ignoring those documents truth. A church cant declare authority on the basis of God then ignore Gods word from the very source they claim is irrelevant without its self. Circular thinking. God validates church, church declares its self higher than scripture, but Gods authority in written form is the churches main source, but the church ignores that source for its self.
Truth is, catholicism today is apostate.
Gods word is revealed in only one place. Rome discourages reading scripture without filters. Yet when people read scripture alone, God changes them. He brings light to them and brings them out of Rome and closer to him.
@@bobbyrice6847 Neither scripture nor tradition is "primary", much less "sole" authority. Christ is. And the church's authority is derived from Christ as His Body. Both scripture and tradition bear witness to Christ. Scripture is "sufficient" as one eye is "sufficient"; but God gave us two because with two we (the church, Christ's Body) can see better than with one: we can see further, wider and deeper. That is why Jesus instituted the church as His Body and how the Holy Spirit constitutes the church as the "Temple of the Holy Spirit" (as Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians 6:19, where the "you" is plural because he is talking to the church as church not to "individual Christians", contrary to the way the NIV translates it). Now if that is true, why is it so hard to believe that when we, the church, walk together ("synod" means walk together) in faith and fidelity to Christ, the Holy Spirit will preserve us from error? That's what "councils/synods" are: seeking God's will by walking together in the Spirit, who will lead us "into all the truth". So that we can see better where we are going, we have been given two eyes with which to look: scripture and tradition; two ears with which to listen to God's word: scripture and tradition; two lungs with which to breathe in the Spirit of God and proclaim his word: scripture and tradition.
The doctrine of sola scriptura does indeed "unhinge" the church, as you say. But if so, then it is "unhinging" the Body of Christ. And how can that be good?
@@7349yt
The temple of the holy spirit is the born again believer in Christ. Not the church. The church is simply the pillar and foundation of THE truth. The TRUTH Is scripture.
Romans 8:9 ESV
You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.
Romans 8:11 ESV
If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.
1 Corinthians 3:16 ESV
Do you not know that you are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you?
1 Corinthians 6:19 ESV
Or do you not know that YOUR BODY is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own,
1 Corinthians 2:9-10 ESV
But, as it is written, "What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him"- [10] these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God.
Context is key here. “Us” is in regard to the corinth church believers. Not Paul and teachers alone.
Paul elaborates…
1 Corinthians 2:11 ESV
For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which IS IN HIM? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.
Paul is showing how the spirit reveals wisdom. Not through church but within the believer.
Notice the distinction.
1 Corinthians 2:12 ESV
Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is FROM God, (why???) that we might understand the things freely given us by God.
Heres the punch line.
1 Corinthians 2:14 ESV
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.
- Reference 1:18
This means those in christ are changed. Of Christ Romans 8:1. No longer natural but able to know and discern Gods truth BECAUSE???…..
1 Corinthians 2:15-16 ESV
The spiritual person judges ALL things, but is himself to be judged by no one. [16] "For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?" But WE have the mind of Christ.
“We” is the assembled believers in Christ. Exegetically the corinth church but meant broadly.
Further Paul clarifies behavior of those without the spirit.
1 Corinthians 12:3 ESV
Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking in the Spirit of God ever says "Jesus is accursed!" and no one can say "Jesus is Lord" except IN the Holy Spirit.
“In” here denotes possession.
Every spirit GIVEN has gifts.
1 Corinthians 12:4-7 ESV
Now there are varieties of gifts, but the SAME Spirit; [5] and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; [6] and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone. [7] To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.
Cross reference ephesians 2:10
As you can well see anyone who reads exegetically in context reading the fill revelation in scripture can see a descriptive repeating pattern of behavior of the holy spirit. Who possesses it, how it helps us, how it guides us. Its the helper.
We are made ALIVE in this personal spirit. Peter exclaims this.
1 Peter 3:18 ESV
For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit,
The same spirit given to the apostles true believers also receive in spiritual rebirth.
Therefore if the spirit is indeed the same, look what joy proceeds from it.
Ephesians 1:13-14 ESV
In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with THE promised Holy Spirit, [14] who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.
So in recap, Paul doesn’t speak like the spirit is of a magisterium or organization or of his church but rather of a personal indwelling of the one who BECOMES reborn of the spirit.
Theres only ONE way to be reborn.
Romans 10:9
@@bobbyrice6847 The "you" in many of these passages from Paul is plural, not singular. He is talking to the church, not to or about "individual" Christians. And Paul himself was willing to seek the authority of the church in Jerusalem when it came to his dispute with other Christians who wanted Gentiles to be circumcised and observe the Jewish Law. Paul was not a "sola scriptura" proto-Protestant. He, more than anyone, gave us a theology of the church, the "Body of Christ", and insisted on his own authority as an apostle.
I just love it when Catholics do not even understand the Bible at all...
Do you not believe that God breathed Scripture??? or do you not Believe that Scripture is inspired by God???
The problem with anyone who claims to be someone giving Catholic Answer, just cannot seem to be able to do one thing...
We all know that the will of Jesus was to do the will of God.... that has never in the history of the Church been in dispute as it is a fact taught in the Bible....
Jesus made clear that he did not come down from heaven to do his own will, John 6:38....
Now to hold that Jesus is God, one is now faced with calling God Himself a liar, and that the bible itself teaches Just that....
Now when one starts to use the doctrine of the Trinity to say that it was the Son doing the will of the Father, you are still calling God Himself a liar because God Himself is The Son undivided from the Son....
Now if you say that the Human Jesus was doing the will of God His Father, then you make the Human Jesus out to be a liar, as John 6:38 clearly states....
There is only one way to interpret John 6:38, that is that someone lied.....
If God lied then the Bible lied as did Paul when the Second oracle of God said that God is not a man that He should lie, and Paul said that it is impossible for God to lie...
So if the Bible is God breathed, as believed by the vast Majority as they will all claim that it is the Word of God Himself, then it is not the Bible alone but the very word of God...
Now for those who say that it is inspired by God, then there is absolutely no way that they would portray God as a liar, that and the fact that God would never allow man to make Him out to be a liar....
So when your Title says "Debunking "Bible Alone" with the Bible.", you have failed to do it, and those who claim that scripture says that the Bible proves it to be wrong, are incorrect....
But your channel name is correct "Catholic Answers" because there is no truth in the Catholic Church....
Papists miss the point that claimed tradition should not contradict scripture.
This is where Catholic tradition falls short.
And how can we trust the provenance of Catholic tradition?
This is the same church that claimed to have a feather from the dove symbolizing the holy spirit which settled upon Jesus at his baptism.
As a Catholic, we do agree that Oral Tradition does not contradict Written Tradition (Scripture). They are both infact the word of God.
If you are insinuating that Catholic Tradition contradicts Scripture, the burden of proof is on you to prove it.
Also, where are you getting this nonsense about the Church claiming to have the feather of a dove?
@@charlesudoh6034 You don't or won't know GOD till you leave that cult. Relationship between you and GOD is just that and no man can tell you any different or help in any way. Pray to Jesus and ask for forgiveness for your sins as the priest didn't do shit when he forgave them. Once he feels that you are sincere he will send you the Holy Spirit and you'll know then who GOD is.
@@Bouncer83 The issue here is that your interpretation of the Christian Bible the Catholic Church has provided for you, is very flawed (more likely what you have been told the bible says). This is why the Church is there to guide you out of your error and heretical understanding.
@@PatrickInCayman The issue that catholics have is that you do not receive the Holy Spirit and he lets you know what's truth or not. I do not need man or church to tell me what is true as he guides me. I'm not arguing I'm here to let you know that you are on the wrong side. They do not worship the same GOD as Christians do otherwise you would all have what I do. Choose Jesus not religious beliefs. You think you know what's true but you really don't buddy. Try what I say and see yourself. Wouldn't you rather have the relationship with Jesus yourself or have a pretend one through a priest? You serve satan and his deceit not a loving God. Funny how you all defend your cult rather than read GODS word. Loved ones that die including Mary Jesus's human mother are all in the grave and are not in heaven yet. You pray to idols that are demons. You aren't arguing with me you are arguing with GODS word which you do not know. You and whoever you love is in terrible danger I'm good and know that I am as GODS love is something he returns and is undeniable. I don't have blind faith like you guys and seeing Holy mary appearing in places is a demon fooling you. Read the Bible the dead are dead. Sol in the old testament went to a medium/witch and spoke with Samuel but it was a demon as god wasn't answering his prayers or helping him. The stories and what happened then still apply today. You have very little time to get good I'd avoid religion and find GOD through truth. If you need a man to tell you what's true or not you have a serious problem as you can't trust anyone. No one is good but GOD. Thats from Jesus himself. How can catholic priests and all the people that work for satan pretend that they are good when they ain't. I'm replying from email I don't know what I said already above but hope you ask Jesus for forgiveness and to reveal himself and he will help you see truth.
Do not go beyond what is written?
Encyclicals are written. Creeds are written. So we're good. 😉
Right. Paul was condemning his own oral teaching which PRECEEDED the Scriptures!!!! Either Paul was insane or you are wrong.
sola scriptura doesnt mean bible alone
@@coryrowland9044 bible alone is the translation of sola scripture and the doctrine of thousands of non catholic denominations.
Then, if i msy ask, by what authority can anyone establish any other doctrine that wasn't established by the written word of God through the apostles?
You may try to pour water on how the bible was collated but I know the God that I serve, who rules in the affairs of men and has predestined all things for his good will, who is not the author of confusion. I put it to you that any doctrine that negates the written truth, the word of God is a lie and it's not of God.
This is the main reason why these apostles had to write these letters to the churches back then to negate any truth that isn't of God. Wouldn't what they've written by the Holy spirit have been what they have been discussing most of their lives.
Paul said To write the same things to you, to me it is not grievious, but for you it is safe.
These men didn't just write to instruct, they wrote the life that Christ wrought through them.
So if it was recorded that that which was taught with the mouth and written, will both negate themselves?
Will it be justifiable to claim that since sich statement was made, that means these men practiced some doctrine that was not recorded..
Paul said if any man preached another Christ........
Their written words are their living (which includes their conversation).
You are misunderstanding sola scriptura. The reformers claimed scripture is the only source of infalibility, not the only source of doctrine. The reformers debated doctrine. They believed the men running the church were obviously fallible. Catholics on the other hand believe the declarations of certain men are infallible.
But how do you decide what is infallible scripture and not, if not from an infallible exterior authority that tells you which scriptures are infallible?
The question is still the same.
You are saying the doctrine of “scripture alone” is saying that scripture is the only infallible rule or source of faith even though there might be other rules or sources of faith.
The question of proof is still unanswered. How do you backup that claim? You certainly can’t use the scriptures to do it because the doctrine isn’t in the scriptures.
In a nutshell, the doctrine of “scripture alone” is itself an infallible rule of faith that isn’t found in scripture, the supposed “ONLY source of infallible rule of faith”.
I hope you can see how illogical the idea of sola scriptura is.
sola scriptura : the sole infallible source of Christian faith and practice..wikipedia
Whenever your traditions contradict the Word of God, you are in ERROR. Teaching another Gospel is Evil and has been taught throughout the new testament.
According to whose interpretation?
Additionally
Numerous passages infer the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. While the Bible never uses the term “Scripture alone,” this teaching can be inferred from Scripture. Consider a number of reasons for this view:
First, the Bible teaches not to add or take away from Scripture. Paul writes that we should not “exceed what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6). John writes, “I testify 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; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book” (Rev. 22:18-19). Likewise, Moses writes, “You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it” (Deut. 4:2; cf. 12:32). If another authority could either add or take away from Scripture, then this would invalidate these passages of Scripture.
Second, Scripture is the litmus test for discerning truth. Every time Jesus needs to answer a doctrinal question, he cites Scripture-not tradition. The phrase “It is written…” occurs some 90 times in the NT. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees saying, “You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures” (Mt. 22:29). He also rebuked the Jewish leaders for what was “said” (Mt. 5:21, 27, 31, 33, 38, 43) versus what was “written” (Mt. 4:4, 7, 10). Moreover, we have nothing in the Bible to suggest that we need something in addition to Scripture.
Third, the Bible does not allow for tradition to be equal or superior to Scripture. Jesus said, “Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? … by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition” (Mt. 15:3, 6). Here Jesus judges their accepted human tradition by the superior authority of Scripture. Likewise, Paul writes, “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men” (Col. 2:8). As we noted above, this does not mean that all tradition is ungodly, anymore than all philosophy is ungodly. However, this does teach that human tradition is not equal or more authoritative than Scripture. If tradition ever disagrees with Scripture, then this tradition is always wrong. Catholic apologist Jim Blackburn writes, “Jesus rightfully condemned [false tradition], but his condemnation was not meant to be applied to every tradition.”[5] However, we feel that Blackburn has missed the point here. The Pharisees were placing tradition above the Bible, and Jesus was using the Bible as a higher standard for correcting their false view.
Fourth, Luke calls the Bereans “noble-minded” for “examining the Scriptures daily” to see if the gospel was true (Acts 17:11). That is, the Bereans compared the message of the apostles with the Bible itself. If the apostles were the supreme authority, then the Bereans would have been considered unbelieving for trying to interpret the Bible by themselves-apart from the interpretation and instruction of the apostles. But instead, they were encouraged for doing this.
Fifth, Timothy was able to come to faith through the OT Scriptures as a child (2 Tim. 3:14-15). If a little child could come to faith through the OT Scriptures, how much more could a fully grown adult come to faith with the completed canon?
Sixth, Paul tells Timothy that Scripture is sufficient for faith and morals (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Paul writes: “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Catholic apologist Tim Staples objects that 2 Timothy 3 “says that Scripture is inspired and necessary-a rule of faith-but in no way does it teach that Scripture alone is all one needs to determine the truth about faith and morals in the Church.”[6] Of course, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 doesn’t state that it is the only rule of faith. But it does say that it is a sufficient rule. Paul writes that Scripture makes us “equipped for every good work” (v.17). This is why we would define Scripture as sufficient for faith and morals. If Scripture is sufficient for faith and morals, we shouldn’t look for any other standard.
Note also that this passage comes in the context of battling false teaching. Paul writes, “But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived” (2 Tim. 3:13). What is our guard against false teaching? Paul tells us that Scripture is the final authority that equips us for “every good work” (v.17).
Seventh, tradition is not a reliable way to transmit truth. Catholic apologists often appeal to the Church Fathers to defend doctrines, but we see no reason to believe in the early Church Fathers. In fact, false traditions were even appearing in the first century. Paul writes, “You are aware of the fact that all who are in Asia turned away from me” (2 Tim. 1:15). No doubt, some of these men were Paul’s personal disciples in Ephesus, whom he predicted would lose their faith (Acts 20:29-30). John had to correct false teaching in his gospel (Jn. 21:22-23), and Paul had to correct false teaching, too (2 Thess. 2:2). In fact, from one end of the NT to the other, we see contrary false teaching. If they had false traditions in the first century already, wouldn’t we expect more false traditions today? Even though the Church Fathers were closer to the apostolic age, this doesn’t make them more orthodox.
Eighth, Sola Scriptura is not an invention of the Reformation. While we do not ultimately hang our argument on history, it is verifiable that this view has been present throughout the history of the Christian Church
You say: "While the Bible never uses the term 'Scripture alone,' this teaching can be inferred from Scripture." And so can the trinity, the assumption and the immaculate conception and all the other doctrines that are not "in" scripture but can be inferred from it.
You say: "Paul writes that we should not “exceed what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6)" Look at the full verse: "Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the SAYING, 'Do not go beyond what is written.' Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other." (NIV) This "saying" is not itself scriptural, but a tradition! And Paul is obviously applying it to what he and Apollos are (separately) writing, not to "the scriptures" - unless you want to claim that Paul thought of himself and Apollos as writing sacred scripture.
You say: "Moreover, we have nothing in the Bible to suggest that we need something in addition to Scripture." Then why send "another advocate" who will "lead you into all the truth"? Then why say "You search the scriptures because you think that in them you will have eternal life"? That seems to imply that scripture is insufficient, and is, in fact, merely a witness pointing to Jesus ("and they testify to me")?
You say: "Second, Scripture is the litmus test for discerning truth." Agreed. But not the ONLY one.
You say: "the Bible does not allow for tradition to be equal or superior to Scripture. Jesus said, “Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?" Jesus isn't talking about what the church will hand down, i.e. CHRISTIAN Tradition (singular), He is actually establishing it in contradistinction to the JEWISH traditions (plural). And Paul is talking about "the tradition of men", i.e. pagan philosophy, NOT the teaching of the church, the Body of Christ filled with the Spirit of God, and as such proclaiming the word of God (which is not just "scripture", since Jesus Himself is THE Word of God).
Your fourth statement is a logical fallacy based on a false premise: "That is, the Bereans compared the message of the apostles with the Bible itself. If the apostles were the supreme authority, then the Bereans would have been considered unbelieving for trying to interpret the Bible by themselves." Christ is the supreme authority; the apostles are clearly his representatives ("apostle" means representative); and besides, if what you say is true, then you are contradicting 2 Peter 1:20.
You say: "Paul tells Timothy that Scripture is sufficient for faith and morals." No, he doesn't. you are "adding" to what is written, and contradicting your own position.
Correcting "false teaching" is why we need the church interpreting the scriptures and tradition in the ongoing process of "handing on" (tradere) what was passed on to us.
You say: "it is verifiable that this view has been present throughout the history of the Christian Church" By whom?
@@7349yt
Sola Scriptura comes from Latin which means “Scripture alone.” We can define this doctrine in this way:
(1) Scripture is the sole, infallible rule of faith.
(2) No other revelation is needed for the Church.
(3) There is no other infallible rule of faith outside of Scripture.
(4) Scripture reveals those things necessary for salvation.
(5) All traditions are subject to the higher authority of Scripture.
When we define this doctrine, it is often helpful to explain what we do not mean. For instance:
(1) We do NOT mean that we start from scratch every time we read the Bible. Of course, we should also read commentaries, quote scholars, etc. In fact, Paul writes that God gave “pastors and teachers” to the church for this reason (Eph. 4:11). However, as Geisler and MacKenzie write, “These authorities may be used only to help us discover the meaning of the text of Scripture, not determine its meaning.”
(2) We do NOT mean Scripture is an exhaustive account of spiritual or other knowledge (Jn. 20:30; 21:25). Catholic apologist Karl Keating mischaracterizes Sola Scriptura when he writes, “The Reformers said the Bible is the sole source of religious truth, and its understanding must be found by looking only at the words of the text. No outside authority may impose an interpretation, and no outside authority, such as the Church, has been established by Christ as an arbiter… The whole of Christian truth is found within its pages. Anything extraneous to the Bible is simply wrong or hinders rather than helps one toward salvation.”[4] However, this is a gross misrepresentation. We believe that Scripture can be an infallible rule that is sufficient for faith and practice without being an exhaustive rule.
(3) We do NOT mean the Church has no role in interpreting the Bible. 1 Timothy 3:15 states that the church is “the pillar and support of the truth.” However, notice the order here: the Church supports the Bible-not the other way around. We are below the Bible-not above it.
(4) We do NOT mean that we should reject all traditions. Some traditions are helpful to us as believers, and we see no reason to abandon these simply because they are extra-biblical. However, we contend that all human tradition should be subservient to Scripture-not equal to or above it. We shouldn’t reject tradition, but we also shouldn’t be subject to it, either.
(5) We do NOT mean that the apostles never spoke the word of God to people (Acts 2:42; 1 Thess. 2:13; 2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6). When the apostles were alive, they could speak on faith and morals in person. However, since we do not have this luxury today, we must rely on their writings. Jude writes of “the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints” (Jude 3). Since the faith was already passed down to us in the first-century, we need an accurate understanding of that divine truth. This has been preserved in Scripture alone-not in oral tradition.
To suppose sola scriptura false would require rejecting early church fathers.
Irenaeus (AD 180): 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. (Against Heresies, 3:1.1)
Athanasius (AD 296-373): The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth. (Against the Heathen, 1:3)
Augustine (AD 354-430): It is to the canonical Scriptures alone that I am bound to yield such implicit subjection as to follow their teaching, without admitting the slightest suspicion that in them any mistake or any statement intended to mislead could find a place. (Letters, 82.3)
Augustine (AD 354-430): He [God] also inspired the Scripture, which is regarded as canonical and of supreme authority and to which we give credence concerning all the truths we ought to know and yet, of ourselves, are unable to learn. (City of God, 11.3)
Cyril of Jerusalem (AD 310-386): For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures. (Catechetical Lectures, IV:17 in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers)
Gregory of Nyssa (AD 330-395): We are not entitled to such license, namely, of affirming whatever we please. For we make Sacred Scripture the rule and the norm of every doctrine. Upon that we are obliged to fix our eyes, and we approve only whatever can be brought into harmony with the intent of these writings. (On the Soul and the Resurrection, quoted in Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971], p. 50.)
Augustine of Hippo (AD 354-430): Let them show their church if they can, not by the speeches and mumblings of the Africans, not by the councils of their bishops, not by the writings of any of their champions, not by fraudulent signs and wonders, because we have been prepared and made cautious also against these things by the Word of the Lord. (On the Unity of the Church, 16)
John Chrysostom (AD 347-407): Wherefore I exhort and entreat you all, disregard what this man and that man thinks about these things, and inquire from the Scriptures all these things; and having learned what are the true riches, let us pursue after them that we may obtain also the eternal good things. (Homily 13 on 2 Corinthians)
Basil the Great (AD 329-379): Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the Word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth. (Letter 189 to Eustathius the physician)
@@7349yt the Bible certainly does teach Sola Scriptura. While the Bible doesn’t use this term explicitly (i.e. it never says “Scripture alone”), we can see that it explains this doctrine in various ways. Similarly, the Bible never uses the term “Trinity,” and yet, this is clearly a biblical teaching. We might point out that the Bible never uses the terms “purgatory,” “immaculate conception,” or “the bodily assumption of Mary.” And yet, Catholic apologists are quick to support such doctrines, and will be quick to argue their case in a similar way. For instance, regarding the Catholic doctrine of purgatory, Kreeft uses a similar argument.
Catholic apologists argue that the canon of Scripture isn’t in the Bible, so we need to appeal to tradition to verify this. Dave Armstrong demonstrates the different views of the canon held over the first several centuries of the Church.[9] Catholic apologists Kreeft and Tacelli write,
If the Church is not authoritative, how can we know the Bible is? …A principle of logic and common sense is that you cannot have more in the effect than in the cause. You can’t give what you don’t have. So if the Church is not infallible, how can the Bible she wrote be infallible? Stop and think about that![10]
Protestants and Catholics alike know which books are in the Bible only because the Catholic Church decreed it: the Church defined the canon. And an infallible effect can come only from an infallible cause. If the Church is fallible, we cannot be sure that John’s Gospel is true and Thomas’s is not.[11]
Catholic apologist Tim Staples writes,
Show me where the canon of Scripture is in the Bible! …If we did not have Scripture, we would still have the Church. But without the Church, there would be no New Testament Scripture. It was members of this kingdom, the Church, who wrote Scripture, preserved its many texts, and eventually canonized it. Scripture alone could not do any of this.[12]
However, in response, we might point out that this objection confuses epistemology with ontology. How we come to know Scripture (i.e. epistemology) is different than what Scripture is (i.e. ontology). Our knowledge of what Scripture is could be false-even if Scripture is actually something different. We deny that the Church created inspired Scripture; instead, they discovered what was inspired Scripture. If we really believe that the Church created Scripture, then the Church wouldn’t have had the Bible for the first several centuries after Christ-until a Church Council declared it as such. If we’re looking for an authoritative decision of a church council to establish the canon, then this didn’t occur in the fourth century, but in the sixteenth. Michael Kruger writes,
If one is looking for a time when the boundaries of the canon are absolutely fixed with no exceptions, then it will not be found in the fourth century-nor even in the modern day, for that matter. If the ‘closing’ of the canon refers to a formal, official act of the New Testament church, then we are hard-pressed to find such an act before the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century.[13]
It was not until the Council of Trent in 1546 that the Roman Catholic Church ever made a formal and official declaration on the canon of the Bible, particularly the Apocrypha… Are we to believe that the church had no canon for over fifteen hundred years, until the Council of Trent?[14]
Are we really to believe that believers throughout the centuries were without a Bible? By contrast, already in the first-century, Paul referred to Luke 10:7 as “Scripture” (1 Tim. 5:18), and Jude writes of remembering “the words that were spoken beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Jude 17). These “words,” no doubt, refer to the gospel accounts (i.e. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John). Likewise, Peter referred to Paul’s letters as “Scripture” (2 Pet. 3:15-16). In fact, he says that false teachers will be judged based on how they distort Paul’s words. Moreover, Jude quotes 2 Peter 3:3 as Scripture.
How would a Jewish person (before the time of the apostolic church) know which books were inspired? Christ holds people responsible for their knowledge of the OT Scriptures (Mt. 22:31), and Paul claimed that the Jews had the Scriptures before the time of Christ (Rom. 3:1-2). But if this is the case, then this would mean that Scripture was solidified before the Catholic Church declared it to be so. This places the Roman Catholic view into a dilemma:
Either, the Bible was determined by the Jewish leadership: If this was the case, then his would negate the Catholic canon, because the Jews didn’t include the Apocrypha. Also, Jesus denied the views of the Jewish leadership-for instance he denied the use of corban (Mt. 15).
Or, the Bible is inspired regardless of recognition: If this is the case, then the Evangelical view of the canon is correct.
@@7349yt Roman Catholicism argues that there should only be one church-not many. Catholic apologist Peter Kreeft writes, “Denominationalism is an intolerable scandal by scriptural standards-see John 17:20-23 and 1 Corinthians 1:10-17.”[22] If we are really “one body and one Spirit… one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph. 4:4-5), then why has Sola Scriptura led to 23,000 different Christian denominations?
In response to this objection, a number of responses can be made:
First, we see schism between believers in the first-century church. Excluding the problems with false teaching (Gal. 2:11-14), Paul and Peter were in schism. Therefore, realistically, we are always going to have division in the church. The question is really how we respond to this. We do not believe that an overarching church government will help the problem of church unity. These passages cited above teach unity, but they don’t teach an extra-local church government. In each of these passages, God is the leader of the church-not a person.
Second, we believe that the unity taught in the NT is RELATIONAL-not ORGANIZATIONAL. The Bible teaches organic unity-not organizational unity. It should be visible through love-not church government (Jn. 13-34-35). The NT spends countless passages referring to preserving the unity between believers (e.g. bitterness, jealousy, forgiveness, etc.). However, we would be misguided to believe that this is referring to organizational unity.
Third, by rejecting denominations, we are actually breaking down the unity of the church. The basis for unity is doctrine and spiritual baptism-not governmental or organizational. Our view is that the Church consists of all people who are in Christ (1 Cor. 12:13). The Roman Catholic Church declares that it is the only church, and every denomination is filled with “separated brethren.” Therefore, by rejecting denominations, we are actually doing more to ruin the unity between believers.
The Catholic Church rightly predicted denominational split before it happened. But it was well worth it.
Catholic apologist Karl Keating writes, “No New Testament writer seemed to be aware that he was writing under the impulse of the Holy Spirit, with the exception of the author of Revelation.”
But, Consider these passages, which speak to the authority of Scripture. In 1 Timothy 5:18, Paul quotes Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7 as “Scripture.” Paul writes, “If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command” (1 Cor. 14:37). Elsewhere, he writes, “And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe” (1 Thess. 2:13). Moreover, Peter refers to Paul’s letters as “Scripture” as well (2 Pet. 3:15-16).
While Roman Catholicism teaches a dual authority for nature-both Scripture and Tradition, i feel that in practice they teach Sola Ecclesia (“The Church Alone”). Catholic apologist Karl Keating writes,
That Church tells us the Bible is inspired, and we can take the Church’s word for it precisely because the Church is infallible. Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority (that is, one set up by God to assure us of the truth of matters of faith) that the Bible is inspired do we begin to use it as an inspired book… The Catholic believes in inspiration because the Church tells him so-that is putting it bluntly-and that same Church has the authority to interpret the inspired text.
Roman Catholicism teaches:
The Church defines the canon of Scripture.
The Church interprets what Scripture means.
The Church defines authoritative, apostolic tradition.
The Church interprets authoritative, apostolic tradition.
To be clear, Roman Catholics would deny this characterization of Sola Ecclesia, claiming that they believe in a dual authority-not a single one.
This expression accurately captures the Roman Catholic measure of authority. In practice, you can see that a dual authority really turns into a single authority: the Church.
@@bobbyrice6847 Thank you for your thoughtful and fulsome reply. As is very often the case, when we exchange ideas in such a manner, we end up agreeing far more than we disagree.
The way in which you have outlined the doctrine of sola scriptura makes a great deal more sense than the way I have heard it characterised by many Protestants and non-Protestants alike. It is far more nuanced, for a start. It certainly does not fall prey to biblical fundamentalism; nor does it misconstrue “tradition” to mean “traditionalism”. And it seems to me that, by your
1. acceptance of the role of “pastors and teachers”,
2. acceptance that the scriptures are not an “exhaustive rule”,
3. acceptance of the church’s foundational role on which the scriptures rest (albeit, and to be fair to your argument, you interpret the priority the other way round by considering the superstructure to be prior and more basic than the substructure/foundation on which it stands)
4. acceptance of some traditions as useful, as long as they are consistent with scripture (which is, by the way, also the position of the Orthodox and Catholic churches on “traditions” in the plural, and which should not be confused with Tradition in the singular)
5. acceptance of apostolic authority (albeit only in the first century)
your understanding of sola scriptura is much closer to what I think might be better called the necessity of scripture or even the primacy of scripture, but it hardly means the sole authority of scripture to the exclusion of any and all other authority. “Sola” clearly implies the “only” authority, full stop. You seem to accept all kinds of secondary, or auxiliary, authorities. After all, you go on to quote from seven of the most influential Fathers of the church, East and West, using that part of Tradition to argue for sola scriptura, which seems odd to me and, I think, would to many Protestants. If that’s not an appeal to the extra-biblical Tradition, I don’t know what is! Although, I would beg to differ as to what we should infer about sola scriptura from what those Fathers were actually saying, as opposed to what many, perhaps even most, Protestants mean by that term today, and what the early reformers seem to have meant by it originally.
So let me turn to that issue now, and respond to each of the quotes from the Fathers as you gave them:
1. Note that Irenaeus uses the term “handed down”. That is literally what “tradition” means. So, when he says that after initially being given through preaching and teaching, the faith was “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” it is at least as possible to interpret that to mean that tradition (handing down) and scripture are so inextricably one that to separate them is impossible. And when he says “We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us” he is talking about people, not books, the church, not the scriptures. That, it seems to me, suggests that the apostles, as the nucleus of the church, come first and then the tradition, of which they are the original conveyors (because, of course, Christ, and Christ alone is the real origin of that tradition which He handed down to them), which they passed on and which was written down “at a later period.” I see nothing in that to suggest sola scriptura, or even prima scriptura vis a vis tradition.
2. The quote from Athanasius seems to me to be taken out of context. In fact, Athanasius is making the opposite point from SOLA scriptura. Here is the quote in full:
“For although the sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth - while there are other works of our blessed teachers compiled for this purpose, if he meet with which a man will gain some knowledge of the interpretation of the scriptures, and be able to learn what he wishes to know - still, as we have not at present in our hands the compositions of our teachers, we must communicate in writing to you what we learned from them - the faith, namely, of Christ the Saviour; lest any should hold cheap the doctrine taught among us, or think faith in Christ unreasonable.”
As I read it, Athanasius is appealing to tradition (“other works of our blessed teachers … compositions of our teachers … what we learned from them - the faith, namely, of Christ the Saviour”) along with scripture. At most we might be able to infer prima scriptura here, not sola.
I'm so disappointed in this video. You and Gavin Ortlund have had enough of a dialog that you should understand the Protestant claims regarding Sola Scriptura by now. Yet here you pull out all the strawman arguments that have plagued Catholic/Protestant dialog for so long as if you just weren't paying attention.
I agree with this. I guess the video was intended to refute those Protestants that *DO* believe that Scripture is the only authority.
I think a better question to ask would be this: Why do you (I'm assuming you're Protestant) believe that the entire New Testament is the infallible Word of God?
I think prots are finally noticing the error of their ways.
While this isn’t a steelmanned position on Sola Scriptura, it is wrong to assume Protestants are in agreement on Sola Scriptura. Where this isn’t a response to Ortlund, this is a response to John Doe who frequently comments on CA content. Sola Scriptura isn’t necessarily Solo Scriptura, but many people maintain it is. Both heresies have their own problems, some similar, others different, but each need to be addressed regardless.
@@ComicRaptor8850 The church circulated the NT writings and used them in worship in a manner that would suggest that they had the same status as the Hebrew scriptures. There is also the famous passage in 2 Peter where Paul’s writings are referred to as scripture, “…our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.” - 2 Peter 3:16. Of course, other writings also circulated in various regions of the church, but over time some of those writings fell into disuse because they didn't comport with those writings that had already been recognized as truthful witnesses to the faith. That's my best take. I'm not an expert.
Protestant denominations cannot agree in any subject, not even that Sola Scriptura means. That's a complete mess.
It seems like the first thing every Catholic apologist must do, when “disproving” Sola Scriptura … is to misrepresent Sola Scriptura.
C’mon people, it’s not that hard to actually STUDY these things. You don’t have to just uncritically accept the cartoon version the church teaches you.
Every time I speak with a different Protestant about SS I get a different definition. So I looked it up in Scripture and its not there. No wonder. So study what??? Human tradition?
@@bridgefin I have the same experiences in speaking with Catholics, and even Catholic priests. I think it makes sense that “picking up your cross daily“ and “studying to show yourself a workman approved” Includes the notion that you’ll take these things seriously, and not simply rely upon personal anecdote. I will say this much… When speaking to some random “protestant”, there is no claimed authority aside from whatever scripture is being discussed. This is not the case with a Catholic priest, and certainly not with the magisterium or the Pope. As such, the bar is set higher for Catholics to begin with so far is it regards “consistency”. If one simply compares Nicea, Trent, Constance, Vatican 1 and Vatican 2 … there is no such consistency. This destroys any claim of authority on part of the Catholic Church, as long as one remains a thinking individual. The Catholic position is of course to engage cardinal Newman’s notion of “doctrinal development”. Of course, development is simply a euphemism for “change”, so the conclusion remains the same despite the attempt to wrangle out of it through verbal trickery.
So far as not finding “solace Scriptura” directly called out in the Bible by name, well, of course no one would deny that. Neither does one find the Trinity called out by name. Neither does Jesus directly refer to himself as God. However, in each of these cases, we can find direct, strong scripture support for such doctrines.
@@ZTAudio
You: When speaking to some random “protestant”, there is no claimed authority aside from whatever scripture is being discussed.
Me: Well, that's the funny point. There is no unity in Scriptural interpretation among Protestants either. That's why your denominations split and the splits then split. 500 years ad you STILL can't produce a Protestant catechism??? So Scripture is not your authority or else you would be one. You are each your own authority, your own pope.
You: If one simply compares Nicea, Trent, Constance, Vatican 1 and Vatican 2 … there is no such consistency.
Me: Different councils called for different purposes. Where is there inconsistency?
You: Of course, development is simply a euphemism for “change”
Me: An oak tree is the development of an acorn. But if it became a maple then there would have been change. So please point out the Catholic doctrine which was reversed and not developed through the action of the Holy Spirit.
You: However, in each of these cases, we can find direct, strong scripture support for such doctrines.
Me: There is NO PLACE where Scripture teaches that it ALONE (the key place of disagreement) is authoritative...or whatever definition you use. Nor does it imply that is is the final say. And if you say it is implied then every Protestant can shelve his entry statement "where in the bible does it say...."! I can just say it is implied.
And however you define SS you blaspheme the authority of the oral preaching of Jesus to his listeners. And thus SS contradicts Scripture.
@@bridgefin I would like once for someone to respond without a series of Catholic talking points.
It would also be great if Catholics would read a little bit more before sticking their foot in their mouth. Example: You decry the lack of a “Protestant catechism”. How many would you like me to list?
The point with councils (and their contradictions) is that they are claimed to be sourced of infallible teaching … right up until the point where it’s inconvenient, lol. So (example) Vatican 2 reverses the previous infallible rule that only the Latin Mass is valid, and now the Pope is on the verge of forbidding it. The assumption of Mary was declared a heresy at least twice. But all of a sudden it’s infallible dogma in 1950? It practically gives one whiplash, lol.
Please don’t start the old “it’s only infallible when [insert latest hoc teaching]” silliness. I’ve wasted hours and hours trying get some Catholic authority to explain this, and the summation always distills down to “when we say so, except when we decide we didn’t”.
My wider point is simply that almost any argument the Catholic Church might bring to bear against some other Christian denomination (as regards consistency) ends up with “pot calling the kettle”.
@@ZTAudio
You: How many would you like me to list?
Me: Not a denominational one but a Protestant one. The moment Luther left he and Calvin could not agree. Same today but now confusion and contradiction reigns.
You: The point with councils (and their contradictions) is that they are claimed to be sourced of infallible teaching … right up until the point where it’s inconvenient, lol.
Me: That is clearly false.
You: So (example) Vatican 2 reverses the previous infallible rule that only the Latin Mass is valid, and now the Pope is on the verge of forbidding it.
Me: That was not an infallible rule. But keep trying.
You: The assumption of Mary was declared a heresy at least twice. But all of a sudden it’s infallible dogma in 1950? It practically gives one whiplash, lol.
Me: When did THE CHURCH declare it as heresy?
You: My wider point is simply that almost any argument the Catholic Church might bring to bear against some other Christian denomination (as regards consistency) ends up with “pot calling the kettle”.
Me: And my request for Protestants to back up there claims is like talking to a cement wall. It is ht and run apologetics. Fantasy beats facts every day. I caught a protestant telling the truth the other day and he was so embarrassed!
Huh. Kind of like the papacy and the Catholic Church. There is no direct evidence in the Scriptures to substantiate these claims.
Matthew 16:18-19 is very direct
Have you ever read the early church father like st Irenaeus ???? read, enlighten yourself my friend. Gbu
Luke 10:16
Jamesʼs gayness was so widely known that Sir Walter Raleigh joked about it in public saying “King Elizabeth” had been succeeded by “Queen James.
As gay as all those sodomite Roman clergy?
i know you have called me name's, and i promise i am trying to avoid you. Hope you have a blessed day 🙏
To argue that Sola Scriptura taught in the Scripture is not making any sense, you end up in circular reasoning...like Muslims that argue that the Quran is the word of Allah because it's written in the Quran itself, non sequitur.
Luther must be smoking some weeds when the idea came up, then we ended up in denominational mess !!!!
Pray for our Prostestant friends to return to the Universal Church, Catholic Church.
Gbu
I think we will stay on the narrow path we are good. Used to be in your cult it has more in common with Islam than it does Christianity. Catholic and Islam religions are both missing GOD they serve satan.
The patristic Church fathers believed in Sola Scriptura.
@@timrosen1618 Please show
@@anthonytan7134 Cyril of Jerusalem ,Catechetical Lectures; This seal have thou ever on thy mind; which now by way of summary has been touched on in its heads, and if the Lord grant, shall hereafter be set forth according to our power, with Scripture proofs. For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, 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”.
@@anthonytan7134 Irenaeus Against Heresies, book 3, 1, 1 “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." Why did he write it? ;Irenaeus Against Heresies Book 3 ch 2, 1 For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but viva voce: wherefore also Paul declared, “But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world.”
Can you show me that Mary was sinless.Not only is not scriptural it’s anti scripture .Can we point out the utter hoax that this is ?
Billy, . . . We can only know that the angel Gabriel said " hail full of grace " if she was full of grace, then she was full, no room for sin _ if she was sinless before Jesus - my bet is she was " fuller " after the Holy Spirit left her, as She is now the Mother of Jesus, who is God incarnate. !
@@johnm.speight7983 But 'full of grace' isn't in Luke 1:28. That greek word doesn't mean that. And having lots and lots of grace doesn't mean there is less and less sin. Paul said in Romans 5 where sin abounds, grace abounds even more. When there is a lot of sin, there is more grace. Not less.
@@ContendingEarnestly The word for Grace is kecharitomene.. Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you. Luke 1:28 "And coming to her, he said, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you." The Greek kecharitomene means favored by grace, graced. Its tense suggests a permanent state of being "highly favored," thus full of grace. Charity, the divine love within us, comes from the same root. God is infinite Goodness, infinite Love. Mary is perfect created goodness, filled to the limit of her finite being with grace or charity.😆😆
@Bible Man Grace is charis. Kecharitomene is highly favored or graced. The perfect tense just refers to a past completed action having present results. It doesn't mean full of grace. There is a whole other term for full of grace. It only occurs twice in the n.t. and never in Luke. Do you have a lexical citation where kecharitomene means full of grace? I'd like to see it.
if you don't believe what the Archangel Gabriel said In Luke 1:28 then that is really your problem.
This bothers me...which gave first the OT or the new? OT did which were all written down for our benefit so we would have no excuse about the existence of God.
The NT is the fulfillment of what was promised from the OT and as such what came out of it was God the ancient of days made man for our sakes came into the world to nail sin and death on the cross. So that, by his death and resurrection we are made a new being to those who God foreknew before anything was made.
All things came out of scripture to deny this is to deny that the Lord speaks to us in writting. As Christ very plainly says have you not read the scriptures....?
If it bothers you, that's because you misunderstand
The Bible doesn't say that it should only ever be the only source you use
The NT was written long after Christ and the apostles, and many passages refer to holding on to tradition, and the equal weighting of oral and written teaching
@Minutemen Revival what other source is there? That's the problem mate; there is no other source by which we are to have our understanding of God and what we must do to please and obey him.
If we go above and beyond what has been given to us by the Apostoles then what you are saying is I have more knowledge than they did. This is fallacious as it is dangerous.
@Minutemen Revival sorry mate but that is a lie! Paul wrotel extremely early and there is even evidence Luke was written early. Yes, after Christs death but this is because of bearing witness to the events that Christ did and taught.
Not only does this prove Christs incarnation from the OT promises but also sheds light for us gentiles who God has called as well.
@Daniel Haas
The Apostles gave us the Church, which hands down the tradition and teaching. I base my understanding on that, not beyond it.
Am I to assume you're some form of protestant? Because the actual problem, "mate", is that you think you can read the KJV in absence of any first century context and think you can understand it, sola scriptura, in total isolation
Which is to presume far too much of your own knowledge. Truly naive and dangerous.
Any wise person gets in communion with Rome and seeks to understand Hebrew and Koine Greek, rather than fettle over some misplaced 16th century translation.
@Daniel Haas
"That Christ did and taught"
Which was oral! Verbal! Not written! Scripture is only half the story!
The letters of Paul make after-the-fact references to him teaching to the greeks in person, verbally
The Bible never once says that the Bible itself is the only source of anything
A very important source, yes, a sacred source, but not the only one at all
The Bible is Very Badly Written.
We Know from History and Across the World that People Cannot Even Agree what it Says or Means.
For about a Millennium People Interpreted it Literally and Concluded it Supported Slavery and after that Decided there was a Different Interpretation and it Didn’t Really.
Any God Worth Their Name Would Have the Power to Write a Book that Everyone Could Understand. Any God With Any Sense Would Realize that Human Beings Were of Finite Mental Capacity and if They Really Did Want to Write a Message for all Mankind Would Write a Book that Everyone Would Recognize as the Word of God and Understand.
It Makes No Sense at all for God to Write a Book Which in Practice has the Net Effect of Confusing Everybody About Something as Basic as Whether “SLAVERY” is OK.
If The Bible is Intended as Moral Guidance it is Demonstrably and Indisputably Badly Written and So Not Plausible as the Word of Any God Worthy the Title.
The Bible is What it Appears to Be. It’s an Eclectic Collection of Writings and Stories Mixing Historical Fact with Supernatural Fiction Written Over a Thousand Years Ago by People Who Weren’t Even the Most Enlightened People of Their Time and By Modern Standards were Spectacularly Ignorant.
“No amount of Evidence will Ever Persuade an Ignorant Person.”
This isn't even remotely true on a historical level. For example, we have early Church Fathers interpreting Genesis allegorically in the first and second centuries. You should do a little research before commenting on the subject.
@@bigfootapologetics He's Trying to Use Thousands (1900 to 3400) of Years Old Story Books to Prove Things Today...
At the Time of The Writings They Didn't Even Know What the Moon, Sun, (As Planets & Solar and Lunar Eclipses) Thunder &Lighting, Earthquakes, Weather (Tornado's / Tsunami's / Hurricanes) Infections, Germs and Mental Illness Was... They Thought it Had Something to do With God or Gods... And The People That Wrote The Story's Where Very Ancient Societies and Spectacularly Ignorant... (Sacrificing Animals and Humans and Doing Other Ignorant Things to Please a God or Gods)
I Find it Hard to Believe That You Support The Story's and You Don't Understand The Reality of Evidence and Proof...
“No amount of Evidence will Ever Persuade an Idiot.”
@@bigfootapologetics As You Can See, the Negative Effects of Religion on Society are Enormous. To Blindly Follow a Religious or any other Ideology Simply Means to Restrict your Perception, Suppress your Thoughts and Emotions, and Live in Hypocrisy - In other words, to Live in Pain and Misery.
Religious Discrimination and Persecution can also have Harmful Effects on a Person's Well-Being. Not only might some Individuals Experience Anxiety, Depression, or Stress, some may be Victimized by acts of Physical Violence, which can lead to Posttraumatic Stress as well as Personal Harm.
During Violent Religious Conflicts, many People have been Killed, Maimed and Wounded. There have also been Wide Spread Disruption of Economic Activities with Negative Effects on Productivity. Hundreds of Churches and Mosques, Hotels and other related Business as well as Vehicles, Private Homes Etc, Have Been Destroyed.
In Case Study's, Religious Beliefs and Practices Contributed to the Development of Certain Disorders like Obsession, Anxiety, and Depression.
In 2010, Sociologist Phil Zuckerman Published Society Without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment. Zuckerman Lined up Evidence that the Least Religious Societies also Tend to be The Most Peaceful, Prosperous and Equitable, with Public Policies that Help People to Flourish While Decreasing both Desperation and Economic Gluttony.
“No amount of Evidence will Ever Persuade an Ignorant Person.”
@@bigfootapologetics The Books of the Old Testament Were Written from Approximately 1400 BC to 400 BC. The Books of the New Testament Were Written From Approximately AD 40 to AD 90. So, Anywhere Between 3,400 and 1,900 Years Have Passed Since a Book of the Bible Was Written. In This Time, The Original Manuscripts Have Been Lost. They Very Likely No Longer Exist. Since the Time the Books of the Bible Were Originally Written, They Have Been Copied Again and Again by Scribes. Copies of Copies of Copies Have Been Made. In View of This, Can We Still Trust the Bible? (“NO”)
Just Looking at all the Mistranslations Have Caused 100's of Contradictions in the Bible...
As of September 2020 the Full Bible Has Been Translated into 704 languages, the New Testament has Been Translated into an Additional 1,551 Languages and Bible Portions or Stories into 1,160 other Languages.
For 1000's of Years and 100'S of Mistranslations are in the Bible, and They are Significant...
Even Christian Can't Agree On What it's Trying to Say...
So Know One Really Knows What The Bible is Truly Saying... Your Just Guessing or Manipulating Mistraslations. Using Historical Process, and Scientific Process We Have Proven This to be True...
Even After Nearly 2,000 Years of its Existence, and Centuries of Investigation by Biblical Scholars, We Still Don't Know With Certainty Who Wrote its Various Texts, When They Were Written or Under What Circumstances.
Sorry if you don't Understand this... It's not my problem...
“No amount of Evidence will Ever Persuade an Ignorant Person.”
@@bigfootapologetics The Bible is full of Contradictions and Discrepancies. The Bible is an Unreliable Authority Because it Contains Approximately 700+ Inconsistencies and Contradictions. Logically, if Two Statements are Contradictory or Inconsistent, at least One of Them is False. The Biblical Contradictions and Inconsistencies Therefore Prove that the Bible has Many False Statements and is Not Infallible or Reliable. The Bible is Full of Violence, Genocide, Prejudice, Slavery, and Injustice, Often Commanded by God, and it’s Been used by Christians to Justify More Violence, Prejudices, Oppression, and Control. The Same Mind Control Techniques are Used Today.
The Bible’s Descriptions of Nature and Natural History are Hopelessly at Odds with Science. Science Uses Facts and Evidence. 1) Defining the Problems, 2) Making Observations, 3) Forming a Hypothesis, 4) Conducting Experiments, 5) Drawing Conclusions, 6) and Peer Reviews. The Bible uses Faith. (No Evidence No Facts and No Reviews. Just the Bible to Prove the Bible.) Just Believe??? Definition of Faith: Strong Belief in God or in the Doctrines of a Religion, Based on Spiritual Apprehension Rather than Proof.
The Bible Was Written By Ancient and Primitive People, to Explain the things They Didn't Understand, and Has No Value to Modern People Anymore. Christians Can’t Even Agree on What it’s Saying, So Who Cares if it’s True or Not. Either Only one Religion is True or all Religions are False? How Can all Religions be True?
(Use Logic and Reasoning to Set your Mind Free) Sorry If You Don't Understand, It's Not My Problem... “No amount of Evidence will Ever Persuade an Ignorant Person.”
The errors in this mans argument are very subtle but they're there
What extremely poor reasoning. First you don't even get the definition of sola scriptura correct. And youre an apologist right? Two things.
First we say scripture is the highest/final authority. We test all things by scripture, kinda like Jesus did. But 1 Thess 5 says that very thing.
Secondly, Jude 3 the faith was, past tense, delivered to the saints. Any doctrine post apostolic age is man made. Which are all roman catholic doctrines and dogmas.
Next, 2 Thess '..hold fast to the traditions..' has nothing to do with sacred tradition which is what your pushing. When did Paul previously teach them either by letter or orally? Hmm, this is 2 Thess. Where oh where can we find what Paul PREVIOUSLY taught them? Its on the tip of my tongue. Maybe 1 Thess?
@@nickswicegood4316 I guess you missed the part about 'post apostolic age'. Not post Jude 3. You get an F for reading comprehension.
_First, we say that scripture is the highest/final authority_
The question is still the same.
You are saying the doctrine of “sola scriptura” is saying that scripture is the ONLY INFALLIBLE source of rules of faith (or highest and final authority like you put it), even though there might be other sources of rules of faith.
The question of proof is still unanswered. How do you backup that claim? You certainly can’t use the scriptures to do it because the doctrine isn’t in the scriptures.
In a nutshell, the doctrine of “sola scriptura” is itself an infallible rule of faith that isn’t found in scripture, the supposed “ONLY, HIGHEST and FINAL source of infallible rules of faith”.
I mean, one would expect a rule of faith such as “sola scriptura” to be in the highest and final source for rules of faith
I hope you can see how illogical and self refuting the idea of sola scriptura is.
@@charlesudoh6034 Its not illogical. Scripture is God breathed. What else is God breathed? That right there makes scripture the highest authority. Not the only authority. Everything else is subject to scripture. Jesus appealed to it. So do others. I was never sure what the big deal was that we hold Gods word as the highest authority. If not Gods word then what?
@@ContendingEarnestly
_Its no illogical, Scripture is God breathed. What else is God breathed?_
The Word of God is God breathed. That’s right. Scripture is the word of God written down. Tradition is the word of God orally passed on. They are both the word of God.
This is important to realize because during the time of the apostles, their primary concern wasn’t about writing down anything, it was more about preaching. They only wrote letters when they wanted to communicate with an audience far away, which makes sense. Other than that, they preached to the people around them under the inspiration of God.
The need to document SOME of what was said came later, after the apostles had died.
Are you telling me that what was preached was not inspired because they were not written down?
The inspired word of God is God breathed. The mode of transmission of that inspiration was up to the apostles. Wether written or orally. How does the mode of transmission affect the inspiration of the word of God?
This is so basic an issue, it was unheard of to argue over it for 1500 years. It was not until when the foolishness and the sheer stupidity of the reformation came about that we started going back and forth on this.
This is basic logic my friend. Its not worth debating.
@@charlesudoh6034 *Tradition is the word of God orally passed on.*
Show me the verse that says tradition is God breathed then you might have a point. Scripture is God breathed. And your own ccc says tradition is distinct from scripture. Please show me the exhaustive list of your sacred tradition. I'll wait.
*The need to document SOME of what was said came later, after the apostles had died.*
But youre not suggesting those documents were scripture right? Just to be clear.
*Are you telling me that what was preached was not inspired because they were not written down?*
If you have studied this at all you would know that during the apostolic era this was the time of inscripturation. No one denies that. That still doesn't solve the issue at hand. Most of the n.t. was considered inspired before the close of the first century. Peter said Pauls writing was scripture. Paul referred to Lukes writing as scripture. And as we know, 'all scripture is inspired...'
*The mode of transmission of that inspiration was up to the apostles. Wether written or orally.*
Now youre just making it up. Paul reminded those in Thessalonica to stand firm an hold to the traditions you were taught by word or letter. He doesn't say a thing about the mode of transmission of inspiration. Find the greek word for inspired in that verse.
*This is so basic an issue, it was unheard of to argue over it for 1500 years.*
Of course that is your opinion. Tradition in the bible comes nowhere near the level of scripture. Where is the Psalm 119 for tradition? Where is the 2 Tim 3:16 for tradition? Where is tradition appealed to in order to correct doctrine?
*It was not until when the foolishness and the sheer stupidity of the reformation came about that we started going back and forth on this.*
The bible of course and lots of church fathers would disagree with you.
*This is basic logic my friend. Its not worth debating.*
Your logic is utterly unconvincing. Basically, you don't believe it. The rcc doesn't believe it therefore its illogical. Welcome sola ecclesia.
Doctrine of the Father does come from the Father alone. Because it is the inspired Word.
Whenever the Father Yahuah speaks to His children He says for example:
Exo 20:1 And Elohim spoke all these Words, saying,
Exo 20:2 “I am יהוה your Elohim, who brought you out of the land of Mitsrayim, out of the house of slavery.
For the believer in the Bible, there is NO doubt, that it is the Word of Elohim/God. The Father spoke through Man in the 1st Covenant, BUT also spoke directly to man, such as, where Yahuah spoke to Moses when giving Him the 10 commandments.
Then we have in the Renewed covenant, the Fact that Yahusha Messiah, who is Elohim, spoke to man.
This is crucial to grasp, as HE TAUGHT FROM THE TORAH/TANAKH. Meaning every word that He spoke and taught from the 1st Covenant is His Word.
We also get the confirmation that He is the Word in the following ...
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with Elohim, and the Word was Elohim.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with Elohim.
Joh 1:3 All came to be through Him,a and without Him not even one came to be that came to be.
He who Created all, is the Word.
Yahusha Messiah appointed His apostles, who after He has ascended into the heavens, to be His spokesman.
As we see how Yahusha spoke to Shaul/Paul from the heavens:
Act 26:14 “And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice speaking to me, and saying in the Hebrew language, ‘Sha’ul, Sha’ul, why do you persecute Me? It is hard for you to kick against the prods.’
Act 26:15 “And I said, ‘Who are You, Master?’ And He said, ‘I am יהושע, whom you persecute.
Yahusha’s message was sent through His servant Yohanan:
Rev 1:1 Revelation of יהושע Messiah, which Elohim gave Him to show His servants what has to take place with speed. And He signified it by sending His messenger to His servant Yoḥanan,
Rev 1:2 who bore witness to the Word of Elohim, and the witness of יהושע Messiah - to all he saw.
SO you are wrong, the Word of Yahuah, the Scriptures, is ALL HIS WORD. It doesn’t matter if man messed with it by adding or deleting, because He will reveal to those who seek Him. 1Co 2:9-16
You see that? His chosen will know the Mind of Yahusha Messiah, meaning we will know HIS WORD.
And no man can take that away.
As far as 2 Thes 2:15 is concerned, can only be agreed to if you don’t know the Father. You see, what Shaul has said here is a Biblical truth, in obedience to the Father, who said this:
Deu 6:6 “And these Words which I am commanding you today shall be in your heart,
Deu 6:7 and you shall impress them upon your children, and shall speak of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise up,
Because literacy was a problem, it was taught by the parents to the children.
Just as we know what day is Sunday or Sabbath day, or when the pagan christmas or Easter is, we are taught throughout the generations. And so it will be truth for whether you are a Jew, Christian, Buddist, Islam etc.
But sadly, only one of them is the only truth. And that is the true Faith of the Scriptures, taught by our Messiah and NOT what the church father’s taught.
Now here is where you failed badly. You claim there is no proof, whether the Bible it the truth. You only pluck some ideas from space or sucked it from your thumb.
The Bible CAN be proven to be the truth in many ways, such as Archaeology, Authenticity of the Bible society, Creation itself proves the existence of the Creator, Eye witness account, fulfilled prophecies, scientific facts etc.
Your problem is that you can not disprove that the Scriptures is the Word of Yahuah(YHWH).
Not everything was written! Jn.20:30, 21:25..Mt.28:19-20; "...Make disciples of ALL nations...Baptizing....teaching them to OBEY everything I have commanded you" For the first 400 years, EVERYTHING was taught by Holy Tradition, (The Catholic Church produced the Bible in 382A.D.) Phil.4:9, 2Tim.2:2, 1Cor.4:17, 11:2-16, 23-29, 15:3, 2Thes.2:15, 3:6..Jesus never wrote anything, (except on the ground while being confronted by the Pharisees) and was NOT handing out Bibles!
Think again.
- Irenaeus (AD 180): 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. (Against Heresies, 3:1.1)
- Athanasius (AD 296-373): The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth. (Against the Heathen, 1:3)
- Augustine (AD 354-430): It is to the canonical Scriptures alone that I am bound to yield such implicit subjection as to follow their teaching, without admitting the slightest suspicion that in them any mistake or any statement intended to mislead could find a place. (Letters, 82.3)
- Augustine (AD 354-430): He [God] also inspired the Scripture, which is regarded as canonical and of supreme authority and to which we give credence concerning all the truths we ought to know and yet, of ourselves, are unable to learn. (City of God, 11.3)
- Cyril of Jerusalem (AD 310-386): For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures. (Catechetical Lectures, IV:17 in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers)
- Gregory of Nyssa (AD 330-395): We are not entitled to such license, namely, of affirming whatever we please. For we make Sacred Scripture the rule and the norm of every doctrine. Upon that we are obliged to fix our eyes, and we approve only whatever can be brought into harmony with the intent of these writings. (On the Soul and the Resurrection, quoted in Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971], p. 50.)
- Augustine of Hippo (AD 354-430): Let them show their church if they can, not by the speeches and mumblings of the Africans, not by the councils of their bishops, not by the writings of any of their champions, not by fraudulent signs and wonders, because we have been prepared and made cautious also against these things by the Word of the Lord. (On the Unity of the Church, 16)
- John Chrysostom (AD 347-407): Wherefore I exhort and entreat you all, disregard what this man and that man thinks about these things, and inquire from the Scriptures all these things; and having learned what are the true riches, let us pursue after them that we may obtain also the eternal good things. (Homily 13 on 2 Corinthians)
Scripture Alone simply means that scripture is the only infallible basis of the faith. The tradition you mentioned in 1 Thess is not recorded either in scripture or anywhere else so it is simply lost to history as far as we can tell. Note, the apostle paul said to hold fast to the tradition that he/they (his companions) taught the church. Those traditions are valid because Paul was an apostle of Christ just the same way we view the words written by him. No where in that verse does it say the traditions of the church, especially not any implications for traditions created during doctrinal disputes a thousand years later. The traditions Paul is talking about are from him as a sent one of God and since we don't have them, we only have his writings, we must go with scripture alone. If we had those traditions recorded somewhere, they would probably be in our bible or, hypothetically speaking, we would hold them in the same regard. (Hard to imagine another way other than writing to transmit that info over thousands of years and verify it's verasity, basically it would need to be written down and would likely end up in the bible, but it wasn't so it didn't).
2 peter 1:18-20 KJB
18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
Mark 7:13 KJB
13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
If all churches were wiped out and all we had was the Bible then you would go by the Bible and the Bible alone. Which is what you should do in the first place.
If you needed to you could go by the Bible alone because 2 Thess. 2:15 says by epistle too and much of the catholic church is just tradition and none of what they do is biblical. The mass isnt found in the Bible, confessing sins to a priest in the new testament isnt found in the Bible, having pictures of saints and Jesus isnt found in the bible, praying to mary or any other saints isnt in the Bible, the word pope isnt found in the bible, baptizing babies isnt found in the bible, praying the rosary isnt found in the bible, purgatory isnt found in the bible, doing works for salvation isnt found in the bible (Ephesians 2:8-9 KJB). There is so much wrong with the catholic church and its scary how many people dont read their bible and cant see the truth behind it because they have been told so many lies that they think it is the truth. Come to the gospel of 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 of HOW Jesus died for our sins was buried and rose again the third day and trust the finished work of Christ, the blood atonement for Salvation.
Romans 5:10-12 KJB
10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.
12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Hebrews 9:22 KJB
22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
romans 3:25 KJB
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through FAITH in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
Hebrews 10:19
19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
Romans 5:8-10 KJB
8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
Ephesians 2:8-9 KJB
8 For by grace are ye saved through FAITH; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 NOT of works, lest any man should boast.
Galatians 2:16 KJB
16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
Claiming to be wise they became fools! They put the word of God together in a book the Bible and then they want to explain things with traditions???
Nope. You need the erroneous doctrines of man to have the “truth”.
How do we know that what you are saying is correct? Circular reasoning. I believe what the Bible, God's Word, says, not people. Anything else is pure dogma (human doctrine), not doctrine.
How do we know that your interpretation of Scripture is correct? Answer some of his questions:
1. Where does Scripture say that it is the ONLY authority? It doesn't.
2. If it's bible alone, then show us the inspired canon in the bible. Oops, that's missing. When you hold that bible in your hands you are honoring Catholic tradition which declared it to be inspired.
No where is scripture? So, what does the bible say? Jesus tells his apostles in John 16:13 " When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into ALL TRUTH". So, how much is ALL TRUTH? Next is Jude 3, " Contend for the faith which was ONCE FOR ALL DELIVERED TO THE SAINTS". What does once for all mean? Next is 2 Peter 1:3 " His divine power has granted us ALL THINGS THAT PERTAIN TO LIFE AND GODLINESS". Next is James 1:25 " But he who looks into the PERFECT LAW, the law of liberty". Next is 2Timothy 3:16 " All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and for training in righteousness, that THE MAN OF GOD MAY BE COMPLETE". Next is Col 4:12 " that you may stand mature and FULLY ASSURED IN ALL THE WILL OF GOD". Next Col 1:25 " which I became a minister according to the divine office which was given to me for you, to make THE WORD OF GOD FULLY KNOWN". Next is Phil. 4:9 "What you have learned, received, heard, and seen in me, DO, AND THE GOD OF PEACE WILL BE WITH YOU". Lastly, we are told not to add or take away from this book, Rev 22. So, we have ALL TRUTH, it was ONCE FOR ALL DELIVERED, we have things that PERTAIN TO LIFE AND GODLINESS AND THE WORD OF GOD IS FULLY KNOWN.
Well it seems when you give scripture to prove the bible is our standard for authority, they delete it. I wonder why that is?
Oh, Joe. Not a minute in and all I could think were the words of Treebeard: "A wizard (seasoned Catholic Apologists) should know better." Three issues come to mind.
1. The burden of proof does not lay solely on the part of Protestants to defend the "alone." Rather it is shared in that opponents must prove that something else has an infallible status equal to Scripture, as Divine words.
2. You admit degrees in the definition of Sola Scriptura, but then proceeded to address only the "doctrines can only come from Scripture" view. I prefer the definition that Scripture is the norm that norms all norms, which is more in keeping with the term canon, meaning "standard" or "measure."
3. The declaration that something is such a standard does not preclude it being authoritative over the declarer. Laws are a good example. Also, the 66 book Canon is attested to by the early church in a way that no other collection is. It is a reliable consensus.
Finally, both Scripture and Patristics give reason to uphold Scripture as being unique in status. The Bereans were considered noble for they "searched the Scriptures daily to see if what Paul said was true." (Acts 17:11)
If allegiance due to office alone is not a given for an Apostle, surely the sames goes for their successors. Cyril of Jerusalem seems to say as much: "Even to me (archbishop of the mother church of Jerusalem), who tell you these things (teaching catechumens the tenants of the faith), give not absolute credence (no concept of infallibility here), unless you receive proof of the things which I announce (laity are encouraged and deemed able to judge) from the Divine Scriptures (the Standard). For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures." (CL 4.17)
On your view of scripture alone or Sola Scriptura, yes it may not be written exactly in that way, however, another way of saying it is that the word of God is sufficient for all teaching, doctrine and truth that we need. Here are the scriptural evidences for that:
2 Timothy 3:14-17
[14]But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it,
[15]and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
[16]All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
[17]so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Hebrews 4:12
[12]For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
Romans 10:17
[17]So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Isaiah 40:8
The grass withers and the flowers fall,
but the word of our God endures forever.”
2 Peter 1:19-21
[19]We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.
[20]Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things.
[21]For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
1 Corinthians 15:1-4
[1]Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand.
[2]By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.
[3]For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance : that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
[4]that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
Romans 12:2
[2]Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is-his good, pleasing and perfect will.
2 Peter 3:15-16
[15]Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him.
[16]He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
1 Corinthians 2:9-13
[9]However, as it is written:
“What no eye has seen,
what no ear has heard,
and what no human mind has conceived” -
the things God has prepared for those who love him-
[10]these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God.
[11]For who knows a person’s thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.
[12]What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us.
[13]This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words.
2 Corinthians 10:5
[5]We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.
John 17:17
[17]Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth.
Deuteronomy 8:1-3
[1]Be careful to follow every command I am giving you today, so that you may live and increase and may enter and possess the land the Lord promised on oath to your ancestors.
[2]Remember how the Lord your God led you all the way in the wilderness these forty years, to humble and test you in order to know what was in your heart, whether or not you would keep his commands.
[3]He humbled you, causing you to hunger and then feeding you with manna, which neither you nor your ancestors had known, to teach you that man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord.
Matthew 4:4
[4]Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’ ”
Matthew 24:35
[35]Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.
1 Thessalonians 2:13
[13]And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is indeed at work in you who believe.
No where? How about 1 Corinthians 4:6 don’t go beyond this book
How do you know what is written?
@@franknwogu4911 what
Matthew 15:1-9 (KJV) 1 Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,
2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to [his] father or [his] mother, [It is] a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
6 And honour not his father or his mother, [he shall be free]. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
7 [Ye] hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with [their] lips; but their heart is far from me.
9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men.
By their fruits ye shall know them....a bad tree cannot bear good fruit...burning people at the stake,the inquisition, ecumenism with other fakse religions which the bible prohibits.
The Bible teaches Scriptures complete the man of God for every good work which means the teachings of the Bible are adequate for our salvation so we don't need doctrines that come along later or whatever. The Bible in fact does tell us that the Hebrew Scriptures and the teachings and epistles of the apostles are Scripture. So in that all the church had to was follow those directions and compile those things exclusively into the Bible which is exactly what happened.
Well said
Of course, any heretic would say that. I would ask if Rev. 22 says. "
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.
I would conclude that God would feel pretty much, not just the Bible. book but all the books of the bible. Their is one truth, and it is how we know truth. In adding any other books to it that didn't mesh what is revealed would be a lie
You have to paint a convincing picture that the word of God is "INCOMPLETE not ENOUGH" to receive Salvation, in order to push the Agenda of purgatory, indulgences, mass, marian dogma, supremacy of the POPE, and list goes on and on and on. You have to demonstrate that the scripture is "OBSCURE" and it can not be trusted on "its own". These 2 things Roman Church has Masterfully done with BRILIANCY and BEAUTY. This is why 2.5 billion Marians and counting, COMPLETELY submitted to the POPE and his Godship on earth as the singular "authority of faith". Entrusting their prayer to Mary their divine mother, for their salvation, hoping they spend less time in purgatory to be with the Lord, commit to indulgences as much as they can because it removes venial/mortal sins, confess to a priest as often as possible. This is what the Vatican called WORKS+Faith= Salvation. Only then you WILL BE SAVED...... and 2.5 billion Marians BELIEVE!!
@@WeaponofChoice-hx2hn There you go, Christ HIMSELF called his WORK on the CROSS COMPLETE, you marians call it "bare minimum". His Death on the Cross is ENOUGH. Faith in Him ALONE ONLY can save a SOUL. Your pope and your prayers to mary is but FUTILE. The papacy, marian dogma, purgatory and many other principles COMPLETELY ERASE the very essence of the DEATH of CHRIST. Roman church is the GREAT PAGAN DRAGON with high places full of your STATUES made of wood/stones/iron that can neither SEE/HEAR or TALK, that has essentially swallowed up those who are not of CHRIST. We the few, BIBLICAL Christians REBUKE the Roman assembly.
Protestants usually handle 2Thess. 2:15 by saying that the oral traditions that Paul speaks of were eventually written down in Scripture, even if they were spoken orally during a period of time.
Don't be fooled by this answer from them, because at first you may think that it has some legitimacy. It doesn't at all when you really look at the verse carefully.
"So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter."
If you notice, Paul doesn't indicate whatsoever that those "traditions" taught by them orally would end up being written down in Scripture. No doubt some of them probably did, but you cannot make the claim that ALL of them were eventually written down in Scripture, since this verse seems to show otherwise, that there would some which were not written down in Scripture, and would be passed along orally until at some point we could assume that they were put into writing by someone later (post Apostolic era).
2 Tim 3:16
Yes, all Scripture inspired by God is useful......but how does that prove sola scriptura?
@@jzak5723 scripture is the final authority over personal revelation
@@1grfield
What is "personal revelation" to you? Just curious.
@jzak5723 like in tge clip "God told me"
@@1grfield
tge clip?
The Bible does not allow for traditions that contradict its message. Traditions are valid only when they conform with scripture. gq.o
What do mean by "contradict its message"? Seems that could be subjective, right?
Nice Vid! So true, If scripture was the basis of faith, why did Jesus Himself appealed to us to seek Him first; bringing to us a realisation that studying scripture does NOT bring eternal life (John 5). In my honest opinion, the Holy Spirit who dwells in us guides us towards the Truth, and He is Jesus.