![Practical Christian Lessons (PCL)](/img/default-banner.jpg)
- 233
- 22 544
Practical Christian Lessons (PCL)
United States
Приєднався 21 кві 2023
Welcome to PCL where we cover everything from Wesleyan Theology to Protestant Apologetics and much more! Subscribe & join us as we pursue and encourage Scriptural Holiness!
Wesleyan Essays: The Miracle of Transforming Grace by Albert Truesdale
Please like & subscribe! Welcome to PCL (Practical Christian Lessons). Today we will be reading through one of the Wesleyan Essays in the NIV Reflecting God Study Bible! Or as some might call it the Wesleyan Study Bible. I love this study Bible's notes (even though I wish I could get it in more translations), and think it's a wonderful purchase for anyone wanting to read Wesleyan focused study Bibles. Today we discuss briefly the amazing power of God's grace & how it transforms our lives!
Here´s all our Wesleyan readings: ua-cam.com/play/PL4VeIAMo4PNX1CerdUPe1x0zqz-q9BX3H.html
Our Flagship resource here is Learning, Living, & Defending the Faith! ua-cam.com/video/VPCQMH5rtiI/v-deo.html
Connect with us here on Discord for even more resources! discord.gg/uguJFperbK
(practicalchristianlessons.wordpress.com), you can also find on Substack (substack.com/@practicalchristianlessons), and Twitter ( PracticalCL).
#wesleyan #methodism
Here´s all our Wesleyan readings: ua-cam.com/play/PL4VeIAMo4PNX1CerdUPe1x0zqz-q9BX3H.html
Our Flagship resource here is Learning, Living, & Defending the Faith! ua-cam.com/video/VPCQMH5rtiI/v-deo.html
Connect with us here on Discord for even more resources! discord.gg/uguJFperbK
(practicalchristianlessons.wordpress.com), you can also find on Substack (substack.com/@practicalchristianlessons), and Twitter ( PracticalCL).
#wesleyan #methodism
Переглядів: 6
Відео
Wesleyan Essays: Being Holy Like God by William Francis
Please like & subscribe! Welcome to PCL (Practical Christian Lessons). Today we will be reading through one of the Wesleyan Essays in the NIV Reflecting God Study Bible! Or as some might call it the Wesleyan Study Bible. I love this study Bible's notes (even though I wish I could get it in more translations), and think it's a wonderful purchase for anyone wanting to read Wesleyan focused study ...
Wesleyan Essays: The Experience of Sanctifying Grace by Elmer E. Parsons
Please like & subscribe! Welcome to PCL (Practical Christian Lessons). Today we will be reading through one of the Wesleyan Essays in the NIV Reflecting God Study Bible! Or as some might call it the Wesleyan Study Bible. I love this study Bible's notes (even though I wish I could get it in more translations), and think it's a wonderful purchase for anyone wanting to read Wesleyan focused study ...
Wesleyan Essays: The Tragedy of Human Sin by Jo Anne Lyon
Переглядів 124 години тому
Please like & subscribe! Welcome to PCL (Practical Christian Lessons). Today we will be reading through one of the Wesleyan Essays in the NIV Reflecting God Study Bible! Or as some might call it the Wesleyan Study Bible. I love this study Bible's notes (even though I wish I could get it in more translations), and think it's a wonderful purchase for anyone wanting to read Wesleyan focused study ...
Visiting the Sick: The Means of Grace
Переглядів 229 годин тому
Please like & subscribe! Welcome to PCL (Practical Christian Lessons). Today we will be finally starting are means of grace through works of mercy of series! Starting in a spot you might not expect. We pull from pages 55-60 of Odens work, and John Wesley's sermon "On Visiting the Sick." Find the shownotes/script below where you will find a few additional resources on this topic as we go through...
Wesleyan Essays: Human Freedom by Steve Harper
Переглядів 3016 годин тому
Please like & subscribe! Welcome to PCL (Practical Christian Lessons). Today we will be reading through one of the Wesleyan Essays in the NIV Reflecting God Study Bible! Or as some might call it the Wesleyan Study Bible. I love this study Bible's notes (even though I wish I could get it in more translations), and think it's a wonderful purchase for anyone wanting to read Wesleyan focused study ...
Wesleyan Essays: How To Study The Bible by James Earl Massey
Переглядів 9921 годину тому
Please like & subscribe! Welcome to PCL (Practical Christian Lessons). Today we will be reading through one of the Wesleyan Essays in the NIV Reflecting God Study Bible! Or as some might call it the Wesleyan Study Bible. I love this study Bible's notes (even though I wish I could get it in more translations), and think it's a wonderful purchase for anyone wanting to read Wesleyan focused study ...
Reconciling Religious Dissensions Among Christians: Ora 5 (Part 3) -Complete Works of Jacob Arminius
Переглядів 90День тому
Please like & subscribe! Today we return to our complete works of Jacob Arminius. Discussing the causes & consequences of dissensions among different Christian traditions. You can find this reading here: ccel.org/ccel/arminius/works1/works1.ii.vi.html You can find our playlist of Jacob Arminius's writings here - Complete collection: ua-cam.com/play/PL4VeIAMo4PNWztrxdPg-lyx5dpmAmrENZ.html - Volu...
Heretics, Heterodoxy, & Bad Hermeneutics
Переглядів 54День тому
Please like & subscribe! Welcome to PCL (Practical Christian Lessons). Today we will be discussing how NOT to read the Bible when it comes to Biblical authors quoting other parts of Scripture. The passages from today are Ps 22; Mt 27.46; & Mk 15.34. I pull quotes from pgs. 21-23 of McCall's work & encourage everyone to pick it up to dig deeper into this topic. He quotes many more fathers, medie...
Wesleyan Essays: How do you read the Bible devotionally by Donald E. Demaray
Переглядів 3314 днів тому
Please like & subscribe! Welcome to PCL (Practical Christian Lessons). Today we will be starting a new series walking through some of the Wesleyan Essays in the NIV Reflecting God Study Bible! Or as some might call it the Wesleyan Study Bible. I love this study Bible's notes (even though I wish I could get it in more translations), and think it's a wonderful purchase for anyone wanting to read ...
A Methodist Approach to the "Canon Problem"
Переглядів 1,9 тис.14 днів тому
Please like & subscribe! Welcome to PCL (Practical Christian Lessons). Today we will be talking briefly about the history of the canon of the Bible. Where did it come from, who has the right canon, how long did it take to form the canon, what disagreements were there, did Martin Luther really take books out of the Bible? My playlist on this topic: ua-cam.com/play/PL4VeIAMo4PNU_eAM5DHVDfU_l4SYXU...
What is a Priest
Переглядів 8414 днів тому
Please like & subscribe! Welcome to PCL (Practical Christian Lessons). Today we will be continuing our means of grace through works of mercy of series! Starting in a spot you might not expect. We pull from pages 49-52 of Odens work, as well as John Wesley's own sermons. Shownotes: practicalchristianlessons.wordpress.com/2024/08/05/what-is-a-priest-pastor/ & open.substack.com/pub/practicalchrist...
Methodist Doctrinal Standards
Переглядів 4721 день тому
Please like & subscribe! Welcome to PCL (Practical Christian Lessons). Today we will be going through some of the various doctrinally binding documents for the Methodist Tradition. There were a few other doctrinal standards I didn't mention such as the doctrinal minutes at various conferences, unified statements of faith over the years from various Methodist traditions, catechisms, and more. Fe...
Reconciling Religious Dissensions Among Christians: Ora 5 (Part 2) -Complete Works of Jacob Arminius
Переглядів 1621 день тому
Please like & subscribe! Today we return to our complete works of Jacob Arminius. Discussing the causes & consequences of dissensions among different Christian traditions. You can find this reading here: ccel.org/ccel/arminius/works1/works1.ii.vi.html You can find our playlist of Jacob Arminius's writings here - Complete collection: ua-cam.com/play/PL4VeIAMo4PNWztrxdPg-lyx5dpmAmrENZ.html - Volu...
The Methodist 25 Articles: 23-25 America's Freedom, Private Property, & Taking Oath's
Переглядів 1428 днів тому
The Methodist 25 Articles: 23-25 America's Freedom, Private Property, & Taking Oath's
The Methodist 25 Articles: 21-22 Should Priest be Married & Rites of the Church
Переглядів 2828 днів тому
The Methodist 25 Articles: 21-22 Should Priest be Married & Rites of the Church
The Methodist 25 Articles: 19-20 The Supper in Both Kinds & The Once for All Sacrifice of Christ
Переглядів 8Місяць тому
The Methodist 25 Articles: 19-20 The Supper in Both Kinds & The Once for All Sacrifice of Christ
The Methodist 25 Articles: 17-18 Baptism & The Lords Supper (And what Transubstantiation gets wrong)
Переглядів 40Місяць тому
The Methodist 25 Articles: 17-18 Baptism & The Lords Supper (And what Transubstantiation gets wrong)
Reconciling Religious Dissensions Among Christians: Ora 5 (Part 1) -Complete Works of Jacob Arminius
Переглядів 12Місяць тому
Reconciling Religious Dissensions Among Christians: Ora 5 (Part 1) -Complete Works of Jacob Arminius
The Methodist 25 Articles: 15-16 Speaking Common Tongues & The Sacraments
Переглядів 19Місяць тому
The Methodist 25 Articles: 15-16 Speaking Common Tongues & The Sacraments
The Methodist 25 Articles: 13-14 The Church & Purgatory
Переглядів 28Місяць тому
The Methodist 25 Articles: 13-14 The Church & Purgatory
What is the Church? And Why do we Need it?
Переглядів 51Місяць тому
What is the Church? And Why do we Need it?
The Visible & Invisible Church: What Ecclesialists Get Wrong
Переглядів 105Місяць тому
The Visible & Invisible Church: What Ecclesialists Get Wrong
The Methodist 25 Articles: 10-11 Beyond Good Works & Sin After Baptism
Переглядів 17Місяць тому
The Methodist 25 Articles: 10-11 Beyond Good Works & Sin After Baptism
The Methodist 25 Articles: 9-10 Sola Fide (Faith Alone) & Good Works
Переглядів 24Місяць тому
The Methodist 25 Articles: 9-10 Sola Fide (Faith Alone) & Good Works
The Methodist 25 Articles: 7-8 Original Sin & Free Will
Переглядів 13Місяць тому
The Methodist 25 Articles: 7-8 Original Sin & Free Will
The Means of Grace through Works of Mercy
Переглядів 28Місяць тому
The Means of Grace through Works of Mercy
The Methodist 25 Articles: 6 The Old Testament
Переглядів 202 місяці тому
The Methodist 25 Articles: 6 The Old Testament
The early Church Fathers did not each have their own "canon" of OT books. The had their own ideas of what should be considered Scripture. Nothing was set in stone until the Catholic Church stated what was canonical, what was duterocanonical (sp?), and what was false scripture.
🙏 amen.
8 times Proverbs says use a rod, NOT YOUR HAND!
What kind of Rosary 📿 do you have on?
Saint Benedict.
This was really good. I have recently found you and have seen the other two brothers on this stream elsewhere before. I hope you will make more videos about Methodist doctrine and how it compares to that of other traditions. Particularly Methodist sacramentology, polity, and views on liturgy would be interesting. If I may ask, which Methodist group are you a part of?
Thankyou! And I definitely want to get into that in depth at some point. I have made a video "the three primary means of grace" that touch on the Methodist understanding of the sacraments (at least by official doctrine). My own church is currently unaffiliated, they are hoping to make a decision this year on what their future is and what body we will be joining. We've been, as I've jokingly been calling it, "generic brand Methodist" for a bit now.
@@PracticalChristianLessons awesome! I will have to watch that video. I pray you find a good group to join. I am not a Methodist, but it is my understanding that some form of connectionalism and unity with other individual churches is a part of Methodism.
@@unit2394 It very much is! I'd even go so far as to say, that to be "individual" as some wish to be after this has happened is to cease to be Methodist.
❤
Thank you for touching on this topic. I think I'm going to send it to some staff at my church to encourage them. It is crazy that Wesley had such wisdom so long ago. The human condition is truly the same. I am greatful for his pastoral heart and yours. I will pray that our Father provides you with a flock to pour out on. A gift of teahcing and mercy is apon you. May The Spirit grant you gifts as you need them in your minstry.
Thankyou for such kind words! It is all definitely by the grace of God, my manner and my gifts. If it wasn´t for Him & His work I can only imagine where I would be right now. I pray that this will be great for your church as well! I feel very privileged being able to bring back the depth of riches from those saints who have come before us.
Cultivating Christ: www.youtube.com/@@PlantChrist & @ScroopGroop were my cohorts in this live, check them out! Here is the link for the Church Fathers free writings we mentioned: www.ccel.org/fathers
My brother in Christ, I respect your fervor for the Lord, but Orthodoxy and Catholicism have the same books. Saying otherwise is disingenuous, even within the argument of "when the canon was resolved." Secondly, you don't do yourself a service when you go, "I don't study Church history" then say "based on Church history, here's why I think this is canon." You can't have an admitedly incomplete view on Church history and say you don't like the argument of apostolic succession having precedence then try to give your own historical reasoning behind canon. It's just like having your own interpretation of the scripture content itself. Thats why you have to end up having an "open canon" because you're only focusing on denying what's canon, not defining why and where your canon comes from. The Church defines, yet again Protestants "protest".
I did not argue about what books are in the Eastern Orthodox Canon (though there are in fact different canon list among the different Orthodox traditions) and Roman Catholicism. We do share the same core of books even if we disagree on a few others. I do study Church history, I never said I don't study Church history. If I did, that was a mistake in my speech.
@@PracticalChristianLessons fair enough
@@Steve_Trotta @Steve_Trotta I have listened back, I definitely misspoke. I meant to say I do not study the detailed history of the debates, I have studied the history of the development of the canon. I am aware of many of the debates, I am simply not interested in digging into the fine details of those debates.
@PracticalChristianLessons i can see what you meant now. You were referring to a specific subset of Church history topics.
As a protestant teetering on the edge of Orthodoxy, I'm afraid to say that you haven't quelled my worries. I don't think what you discussed here refutes the point that cannon comes from tradition. Especially for most protestants who consider the cannon closed. If you say "Sola Scriptura", and I ask "which scripture?", and you say "the cannon is open but most of scripture is agreed upon"; That has not inspired confidence in me. How is it not preceded by tradition? The fact that there was a time with no formal cannon does not disprove the fact that the cannon we have NOW comes from the tradition of the body of Christ. And the fact that there are different cannons does not disprove it either. It just means there are different traditions (yes, even within the same, in communion, church). I may have misunderstood your point, or it may have gone over my head. But I was hoping for a clear and concise refutation.
I recommend the playlist on my channel titled the canon for more in depth work, and the resources in the pinned comments. But that is very much my point. The early Church functioned under the principle of Sola Scriptura while also holding an open canon, I see no problem why it should be an issue for us when it wasn't for them. On the topic of Sola Scriptura itself I also have these resources: ua-cam.com/play/PLpM8NONVX-il0UlrnCjLoyOW310HZMGxJ.html & in my discord (linked in the description) I have a plethora of books (free & otherwise) to be delved into. And will be doing more work on it including a presentation coming in September. In the meantime the ministry I serve in is exactly for helping deal with Ecclesial anxiety if you'd be interested. discord.gg/8fUX22cE. SSBS will also have the same book resources I have in my own server.
In addition to all I said, and I think Jordan B Coopers video on this nails it on the head. If the people who define the canon are the people we must submit to (rather than the churches job being to recognize Scripture not define it as I argue for) then we should all be Pharisee's as they were the one's who defined the canon of their time. They were the ones who were in the Seat of Moses as Jesus Himself says.
@@PracticalChristianLessonsDr. Cooper’s work is fantastic. It’s what introduced me to Lutheranism (I am now a Lutheran) and it is what finally and definitively dispelled my long term thoughts about converting to Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy.
Your position puts you into a double bind. Does the closure of the canon imply the perfection of the Church? If yes, then the Church cannot be refuted or reformed. If no, then how can the canon be closed if it is open to revision?
You realize for the many of us who have an "open canon" this is no problem at all? Though I still fail to see how a closure of the canon 1 implies perfection, and 2 why either of the conclusion put forward would be the logical conclusion. How can the Church be perfected here on Earth while we still live in a fallen world and thus have fallen sinners who will be imperfect within the Church?
@@PracticalChristianLessons If the Church is subject to further intervention, then the purpose of the Incarnation is obscure. The revelation we have now through the mystery of Jesus would not be complete, and so the faith is neither "once for all delivered." You do not have the faith yet promised, you are waiting on more Apostolic witness. You may as well still be in your sins awaiting the salvation of God. The Church is the Body of Christ. If it is not perfect and blameless, it cannot belong to Christ, for that is the state in which it will be presented. Even if the Church is composed of sinners, the Church herself is not stained by them.
@@j.johnson2190 The purpose of the incarnation was to bring about the salvation of man, and the work He has started will be completed. Death has been defeated, and will be fully defeated later. Christ's bride is being perfected and will be presented as perfect in the last times. But it is not yet so. This hardly obscures the incarnation. God took on flesh to save man & redeem us, just because we are not yet perfect doesn't mean that it isn't so. To say the Church doesn't still need intervention ignores the clear calls in the New Testament for constant leaning upon & correction from the Lord. Does not Jesus Himself cry out to the churches to correct their errors (Revelation 2), let alone the epistles He spoke through His apostles to the various churches going astray. The Faith has been delivered once and for all, and as Ambrose says the Church is like a boat that gets leaks that need patched.
@@PracticalChristianLessons If the faith was delivered once and for all, then how is an open canon possible? If the Incarnation is the full revelation, how is revision to revelation possible?
@@j.johnson2190 Revelation is not being revised, that has never once been taught by any of the Protestant reformers or modern Protestants as far as I'm aware. Anyone teaching that has strayed from the Apostolic faith. And if an open canon is a problem, why was Rome's canon not closed by an ecumenical council for 1500 years? And why do the East & others still have an open canon?
If the selection process for inclusion in the NT canon was so well done over such a long time, why are there still so many competing theologies today as there were in the early church? The canonization of Christian writings doesn't seem to have created theological consensus.
This part of seeing "through a veil" now. One day we will see all clearly. That being said, even between traditions of great disagreement, there is on average far more unity between traditions (as in, consensus on Biblical teachings) than disagreement. Not that the disagreements are small matters or unimportant, but we tend to agree on far more than we disagree.
Nicely done with some very good advice along the way. Thanks, brothers!
My little guys
Only because my belly isn't on camera! 🤣
@4:07 you skipped the part where you are supposed to say the reason why it's not an issue and instead go into arguments against Catholicism. This is one of the biggest issue with all Protestant traditions, if the canon of scripture is handed down to you by sacred tradition as you admitted @3:39, there is no valid argument against the canon that tradition handed down for almost 1500 years. The councils HAD to clarify and define the canon for the church because of the confusion and disagreements you mention. A handful of bad theologians rejecting canon do not have the authority to redefine it.
This is addressed in various comments on this video, and my ¨Why Sola Scriptura is True¨ video. Nor did I say, it is simply handed down via sacred tradition, even if many in the Church simply accept their canon because it is part of their specific tradition. My only question to you would be, which canon passed down via sacred tradition? The Ethiopian canon, the RC canon, the Russian Orthodox canon, the Greek Orthodox Canon, the ACOE canon? Having a sacred tradition doesn´t resolve the so called canon problem, but I know if I were alive in Isaiah or Jeremiahs day I was expected to know he was a prophet speaking on Godś behalf as opposed to the many other voices speaking from the priesthood of Israel.
@@PracticalChristianLessons you words were "does tradition have a role to play in [how we determine what those books are]? Absolutely". I never claimed that you said it is simply handed down, nor do I hold that it is simple. As for the canons of the other rites, if you analyze the differences, they are minor in comparison to the differences created when the reformers removed books from the canon. All the books removed by the reformation were present in the Roman, Eastern, Ethiopian, and ACOE rites. All the books in the Roman rite are present in the other Catholic rites (with the exception of Maccabees in the Ethiopian rite). The texts the Eastern rites recognize that the Roman rite do not are not evidence that the Protestant canon is valid. I agree that tradition alone does not solve the canon issue, that's where the teaching authority of the church as well as scripture itself help us. Your argument fails to show that the church did not have the authority to define canon, and there is no verse in any scripture that supports the idea that scripture alone is sufficient to define the canon of scripture.
@@BibleonaBoat The reformers didnt remove books. I addresses this in various other comments. And Im not asking about if our canon is valid (though that shouldnt be in question since all these same books are accepted elsewhere, the only thing in question is if we should have more not the validity of what we have). And I stand by my statement. The churches authority is not to define the canon, but to recognize Gods words to us. Gods word gets authority from its author, not from His servants.
@@BibleonaBoat Also I fail to see how this is not the same problem for you. If the Church has the authority, which tradition and which canon? Which is its own much larger topic that I dont think is something that should be hashed out in a YT comment section. That is a much larger topic worth several videos & much inc has been spilled over. But the starting point of the discussion cannot be the conclusion/presupposition.
@@PracticalChristianLessons I'm not seeing it addressed in other comments but I'll take your word for it. Would you go as far as saying a Bible containing only Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John is valid canon? Since you hold to sola scriptura, the burden is on you to show that scripture backs up your statement that the church does not have the authority to reject certain books from the canon of scripture. Where do the protestant traditions get the authority to say that Tobit isn't God's authoritative word, when Christ himself alludes to it in Matthew 7? Or Sirach, alluded to in Matthew 6? Or Wisdom when Paul quotes it in Romans 11?
Nice Saint Benedict rosary
The councils of the Church established the Canon. If not, there is no way to authenticate which books belong in the NT and which do not. Also, if you read contemporary accounts of Christianity during the first century, like the Didache, you see that the first Christians were very liturgical in their worship, believed in the Holy Eucharist as the true substance of Christ, infant baptism, etc. The early Church was Catholic. It was represented in both the East and the West.
you just described the ortodoxy church as well, and it is good to remember that we have 5 differents of canons (more actually but 5 are the most commom) ua-cam.com/video/XXfJ9tt6GZE/v-deo.html
"you see that the first Christians were very liturgical in their worship, believed in the Holy Eucharist as the true substance of Christ, infant baptism, etc." Just as the Magisterial Protestants. I address your other claim in many comments under my video "Why Sola Scriptura is True."
Be sure to check out the show notes in the description! It's got all my citations, hyperlinks, and some recommendations on this topic! Oden also recommends a few works himself such as "Pastoral Care in the Wesleyan Spirit" from "The Wesleyan Theological Heritage" essays by Robert Outler.
doesnt matter which version of the book you follow its all pedophile worship
I don't think the problem arises from differing canons _in se._ Rather, it is the combination of _sola scriptura_ and *denying* the inspiration of other books. I don't think that position can be rationally defended. Leaving aside whether the early church was _sola sciptura_ (I don't think it was), the innovation of limiting inspiration to other books was done to vouchsafe the new beliefs about justification. All Christian churches and the overwhelming majority of people accepted the same basic Bible, and to get anything different you have to _Trail of Blood_ your way through history with all the same weaknesses that book has. The idea that only those books are inspired really has to be justified. I was a Baptist, and the entire issue about this subject nearly made me leave the faith before I became Orthodox. Take Jude 14-15 and I Enoch. Jude is quoting I Enoch as prophecy. *All* prophecy is inspired by definition. It is someone moved by a deity and speaking for it. Jude also uses the Scriptural formula "X prophesied saying..." This is a formal contradiction to the Protestant canon, and none of the responses work. For instance, "The Bible quotes other books like pagan poets," but it never does so with a Scriptural formula nor does it call them a prophecy. It's an invalid comparison. If I Enoch is inspired, then inspiration cannot be limited to the Protestant Bible. If that's the case, it's very, very hard to deny inspiration to books all Christians accepted. If it's not, then there are far worse problems for the Protestant Bible in Jude (and an Matthew and Luke but less obviously). Then there is the issue that the other books were demoted precisely to make the Bible able to say what Reformers wanted it to say. With II Maccabees, other passages like I Corinthians 3 became strong evidences of some form of purgatory. Rather than fit their beliefs to the Bible, they changed the Bible to support their beliefs. Next came where it came from. Almost the entire line of _Trail of Blood_ arguments are full of people who got their position from Jerome. Jerome was wrong on almost every point. Most of the books were written in Hebrew. There was widespread variation, but it was eliminated in the first and second centuries, and the Jews did have an open canon (e.g. we have records of them removing Sirach and debating books into the second century). All the facts Jerome built his case on were wrong except for Origen monkeying with the LXX. Those fathers that don't depend on Jerome people like don't reflect the Protestant canon. Athanasius both used the Apocrypha with Scripture formulations and said the Shepherd of Hermas is good to read. It claims to be a prophecy. If it's not inspired, it's literally a false prophet. Cyril adds a category for "books that are read" at the end of the quote people want (often snipped out), and he quotes from them. All the ones that don't depend on Jerome follow this pattern. Even having a three category canon is irreconcilable: they have a canonical list (inspired), books to be read (which they also treated as inspired), and books not to be read (and some authors used some of those as inspired). These authors contradict the Protestant canon. Even Josephus betrays it not just in having a different number of books than the rabbis, but in that he uses Esther with additions and I Esdras instead of Ezra-Nehemiah. He simply didn't use the later rabbinic canon, no matter how many anachronistic arguments people use for that. Add to that that most arguments on the subject directly contradicted one of the things that persuaded me to be a Christian. "There were over 500 witnesses people could go and ask, so if it was false, it'd be found out" type of argument. To support the Protestant canon, I regularly heard arguments like "The Apocrypha never claims to be inspired" compared to II Esdras 2 or the fact that most of it is an addition to biblical books (Esther, Daniel, Jeremiah, II Chronicles, Psalms). This is simply false. All someone would have to do is load up a KJV with Apocrypha on a Bible site and search "thus saith the Lord" and read the background of the books. They couldn't be bothered. Another was "The NT never quotes apocrypha with a Scripture formula." Jude 14-15 shows that to be false. These require no specialized knowledge at all, no special skills, so they border on lies. However people wouldn't check them. Why should I believe people in antiquity would travel hundreds of miles on foot to talk to strangers when people I know couldn't even log onto a computer to do a search? My professors in Bible college only made this worse by how they addressed things. I had to ask, "Why would people tell such transparent and verifiable lies?" I found out why. The Hebrew Bible was standardized in the second century under a Akhiva. He needed a standardized text for his novel method of interpreting Scripture, so he set about doing that. This is why Jerome had a stable text four centuries later. He also wanted to purify Judaism, so he spearheaded many discussions on canons. He and his students after him condemned apocryphal books, often alongside the Gospels, as part of that process. The other big thing he did was anoint Simon bar Kokhba the Christ, and they waged a three and a half year against the Romans together. So all Protestant Bibles go back to Jerome. Jerome's claims go back to the rabbis. The rabbis go back to a literal antichrist in the second century. The Protestant canon cannot be defended unless it denies the inspiration outside of it, so it must be a closed canon in practice. You're right about there not being an issue with an open Bible. It's when you cross that red line of denying inspiration that all these problems arise. However if you have a more open Bible, you can have something like _sola scriptura,_ but you cannot reach the conclusions it was designed to reach, and you will almost certainly be forced to adopt one of the catholic canons since the usefulness of omitting II Maccabees disappears. Gor the English-speaking world this would probably look like the KJV with Apocrypha; III Maccabees has never had traction in the west. In either case, though, it's really hard to justify a Protestant position, and in one it's impossible.
So I only have 4 notes, the rest can be & is covered elsewhere. Such as many comments in my Sola Scriptura vieo. 1, we're not all Baptist. The Trail of Blood isn't a thing for the rest of us. It's not even a thing for all Baptist. 2, if Enoch is Scripture why don't all the various Orthodox tradition & the Roman Catholics count it as Scripture? Because they don't. A small amount do. 3, if the "invention" was to "protect a new doctrine." Well that's easy enough to disprove because several fathers taught not only Sola Scriptura, but also Sola Fide, which I will be making a video on at some point that you can engage with then. 4, Read Josephus's canon list. The "different number" comes from the naming of books. Those "differences" don't come from different books. They are the same content, and the books were named differently at times. Such as some had all the minor prophets in a single book, it combines 1st & 2nd kings into one book, 1st & 2nd Chronicles, Ezra & Nehemiah, etc.
@@PracticalChristianLessons I don't think you understand my arguments. I didn't dispute _sola scriptura_ beyond saying I didn't think it was held historically. For the purposes of my argument, I really don't care if it's true. I'm not concerned with _sola scriptura_ in pretty much any form save its intersection with denying inspiration to books that have been held as inspired. The doctrine is so elastic now that it's pretty much meaningless. When I was a Baptist we said Methodists don't believe in SS. Of course you do believe in it, but you mean something else by it. It's neither clear, nor understood until a person explains what they mean. If anything, it's an encumbrance, because the meaning is almost always assumed, and it changes both from church to church and person to person. It's not a necessary doctrine. It's no longer clear. It's not useful. I can certainly affirm some forms of it, but I rarely see the point in trying to affirm or deny it. 1. I don't think you understand why I referenced the _Trail of Blood._ Since it argues Baptists are the true church, I'm not so foolish as to believe a Methodist would subscribe to it. I was assuming you reject it. The appeal to historical canons to prove the Protestant canon is the same class of argument as the ToB. It takes things that contradict and don't agree (different books in the canon, a three-fold canon), then it finds anybody who rejects a book from the Roman Catholic Bible, or can even seem to reject one, whether he's heretical or orthodox, and then lists that person as affirming the Protestant canon. It's the _Trail of Blood,_ but with book lists instead of Baptist churches. These types of arguments are like gematria or astrology. You can always find what you want. Take Cardinal Cajetan, whom you mentioned as evidence the Protestant canon was historically grounded. He didn't hold the Protestant canon. He held something else, and he was incredibly ambiguous to boot: "These are not canonical, but they are held as canonical." ToB arguments are inherently unsound for reasons like that. 2. That doesn't address the problem I Enoch poses at all. I'll break the syllogism down clearly so that all premises are clear: A. -1. All prophecies are inspired by definition. -2. "X prophesied saying..." is everywhere else a Scripture quotation formula. -3 Jude quoted I Enoch as "Enoch prophesied saying" -Con. Jude called quoted I Enoch as Scripture B. -1. The Protestant canon lists 66 books. -2. Only books in the canon are inspired. -3. Inspiration gives some sort of infallibility -4. Jude treats I Enoch as Scripture (Syllogism A above) -Con. Jude contradicts the Protestant canon. Orthodox can deal with this; we don't affirm B2. We have an actual open canon not a rhetorical one so that we don't have an issue. Roman Catholics have had an open canon historically and can technically still don't officially deny books they didn't affirm. They need only call it "private revelation, but which is affirmed as valid by Scripture." They don't have an issue. This syllogism is only a problem for the Protestant canon, because everybody else has some open-ended spot for inspiration in other books. 3. I feel about _sola fide_ about the same I do _sola scriptura._ My Latin isn't good enough to know the range of meaning for _fides_ for certain, but if we translate that to μονῇ πιστεῖ I could affirm it. The problem is πίστις can mean "belief, trust, loyalty, faithfulness, evidence, or a deposit," and that isn't exhaustive. What I would mean by it would be denied by others, and there's a good chance by you. What you mean will be denied by others. It also doesn't matter if the Church fathers affirmed it. That's not black and white at all, as I can quote mine denials for every author people quote mine affirmations from, and people are rarely willing to get into the weeds on one author. It's easier to quote mine the Fathers than it is the Bible, after all. There's a lot more, and they are a lot more ambiguous. I've seen plenty of lists for and against, often with the same quotes. I have a few I keep handy as a quick way to learn who's copying and pasting and who's actually read the books. What is more relevant is that when the Reformers were proposing it, it was radical and novel. They were arguing for a new doctrine in their context, and they needed to change the Bible to support it. II Maccabees, Sirach, and Tobit all affirm things they wanted to deny. It just happened to be II Maccabees that got the axe first. It could not be supported with those books as a part of Scripture, so they were eliminated. This is completely backwards of how things should go. We argue our doctrine from Scripture. If we need to change Scripture, then we have to argue that before we argue our doctrine. In the opposite direction, it just shows the doctrine is unsound. 4. Josephus gives no canon list. He simply says they have 22 books and that Jews don't dare to add or take from it because there is not exact succession of prophets after that. That's all he says relevant to the canon. It's not a canon list, because it has no list at all. Saying he gives a canon list is like saying "I have a grocery list" but the list doesn't have any items. Neither does he say that's the only things they regard as Scripture, because he may be differentiating by quality, whether this overlap from one author to the next, or something else. Neither did he necessarily mean πιστεύω in the religious sense, as he never really uses it that way. The statement can still be true and have Scripture written after that that he affirmed. It's even possible, based on some of his wording, he thought he was a prophet writing Scripture. It's a pretty ambiguous statement. We know the later Hebrew Bible didn't exist then as a universally held canon, so he couldn't enumerate a book list that had not yet developed. We know Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, and Esther were disputed for at least another hundred years, because we have receipts for debates into the second century. For those books, we know he uses a different Esther than what made it in. It has the additions in the LXX. His story of Ezra follows I Esdras almost exactly, with only one departure. Therefore we know the "Ezra" he used and called universally accepted wasn't the one that made it in. Anybody can verify this by taking the stories, their wording, and comparing what is present and absent and in what order it comes to both I Esdras and Ezra-Nehemiah. Josphus didn't seem to even know the Ezra-Nehemiah that was canonized a century later. We also know that Sirach was in the broadly accepted Bible, because we have the record of its removal in the second century. Other than playing with numbers, I see no evidence Josephus held the rabbinic Bible, and positive evidence he held something else. All of this together goes with, I agree with you that an open canon isn't a problem. However, I don't think open canons as legal fictions ("We have the only inspired books; they have books that are just human") or stop gaps are actually open canons.
@@kainech I understood your argument, and no the Reformation was not a bunch of new and radical teachings. It was teachings that were already present & had always been so. And if "denying inspiration" is the charge, then every church that denies it (including the Ecclesiasts) still has the same problem in your point above they simply don't have Sola Scriptura.
@@PracticalChristianLessons If you understood my position, why did you respond as if I thought you believed the _Trail of Blood?_ Not being in the canon does not make it not inspired. You even mentioned in the video that Orthodox Churches hold this position. You can't shift to this tactic on the syllogism here. It's only a problem if inspiration is denied. Inspiration hasn't been treated as a binary in history either, so it's within the lines to say it's inspired but not say it's infallible. However, if even if I granted your argument, then the conclusion would still follow. It would just mean everybody but Ethiopia was formally wrong. Your _tu quoque_ doesn't resolve the issue. It's a formal contradiction.
@@kainech I did think you were equating it to all Protestants, but I understood what you meant by using it as a comparison. And you also make a mistake in the Protestant position overall. Not all Protestants hold to a closed canon, and accept things like Enoch might be inspiried even if we do not accept it as cannonical. The Anglicans in particular take a stance much more similar in their view of the Apocrypha. Nor am I interested in the supposed "to quoque" not solving it [which I do not grant because 1 it's not a tu quogue, and 2 it in fact does poke a giant hole in the supposed dilemna put forth]. I don't hold to Enoch being inspired, and even if it was I would take the stance of the majority of the Church in holding it is not canonical. I could have a long talk about how various things are inspired, and what that means, and go through many examples of the fathers holding things as inspired but not to the same level as Scripture. Which is not alien to the Reformation thought.
I'm afraid Sola Scriptura has led us into hellish chaos.
How would you respond to the large periods of chaos in the Church in, what I would assume you'd say would be before Sola Scriptura was taught [I would argue it's apostolic but that is covered in other comments], prior to the Reformation?
@@PracticalChristianLessons You're right. We are a chaos since monday. Also, the Spirit that should've guided us into all truth must mean another thing. I'm being honest, not offensive.
what seminary do you attend?
Asbury Theological Seminary (I do not officially represent them, I am simply a student). I know it comes up in a few videos where I wear something with the logo & make the disclaimer.
I give up christianity.
Jesus loves you.
Google the table of contents for the 1611 King James Bible. This is well after the reformation and is obviously Protestant. Do you see extra books? How’s that?!? What happened. 😮
@@vaughncj Yes I am aware of this. If you watch my Apocrypha series I cover this.
And which Methodist church is the legitimate one?
His denomination, of course.
@@eucharistenjoyer exactly
This tired Apostolic argument? We don't know, that's why we follow the liturgy and reason to best of our ability. I bet YOU also think your denomination is best, that's how opinions work.
@@DIY_Miracle what tired Apostolic argument? Catholicism isn’t a denomination, it’s true
@@Pretty_Fly_White_Guy And we actually respect your decision to believe that as it's a sincere belief based on your experience. It is still a denomination whether you like it or not though. You might think it is the correct denomination, that's fine.
Hello Eastern Orthodox here, I take it you hold to a nuanced sola scriptura position wherein scripture alone has a unique authority even if Apostolic tradition has some authority? It’s a bit of an anachronism to say Roman Catholicism existed during the council of hippo, and you are correct about the variation in our canons being not the same as the western view. While you may be correct that the simple Roman Catholic critique doesn’t hold up since you do lend some credence to tradition and trusting in the providence of the Holy Spirit guiding the Church and that early Christians had an open canon. I’d argue that position of the early church gives more credence to the Orthodox position that the early Church found its unity in its liturgical practice and apostolic Tradition (whether sourced from scripture, deuterocanonical texts like the didache, or even apocryphal books containing some true traditions), and that the Protestant movement and traditions (being charitable we will assume magesterial Protestants only) do not have continuity in Ordination and praxis with the early Church tradition. Whether their is theological continuity is a bit more murky given that Protestantism is largely informed of the theology of the fathers especially taking inspiration from St Augustine, but I think it’s historical revisionism to say there is liturgical and ordination continuity in Protestantism. Firstly the Roman schism had many breaks from their previous liturgical practices pre schism (unleavened bread, communion of one kind, changes in the form of baptism, etc) and add on to that the Protestants as a whole and certain factions had further breaks from the apostolic tradition even if they fixed some practices such as receiving communion in both kinds, for example altering the liturgical language regarding what the Eucharist is, using ordinary vessels to hold the species, removing antimens and the concept of an altar in place of a table in the center of the congregation (fundamentally confusing love feasts with the Eucharist), iconoclasm, etc. now sure there are magisterial Protestant with more and less authentic liturgical practice but that in itself shows it’s not the basis of unity in Protestantism that it is for Orthodoxy and the early Church. If I am mistaken on any particular point I do appreciate feedback and we should only follow the whole truth and not accept adulterations of it for the sake of factionalism.
I would say the position you put forth is simply the proper position of Sola Scriptura. (more shortly)
I meant to give the implication (I should've said this more clearly) when I talk later in the video about the "when the Church was one" then X should be the case, to talk about Hippo & such happened before the later schism's that formed the distinct traditions. As for Protestants and succession, and this will be a video for a later time, I would argue at least us Magisterial Protestants do have a valid physical succession & do not hold to that as historical revisionism. And of course Protestantism is not a single tradition, so many of the things you list don't hold water for all Protestants. It would be like if I had said, "all Ecclesialist have the same problem of..." & then listing something say only Coptic Orthodox do. Or if I talked about Icon Veneration in one way, when there are some Ecclesialist traditions that do not have the same understanding of Icons as others (most notably the difference in say the Oriental Orthodox to the Eastern Orthodox & Roman Catholic position on Icons).
@@PracticalChristianLessons You may view it that way but it’s undeniable that many radical Protestants and campbelists hold to a radical sola scriptural view. Again I think the more troubling critique for your view of sola scriptura is that you in all likelihood believe other magersterial Protestants have salvific grace but have no external sign of unity be it liturgical, theological, praxilogical, or even as you admit according to their view of the canon (unless I’m mistaken and you consider calvinists heterodox as an Arminian Wesleyan). Again the early Church could be one without having the same canon and even some minor theological distinctions (though I’d say not to the extent that exists in even Roman Catholicism let alone between Protestant groups) due to their apostolic liturgical unity, from which the Roman Catholic Church has admitted to departing from and the Protestant confessions inherited these liturgical breaks having not known any better. Regardless of if you view your magisterial Protestant tradition as being the one true tradition, it is easily verified that it’s not in continuity with pre schism chalcedonian Orthodox Catholicism, and therefore not in continuity with the pre-chalcedonian and pre-nicene churches.
@@andrew2715 What radical Protestants do, is not my concern nor does it impact me, if they are even really Protestant. I do not hold the Roman Catholics responsible for what the Sedevancatist hold to, or the Eastern Orthodox for what the True Orthodox hold to. For us Magisterial Protestants we would acknowledge we lack unity in some areas (just as you lack unity with Rome, it is the same situation), but we do have overlapping theological unities & are agree on the core of the faith. And no, it is not "easily verified." We in fact, as the Reformers, would argue otherwise and stand on that claim, of which I will be making plenty of videos on over the years that you can see and look into for yourself. But the writings of the Reformers address all these same claims. I would recommend looking into them if you wish to dig into it further. If your mind is already made up, then it is already made up.
Tertullian in "Prescription Against Heretics" (155ish) talks about how to solve debates regarding the scriptures (such as which books are scripture or how to interpret them). He says, very clearly, that all doctrine must agree with the apostolic churches. Moreover, in a later chapter, he says you will know what churches are apostolic because they have preserved the apostolic succession. Below is a quote, but I urge everyone to go read "Prescription Against Heretics" paragraphs/chapters, like, 15-28 and try to tell me "Scripture Alone" was the majority opinion in the early church. It's almost like people who say that haven't actually read the early fathers. "From this, therefore, do we draw up our rule. Since the Lord Jesus Christ sent the apostles to preach, (our rule is) that no others ought to be received as preachers than those whom Christ appointed; for 'no man knows the Father save the Son, and he to whomever the Son will reveal Him.' Matthew 11:27 Nor does the Son seem to have revealed Him to any other than the apostles, whom He sent forth to preach - that, of course, which He revealed to them. Now, what that was which they preached - in other words, what it was which Christ revealed to them - can, as I must here likewise prescribe, properly be proved in no other way than by those very churches which the apostles founded in person, by declaring the gospel to them directly themselves, both vivâ voce, as the phrase is, and subsequently by their epistles. If, then, these things are so, it is in the same degree manifest that all doctrine which agrees with the apostolic churches- those moulds and original sources of the faith must be reckoned for truth, as undoubtedly containing that which the (said) churches received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, Christ from God. Whereas all doctrine must be prejudged as false which savours of contrariety to the truth of the churches and apostles of Christ and God."
Yes I am aware of the quote. That doesn't change the fact those apostolic churches had disagreements on the canon.
@@PracticalChristianLessons Which were then solved in successive Church councils.
@@AluminiumT6lol except they didn't which is why there were still disagreements about the fringes of the canon until Trent for the West
@@AnUnhappyBusiness 1) Diversity of opinion on certain things is not necessarily disagreement. 2) Trent is an Apostolic Church council. But sure, cope more lol.
@@AluminiumT6 lol well then, Protestants simply have diversity of opinion lol
Since you claim to have this great authority of scripture yourself, and deem anyone who invokes the authority of the early church "in the minority" I challenge you to defend your claims in a debate with Militant Thomist or any Catholic Scholar with even a basic knowledge of the early church fathers, the ecumenical councils, and basic ecclesiology. If not, then you preach in vain and concede against your own arguments of authority.
Rawrr screeched the cat
You need to take it to at least a double dog dare
Scary
The Council of Laodicea gave what is effectively the Protestant New Testament minus Revelation. The argument Orthodox and Catholics make of “700 years of uncertainty concerning scripture” is just not true.
Not all the books in the Ethiopian canon are considered scripture. Some are more similar to canon law. Also, the whole Ethiopian Bible is 81 books.
That is a good point. I should have brought that up when I noted how the EO have a slightly different view on what it means to be canonical than we do in the West.
@@PracticalChristianLessons Also, the book of Revelation is not read during the liturgy in Eastern Orthodox churches, but is still considered scripture. In the west, scripture and canon are "mostly" synonymous. In the Catholic Church, some verses from 4 Esdras are used for the antiphon despite 4 Esdras not being part of scripture.
At Jesus baptism there was a voice from Heaven announcing he is God's Son. At mount Sinai the Israelites heard God's voice and got ample verification that what Moses spoke is what God endorsed. Yet, for the New Testament canon, it's crickets. I can't find any tangible evidence that the risen Christ, or the Holy Spirit endorses the 27 book N.T. canon. Yet, every Bishop and his Deacon, want me to confess that Jesus endorses all of it and that I had better do all of what is contained within it. Strange times. Strange times. I don't think St Anthony of the Desert had to put up with that.
Not my area of expertise; wondering if there is a book-length treatment of this topic. Got some insights into this that I had not thought of. Kudos to Wesley (and you, brother).
That is a good question (sees stack of books on desking growing in his mind)
I have not had time to get the show notes up yet, when I do I will put a comment here & update the description. They will be up on my blog & substack which are in the description already.
Up now: practicalchristianlessons.wordpress.com/2024/08/05/what-is-a-priest-pastor/
Amen! A wonderful start to your Wesleyan Arminianism playlist. I can't wait to _finally_ learn exactly what it's supposed to be.
I'm excited & happy this can be a resource for you! There is definitely a lot of different things that get thrown around about us lol.
Thankyou for watching! I'd first like to say I AM NOT calling Leon Morris a heretic, just pointing out what I think is an error on this issue. Leon Morris was an amazing theologian and his work "Apostolic Preaching on the Cross" is an amazing work. McCall himself quotes Morris again in chapter 2 agreeing with him on several things. Athanasius's quote 4.6: ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204/npnf204.xxi.ii.vi.ii.html Ambrose of Milan 2.7.76: ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf210/npnf210.iv.iv.iv.viii.html
Disciple Dojo's NIV Study Bible Review: ua-cam.com/video/2aC5OhDu7LE/v-deo.html&pp=ygUkZGlzY2lwbGUgZG9qbyBOSVYgc3R1ZHkgQmlibGUgcmV2aWV3 Disciple Dojo's Reflecting God Study Bible Review: ua-cam.com/video/kdElYUYS0tI/v-deo.html
Thankyou for watching, I hope this was educational & entertaining! Below are the resources I would first recommend on researching the canon. My #1 Book Recommendation: Willíam Whitaker's disputation on Holy Scripture archive.org/details/disputationonhol00whituoft/page/n9/mode/2up [Edit: Some clarifying/additional comments to the video after interactions with Equinox2345 & others]. To make a very concise points on why I don't think "the canon problem" is a problem. The early Church functioned under the principle of Sola Scriptura while also holding an open canon, I see no problem why it should be an issue for us when it wasn't for them. By open canon, and acknowledging the New Testament Canon wasn't complete as it is now, I do not mean they had no canon (as some falsely claim). They did have the agreed upon books of the Old Testament & the agreed upon core of the New Testament corpus. Even though there were some disagreements they all still had the same core of books. It was not simply an array of competing canon list with no agreement. Additional, if the one who defines the canon, defines the Scriptures this posits two immense problems. 1st, it means we should all be Pharisees, which I think Jordan B Cooper explains masterfully here: ua-cam.com/video/WqGc_nW4L-0/v-deo.htmlsi=SrzF6A3LPok67hKb. 2nd, then how were any of the Prophets writings and words to the people ever expected to be held as Scripture when they didn't accept them? The corrupt Priesthood & False Prophets of Israel taught something else but were "the official" religious voice for many within Israel, yet Isaiah & the other Prophets as God's mouthpiece testified against them & held them accountable. Some Introductory Books - "How We Got the Bible" by Neil R. Lightfoot - a.co/d/gpczSLg - "Scribes and Scripture: The Amazing Story of How We Got the Bible" by John D. Meade and Peter J. Gurry - a.co/d/fUofTAQ - "The Canon of Scripture" by F. F. Bruce - a.co/d/ha8ND9j - "Who Chose the Books of the New Testament?" by Charles E. Hill and D. A. Carson - a.co/d/hbh0hbw - "WHY PROTESTANT BIBLES ARE SMALLER: A Defense of the Protestant Old Testament Canon": a.co/d/5RrNqMv Some more in depth books - "Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books" by Michael Kruger - a.co/d/3VroXMJ - "The Question of Canon: Challenging the Status Quo in the New Testament Debate" by Michael Kruger - a.co/d/epUtLXb - "The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church: and its Background in Early Judaism" by Roger T. Beckwith: a.co/d/bqSxAjV - "The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity: Texts and Analysis" by Edmon L. Gallagher and John D. Meade - a.co/d/dWfHfui - "Redating the New Testament" by John A. T. Robinson - a.co/d/21YGB1q "A Scholastical History Of The Canon Of The Holy Scripture" by John Cosin: archive.org/details/scholasticalhist00cosiuoft Some books by Roman Catholics -"Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger: Revised Second Edition" by Gary Michuta: a.co/d/7IFxKvb - "Case for the Deuterocanon - 2nd edition" by Gary Michuta: a.co/d/eS5STCB -"The Bible Is a Catholic Book": a.co/d/4QY6cXG - "The Use of the Apocrypha in the Christian Church" by William Heaford Dabney: a.co/d/3wbjY4R My playlist on the topic: ua-cam.com/play/PL4VeIAMo4PNU_eAM5DHVDfU_l4SYXU9Qt.html
Sola Scriptura = My interpretation is authoritative, but yours is not. Sola Fida = My faith is authentic, but yours is not. Protestantism = I am led by the Holy Spirit, but you are not. Solar scriptura is not a conclusive interpretation of the Bible, but instead it is a method of exegesis, which happens to be isegesis. The category error Protestants make is believing that Sola Scriptura necessarily leads to their personal interpretation when it fact it just leads to any interpretation. In order to reach the conclusion they desire Protestants must engage in a spirit of revolution, destroying the foundations of what Christ has established. However, the spirit of revolution that rejects authority allows men to interpret the Bible as they will. So, Sola Scriptura does not necessarily lead one to the interpretation that Protestants want. It only destroys the authority of the Church established by Christ, but does not lead to any specific interpretation. Therefore, one could potentially still accept the premise of Sola Scriptura yet choose to interpret the Bible from a Catholic perspective. So, Sola Scriptura doesn't really mean anything as far as conclusions about understanding the Bible are concerned. The category error that Protestants make is believing that Sola Scriptura is a interpretation when in fact it is a method of exegesis which happens to be isegesis. Protestantism is the throwing down of the authority established by Christ, and its replacement with the idol of oneself. Of course, each individual person believes their own idol. So even when you present your idol to them, they will say that their idol is superior to your idol. 😂 Thus, each Protestant exists in a state of cognitive dissonance in which he denies that Christ established any earthly authority to interpret the Bible, yet simultaneously, each Protestant behaves as if he is the authority who can interpret the Bible by demanding that others conform to his interpretation. The only logical way out of the Protestant irrationality is to stop demanding that others conform to their interpretation. As long as they just let people believe whatever they want about the Bible without criticizing it by saying "hey, after all, the Holy Spirit guides everybody, so who knows who is correct?" then they would be acting in coherence with their principle of revolution. Of course, they invented the principle of revolution only as a mechanism to obtain the conclusions they wished, so if you arrive at different conclusions using the same principle they created, they will always reject your conclusions.
I have addressed several statements matching this idea and what you are conflating of Solo Scriptura with Sola Scriptura. Please read through those & enjoy.
@@PracticalChristianLessons sola scriptura needs to be distinguished from solo scriptura? SOLO SCRIPTURA isn't even correct Latin. It's silly. It's a made up term that even the reformers would never use because they understood Latin while many modern day Protestants don't. Whoever came up with the term solo scriptura and said the reformers made such a distinction is a charlatan.
james 2:14-26 faith without works is dead! please stop cherry picking and actually preach the gospel
1, we have an answer to that objection, as there has been since the Reformation. I recommend reading the reformers commentaries on James, treatises on Justification, etc. We also trace this idea to the Church fathers, read their commentaries on the book of James, Romans, Ephesians, the relevant passages in discussion. 2, that is not the topic of this video.
And please note... The Obedience of Faith is expected to the teachings of the Church...Acts 16:4..." As they went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the decisions that had been reached by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem..."...Acts 15: 27"...It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..." The Holy Spirit inspires the teachings of the Church in specially held councils, the first being in Jerusalem in 49AD.
Most of the arguments are about the usefulness of scripture or its inspiration which no Christian denies, the case for it being the SOLE infallible rule is not present here. Sola Scriptura divorces the Bible from its context as part of a tradition that includes an interpretative authority that comes from the ecumenical councils of the church. The church fathers are not infallible nor do they need to be, nor does any Christian think they are. They are invaluable because they contribute greatly to the transmission of apostolic understanding. The Bible absolutely teaches about the importance, the benefit, the authority and the value of the word itself but it doesn’t do so at the exclusion of other forms of revelation/authority.
I have addressed this idea in other comments.
@@PracticalChristianLessons By conceding the point that the Bible is the product of Church tradition?
@@arnoldvezbon6131 The Church's job is to recognize Scripture, we do not give the Scripture it's authority.
@@PracticalChristianLessons The Church literally decide the canon of scripture. There is no list of book of the Bible in the Bible. The Church has Gods authority since God created the church. And the Church is not protestant.
Sola Scripture doesn't exclude other forms of authority. As for the "no one thinks they are." There are in fact those who treat the Fathers as such. To the extent they must be harmonized, and if we think they are contradicting each other we are simply misreading them. Craig Truglia is one of these figures.
Scripture claims that the oral preaching of Jesus was authoritative for Christians both those who heard him and after it was written down. Therefore, one cannot claim that Scripture alone is authoritative without blaspheming Jesus and rejecting Scripture itself.
My goodreads: www.goodreads.com/user/show/155615524-joshua-pearsall
Bro said the early fathers taught Sola Scriptura and then he started quoting Augustine and Athanasius 🤡 While we're at it let's quote Martin Luther and John Calvin to prove Islam
1, I can quote earlier fathers (& will in the future) such as Ignatius, Irenaeus, & others. 2, bear in mind Gal 5:22-26 & be respectful in your tone. This is a warning.
@@PracticalChristianLessonsBro you're delusional,
@@PracticalChristianLessons Here are examples of the tone and respectfulness of the Protestant Reformers who championed Sola Scriptura : Philip Melanchthon- The Pope and his minions are nothing but asses. (Letter to John Agricola, 1543) Martin Luther - You are a crude ass and an ass you will remain!” - (Against the Papacy, 1553) John Calvin- Roman Catholics have so many stupid errors, the priests are all so ignorant, and the monks are such fools -( Institutes 1536) •Martin Luther- “Why do you not just fart in their faces?”(Letter to Spalatin 1522) with those quotes in mind, you think the Reformers are in keeping with Gal 5:22-26 but I need to be warned about my tone?
@@frettychervil The RCC is heretical too.
@@arnoldvezbon6131 "too"?
Sola Scriptura is a man made belief. Fundamentalists use scripture to define a young earth and a seven day creation as an absolute truth. End of discussion. Any other denomination thinking otherwise is not following scripture clear teachings. The same Fundamentalists... This is my Body.....well that doesn't mean it is his body.
Real quick, Augustine and Athanasius relied on both Scripture and Tradition (notably the role of tradition in interpreting scripture). Augustine - "For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church." (Contra epistulam Manichaei quam vocant fundamenti, 5, 6) Athanasius - "But what is most necessary is to adhere to the apostolic traditions and teachings and to remain within the ecclesiastical bounds. For many heretics who are not of the Church misinterpret the Scriptures and twist the meaning according to their own desires. However, the understanding of the divine Scriptures should be in accordance with the tradition and interpretation of the Catholic Church, as handed down from the apostles." (Epistula I ad Serapionem, 28) Regarding the Arian controversy and the temporary majority of Arianism within the Church, it's crucial to understand what truly matters in terms of infallibility. Infallibility applies specifically to official teachings on faith and morals when pronounced by the Pope ex cathedra or by an ecumenical council in union with the Pope. Despite the widespread acceptance of Arianism for a period, the Church did not err in any infallible pronouncement. The doctrine was not defined and established as binding; therefore, it does not compromise the Church's claim to infallibility. Temporary widespread error among members does not invalidate the Church's infallibility in its official and definitive teachings. When it comes to the topic of Sola Scriptura, you should also address that the argument for Sola Scriptura can also fall into circular reasoning. It asserts the Bible as the sole infallible authority, yet this principle is not explicitly stated in the Bible itself. The canon of Scripture was established by the Church through councils and tradition, meaning that the authority of the Bible is inherently linked to the authority of the Church.
"Real quick, Augustine and Athanasius relied on both Scripture and Tradition (notably the role of tradition in interpreting scripture). " Sola Scriptura properly understood recognizes this & in fact holds to this. As several Reformers, the rule of faith is that which guides us in interpreting, it is a vital guardrail & instructor. As for Papal infallibility, we just won't agree there I don't have the time to discuss all my disagreements & the flaws in that doctrine. We agree, Sola Scriptura is not "explicitly stated", but the Scriptures get their authority because they are the words of God, not because of the Church. There are several links throughout to videos that hit on this subject well, such as Jordan B Coopers brief clip on it (& why we aren't all Pharisees because they had the more proper canon in their time). Isaiah & the prophets spoke with authority, even though Israel did not recognize them. The Apostles still spoke with authority, even though there were those they mention in their letters who rejected them. Not because of tradition or their own authority, but because they spoke with the authority of divine inspiration. As Paul himself, if he came later with a different gospel anathema upon him. His words didn't have authority because he was Paul, but because the words he spoke that became Scripture were from God.
The westerners insist in false dichotomies. Faith is not opposed to works, transcendence is not opposed to immanence, grace is not opposed to synergy, Scripture is not opposed to Tradition. Christ didn't gave you a book, He gave you a Church.
I'm afraid you are asserting dichotomies we aren't teaching. Faith is not opposed to works, but works do not save you. Transcendence is not opposed to immanence I've never heard anyone. Grace is not opposed to synergy, that is why we say sanctification is synergistic. Scripture is not opposed to all tradition, but Scripture is above the traditions we make. God gave us His words (persevered in the Scriptures), and He has made a body that His words guide. But there are times where we make traditions of man & put them above traditions of God, as Jesus himself rebuked the Pharisee's for doing.
@@PracticalChristianLessons To say "Scripture is not opposed to all tradition, but Scripture is above the traditions" is exactly what I'm saying. There is no such thing as a neutral reading, Tradition is the context in which you read and interpret the Scripture. To say that Scripture is above tradition is to completely misunderstand what Tradition is. There is Tradition, which is the revealed Truth that God has revealed to His Church in her life through the Holy Spirit, and there are traditions, which are customs that are inherited from previous generations, which also need the Tradition in order to be properly interpreted. "Faith is not opposed to works, but works do not save you". Again, you are confusing the relationship with opposition, Westeners can't escape Aristotle.
Fr Martin Luther lament about sola Scriptura...every one's interpretation is as valid as any other....hence the invention of so called denominations