Catholic Sola Scriptura Response! (PROOF sola scriptura is wrong!)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 кві 2024
- This is the Catholic response to Sola Scriptura and proof that sola scriptura is wrong!) This ONE thing disproves the protestant doctrine of sola scriptura and shows that it's wrong.
SUPPORT CATHOLIC TRUTH! (Help us defend the faith more and more!)
Monthly: / catholictruth
Monthly, periodically, or one time: catholictruth.org/donate/
QUESTIONS? Ask us here: www.subscribepage.com/e3e8c7
FOLLOW CATHOLIC TRUTH:
Instagram: / catholictruthofficial
Facebook Page: / catholictruth.org
Alt. UA-cam channel - Catholic Truth Living: (Advice on Love, Dating, Engagement, Marriage and Kids) / @catholictruthliving
Podcast: www.buzzsprout.com/1157177
Online Articles (and different languages): thecatholictruth.org/category...
Twitter: / catholictruth7
TikTok: / thecatholicofficial
Alt Instagram (CatholicTruthLiving) (Love, Relationships, Life) / catholictruthliving
Facebook Group Page: / catholictruthct
Pinterest: / catholictruth
Rumble: rumble.com/user/CatholicTruth
APOLOGETICS TRAININGS:
Would you like 1-on-1 Apologetics training with Bryan? Or would you like a chance to ask questions, get advice, or find direction? Contact Catholic Truth: info@theCatholicTruth.org
MERCH: catholictruth.org/shop/
BOOK: "Counterfeit Spirituality: Exposing the False Gods:"
- Our Sunday Visitor: bit.ly/3vtK63Z
- Amazon: amzn.to/3e1BqMk
BOOK: "WHY Do You Believe In GOD?" amzn.to/2S1Dadb
**Need an in-person or online retreat? catholictruth.org
Related Searches: catholic sola scriptura, catholic truth sola scriptura, sola scriptura debunked
Music Credit: http//www.bensound.comroyalty-free-music
The cannon was the one issue that brought me from Baptist which hated Catholics, to full-on Catholic. I was received into the church last year and now I am teaching rcia!
Wow God is so happy with you
Welcome home
I'm a Baptist and I certainly don't hate Catholicism or Catholics.
Welcome home. Glad to hear it. Thanks be to God.
SO now you are full fledged servant of Satan... interesting.. the baptist was just your teething moment....
“I just know Jesus and the Church are one”
St Joan of Arc
That is a powerful insight! Saint Joan of Arc, pray for us!
I truly love your videos Bryan,I recently converted from the pentecostal church. I’m going to a wonderful Catholic Church ,You’re videos are so knowledgeable and very helpful for me to understand. God bless you and your family.
amen friend welcome home God bless you :) wise friend
Alan! Welcome home! I'm so glad to hear that and we can help you on your journey! God is good!
so did you have a fake Jesus and a fake religion called" believing in Christ"? So now you converted to what ? It appears to me that you just shrugged off a religious name and pulled on the new coat of roman Catholicism where you don't hold God's written word as complete and need someone in the magisterium to dictate what you are to believe!
The seed sown on rocky ground is the one who hears the word and at once receives it with joy. 21But since he has no root, he remains for only a season. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, he quickly falls away. Mathew 13:20,21
Is this seed you?
@@brucewmclaughlin9072 I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit brought me to the Catholicism. It wasn’t just an overnight thing.God Bless
Hats off to you. You present your argument that can easily understood even by laymen (like me).
That's my goal. So, thanks! 🙏🏻
@@CatholicTruthOfficial Brilliant, You don't believe in the integrity of
scripture. You put to death those who disagree with your understanding of religiosity in the past because of the Bible they were reading. You now attempt to find room in the scripture i.e Bible which most people read to fit in your DOGMA.
1 Corinthians 2:14
King James Version
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Maybe you could tell us why you had those people put death because their understanding of the gospel message was different to yours.
What didn't you understand by Jesus's words "To Love Thy neighbour? Sorry Of course you don't believe in the scripture you get your instruction elsewhere.
@@whathappening5323 hmm let’s see the evidence that Bryan put anybody to death..
@@Bobby-xr4bo The RCC put them to death your endorsement of RCC makes you Complicit.
The followers of Wickliffe, then called Lollards, became extremely numerous, and the clergy were so vexed to see them increase whatever power or influence they might have to molest them in an underhand manner, that they had no authority by law to put them to death. However, the clergy embraced the favourable opportunity and prevailed upon the king to suffer a bill to be brought into parliament, by which all Lollards who remained obstinate, should be delivered over to the secular power, and burnt as heretics. This act was the first in Britain for the burning of people for their religious sentiments; it passed in the year 1401 and was soon after put into execution. You can read the document by Google De Hetetico Comburendo.
The first person who suffered in consequence of this cruel act was William Santree, or Sawtree, a priest, who was burnt to death in Smithfield.
Soon after this, lord Cobham, in consequence of his attachment to the doctrines of Wickliffe, was accused of heresy, and being condemned to be hanged and burnt, was accordingly executed in Loncoln's-Inn Fields, A. D. 1419.
The next man who suffered under this bloody statute was Thomas Bradley, a tailor, and a layman; and a letter having been tendered him, which he refused, he was declared an obstinate heretic, and tied to the stake in Smithfield; where he was burnt alive, rejoicing in the Lord his God.
The next person we read of who was tried upon this abominable statute was William Thorpe, a man of some knowledge, who adhered to all the doctrines taught by Wickliffe. He was brought many times before archbishop Arundel, and at last committed a close prisoner, where he died, but in what manner cannot now be ascertained.
About this time 36 persons, denominated Lollards, suffered death in St. Giles', for no other reason than professing their attachment to the doctrines of Wickliffe. They were hung on gibbets, and fagots were placed under them, as soon as they were suspended, the fire was set to them, so that they were burnt while hanging. Only one of their names has been transmitted to us, which is that of Sir Roger Archer[188] whom they distinguished from the rest by stripping him stark naked and executing him in that indecent manner.
Much about the same time one Richard Turning was burnt alive in Smithfield, and suffered with all that constancy, fortitude, and resignation, which have so much distinguished the primitive Christians.
In 1428, Abraham, a monk of Colchester, Milburn White, a priest and John Wade, a priest, were all three apprehended on a charge of heresy.
Soon after, Father Abraham suffered at Colchester, and with him John Whaddon; both of whom died in a constant adherence to the truth of the gospel. Milburn White and John Wade suffered also about the same time in London.
In the year 1431, Richard Ilvedon, a wool-comber, and a citizen of London, was brought before the archbishop, and being declared an obstinate heretic, was burnt alive on Tower-hill, for no other reason than that he embraced and professed the doctrines of Wickliffe.
In the year 1431, Thomas Bagley, a priest, who had a living near Malden, in Essex, was brought before the bishop of London, and being declared an obstinate heretic, was condemned and burnt alive in Smithfield.
The Word was with God in the beginning. Jesus is the Word. Jesus is not the Bible. The Bible is only a small part of "The Word" (Truth Himself). Thank you Bryan!
Exactly! 💯
✝ ( 📖 ACTS 2 : 22 )🔹Jesus could ONLY perform miracles with God's permission ➜ The question is does GOD need permission ❓( This is PROOF Jesus is NOT God )
✝ ( 📖 JOHN 5 : 37 )🔹No one can see God ➜ the people have seen Jesus ( This is PROOF Jesus is NOT God )
??? That makes no sense. 1-John 5:6 "And this is the testimony, God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He who has the Son has life; he who has not the Son of God has not life.
I "write" this to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life." Jesus is inseperable from the Bible. He always was Truth and always will be.
@@thetruthwithproof8802 Distorted logic. First of all, you based your premises on heresy, probably from sects who deny the deity of Jesus. On your second premise, it is based on the premise that Jesus, was not also a man.
Distorted logic.
@@Betrue875 Jesus is inseparable from the bible, yes. But the bible is only a part of Jesus.
"“And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: " Do you find this confusing?
Awesome topic. “Where’s that in the Bible?”
That question gets so old.
2 Tim 3:15-17 Romans 15:4 we have the scriptures now and this whole mess of who compiled them or who wrote them down is moot as we have the scriptures now so use them .Hey thats not in the bible ? so do we now believe anything that someone tells us ?
@@brucewmclaughlin9072
Interestingly, none of the passages you cited instructs christians to follow ONLY teachings that are explicitly written IN the Bible
@@jerome2642 Thats true they don't tell you to read only the scriptures but they do tell you why the scriptures are here. So back to my last comments question
so do we now believe anything that someone tells us ?
Where does one draw the line on spiritual truth?
Yeah! It's older than the earth 😁😁😁
@@brucewmclaughlin9072you would love that to be a moot subject but it's not because it's the Catholic Church who made it. And how? God authoritatively and infallibly used to the Catholic Church to canonize scripture. The church was around before the New Testament.
I was waiting for this video. Thank you, Catholic truth. Thank you, God.
Jesus knew of scripture. HE even read and quoted from it, yet never once said "Write down everything I tell you, mass produce it, distribute them to as many people as possible and let them draw their own conclusions"
The Bible wasn't mass produced till somewhere in the late 1400's early 1500's (if I'm not mistaken) so did God leave all those people because they had no Bible to follow?
The over 30,000 protestant denominations all follow the same Bible, so apparently, just following it doesn't bring you to the TRUTH
Such an excellent post. When mathematicians claim that math leads to the same results, we know it's true because 2 plus 2 equals 4 round the world.
But why do the protestants keep getting more and more sects?
Protestantism has no credibility & with its confusion & scandal of 000’s of sects is not of Jesus who willed unity Jn 17 11-23
100%
💯💯💯
I have learned so much from your channel. I grew up on solos escritura. Preacher kids…. I received all my sacraments 2 years ago today on Easter Vigil. Thank you for your work! Praise God I am home:)
Praise God indeed!! Congraulations and welcome home!! God bless you!!🙏🏻🙌
Don't forget that Sola Scriptura is deficient in other ways, also. Let's look at what Catholic Apologists do, and don't, typically cover in their critiques:
1. Catholic apologists have covered that Scripture doesn't include any passage expressing the idea that Jesus intends Christians in every century to come to know the content of the Christian religion through exegesis of the Scriptures.
2. Catholic apologists have covered that Scripture doesn't include any passage specifying any standard by which Christians can know which books do, and don't, belong in the canon of Scripture.
3. Catholic apologists _don't_ usually mention the fact that Scripture lacks any passage specifying a way to distinguish between _required_ Christian doctrines ("dogmas," which denial of means one is excluded from the community of the Christian faithful) and _topics open to speculation_ (matters of interest wherein differing opinions don't require a separation from common communion). Yet this information is _required_ for Sola Scriptura to function. The lack of it means Sola Scriptura can't function; and that means it was designed by someone _fallible,_ even _unwise._ If Jesus designed it, then He would be too fallible and unwise to be God; but, He is God; therefore, He never intended Sola Scriptura.
4. Catholic apologists _don't_ usually mention the fact that Scripture lacks any passage specifying what it _means_ for a document to be "God-breathed"/theopneustos, or to be "inspired," or to be "inerrant," or whether those are all the same thing, or different things, or which ones of those descriptors apply to any/all of the books in the canon. Consequently, these ideas have been understood in varying ways by different Christians, and Scripture offers us no guidance as to who's right. Obviously a person who thinks Scripture can err is going to interpret his way to a different religion than a person who thinks Scripture cannot err. But a person who thinks Scripture can err in incidental historical details, but is only inerrant on matters pertaining to salvation, will interpret his way to a different Christianity than the person who thinks it can never err in any fashion! Therefore, Scripture fails to specify a _foundational hermeneutical principle_ which it _must_ specify, for Sola Scriptura to be true. Therefore, Sola Scriptura is false.
5. Catholic apologists _do_ mention the problem of "Perspecuity"; i.e., the fact that the differences among well-meaning sincere Protestants about _what the Bible means_ proves beyond any doubt that the Scriptures are _insufficiently clear_ to serve as a reliable means to communicate the required content of the Christian religion to the faithful of every century. But Catholic apologists often _fail_ to mention a _subset_ of the Perspecuity problem; namely, the lack of any canonical passage offering guidance (or any limiting-principle) on Typology, or on the Spiritual Senses of Scripture. That Typology and Spiritual Senses are _legitimate_ is clear: They're used by Christ Himself, by St. Paul, and by the author of Hebrews (presuming that isn't also Paul). This suggests that we can't _exclude_ such an approach to interpreting Old Testament passages, or possibly New Testament ones; but, it brings with it the danger of reading fanciful associations into every passage that the Holy Spirit never intended! How shall we distinguish between the legitimate and illegitimate uses of such a hermeneutic? If Sola Scriptura were true, then _Scripture would have to tell us._ But it doesn't. Therefore Sola Scriptura is false.
Taken together, these observations show us that the idea of communicating the required doctrines of the Christian religion to earnest believers of every century by means of Sola Scriptura was invented by a fallible human, with no clear sense of what such a system would really require.
Thank you so much for sharing these, and it shows how porous sola scriptura actually is. God bless you!
Bryan,
When we Catholics argue against Sola Scriptura what our Protestant friends hear is, “Catholics hate the Bible.” This is a ludicrous assertion of course; no one elevates Sacred Scripture as highly as we do. However, this must be done in context of salvation history overall.
Frequently we are offered 2 Timothy 3:16-17 by our Protestant friends as proof of Sola Scriptura. What these passages DO mean is all Scripture IS inspired by God which is exactly what the Catholic Church teaches. However, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 does not prove Sola Scriptura. The entire Bible IS inspired but it is NOT all-inclusive.
Blessed Easter to you and yours.
V/R,
John
It's so true. They're so indominated that they're selective hearing doesn't even let them hear what we're actually saying. Just because we don't go by the Bible alone doesn't mean we don't go by the bible.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial That’s so true! I was a Baptist before I converted. I read & heard the Bread of Life discourse so many times, but I never heard Jesus emphatically saying “you eat my flesh & drink my blood” several times. One night in the inquirer’s class all of a sudden I heard & saw for the 1st time what the verses said. My entire foundation was knocked out from under me & I felt I was in free fall; I even grabbed the table because I felt I was falling. God did that for me, maybe since I was so diligently seeking Him. I tell everyone the Eucharist converted me. God bless you & the work you do.🙏❤️
If it wasn't for the Catholic Church, 70,000 False, Man Made, Reformed, Heretical, Protestant, Churches and Religions would NOT have a Bible to disagree with each other...Protestants can NEVER be called One Faith!....FACT!
@@CatholicTruthOfficial everything was tradition in the beginning, not one word of the nt was written while jesus was alive, the1st book of the nt was written by paul , a persecuter of christians 15-20 years after the crucifixion, and he got alot of his information from luke, another person who was not one of the original apostles, but recieved it from peter. tradition is how the whole thing began.
The doctrine of sola scriptura encourages a "what I want to believe" mindset when approaching your faith. This is why we see so many denominations and church hopping within the non-Catholic sphere of Christianity. Everyone is just looking for "their truth" rather than the truth. Sola scriptura encourages the Christian to just keep looking for a church that interprets scripture the way they want it to be interpreted. Furthermore, if that kind of Christian can't find a church, they just call themselves "non-denominational" and go their own way. Sola scriptura is not about following the word of God, it's about following your self-interpretation of the word of God.
Catholicism, on the other hand, encourages a "what you ought to believe" mindset when approaching your faith. It asks its faithful to have a submission of will/intellect, as well as an ascent of faith.
Now, I'll leave it up to anyone reading this to determine if a "what I want to believe" or a "what I ought to believe" mindset is more Christ-like when approaching the Christian faith. But I think most people already know the answer.
Christ gave His apostles authority and the keys of the kingdom of heaven. That manifested itself as the Catholic Church. The Protestant Reformation was the act of Man trying to steal that God-given authority away from the church and put in the hands of the layman.
I'm sorry Protestants have been lied to about the Catholic Church and I'm even more sorry that they believe those lies. Good news is, if a person is willing to approach their faith with a "what I ought to believe" mindset, they can come home.
"What I want to believe" is pride, and "what I ought to believe" is humility.
When choosing between two things, it's best to take the more humble option.
@@jomidiam Amen.
Relying on the Magisterium promotes a "what do they want me to believe" mindset versus being comfortable reading scriptures, reviewing scholarly sources, and even reading the Hebrew and Greek translations for yourself. For example, show me where Mary herself is immaculately conceived in holy scripture.
@@ToeTag1968 If you are wanting scripture to explicitly state, "Mary was immaculately conceived in preparation for carrying Jesus in her womb", then I will have to concede and admit that those words are not explicitly found in scripture. But if explicit declarations of teachings and doctrines is your requirement for what is true, then you've backed yourself into a theological corner.
Can you point to the chapter and verse that explicity states that the doctrine of sola scriptura is the one and only doctrine a Christian should follow?
@@CantStopTheMattWalsh Notice I didn't ask for a single verse, or for you to produce the phrase "immaculate conception" or "immaculately conceived." I asked you to show me where in scripture her immaculate conception can be found in scripture. The words immaculate conception won't be found. Nor will words for concepts like the Holy Trinity. I'm wanting verses that show where Mary was herself immaculately conceived. Maybe verses that include Mary's mom's name. Details about her childhood Like this: Scriptures that support Sola Scriptura:
Acts 17:11-12
Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, *examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so*. Many of them therefore believed, with not a few Greek women of high standing as well as men. (In other words, they were excited to hear the good news but weighed the words of men vs what the scriptures taught/revealed)
2 Timothy 3:15
And how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
2 Timothy 3:16-17
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, *that the man of God may be complete*, equipped for every good work.
Proverbs 30:5-6
Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar.
1 Corinthians 4:6
I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us *not to go beyond what is written*, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another.
John 20:31
Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
1 Timothy 3:14-15
I hope to come to you soon, *but I am writing these things to you so that, if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God*, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth.
Matthew 15:3
He answered them, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?
Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
2 Peter 3:15-16
And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. (notice that both John above and Paul are creating writings already that the early church is using for teaching. This is why we know those works are authoritative - not because the Catholic church said so and decided to bundle them together)
John 10:34-35
Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came-and Scripture cannot be broken-
Mark 7:9-13
And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition! For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ But you say, ‘If a man tells his father or his mother, “Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban”’ (that is, given to God)- then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do.” *(Jesus here is chiding religious leaders for creating and following traditions rather than following the word of God)*
From the above, it is pretty clear that scripture holds the prime position of authority when it comes to doctrine and teaching - not the policies a counsel makes up. Some doctrines and dogmas you will find hard to find backing scripture for would be: Mary's Immaculate Conception, the groundwork of a papal hierarchy, and intercessory prayer of saints in heaven.
I look forward to your scriptural reply!
How about in Acts when the Eunuch says to Philip, “how can I understand what I’m reading unless I have someone to teach me.”
John 20:30: “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book.”
This was writen for you to belive
What's your point?
John 21:25 - "Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written."
The Word of God is infinitely bigger than all the written media can contain - therefore, it's wrong to proclaim that people should believe in the Bible alone.
@@nicholassinggih6678 yes
@@nicholassinggih6678 "it's wrong to proclaim that people should believe in the Bible alone."
As the infallible word of God?
Hello Bryan. Thanks for your video on Protestantism. Your channel is the main reason why I converted to Catholicism. I also enjoyed your response to sedevacantist claims on the validity if the new rite. Can you please make a video refuting the idea that Cardinal Siri was elected pope in 1958 papal conclave? I can't find any solid repudiation of documented "evidence". 😊
So obviously true, thank you brother!
..."until the face-beating reality..."
LMAO!!
🤣 🤣 🤣
I laughed out loud so hard my neighbor banged the wall to blame me.
I may lose my apartment from this but my faith will always have a place of rest in the Catholic church!
💙 💖
God is infinity. God bless you and protect you. Thank you 🙏😊
Those were some very persuasive arguments against sola scriptura. The canon is definitely a problem for Protestant theology. We don't like to admit that our New Testament was assembled by the Catholic Church. Instead, we like to pretend that it just came down from Heaven one day.
Jesus founded His One True Church Mt 16 18-19 that became known as Catholic or Universal by Ignatius in 107, codified your bible in 382. His Church is the pillar & foundation of Truth 1 Tim 3:15 & has existed, in spite of sinful men, for 2000 yrs, proof of its divine origin.
The fruits of sola Scriptura & personal interpretation, confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects when Jesus willed unity Jn 17 11-21.
Try combining Sacred Tradition, which existed before the NT, from the time of Jesus with Sacred Scripture under the unifying authoritative interpretation of the magisterium, the balanced three legged stool, far more rational & objective
Well said ❤
Your THE MAN Bryan!!
🙏🏻👆
SPOT ON!!! I always make the SAME arguments! Protestants are prideful. It's their pride that drives them. Pride is the worst sin of all. It is the sin of Satan. The sin of pride is what blinds them from the Truth.
It is pride and/or hat or they have some sin or issue that cannot confront, so they must pursue a religion of "Faith alone" - once saved always saved
This is a very simplistic presentation , brother.
Thank you. We have others as well. God bless.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial I meant your reply was not very good brother. But I do agree that Sola Scriptura has more holes than our Protestant friends admit. For example, the Sola almost always devolves into Solo. My issue with what you said is from the perspective of a doubting Catholic rather than a Catholic who was born and brought up like Catholic Anwers seems to presuppose. Iron sharpens irons. And I think the Catholic side can do a bit better. Akins recent argument is one good example. The self refuting thesis critique of SS must be dropped or at least punctuated with other supporting arguments. Unless you want to communicate to the choir. Or those who already have a foot in Catholicism. Just my opinion. Great job though. Let me know if you would want to hear more on this from me. YT Chat is probably not the best form of communication. If not, keep doing what you are doing... May Christ bless your ministry.
Great 👍🙏
Many Protestants are “sola scriptura” until a scriptura blocks them from doing some act. Luke 16:18 springs to mind. ❤
Not sure how Luke 16:18 proves for or against scripture alone, I don't know any Protestant that believes they are without sin.
Not if you read it reading the rest of the scripture on this subject.
You read the right one? That's the one that says no divorce
That's true, it becomes a Bible buffet, which is why the 7 deuterocanonical books were removed during the reformation and reclassified as "apocryphal". I once had a discussion about biblical literalism with a protestant, where I asked him to confirm that he believed that everything in the bible is meant literally, to which he said "yes". I asked him about John 3 and 6 and he immediately pivoted and stated that they were symbolic, it didn't mean that, etc.
@@catholictruthrepliesI am afraid that feeble attempt to understand what the content of John chapter 3 and pull verse 6 and say he didn't understand verse 6. There is no symbolism there for the believe, Jesus explains it very well.
1 Corinthians 2:14 your position. The spiritual birth of the soul was what the religious man was asking Jesus about. Why don't you ask Jesus what he means? Matthew 7: 7-8 Don't ask unless you are prepared for a 180-degree turn in your life. Nicodemus wanted the answer.
I love how protestants say they want to be like early christians... Yet not one early Christian believed in solo scriptura until 1500.... One of the biggest tricks of the devil to have everyone, believing scripture however they want to interpret it.. The only proof you'd need to have that it's wrong is to look at the results
Exactly. 100%
The confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects caused by personal interpretation when Jesus willed unity Jn 17;11-23
Thank you, Bryan, for another clear clarification. Despite your excellent many clarifications, these non Catholics still have obstinated hearts as if Jesus brought a Bible to his apostles and ordered them yo preach it. No, it's the word of apostles' mouths without anything written down in the 400 years of the Catholic Church. The authority of the Catholic Church produced the final Canon of the Scriptures, leaving many other apostles writing like gospel of Peter, Mary Magdalene, gospel of James, Barnabas etc etc. So, whose authority had those books being left out from the Catholic Bible, which is a Catholic property? It's the authority of the Catholic Church. So if they hate the Catholic, why do they believe in a book the Catholic Church compiled. And why do they not go and write their own bibles. They can't... shame on you protestants..😅😅😅😅😅😅
Let's simplify the argument why SOLA SCRIPTURA is wrong, (or more bluntly, imbecilic idea).
Printing press was invented in the 1400's.
Prior to that, manuscripts of the bible were done in the monasteries and copies were kept in the churches.
People relied on the church to hear the gospel. No one at that time insisted sola scriptura (they don't have any).
The first copies of the printed bible were in the mid 15th century. Even then, only few people can afford them.
Can't these protestants use a bit of common sense to realize sola scriptura is ignorance?
Protestantism is not know for its logic or intelligence which is a result of their lack or reasoning caused by their twisted theology.
Very true, which is why the claims of sola scriptura are ultimately untenable.
Common sense is not at all common with them sadly.. that’s why they donate their money to billionaire pastors to buy private jets..
Circumcision ban in Acts 15 was not decided based on Scriptures. On the contrary, it went against Scriptures based solely on Church authority.
Exactly.
Thanks again.
Hey everyone can you please 🥺 *PRAY* the Full Mysteries of the Rosary for my beloved cats. Because many of them are sick and have viruses, THANK YOU may God BLESS you and Mama Mary keep you and bless you.
Hello, thank you for tuning in! As a cat owner myself, I will pray for your cats. God bless you!
@@catholictruthreplies Thanks God BLESS you.
Mary’s intercession is not only useful but necessary for salvation: St. Alphonsus Liguori.
lol
Can we get a page number on that? Also, that's not a teaching of the Church. Soo...
“When Mary said yes to the Angel, she spoke on all of humanity’s behalf”
St Thomas Aquinas
@CatholicTruthOfficial St. Alphonsus de Liguori IT is impossible for clients of Mary to be damned, if they faithfully honor her and commend themselves to her.
St. Anselm "Just as it is impossible for persons to be saved who have no devotion to Mary and are not protected by her, so it is impossible for any who recommend themselves to her, and are therefore watched over by her, to be lost
St. Albert the Great: All those who are not your servants, O Mary, shall perish.
St. Bonaventure: Those who neglect our Lady will die in their sins. Those who do not call on you in life will never get to Heaven.
St. Ephrem calling devotion to our Blessed Lady the charter (or passport) to liberty, and Mary herself the protectress of the damned. Mary has both the power and the will to save us.
Father Alfonso Alvarez claimed the devil told him to "Give up your devotion to Mary, and I will leave you alone."
St. Catherine of Siena claimed God told her, "No one, not even sinners, who devoutly recommend themselves to her, would ever fall into Hell"
Blessed Henry Suso I put his soul in Mary's hands. Therefore, if his Judge wished to condemn him to Hell, her most loving hands would have to handle the sentence.
St. Bonaventure: "In you, O Lady, I have placed all my hopes." I have therefore the utmost assurance that I shall never be lost, but shall praise and love you forever in Heaven.
St. Antonine let all tremble for their salvation who make but small account of their devotion to the Mother of God, or grow careless and give it up: it is impossible for anyone not protected by Mary to be saved
Thought I'd give you some more.
If you claim these aren't part of church teachings, I will gladly quote from Popes who as you know are infallible as the vicar of God.
St. Alphonsus de Liguori IT is impossible for clients of Mary to be damned, if they faithfully honor her and commend themselves to her.
St. Anselm "Just as it is impossible for persons to be saved who have no devotion to Mary and are not protected by her, so it is impossible for any who recommend themselves to her, and are therefore watched over by her, to be lost
St. Albert the Great: All those who are not your servants, O Mary, shall perish.
St. Bonaventure: Those who neglect our Lady will die in their sins. Those who do not call on you in life will never get to Heaven.
St. Ephrem calling devotion to our Blessed Lady the charter (or passport) to liberty, and Mary herself the protectress of the damned. Mary has both the power and the will to save us.
Father Alfonso Alvarez claimed the devil told him to "Give up your devotion to Mary, and I will leave you alone."
St. Catherine of Siena claimed God told her, "No one, not even sinners, who devoutly recommend themselves to her, would ever fall into Hell"
Blessed Henry Suso I put his soul in Mary's hands. Therefore, if his Judge wished to condemn him to Hell, her most loving hands would have to handle the sentence.
St. Bonaventure: "In you, O Lady, I have placed all my hopes." I have therefore the utmost assurance that I shall never be lost, but shall praise and love you forever in Heaven.
St. Antonine let all tremble for their salvation who make but small account of their devotion to the Mother of God, or grow careless and give it up: it is impossible for anyone not protected by Mary to be saved
Sola scriptura is self contradictory
They go around their interpretation like a seesaw.. They balance one side n suddenly the other side is higher. They run to balance the other side n suddenly this side goes higher.
The five pillars or solas are an oxymoron.. how can five stand separately grace alone through faith alone etc etc.. somebody needs to point out the meaning of alone from a dictionary.. it’s the doctrine of the madhouse
Indeed, it is, and it also depends heavily on the idea that scripture is perspicuous, and that there is no need for an interpreter, both of these assertions are incorrect. The number and diversity of Protestant denominations refutes that alone, and splitting began within Luther's lifetime, as well.
@@catholictruthreplies I just had a debate with a living waters follower on confession to a priest and only God being able to forgive sin, he was having a go at Catholicism in general and spouting the usual rubbish we hear.. I pointed out James 5:16 “confess your sins one to another….
The guy told me.. “read the footnotes” they explain the verse!” so then I put forward The Lord giving Authority to the Apostles to forgive sin.. from John 20:23 and again he said.. “read the footnotes! That’s why they’re there!”
So I asked him. .”who wrote the footnotes ? Are they inspired by God? Why do you need footnotes? Don’t you believe Scripture interprets Scripture? Please just explain in your own words what you think John 20:23 means.. he dodged out of the comments after that..
This after him bragging he’s never met a Catholic who’s read the Bible..
Hello Sir Bryan, can you watch this video from Cleveland Street Preachers titled "Catholics, Can You Explain This?" & "Catholics, Can You Answer This Question?"
I'm a Filipino Catholic from the Philippines
He has the worst arguments ever. And I don't think we've done that video yet, but we have two other videos against him if you are interested. Here they are.
ua-cam.com/video/fKBxZyuVRPQ/v-deo.htmlsi=3rzUfeSsaP6a0x1f
ua-cam.com/users/liveSdOTXlNK4PY?si=ojZopUVaS9d0SRcc
Nothing but facts!
Amen
Cognitive dissonance looms large to the Protestant. Even when confronted with this, they switch off to "well we know Scripture is inspired, but we don't know about anything else that is inspired, therefore Scripture is the only thing that is inspired. Therefore, the Bible is the only standard by which we measure anything as true or false." This of course fails miserably as well, for it is a logical fallacy.
Sadly this is true, and oftentimes they do everything they can to deny the pedigree of the scriptures, and how the canon came to be in its present state. The core argument for sola scriptura is ultimately circular in nature, ahistorical, and falls flat to any sort of scrutiny. Thanks for watching, God bless you!
Infallible and inerrant bible, but erroneously interpreted by fallacious protestants, creating more ignorance and sowing division? That is sola scriptura.
This is an amazing point. Just because the Bible is infallible and inerrant doesn't mean their interpretations are, hence, the tens of thousands of Protestant denominations all contradicting each other. Nowhere does the bible teach that it's self-interpreting. Otherwise, everyone would be saying the same thing, especially since they claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit. Either the Holy Spirit is really, really confused, or these man-made denominations with their man-made Traditions are confused
Protestantism: the modern day Tower of Babble. 800MM members and 800MM denominations.
Romans 16:17-18
[17]But I beg you, brothers, to take note of those who cause dissensions and offenses contrary to the doctrine that you have learned, and to turn away from them.
[18]For ones such as these do not serve Christ our Lord, but their inner selves, and, through pleasing words and skillful speaking, they seduce the hearts of the innocent.
A comprehensive rebuttal of Protestantism which they either, typically, ignore or twist its meaning
Amen! We should pray for those who came from the traditions of men that sprouted during the reformation in the 1500's, that they may be guided by the Holy Spirit, the spirit of truth, back to the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic church. The very same church Jesus founded.
Deo Gratias.
Great video! Also kate is a beautiful Young Woman!
Their is a difference between Roman Catholic, and Holy Catholic Church. Majority of Protestants believe in Holy Catholic Church which teaches Apostles Creed, Athanasian Creed ( which explains the trinity), and Heidelberg Catechism (1563)
Jesus founded His One True Church Mt 16 18-19 that became known as Catholic or Universal by Ignatius in 107, codified your bible in 382. His Church is the pillar & foundation of Truth 1 Tim 3:15 & has existed, in spite of sinful men, for 2000 yrs, proof of its divine origin.
The fruits of sola Scriptura & personal interpretation, confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects when Jesus willed unity Jn 17 11-21.
Try combining Sacred Tradition, which existed before the NT, from the time of Jesus with Sacred Scripture under the unifying authoritative interpretation of the magisterium, the balanced three legged stool, far more rational & objective
There is no such thing as of the Roman Catholic church. It's just the Catholic church. Catholic Church under the pope for 2,000 years.
And correction, most Protestants can't even agree with each other on what they believe. Jehovah's Witnesses could believe they are catholic, but it doesn't mean they are. Your Protestants followed athanasius who was a Catholic bishop, then they would be real Catholics, not fake ones, just claiming to be Catholic.
Who determined the Apostles Creed? What aurhority?
The other funny thing about Sola Scriptura is 2 Thess 2:15
I think that verse works against your point more than you think it does...
Very true, many proponents of Sola Scriptura reject oral tradition, which has been guarded by the apostolic churches.
When I wrote my paper on church history and Catholic dogma I wrote on Sola scriptura. My number 1 argument was that it could and has led to the resurgence of ancient Herieses and the makings of new ones. The solution I gave was a combination of Scripture, tradition, and history
Oh man, sounds like you're on your way to converting of not already Catholic. Once you start reading the history of the church, the only options are to convert/remain devout Catholic or deny the truth.
Your paper was very astute, as we can see now that through Protestantism's divorce from history that many ancient heresies have resurrected. Gnosticism, Iconoclasm, Arianism, Docetism, Donatism, Pelagianism, Nestorianism and many more stalk the Protestant landscape. To forget the past is to be doomed to repeat it.
When you ask a Protestant where Bible alone is in the Bible, 2nd Timothy 3 :15-16. So, did Paul have a time machine? He died 64 or 65 AD. Latin Vulgate 400 AD, KJV 1611 AD. Please explain.
Bruh, those verses don't even say that the Bible is the only authority we need. Re read them. 🕵️
You'll have a big issue citing 2 Timothy alone. For a start, it only tells us that the scriptures are reliable for teaching and instruction (which Catholics believe), but in no way does it suggest scripture alone is the only source of authority.
Secondly, when Paul is talking about holy scripture he's referring to the Old Testament. He in no way implies any of his own letters are holy scripture at the time of writing then (he was writing letters, he had no idea that what he was writing would become scripture when he wrote it), and he absolutely didn't consider those verses he wrote to Timothy to be part of the same scripture he was referring to in the letter.
It was the Church that recognised the influence of the Spirit in Paul's writings, as they perfectly encapsulated what had been handed down to them by apostolic teaching and succession. That's why this letter to Timothy was added to the canon, not because Paul said/believed it was.
James 2 20-24 & Mt 25 31-46 rebut sola fide
Hello, thank you so much for your response. I agree with you, 2 Timothy 3:15-17 does not mean what Protestants think it means.
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[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
1. Within the historical context, this scripture is speaking of the Old Testament, not the New. The New Testament had not even been authored at this point.
2. We agree that all scripture is "theopneustos" God-Breathed, and useful for teaching. However, when something is useful, does that mean it is the sole rule of faith? This scripture does not prove scripture as the sole infallible rule of faith. If this were true, why are there so many different interpretations of the Eucharist, and Baptism? Are Lutherans not servants of God because they have a different interpretation than Baptists on the Eucharist and baptism?
3. Scripture is materially sufficient in nature, not formally sufficient.
Hope this helps, God bless you!
The truth is of course hidden from the proud
And those who refuse to listen and consider truth
And also dishonest and lying people.
Jesus and the Bible is the Truth. ONLY very humble, very honest and very truthful people can understand the Word of God and Catholic Faith deeply.
And hidden also from dishonest and lying people.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial It's an act of pride to refuse to listen and consider truth.
Exactly so many of our traditions werent wirtten down but still spoken
Sadly, any Protestants don't understand this. Worse, they don't realize that their man-made Traditions are not written down nor were they spoken. They were just invented out of the blue by some men 14th centuries after christ.
a friend of mine whos a calvinist didnt want non calvinist to join the book club
That's unfortunate. Please continue to pray for your Calvinist friend, that the Holy Spirit will continue to guide them to the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic church. Thanks for tuning in, God bless you!
If sola scriptural is correct , why do those who believe in it go to church to listen to a preacher's translation of the scriptures ?
Can they not read it for themselves ? What about those who can not read at all , are they not simply relying on someone else's translation ?
Why do they go to church at all ? After wherever two or more are gathered ... Two can remain at home and read it for themselves .
Jesus never said that church is for fellowship , coffee, donuts Bible study and so on .
It's the if it feels good attraction that draws them in , not truth .
I was by the Monsignor who brought me home that the truth is the truth and that he did not have the authority to change it .
You either accept it or you don't .
I think a lot of people misunderstand SS. It's not each person individually deciding what the bible means. Of course we have pastors, scholars commentaries, etc. All SS means is that it is the sole, primary source of infallible teaching. Any bishop letters, papal or council proclamations, need to be weighed against the superiority of scripture. Men are fallible and their judgments can fail. The word of God does not fail. So, any doctrine needs to be proofed through scripture. That's Sola Scriptura.
@@ToeTag1968The heresy of personal interpretation 2 Peter 1 20-21 manifests itself in sola Scriptura
@@geoffjs You know that verse affirms SS more than it disputes SS, right? Us Christians, with the Holy Spirit in us, rely on him for guidance and teaching. But, again, we don't just read scripture and think we know it all. We review the word, we read it in context, we find correlating bible verses (for example, 2 Peter 1:20-21 dovetails from what Jesus said in John 14:26). The Holy Spirit helps to confirm revelations in the word. We look to scholarly sources.
It is the lack of biblical evidence for some of your doctrinal accretions that cause us concern for you souls. For example, where does Jesus teach us to ask saints in heaven to pray for us? Nowhere. Jesus does provide 2 examples of how to pray in the bible and both times, he exhorts us to pray directly to the Father. There is similar lack of evidence in scripture that Mary herself was immaculately received. And all scripture related to graven images condemn them. Yet icon veneration exists in your church. These things should concern you, too. They go directly against the will of God.
What do you think icon veneration is? You don't seem to have an understanding of what this even is.
You say that we have on biblical doctrines that concerns you, which we appreciate, but we are concerned about your unbiblical doctrines as well, your entire foundational doctrine of scripture alone. It's not difficult. And all of your premises are based on it, on an unbiblical doctrine.
Once you say "Jesus never said or did..." then you run into a whole lot of self-defeating arguments. Because Jesus didn't say a lot of things. I was reading in the Bible today that they appointed deacons in the book of acts. But Jesus never called for deacons. Jesus never said there could be deacons. He never said there were bishops. Jesus never said there could be guitars used at mass for worship. Jesus never taught faith alone.
The Bible literally says that not everything Jesus Dad and Dad was recorded in scripture. But there is a Biblical basis for statues and art and is also a Biblical basis for asking the Saints to pray for you since they bring our prayers to God. (REV. 5:8).
But there's zero biblical basis for going by scripture alone.
There's plenty of evidence that Mary was immaculately conceived. I feel like Protestants argue like atheists. Atheists make these claims but they don't do any Research into their claims first to see if they hold up. Protestants act the exact same way. They don't study both sides. They only study theirs and assume the other is wrong. Exactly what atheists do. It's kind of sad actually.
Is Jesus the only mediator? ua-cam.com/video/8yWHh6oc5Jw/v-deo.html
What Catholics believe about the Saints: ua-cam.com/video/ZTKMXuhP-vE/v-deo.html
What Catholics believe about Mary: ua-cam.com/video/t9orgxZDUYs/v-deo.html
Mary Ever Virgin: ua-cam.com/video/c23hgdXdp-g/v-deo.html
Immaculate Conception:
ua-cam.com/video/_nCHVwMIWfc/v-deo.html
Mary Mother of God.
ua-cam.com/video/_ESshYyF9xo/v-deo.html
Their Error in the "Sola Faitha"
I was asking my protestant friends when we were doing a bible discussion: "If you think the Bible is the only guidance, the term trinity is not listed in the bible though, but you guys believe in it". Well, they said it was just a word used to describe the Father Son and Spirit, so it does not matter.
Their argument is that: In Catholicism, the church tends to become a higher authority than the bible (which is the word of God), so they do not accept the church's authority. I need to learn how to answer this. All I can say is that all the church is doing is completely biblical.
And then they're asking back in the day St. Peter's Basilica had major issues related to indulgence. That one is also hard to answer.
Then they're asking about the pope and his papal infallibility, which is not in the bible.
Do you think you can make a video on how to answer these types of frequently asked questions?
Thanks!
Christianity got along nearly four centuries before the Bible existed.
The Catholic Church doesn't teach that she's a higher authority than the bible. But Jesus started the Catholic church and gave his Divine authority to the church. What we claim is that we therefore have the authority to properly interpret it. As opposed to the tens of thousands of contradictory denominations will claim they just go by the Bible alone but really make themselves the authority based on their own personal interpretations.
The Catholic Church made the Canon of the Bible and shows the books which would be in the bible, and leaving out the rest all with the authority that Christ gave her. So when Protestants accept the New Testament Canon of scripture and the books that were chosen, they are unknowingly accepting the authority of the Catholic church.
You can tell them that if you look in the new testament, you see an authoritative church, and that scripture is also authoritative. But you don't see scripture alone. That's not biblical.
They can ask about the pope and Mary and all of these other things being in the bible, but they first must answer the very simple questions of:
1. Where does the bible say that everything must be found in the Bible?
2. Where does the bible teach the doctrine of the Bible alone?
They're holding the Catholic Church to a standard that they are not even holding themselves to. For their own doctrines are on biblical where ours are not.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial Ok! Noted. Next time I will ask these two questions and see how they will answer
@@CatholicTruthOfficial 1 Corinthians 4:6 "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.”
hello
Hello there! Thanks for tuning in. God bless you!
Im protestant whats the view on blessed items do they really repel demons. Also whats the take on accretions? I feel that true doctrine shouldnt need to develop over time like the message of the gospel
Blessed sacramentals such as rosaries & scapulars can repel demons. Im unfamiliar with the word accretion, is it a Protestant concept. Catholic doctrine doesn’t change, however, over time, better explanations & understanding develops
They do indeed repel demons. I like your take on accretions, and you are correct; Catholics do not believe in doctrinal development. Doctrines are more clearly understood over time, but not developed. As a Protestant, do you see the novelties in Protestant beliefs that were not in Christian thought prior to the so-called reformation?
Martin luther was inspired by thee old serpent himself
I don't think so, but guy was wrong on sola scriptura thing, but his "reformation" was Incited by pope who sucks
Agreed, his "greatest" idea was had upon the commode...
Jesus met the devil three times when He said It is Written by Sola Scriptoria. He didn't use anything outside of the Bible itself but the Written Word of God.
Then was Jesus led up of the spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil
And when he fasted forty days and forty nights,he was afterward.an hungered..
And when the tempter came to him,he said,If thou be the Son of God,command that these stones be made bread.
But he answered and said, It is written,Man shall live by bread alone,but by every word that proceeded out of the mouth of God.
Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city,setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple.
And sairh unto him,If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written,He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up,lest any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
Jesus said unto him,It is written again,Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
Again,the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain,and shewed him all the kingdoms of the world,and glory of them;
And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee,if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
Then saith Jesus unto him,Get thee hence,Satan: for it is written,Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God,and him only shalt thou worship. Matthew 4:1-10
Sola Scriptoria is important which is the written Word and to say that the Bible is flawed is that flawed men interpret scriptures of their own opinions.
Hey Brian, can you give us an example of something a prophet heard, and it didn't get written down, as you claimed in this video?
Moses' seat
@@fantasia55 a prophet heard Moses's seat, but nobody wrote it down?
@@danbishop2468 not that came down to us today
@@fantasia55 great answer
Like you said, Matthew 23 talks about the Pharisees sitting on the seat of moses. But you won't see the seat of Moses mentioned in the Old Testament or in any other writings. Not until the New Testament which means they received it orally not in written form.
Jesus Christ is the Magisterium and taught his 12 Apostles all the essential doctrine of Salvation. that was pass down through Sacred Apostolic Tradition and Sacred Scriptures that lead us to the Foundation of our Faith.
Jn.20:30, 21:25 Not everything was written! For the first 400 years, Everything was taught by Holy Tradition; Acts 15:27, Mk.16:15, Phil.4:9, 2Tim.2:2, 2Thes.2:15, 3:6, 1Cor.4:17, 11:2-16, 23:29, 15:3, No Bibles until Pope Damasus ORDERED that it be produced by None other than the Catholic Church in 382A.D. Protestants absurdly and falsely use Mk.7:29 when Jesus was talking to the PHARISEES about traditions of men. Jesus was NOT speaking to Catholics! Question, Why would Jesus criticize HIS own Catholic Church?
Great sources Juan! Thank you so much for tuning in, and for sharing as well. God bless you!
This conversation is in deep need of reframing from all sides. While I remain a Protestant, I am deeply indebted to Orthodox Father John Behr, who has helped me better understand the Gospel as it relates to Scripture and the Church. He once said this.
“We automatically think the Church chose what’s Scripture. Well, maybe with regard to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, but did it choose whether to accept the five books of Moses, Isaiah, the Psalms? Remember that the Gospel from the beginning is proclaimed in accordance with the Scriptures. The Scriptures are given from the beginning. ‘Moses and all the prophets spoke about me.’ So, the Scriptures, meaning the Old Testament, at least the core of it, yes, the edges are fuzzy, Enoch, but the core of it is a given from the beginning. The church didn’t choose whether to accept the five books of Moses or choose whether to accept Isaiah. It’s a given and it’s only because we’ve got those books that the Gospel can be proclaimed.
It’s only because we’ve got those books that the Disciples could know who Christ is. They didn’t know by being there with him. They didn’t know by seeing him on the cross. They didn’t know by seeing the empty tomb. They didn’t get it. It’s only when these books are opened (Lk.24) that they get it. So, there is not, certainly speaking from the point of view of proclamation of the Gospel, there is no period before which there is no reference to Scripture. Scripture is a given from the beginning...We say, well the Church came into existence before Paul even wrote his letters or before the Gospels are written and so Paul and his letters are written within the Church and the Church could choose which ones. We’ve completely forgotten that the Gospel was proclaimed in accordance with Scripture from the beginning.”
For the first 300 years of Christianity, there was no Bible as we know it today. Christians had the Old Testament Septuagint, and literally hundreds of other books from which to choose. The Catholic Church realized early on that she had to decide which of these books were inspired and which ones weren't. The debates raged between theologians, Bishops, and Church Fathers, for several centuries as to which books were inspired and which ones weren't. In the meantime, several Church Councils or Synods, were convened to deal with the matter, notably, Rome in 382, Hippo in 393, and Carthage in 397 and 419. The debates sometimes became bitter on both sides. One of the most famous was between St. Jerome, who felt the seven books were not canonical, and St. Augustine who said they were. Protestants who write about this will invariably mention St. Jerome and his opposition, and conveniently omit the support of St. Augustine. I must point out here that Church Father's writings are not infallible statements, and their arguments are merely reflections of their own private opinions. When some say St. Jerome was against the inclusion of the seven books, they are merely showing his personal opinion of them. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion. However, A PERSONS PRIVATE OPINION DOES NOT CHANGE THE TRUTH AT ALL. There are always three sides to every story, this side, that side, and the side of truth. Whether Jerome's position, or Augustine's position was the correct position, had to be settled by a third party, and that third party was the Catholic Church.
Now the story had a dramatic change, as the Pope stepped in to settle the matter. In concurrence with the opinion of St. Augustine, and being prompted by the Holy Spirit, Pope St. Damasus I, at the Council of Rome in 382, issued a decree appropriately called, "The Decree of Damasus", in which he listed the canonical books of both the Old and New Testaments. He then asked St. Jerome to use this canon and to write a new Bible translation which included an Old Testament of 46 books, which were all in the Septuagint, and a New Testament of 27 books.
ROME HAD SPOKEN, THE ISSUE WAS SETTLED.
"THE CHURCH RECOGNIZED ITS IMAGE IN THE INSPIRED BOOKS OF THE BIBLE. THAT IS HOW IT DETERMINED THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE.
St. Jerome acquiesced under obedience (Hebrews 13:17) and began the translation, and completed it in 404 A.D.. In 405, his new Latin Vulgate* was published for the first time.
*The word "vulgate" means, "The common language of the people, or the vernacular".😜😜
@@bibleman8010 That is a great summary of the history! There is certainly no misunderstanding where you're coming from. Obviously, there is no point commenting on the finality of Rome's declaration, although our historical certainty of exactly what books were upheld by the Council of Rome/Damasus/Gelasius/Hormisdas is a bit murky.
Regardless, I think you will agree that the Church began with a sense of Scripture and was able to faithfully operate as such for centuries before any declaration of the Canon, which by Roman standards was not infallibly defined until the Council of Trent, was made.
I find it odd that Trent specifically called out Baruch as part of Jeremiah, but said nothing about Lamentations or the Letter of Jeremiah. If you have any further details on that I would appreciate you passing them along. Cheers, Jay
Our history of which books were added during the Councils is not murky at all since we have the writings. All 73 books were chosen at the Catholic councils in the 4th century and every single Bible unanimously after that had those 73 books. Even the original Protestant Bibles had those 73 books until they removed seven books from the word of God in the 1800s. That's practically modern day.
Yes, we acknowledge the church was functioning fine before the canon of Scripture. However, that's because the Catholic Church existed before the New Testament was even written. Long before the first letter was even penned, the Catholic church was up and running, teaching and preaching the gospel, faithfully proclaiming the word of God, making doctrine, and guiding people. Then, over the next century, it started to be written down, but the church was already up and running.
We would also add that the canon defined formally before the Council of Trent. Read the Council of Carthage, and read the ratification of the Pope with all of the excommunications in the year 401 for anyone who did not accept this exact cannon. What's Trent did was just reaffirm this since Protestants were mangling the holy Scriptures. Heck, Martin Luther wanted to take out six New Testament books. He didn't even consider Revelation, Hebrews, Third John and others to be inspired.
@@jonathanhnosko7563 The Decree of Pope St. Damasus I, Council of Rome. 382 A.D....😂😂
ST. DAMASUS 1, POPE, THE DECREE OF DAMASUS:
It is likewise decreed: Now, indeed, we must treat of the divine Scriptures: what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she must shun.
The list of the Old Testament begins: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book: Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Jesus Nave, one book; of Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; of Kings, four books; Paralipomenon, two books; One Hundred and Fifty Psalms, one book; of Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book; Ecclesiastes, one book; Canticle of Canticles, one book; likewise, Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), one book; Likewise, the list of the Prophets: Isaiah, one book; Jeremias, one book; along with Cinoth, that is, his Lamentations; Ezechiel, one book; Daniel, one book; Osee, one book; Amos, one book; Micheas, one book; Joel, one book; Abdias, one book; Jonas, one book; Nahum, one book; Habacuc, one book; Sophonias, one book; Aggeus, one book; Zacharias, one book; Malachias, one book. Likewise, the list of histories: Job, one book; Tobias, one book; Esdras, two books; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; of Maccabees, two books.
Likewise, the list of the Scriptures of the New and Eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church receives: of the Gospels, one book according to Matthew, one book according to Mark, one book according to Luke, one book according to John. The Epistles of the Apostle Paul, fourteen in number: one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Ephesians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Galatians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus one to Philemon, one to the Hebrews. Likewise, one book of the Apocalypse of John. And the Acts of the Apostles, one book. Likewise, the canonical Epistles, seven in number: of the Apostle Peter, two Epistles; of the Apostle James, one Epistle; of the Apostle John, one Epistle; of the other John, a Presbyter, two Epistles; of the Apostle Jude the Zealot, one Epistle. Thus concludes the canon of the New Testament.
Likewise it is decreed: After the announcement of all of these prophetic and evangelic or as well as apostolic writings which we have listed above as Scriptures, on which, by the grace of God, the Catholic Church is founded, we have considered that it ought to be announced that although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
his list of 46 Old Testament and 27 New Testament books was reconfirmed in the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D.. St. Jerome's translation, "The Latin Vulgate"*, is to this day, the official Bible of the Catholic Church. The Bibles which Catholics use today, have the same 46 books in the Old Testament as they have had since before the beginning of Christianity.
I’m looking for good Protestant arguments for this.
Good luck. :)
@@CatholicTruthOfficial 😁😂
@@fabiotuan5206 and Protestants like twisting the word of god. Who else liked doing that 🤔 oh satan.
Jesus Himself said the Scriptures were error-free! How many times did Jesus say "It is written"? Many times! Almost through His entire ministry!
Jesus never said the scriptures were error free. Quote us the chapter and verse on that. Now we believe they are error free, but Jesus did not say that they were.
But that's not the issue here anyway. No Christian thinks that the Bible has errors. Of course it doesn't. Is the word of God and inerrant. However, the issue is do we go by the Bible alone? Does the bible say that we should go by the Bible alone? Is the Bible say it's the soul or final source of Authority for a christian? Of course not. It's unbiblical.
So:
Bible yes!
Bible _alone_ no!
How can you doubt the truth? Jesus said: I came not to abolish the law but to fulfill it. John's gospel tells Jesus saying: "Scripture can not be broken" - meaning the scriptures is without error.
Yes it's error free ( old testament ) but not complete as John the Apostle said all the books in the world could not contain what happened in Jesus' times.
@@Betrue875 *_John's gospel tells Jesus saying: "Scripture can not be broken" - meaning the scriptures is without error._*
Could you explain what you think this proves? Sure we all believe the Bible is inerrant but how does the inerrancy of scripture mean the average Christian won't error when they read?
I'm sure you would agree that Jesus said many times that the people errored when they read the old testament. No where does he say we won't misinterpret when we read.
That's the point of the video, if you go by Bible alone then all you have is a fallible person who makes errors on a daily basis attempting to understand a book that doesn't have errors.
Think about it this way, you have a book that is 100% error free. If you add to the equation a person who is say 50% error free that would mean
100% Bible x 50% human = 50% chance of getting the interpretation right.
That's the point, unless Jesus left us a visible authority to point to the 50% we are getting wrong then there is no way to get to 100% with Bible Alone.
Use what ever number you want but to claim the average Christian is at the 100% level is illogical.
Hope this logical understanding helps
God Bless
I already said the scriptures are without error. But Jesus never said the Bible is error free as you claimed.
Also you wouldn't even know what scripture is if it wasn't for the Catholic Church who chose the scriptures in canonized that the bible. In fact that's why the Bible alone doesn't work. How do you know the book of Hebrews is inspired according to scripture? Or nehemiah? Or third john? Or revelation? Martin Luther rejected several of these books as have other christians.
Sola Contradiction with bible,their denomination not get in bible as well. good morning and GBU Bryan 🙏🙏🙏❤❤❤❤,
Protestant here: I mostly agree with you. Scripture is very authoritative, but it is not the only authority. Indeed, it was the Catholics (and Orthodox because the great schism) who chose what to include and what not to include into the Bible. And Protestants also borrow heavily from the interpretations from early church Fathers during the first few centuries AD (e.g. Saint Augustine).
At the same time, biblical scholars today know what books were most authoritative and therefore easily made it into the NT (e.g., Gospels) and what JUST made it in (e.g. Revelation and Hebrews). Indeed, before the Bible was canonized, early Christian leaders had tons of copies of the most prominent books (Gospels) and also preached on these.
I don't believe in Sola Scriptura or biblical inerrancy. But I do think the books contained in the Bible are more authoritative than any other person, tradition, or early Christian source (the Didache for example).
Why should the Didache be less authoritative than Hebrews?
*_Indeed, before the Bible was canonized, early Christian leaders had tons of copies of the most prominent books (Gospels) and also preached on these._*
*_I don't believe in Sola Scriptura or biblical inerrancy. But I do think the books contained in the Bible are more authoritative than any other person, tradition, or early Christian source (the Didache for example)._*
Was hoping you could give more insight on the comparison of these two statements?
You freely admit that the early Christians preached from these books. Wouldn't you agree that they would have understood what they were preaching and teaching?
The point I am trying to make, and would like your thoughts on, is the traditions and early Christian sources such as the Didache are just insight into what those early Christians preached from the Scriptures. So wouldn't it be logical that those writings, on what the Bible teaches, would be more authoritative than modern writings who claim those early writings aren't what the Bible actually teaches?
Curious what you think about this?
God Bless
@@Christ__is__King Because the Didache wasn't deemed to be worthy to be included into the Bible. That said, I think Christians today should read and understand the Didache.
@@Matt-1926 Some context: I believe the books contained in the Bible should be very, very authoritative and should be by far the main source for understanding God. But that Christians should also read and understand other important texts from the 1st couple centuries.
I believe for example that the Didache (e.g., fasting on Wednesday and Fridays, baptism by immersion, the Eucharist etc) is more authoritative than modern writings on what the Bible says. But ultimately, if modern writings were to more closely resemble the spirit of the bible than the Didache, I would follow what modern writings say.
I consider myself a reluctant Protestant by the way. And I see faults in Protestantism (big ones actually), Catholicism, and Orthodox.
@@tylerdunford6031 who deemed it to not be worthy?
Peasants have been reading for 100 years 💫
So would these not be the poor who we are to feed then? Is the harvest not ripe for the taking? You call them peasants I agree they are poor. I was once poor spiritually too. Think I humbled myself I was not able to see They are the soil which the enemy has planted his seeds in while the sower slept. And what started out as division and sedition has turned into being born into captivity. This is y the harvest is great but the workers are few who lead those who have gone astray back to the sheep fold so they can be gathered into his garner. One thing I will say about the Catholic Church is that it has not done enough to shepherd those who have been captivated by the enemies lies. But perhaps this is the way God intended it to be. God bless.
@@shaneparker7558 , your highness.
Sola Scriptura retires the Holy Spirit..John 14:26 retires sola Scriptura..
Very true! Christ left for us the Church and the Paraclete!
Does anyone know what Pope Francis position on sola Scriptura is? I would like to compare it to Bryan's position, to see if Bryan might be in error
The Church's official position is that sola scriptura is not biblical. In fact why don't you compare your on biblical tradition to all of the earliest Christians for 1500 years. You will see that it's not even a Christian teaching and no one even heard of it. Once you admit this to yourself you will cease to be protestant.
@CatholicTruthOfficial I did not ask what the Church's official teaching is, i want to know what Pope Francis position on sola Scriptura is? Until i actually find out, I will remain a non Catholic Christian. If atheists can be saved, then surely non catholic Christians are saved.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial Just by reading the CCC, is enough reason for me to not become Catholic, to many problematic teachings.
@@jimbob3719 Here's 3 quotes from an article on a speech the Pope gave if they help
The Bible, according to Francis, is “the testimony in written form to the Word of God”. Scripture is not associated with the Word of God on a one-to-one basis, but is rather perceived as a witness to something co-inherent, yet different. Following this comment, the Pope adds that “the Word of God precedes and exceeds the Bible”.
Catholicism believes that the Magisterium of the Church has ultimate authority over Scripture. This is what Pope Francis believes as well. In quoting Vatican II (which is actually a quotation of Vatican I), he says that “all of what has been said about the way of interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgment of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the word of God” (Dei Verbum, 12).
Again, the Pope quotes Vatican II (which in turn quotes the Council of Trent) when he says that “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 sense of loyalty and reverence” (Dei Verbum, 9).
Hope it helps clear the air
It doesn't matter what pope francis's opinion is, when we have the official Church teaching on it. So your question makes no sense. It's just trying to change the subject to avoid the obvious, that you can't back up the Bible alone with your own bible.
How can we find all the teachings that were the oral teachings? I assume all these teachings were written down somewhere?
Well, mostly passed on orally. Kind of like the entirety of Genesis. 2100 years of history passed on orally until Moses wrote it down.
It’s amazing how God works.
But you can I also read the writings of the earliest Christians As they talk about Of the Traditions that were passed on from the apostles. Read the writings of the Christians for the first four centuries.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial Oh yes I know about that, I was wondering if anyone ever compiled a book like a bible that was a complete set of all the oral teachings of the first-century Christians.
@@2196logan
Including Arius?
@@2196loganthere are various books containing the early fathers writings but am unaware of any book that contains them all, probably because there is so much material. Try online research
Bible worship vs Christ worship. Knowing scripture doesn’t mean you know the lord.
It’s true relationship with the Holy Spirit that leads one back to the church and through his word and my humility he knocked every previous understanding and lie planted into my heart down with the Holy Bible. I will not speak of the Holy Bible as to it not being the final authority. For this simple fact that it is the Word of God and it is sharper than a double edged sword and it is the rider on that white horse called true and faithful which comes and destroys all enemies laying waste to all that oppose what is right and just. And that is the Catholic Church teachings are true. Not all will make it to the Supper of the Lamb found only in the Catholic Church but those who do will Marry it for in it is the fullness of truth and the only way to fully abide in him. But God is the righteous judge and surely he will chasten those who are truly his and he will lead them back even though they will suffer great loss as I have he will bring them through the fire. God bless.
Amen! Thanks for watching! God bless you!
So how does someone with a disagreement on an issue take it to the church? Who do they speak to? Do they speak to the Pope or someone like Fr Martin to get it resolved?
We'd be happy to answer that for you right after you answer a question which you've been avoiding this whole time. Show us where the Bible teaches that the Bible is the only and final authority on Christian doctrine. You continue to love to change the subject without actually answering the question.
Take it to a priest. If not satisfied take it to a Bishop. If needed, it will go to the Council of Bishops for the country. If needed it could go to the Vatican. The Magisterium of the Church is the teaching authority of the Church.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial 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[b] may be complete, equipped for every good work. I am complete without believing in the bodily assumption of Mary.
2 Tim. 3:16-17 doesn't say that the Bible is the only or final authority. It doesn't say that anywhere. Rather, this passage says Scripture is 'helpful' (not sufficient) in helping a Christian. Many things are helpful in that regard, but it never says only or final. Lastly, 2 Tim. 3:16-17 is talking about the Old Testament Scriptures, not the whole Bible. So that doesn't prove your point.
If we are going to take this, literally, then all we need is James 1:4. James says that perseverance makes us perfect, and complete, and lacking in nothing, and the language is far stronger than in 2nd Timothy.
@@jimbob3719 So your church does not believe in Matthew 18:17. This is the reason why oftentimes when your protestant pastors and their members disagree with the interpretation of this or that Bible passage, their members oftentimes leave their denominations and found their own church where the mere members are now the leaders/sole interpreter of Scriptures. Other bible alone believers decide to be alone in their own church. No wonder why the protestant sect keeps multiplying. It only means that you don't believe and follow the entire Scriptures for teachings of Jesus.
I am the way(the cathloic faith) the truth( Jesus the word of God incarnate) the life( to live by the magisteriam of the church and the Bible. Tradition and scripture.)
I don't think this comment is exactly accurate. I don't think you're applying those things correctly.
If Sola scriptura is true, Jesus made a big mistake when he said " deny yourself, take up your cross and follow me". Because denial of self or taking up the cross is not necessary in that case.
Very true! Thanks for watching! God bless you.
Furthermore, it seems the early church did not make so drastic a distinction between the oral and written as you propose. What the Apostles proclaimed in public and what they handed down in Scripture are not two substantially different things, at least not for Irenaeus.
“We have learned from no 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)
While not identical to the oral, the written is deemed to be an adequate representation of it and is also preserved for us in a way that more nebulous oral tradition was not.
"From the words of Peter, therefore, which he addressed in Caesarea to Cornelius the centurion, and those Gentiles with him, to whom the word of God was first preached, we can understand what the apostles used to preach, the nature of their preaching, and their idea with regard to God." (AH 3.12.7) Peter concludes that sermon by claiming that "all the prophets testify about [Jesus of Nazareth] that all who believe in him receive forgiveness of sins in his name." (Acts 10:43)
So, the Gospel is preserved in writing as a particular Apostolic and Christocentric reading of the Old Testament Scriptures (Cf. Luke 24:25-27, 44-47, Acts 26:22-23).
"Read with earnest care that Gospel which has been conveyed to us by the apostles, and read with earnest care the prophets, and you will find that the whole conduct, and all the doctrine, and all the sufferings of our Lord, were predicted through them." (AH 4.34.1)
Finally it seems that the early church viewed the Scriptures as unique in perfection and considered themselves dependant on them to reveal the mysteries of God.
"The Scriptures are indeed perfect, since they were spoken by the Word of God and his Spirit; but we, inasmuch as we are inferior to and later in existence than the Word of God and His Spirit, are on that very account destitute of the knowledge of His mysteries." (AH 2.28.2)
Yet they made a clear distinction nonetheless. And all of the earliest Christians unanimously talk about the tradition that was handed on from the apostles that was not written down that helps us to understand that which was written down. And that's exactly the Fatal flaw of protestantism which they do not have nor understand. And Jehovah's witnesses, Mormons and all the rest of them.
Even if we say it's a good representation of it, which we agree, that doesn't mean that you can interpret it properly without the understanding of that oral tradition.
It's similar to Henry Ford who ran the Ford car company for decades. He trained and taught top Executives to know exactly what he knows in every detail. Before his death, let's say he wrote down some of the important points for everyone to remember. They accurately reflect the written word too but not in the west or depth. And if there is a doubt and a disagreement on the written word, then people would appeal to those he put in charge who understand everything that he taught. Same thing with Jesus and the apostles. That's why both tradition and scripture is needed along with the teaching authority that she's established.
Lastly, we agree that the scriptures are perfect. Of course they are, they are with the word of god. But that doesn't mean people's interpretation of them are. And sour statement right before this.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial “When, however, they (heretics) are confuted by the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but word of mouth.” - Irenaeus (AH 3.2.1)
“Such, then, is their system, which neither the prophets announced, nor the Lord taught, nor the apostles delivered, but of which they boast that beyond all others they have a perfect knowledge. They gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures; and...endeavor to adapt with an air of probability to their own peculiar assertions the parables of the Lord, the sayings of the prophets, and the words of the apostles, in order that their scheme may not seem altogether without support." - Irenaeus (AH 1.8.1)
What church elder (bishop, cardinal or pope) gave you authority to go on social media and speak in an official capacity for the RCC?
I love this Protestant argument. When they can't answer the questions in the video and Truth starts to convict them, they love to change the subject.
@@CatholicTruthOfficialClassic bait & switch, they are so duplicitous!
@@CatholicTruthOfficial No change of subject. This is a legit question. What would your bishop say to you doing this without church consent? BTW, I can answer your question but why do battle of wits with someone who has none?
Galatians 2 : 8
Say that Peter is the Apostles of circumcision (Jewishs)? And Paul Apostles of pageant. So, if i'm not a Jewish, i fallow Paul gospel for salvation, 1 Corinthians 15 : 1-4
Paul wrote about this "I belong to Paul" and "I belong to Peter" thing in 1 Corinthians.
Peter and Paul didn't preach different gospels.
There is only one Gospel, and both men preached it.
Jomidian, exactly!
@jomidiam
Yes. In 1 corinthiens 1 : 12 they agree to preaching the same gospel, the Paul gospel who save Jewishs and Gentiles, 1 corinthiens 15 : 1-4. Paul say "my gospel" many time, 2 timthy 2 : 8, Romans 16 : 25 and the most important Romains 2 : 16 "In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to👉 my gospel".
How can they be saved before the crucifixion, Jesus was not resurrected. How can they believe in this if it not happen?
In Revelation 14 : 6-7, we can see another gospel, the gospel for the tribulations, who will be a fait + work setup.
@@Paulflag I'm not sure how you're defining the word "gospel".
@jomidiam
Gospel definition➡️ The word gospel is derived from the Anglo-Saxon term god-spell, meaning “good story,” a rendering of the Latin evangelium and the Greek euangelion, meaning “good news” or “good telling.”
Gospel = good news.
We all deserve hell, Romains 3 : 23. But there is a good news a "Gospel" that we can be saved from hell. The gospel for the church age ( our age) is found in 1 corinthiens 15 : 1-4. In the tribulations, it be a different gospel...
Oh, the Lutheran canon of the bible didn’t just fall out of the sky for us to figure out christianity on our own? Lol
Luther also tried to delete four New Testament books, but his financial backers wouldn't let him.
@@fantasia55 financial backers? I've wondered why he didn't sence some of the new Testament books he wanted to remove clearly go against his Sola Fede deal.
At least 4
Martin Lucifer didn't successfully chang eyhe biblical canon. It was a couple of the bible societies who deleted chapters from the Bible (1820's). Lucifer lover poop, hated Jews and wanted to rid the planet and kill all poor people. Legit, the guy was coocoo. Ask a protestant about him, 99% have no clue about who that guy really was. Long story short, he was a sinner. Christians are told to only follow Jesus and the church he left us. Wish people would just submit to the holy church and stop with the prideful thinking they got it all figured out. I hate being prideful. Pray daily God makes me more humble. Jesus, if it's you're will make me a saint. If it's not, I accept that as well. ✝️🤍😁⛪🕊️
"Ex-Catholic Exposes the TWISTED Teachings of the Catholic Church" Revolve Bible Church. BRYAN, please look at this and help this poor guy. And the poor souls he is deceiving.
He's also a bit smug and condescending about it under a veneer of fake nice and humility, which makes it even more insidious.
The Bible was compiled so just any random teachings wouldn't keep being added to the Gospel, then the roman church proceeded to do just that
That's not why the Bible is formed. You should probably study the actual history of it. If you look at the teachings of Catholicism in the earliest christians, they are the same. You will realize that what you teach came 1400 years after Christ so it is you and your tens of thousands of Protestant denominations who have been adding to Christ's gospel for 500 years. You guys can't even agree with each other.
Its exactly why the bible was compiled, because of the divisions and acceptence of different scriptures among the various churches they were called together by the Roman emperor Constantine to come to agreement that would quell disagreement that could threaten the empire
"IT IS TRUE. BECAUSE I SAY SO." - Every believer who makes up his own doctrine.
This was directly the founding of Protestantism. Martin Luther himself said this when challenged on him doctoring his translation of the Bible by adding the word "alone" after "faith" where it was not prior:
…But to return to the matter in hand! If your papist wants to make so much fuss about the word sola (alone) tell him this, “Dr. Martin Luther will have it so, and says that a papist and an ass are the same thing.” Sic volo, sic jubeo; sit pro ratione voluntas [I will it. I command it. My will is sufficient reason].
Wild, right?
Its Christ alone
No, actually, that's not true or an answer to anything we asked. Can you show us one Scripture that says it's Christ alone?
Jesus didn't give us himself only. He also gave us the church. And baptism. And the Lord's supper. And church leaders. And a whole host of other things.
So no Father or Holy Spirit?
Interesting, are you suggesting that what was written was opposite of what spoken orally?
Paul told us in Galatians 1:8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!
Peter in 2 Peter 3:2 that you should remember the words spoken beforehand by the Holy prophets and the commandments of the Lord and Savior spoken by your Apostles.
The Catholic church brags about the role they played in collecting the letters that form the New Testament but what they placed in the catechism didn't meet the standard to be added to the New Testament.
Why brag about creating the New Testament when what is contained within doesn't lead one to salvation? What is in the catechism that isn't in scripture that we are saved by?
The oral traditions of the Apostles were the teachings of Jesus. What you received orally or in the letters that are in the New Testament, however limited your access, what you received you were faithful too!
Labeling and smearing Christians who adhere to the teachings of Jesus as their foundation is a grave sin! You know why the Catholic Church labels them, you warned that you would delete my last comment on a different video because you couldn't dispute it!
What we are saying is that the full deposit of faith and the word of God was given to us orally. Only some of that was written down. So if you have a difficult time interpreting a text or understanding what it means, you have to go back to the full body of tradition to understand it properly. Obviously what was handed down orally is the same as what was written though the written part is truncated.
It's interesting you quote Galatians 1:8 since Protestants can't even agree among themselves on what is the gospel and they have like 10,000 different gospels. They can't even agree among themselves how to be saved. Whereas the Catholic Church has had the same gospel for 2,000 years given by Christ. The fullness.
You don't understand your catechism comment. That doesn't even make sense. The catechism is just an encyclopedia of our beliefs. So your comment is a little bizarre. But you are correct that it was the Catholic Church who chose the Canon of scripture, copied it for a thousand years until the printing press, protected it from being destroyed, and translated it into different languages also we could have it and all before Protestants were even invented.
Nobody is labeling or smearing Christians except for Protestants who smear Catholics on a daily basis with slander and false claims.
No offense my friend, but your comments are a bit elementary, and we have no problem refuting you're supposed claims. If you would like to talk deeper about this, you can always come on our podcast and have a debate with Bryan.
@CatholicTruthOfficial What are the differences with the over million different Christian denominations? Do they differ over the plan of salvation? Scripture tells us that is by grave thru faith that we are saved, repentance, baptism, being born again, communion, what isn't in scripture that is required for salvation?
I've had Catholics tell me that Mary is in heaven merging back into God. Another said Mary was the woman in Revelation 12 (yikes), but it hasn't happened yet. One day Jesus will leave His throne and enter back into Mary's womb and be born again!
The past actions of the Catholic church and their murdering of Christians to fulfill the jesuith oath is problematic. The Catholic Church teaches salvation is found in the Catholic Church and not in Jesus.
Odd, all the people in scripture that we were told were saved, not a one of them prayed to Mary, sought Mary, went to a bishop or priest for confession. John, Paul, and Peter never even say her name. No, she is the mother of God, the new ark, the queen of heaven. Silence...
@@glennherron9499You have a very strange & uninformed opinion of Catholicism, get your facts right!
@@geoffjs I only have what the Catholic Church teaches
How can you reconcile that the protestant/bible alone/sola scriptura church and its doctrines are from God when the early church/christians especially the church fathers were catholic? In fact most of the church fathers were catholic priests. The 3 church fathers St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Polycarp and St. Clement I are also called Apostolic Fathers because they had DIRECT association with the original apostles. These 3 apostolic/church fathers were all catholic priests. St. Ignatius and St. Polycarp were both bishops while St. Clement was a pope consecrated by St. Peter himself. They believed in the Holy Mass, Eucharist etc. They did not believe in bible alone, faith alone, osas.
The catholic rosary called sacramental and 7 Sacraments of the Catholic Church namely Confession or Reconciliation, Eucharist, Baptism, Confirmation, Anointing of the Sick, Matrimony and Holy Orders have the power to heal and liberate us from our sins, transform us and make us holy because these are from God because the Catholic Church is the TRUE Church founded by Christ.
IN FACT, some Marian Dogmas (5th and 7th century) and the rosary prayer or the form of rosary that catholics say today (13th century) existed earlier than the protestant/sola scriptura or bible alone church and their doctrines faith alone and osas which were just born in 16th century by mere men.
I have read the many testimonies of catholic converts from other faiths. They said they decided to convert to catholicism because they studied the early church and they found out that the early christians were catholic because their doctrines were catholic not protestant doctrines such as biboe alone, faith alone, osas ...
Protestants argue, "There were no rosary prayer, marian dogmas etc durimg the time of apostles and early church". My answer to them is, "there were also no bible alone, faith alone, osas doctrimes during those times. Some Marian Dogmas (5h and 7th century) and the rosary prayer (13th century) existed earlier than the protestant church and its doctrines like bible alone, faith alone, osas (16th century).
Teachings on Mary also go back for centuries earlier than the 5th Century as well.
John chapter 1 says
“The Word Became Flesh”
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:14
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
Men inspired by The Holy Spirit brought the bible together. That’s why the bible is so Important and is The book to refer to for spiritual manners.
Not a man made religion.
For the first 300 years of Christianity, there was no Bible as we know it today. Christians had the Old Testament Septuagint, and literally hundreds of other books from which to choose. The Catholic Church realized early on that she had to decide which of these books were inspired and which ones weren't. The debates raged between theologians, Bishops, and Church Fathers, for several centuries as to which books were inspired and which ones weren't. In the meantime, several Church Councils or Synods, were convened to deal with the matter, notably, Rome in 382, Hippo in 393, and Carthage in 397 and 419. The debates sometimes became bitter on both sides. One of the most famous was between St. Jerome, who felt the seven books were not canonical, and St. Augustine who said they were. Protestants who write about this will invariably mention St. Jerome and his opposition, and conveniently omit the support of St. Augustine. I must point out here that Church Father's writings are not infallible statements, and their arguments are merely reflections of their own private opinions. When some say St. Jerome was against the inclusion of the seven books, they are merely showing his personal opinion of them. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion. However, A PERSONS PRIVATE OPINION DOES NOT CHANGE THE TRUTH AT ALL. There are always three sides to every story, this side, that side, and the side of truth. Whether Jerome's position, or Augustine's position was the correct position, had to be settled by a third party, and that third party was the Catholic Church.
Now the story had a dramatic change, as the Pope stepped in to settle the matter. In concurrence with the opinion of St. Augustine, and being prompted by the Holy Spirit, Pope St. Damasus I, at the Council of Rome in 382, issued a decree appropriately called, "The Decree of Damasus", in which he listed the canonical books of both the Old and New Testaments. He then asked St. Jerome to use this canon and to write a new Bible translation which included an Old Testament of 46 books, which were all in the Septuagint, and a New Testament of 27 books.
ROME HAD SPOKEN, THE ISSUE WAS SETTLED.
"THE CHURCH RECOGNIZED ITS IMAGE IN THE INSPIRED BOOKS OF THE BIBLE. THAT IS HOW IT DETERMINED THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE.
St. Jerome acquiesced under obedience (Hebrews 13:17) and began the translation, and completed it in 404 A.D.. In 405, his new Latin Vulgate* was published for the first time.
*The word "vulgate" means, "The common language of the people, or the vernacular".😎😎
@@bibleman8010 You may know the bible but did you read John chapter 1 in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God ….
The word came amongst us Jesus is the “I Am” of the Old Testament. The bible is the word of god . The book we need to refer to for spiritual guidance.
Like I said,not a man mad religion, the catholic church
Jesus, the word of God, started the Catholic Church. The Bible is some of the word of God. Jesus is not the Bible and you can't reduce him to a book. He also speaks through his church. In fact of the Bible even says this. The Bible also says that not everything is in the bible. That's why Protestants can't find a single verse that teaches the Bible alone, because it's not biblical. And they have to do all sorts of gymnastics around this fact. The Bible itself says the word of God is Not contained in the Bible and yet Protestants just ignore this for their unbiblical man-made tradition. It's sad really. No Christian taught this for 1400 years and yet no one cares.
Also the Catholic church is a man-made religion because Jesus Christ who started it became man for us. So it's both a man-made and a God made religion.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial if Jesus would walk in a catholic church today it would only be to reprehend the priests and there adherents and reverse all these useless and expensive statues so ne it isn’t Gods church
@@user-fi1pe4dg3u The Word of GOD is a person, and not a book (John 1:1,14).🤦♀🤦♀
OK People.. to set the Record Straight... Straight from the Catholic Converts Catechism....
Q. Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
A. We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church, in the Council of Loadicea (A.D.336), transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday.
Q. By What Authority did the Church substitute Sunday for Saturday?
A. The church substituted Sunday for Saturday by the Plentitude of that divine power which Jesus Christ bestowed upon her.
(No scripture nor any reference was Given)
isn't it interesting that they do not give any credit to God nor do they say "God told us we had the authority to change His laws... That is because no such authority was Given to them to Change His laws as that would make Jesus a liar when Christ himself said "until the heaven and earth shall pass, no jot nor title shall in no wise pass from the law until all be fulfilled."
That would mean that the Church took it upon themselves, and not by the authority of God or Jesus, to change the law of God....
Q. Why did the Catholic Church substitute Sunday for Saturday?
A. The church substituted Sunday for Saturday, because Christ rose from the dead on Sunday, and the Holy Ghost descended on the Apostles on a Sunday.
The same question was asked two different ways and got two different answers...
Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday and Why did the church substitute Sunday for Saturday... Was it because Christ rose on Sunday of was it because the Council transferred???
Daniel 7:25 "He shall speak against the Most High and wear down the holy ones of the Most High, intending to change the feast days and the law. They shall be handed over to him for a time, two times, and half a time."
What God told Moses to tell the people now...
"Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, a holy convocation. You shall do no work. It is a Sabbath to the LORD in all your dwelling places."
Interesting... Now for the Catholic Bible.... same verse... "For six days work may be done; but the seventh day is a sabbath of complete rest, a declared holy day; you shall do no work. It is the LORD’s sabbath wherever you dwell. (b)"
Funny thing that catholic bible... it's reference mark doesn't state anything outside of scripture, it uses the bible alone... "b. Lv 19:3; 26:2; Ex 20:8-11; 23:12; 31:14-15; 34:21; Nm 28:9-10; Dt 5:12-15; Lk 13:14."
Pay close attention to Exodus 20:8.... "Remember the sabbath day-keep it holy." (From the catholic Bible)
The Catholic Church had no "Authority" what soever to change the Sabbath day " the day of holy convocation" from Saturday to Sunday...
They cannot say that God told them to change it, because then that would mean that God changed his mind about it and removed His sanctification from it.
The Catholic Church only put the New Testament in order of events, the Jews had the OT already in order way before the Birth of Christ...
When an entity says it has the "Authority to change the laws of God, they are lying period...
The Catholic Church has no such "Authority" because Jesus was not God and never gave them such "Authority", the Holy Ghost surely didn't grant them "Authority" and God Himself didn't grant them the "Authority" to set aside scripture, set aside the Laws of God or change the Laws of God....
If Christ Himself said the Laws could not be changed until the old heaven and earth had passed, the Catholic Church claims to have more "Authority" than the one they claim to be God Himself, thus Giving themselves more power than God Himself....
The Apostles never said to keep the Sabbath, but God sure did and the Apostles obeyed God... why you may ask??? Because the death and resurrection is not a new creation.....
Christ had the same body he died in, complete with the wounds... if it were a new body/new creation, there would have been no wounds to be found....
Honestly even the Catholic Church is Sola Scriptura for the simple Fact they got their traditions directly from scripture, and anything outside of scripture is only an interpretation of scripture hence Sola Scriptura.
Scripture is Scripture... The Bible or Canonical Scripture... Bible alone.... Without the Bible the Church would not exist.....
Please show us one passage where Jesus, the disiciples, or anyone told us to keep the Sabbath in the New Testament. In Mt 19"16-22, someone even asked Jeshs how to be saved, and he listed a bunch of Commandments, but not the Sabbath. ALL 10 Commandments are reaffirmed in the New Testament _except_ the Sabbath.
The earliest Christians back to the time of the Apostles worshiped on Sunday to celebrate the resurrection of Christ. Show me 3 Christians in the first 5 centuries of the church who worshiped on Saturday. Give us their names.
Also what you left out is that all Christians unanimously worshiped on Sunday long before the council in the 4th century. It was just proclaiming what the church had already believed since the time of christ. Same thing was changed at that time. We have a video on this topic coming out on sunday.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial oh Wait a minute... you said that Jesus was God... so I gave you a passage from God... are you now denying Jesus is God now???....lol.....
3 I Give you Jesus, John, Peter, James, Paul... Since Jesus is why we are called Christians in the first place....
You are right, Keeping the commandments of God... so now you are saying that God changed His mind on the Seventh day as sabbath day of rest and a Holy Convocation/Sacred assembly to Him...
I want you to show me a single verse that Jesus or anyone said that the Seventh day was removed by God, Jesus or the disciples....
I have already shown you where Jesus, the one you claim to be God Himself, said that not one portion of the Law (law being the 10 commandments) would be removed until the old heaven and earth should pass... Last I checked the old heaven and earth passes at the second coming...
We wont get into the fact that you have a graven image of the one you call God and that you worship said graven image... established as the kneeling as you walk in the door before being seated... If you worship Jesus, you worship the Idol of Jesus... God specifically said not to make a graven image of anything that is in heaven and Jesus is in heaven...
In your Converts catechism you skip that commandment all together, but for some reason you left it in the Bible???
and since you said that the only commandment that was not reaffirmed was the sabbath commandment, then the Second commandment is till in full effect....
"ALL 10 Commandments are reaffirmed in the New Testament except the Sabbath."
That is what happens when you get upset and back yourself into a corner, you forget your own lies while trying to establish another....
It is hard to remember each and every lie....
Now, 1 John 2:6 "6Whoever claims to abide in Him must walk as Jesus walked."
"whoever claims to abide in him ought to live [just] as he lived." (catholic Bible)
(Actual Translation) "The one claiming to abide in Him, ought to also walk in the same way He walked."
Christ said that he had kept all God's commandments and Paul says to be imitators of him as he imitates Christ.
you keep dancing around questions all together because you are focused on your lies that cannot be validated without making Jesus, the one you claim to be God Himself, out as a liar...
Jesus was speaking to a Jew, the first 4 commandments are what defines a Jew, it is implied in that manner....
Furthermore, Jesus said "If you love me you will keep my commandments." Jesus gave nothing new at all... no new commandments whatsoever...
Love your neighbor as your self is said by God Himself in the OT... as was "And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength."
Anyway, you are having a hard time with your lies... shall we stick to only one of them???
God said to keep the Seventh day as a sabbath of res and Holy Convocation/sacred assembly, Jesus and the Apostles kept the commandments of God as an example for us to follow... If they did not, which you cannot prove that Jesus nor the apostles didn't, keep the seventh day as the sabbath of rest and Holy convocation/ sacred assembly to God all are liars...
are you goin to get to those questions or are you still trying to validate your lies???
knowing that the sabbath is nowhere commanded under the new covenant, must resort to the old. But this does them no good, affirming it is binding on Christians under the new covenant, unless they can prove that the old law is the new law or part thereof. This they make a feeble attempt to do. However, all that is necessary to refute his assumption is to prove that the old law is done away. If the old law is done away it is impossible for the affirmative to make it the authority in the new. This I intend to do at this time, and at the same time showing its location historically in the scheme of redemption.
In contending for the observance of the sabbath day of Exodus 20, Adventists overlook the significance of history which is summarized by the apostle Paul in Galatians three.
Four hundred and thirty years before the law was given at Mount Sinai, God made the promise to Abraham, "In thee shall all nations be blessed . . . He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ." (Gal. 3:8, 16) At Sinai God made a covenant with the children of Israel, even the law. It was in this law that the sabbath was given or made known: "Thou camest down also upon Mount Sinai, and spakest with them from heaven, and gavest them right judgments, and true laws, good statutes and commandments: and madest known unto them thy holy sabbath . . . by the hand of Moses thy servant." (Deut. 9:13-14) But this law "cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. For if inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise. Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; . . . But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster." (Gal. 3:17-25)
1. Why do NO Christians keep the Sabbath in the New Testament?
2. Why does Paul THREE times tell us that we need not keep the Sabbath?
3. Why does Hebrews tell us that the day we keep is "ANOTHER" day?
4. Why does the Bible tell us that the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant made with Israel? and then why does the Bible tell us that this covenant does not apply to Christians?
5. Why are there NO commands for Christians to keep the Sabbath in the entire Bible?
6. Why does Adventism teach that Adam kept the Sabbath, when the Bible teaches that no-one before the time of Moses knew about the Sabbath?
7. Why does the Bible say that the Sabbath is a sign for Israel, and never applies it to mankind as a whole?
8. Why does Adventism gather weekly on Saturday, when in the New Testament and in the first, second, and third centuries, Christians gathered on Sunday?
Luke 11:41 "But give that which is within as charity, and then all things are clean for you.
Acts 10:15 Again a voice came to him a second time, "What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy."
Acts 11:9 "But a voice from heaven answered a second time, 'What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.'
Romans 14:1 Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions.
Colossians 2:16 Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day-- (NASB ©1995)
Mark 7:19 because it goeth not into his heart, but into his belly, and goeth out into the draught? This he said , making all meats clean.
John 5:18 (NIV)
18 For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
Hosea 2:11 will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts. 758 years before the Birth of Christ.
Isaiah 1:12-14King James Version (KJV) 12 When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts?13 Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting.14 Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them.
It is ironic that Jesus and His disciples were harassed by the Pharisees over the Sabbath (John 5:18). Jesus spoke out against the Pharisee's merciless observance of the Sabbath (Matt 12:1-8; Luke 13:10-16). Jesus also defended Himself and His disciples on this issue by saying:
"The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath; so the Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath." [Mark 2:27-28; RSV]. On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them... [Acts 20:7]
It is interesting to note that St. Paul had spent a week with the community in Troas (Acts 20:6), and this is the only reported time that he celebrated the "breaking of bread" with them. Also no remarks are made later in this passage that St. Paul disapproved of their worship on Sunday. One would expect St. Paul to object to this practice, if it were rooted in paganism.
and claiming authority over it.
The Lord said the Sabbaths would cease and that’s exactly what he meant.🤦♀🤦♀
@@bibleman8010 so are you saying that God changed His mind then??? even thought scripture clearly states that God cannot change His mind??? lol.... hmmmmmm..... Interesting He said feasts... no where in the verses you just quoted states that the Seventh day Sabbath.... God said "The new moons and sabbaths I cannot away with"... interesting that God should say that and you say that he did away with them,. even though he said he couldn't....
Well there Goes your argument that God said they would cease because he did not say that at all...
Which now brings us to when you think that Jesus meant that it was the end of the sabbath commandment....
If Jesus thought the Sabbath commandment ceased, then why did he continue to keep it???
Also why did the Apostles keep it as well???
so out of everything you just wrote, you confirmed that the Seventh day as sabbath is still in effect...
Plus Christ said that until the heaven and the earth should pass nothing from the law would pass... The seventh day Sabbath is a part of that law....
Now you have made Jesus out to be a liar....
@@mrtheology2069 guess you cant read
If they speak not according to this word, there is no light in them. Isaiah 8:20. You ignore God's law to keep the traditions of men. Mark 7:8
How do we know for sure if a particular teaching is a "tradition of men" ?
@@jerome2642 Teachinhs of men are not scriptural. We all like Christmas, which celebrates the birth of Jesus at Bethlehem, and we can read all about it in Luke chapter2. But what about Santa Claus? I pick it because protestant believers pulled that guy into the Christmas celebration. It isn't in the Bible. Our modern Santa Claus hss roots in an old bishop, Nicholas, the worse however is ties to pagan God, Odin. That would be strictly a tradition of men.
2 Peter 1: 20-21 ............ SOLA SCRIPTURA NOLA SCRIPTURAE. Point Blank and. 🇺🇲🇺🇸❤️🇻🇦🇻🇦🕊️📖🕯️😇👼✝️☦️⛪‼️
If most of my church doctrines weren't found in the scriptures, i would also say scripture alone in false.
You’re the pot calling the kettle black. I don’t know any church that takes more of its doctrines from the Bible than the Catholic Church does.
There sooo many inconsistencies within Protestantism that I don’t know where to begin.
Here’s a few “Protestant teachings” not in the Bible and they actually contradict it.
Once saved always saved.
Faith alone: Luther added the word alone into the Bible to make it match his teaching. The word alone was not present in the original text.
Christians only need to accept Jesus into their heart to be saved.
The rapture
“pastors” as simply preachers who lead a congregation
Women can be priests
Worship as being just prayer, singing, reading scripture, and/or listening to a sermon
I could keep going. The list is enormous.
Open your eyes, Protestantism is unbiblical & heretical!
Todd, the reason we say that there is no scripture alone is because it's not biblical. You can try to change the subject all you want to straw man arguments, but the reality is it's a man-made tradition that's not biblical. Which is why you can't provide a single verse that says the Bible is the final Authority for Christians.
Also, all of our doctrines are biblical, and I find that most people who say they are not either don't know the Bible or don't know Catholicism, or both.
@alyciaoswald9776 Eph 2:8 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.
It is clear we are SAVED by grace through faith!!! Does it really need to say the word alone? It's understood that it's by grace through faith alone by the fact that it continues to say not by works. Baptism is a work, confession is a work, anything you do is a work, the only thing that is not a work is believing.
I agree with you that some of those things that you listed are not found in the scriptures, and I disagree with those that teach them.
Who did God chose to establish cannon? The "moderen Catholic Church"? No. The called a church council which h is exactly what the "Catholic" church rejected when you left the Church, teje ting the eastern church. Please try to understand what solar scripture actually means.
Honestly this comment doesn't make any sense. None. It was a Catholic Church who chose the Canon of scripture first at the Catholic Council of Rome in 382 A.D. and finalized it at the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D. so how could you possibly say the modern Catholic Church didn't do it. Of course the modern Catholic Church didn't do it. The ancient Catholic Church that Jesus started and that still exists today canonized the scriptures.
Also there's no such thing as solar scripture. It's sola or solo and even Protestants need to figure out what it means because you can't even agree with each other on what it means because there are many different definitions. Feel free to debunk one thing we said in the video. Because so far you haven't. God bless.
The Catholic church is not based upon the bible!
It is impossible for her to be!
That is an impossibility!
Why is that?
Because the Catholic Church founded in 33AD where the Holy Spirit dwells ever since, gave it to the world in 382AD!!!
The church predates the bibke by 350 years!!!!
It is based on the word of God though and the authority of Christ some of which was written down in scripture. :)
Give us justification for Linus's appointment as the second Bishop of Rome besides one mention in an obscure passage of Timothy amongst other names. There is none.
Everyone is so focused on Peter that they don't even bother with Linus. There is no Catholic church without Christ and the Bible. Without a justification for Linus there is no succession.
@@gandolfthorstefn1780You are so obsessed with the bible, not realising that not everything is in the bible Jn 21 25 which is why Sacred Tradition which existed from the time of Christ complements Sacred Scripture.
You’re inconsistent, why seek reference only to Linus, what about his successor?
The church began at Pentecost, one rule of faith, the oral teaching of the Apostles, then there was a paradigm shift. We start having written rules of faith from the Apostles, starting probably with 1 Thessalonians. And we know that there’s been a shift here because Paul says in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, “Stand firm and hold fast to the traditions we have given to you by word of mouth or by letter.” But then Protestants will say there was a third paradigm shift, that it was oral, then oral and written, and then back to written alone. And all of divine revelation, apostolic authority, has been confined to the written word in scripture, in particular, in the New Testament canon.
But that’s not what we see from the historical data. The New Testament never says that that did happen or will happen, and the earliest Christian writers don’t say that. The earliest Christian writer enlisted to defend sola scriptura is usually St. Irenaeus. But if Christ and the Apostles gave the church a paradigm of sola scriptura to be the church’s authority until Christ’s second coming, the earliest Christians should have reflected that. So as we continue with this video, we’ll keep asking the question, what was the authority for the earliest Christians? And you’ll see, it definitely was not sola scriptura. In fact, it was barely the New Testament itself as divinely inspired scripture. So there are Christian writers who never teach sola scriptura, and here’s the point that I don’t think a lot of people have brought up.
Once again, I must warn all Catholics this man has not been given authority to teach CCD on line by your own bishops, cardinals or pope. For all you know he could be another Martin Luther teaching heresy. I have no problem with him posting things regarding RCC CCD doctrine but not without the authorization and blessing from the elders. All he has to do is post the bishop's name and diocese to verify his authority.
*_For all you know he could be another Martin Luther teaching heresy._*
People should keep this in mind with every person who posts a video or a comment on line. Even your comments and mine.
People shouldn't blindly follow what anyone says, they should hear what he has to say and compare it to what the Catholic Church teaches.
Thank goodness at least the Catholic Church is an open book and you can easily go to the Catechism or the Vatican website and see if what he says is true or not. At least you can read the Church fathers to see what the Catholic Church teaches was taught early in Church history.
I've compared a lot of what he says and see no discrepancies.
Sadly with pretty much ever other video posted or comment on you tube you have no way of knowing if that person is giving fact or just their opinions because it is highly unlikely their church has official documents to back up what they are saying. And a lot of them don't want you going anywhere near early church documents.
Personally I think they do this so they can change their doctrine easily anytime they run into a contradiction. I see it all the time from people who comment on these videos.
*_All he has to do is post the bishop's name and diocese to verify his authority._*
Also, wanted to add he doesn't need the authority of his Bishop to post a you tube video. The Catholic Church isn't a micromanaging authoritarian regime.
I am writting stuff down a bit randomly but i did want to say first; Brithers and sisters, be wary of false teachers and prophets.
When the Phrase Sola Scriptora was first used it was in responce to the Catholic Church giving out baseless teachings and dogmas that didnt have any foundation in what the original apostles wrote about. In response the Catholic Church added new books to the canon in order to preserve their traditions. If you ever really read the scripture of the apostles you will see time and time again how Jesus hated how His people clung to their traditions over what they saw with their own eyes, how they forsook their TEACHINGS in favor of their traditions.
I have been following this channel for some time now, and every episodes I watch it just confirms to me of the deception you weave. You act like protestants just randomly select books to add to the bible, criticizing every facet because if you even attempted to do research you would loose all standing.
Yes Hebrews and 3rd John are disputed book, but did you ever look into why they were disputed? Can you tell me who their authors are, who wrote them? If you cant, maybe you should think that is why they are disputed. I mean who just randomly adds an unknown teaching to scripture without a care in the world?
Also, when you excommunicat someone you treat them as sinners and tax collectors. Now... could you tell me who did Jesus eat with? Because if you say our Lord eats with Sinners and Tax collectors then you must acknowledge that shunning them is a direct violation of Jesus's intentions.
"I write these things to thee hoping to come to thee shortly, but in order that thou mayest know, if I am delayed, how to conduct thyself in the house of GOD, which is the Church of the Living GOD, the pillar and mainstay of the truth." 1Tim 3:14-15
If a dispute arises, first begin at the lowest level to resolve it, a one on one discussion. If that fails, then take one or two witnesses with you to confirm the wording of the dispute. If that fails then appeal to the Church, the final authority...
"And if he refuse to hear them, appeal to the Church, but if he refuse to hear even the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican." Matt 18:15-18.
um it didnt mention Jesus eating with anyone here now did it clown🤔
*_When the Phrase Sola Scriptora was first used it was in responce to the Catholic Church giving out baseless teachings and dogmas that didnt have any foundation in what the original apostles wrote about._*
Actually, Martin Luther coined this term when the priest he was debating pointed to an early church council to point out that what he was claiming was already deemed heretical 500 years earlier. Luther knowing he was backed into a corner basically said he rejects the councils.
*_In response the Catholic Church added new books to the canon in order to preserve their traditions._*
Don't know what history you are reading. Luther threw out the 7 books, he also wanted to throw out James, Hebrews and Revelation. Thank goodness other reformers didn't let him have his way.
*_You act like protestants just randomly select books to add to the bible, criticizing every facet because if you even attempted to do research you would loose all standing._*
I think the point being made is for 1500 years the only Christians were Catholics and Orthodox. They were the ones who copied and kept the Bible safe. If you think they don't understand the Bible then why do you trust they kept the correct books safe and hand copied them correctly?
*_Yes Hebrews and 3rd John are disputed book, but did you ever look into why they were disputed? Can you tell me who their authors are, who wrote them? If you cant, maybe you should think that is why they are disputed. I mean who just randomly adds an unknown teaching to scripture without a care in the world?_*
You do realize most of the other books aren't signed copies. The reason we believe Matthew wrote Matthew is because the early Church says so. The reason I believe Hebrews is Biblical is because the early church says so.
*_Also, when you excommunicat someone you treat them as sinners and tax collectors._*
Where did you get this from?
We have plenty of sinners and tax collectors in the Church who aren't excommunicated.
@Matt-1926
Martin Luther didn't coin the term Sola Scriptora, the term was already in use a century before Luther used it. Try again.
For the authenticity of the Bible, we have thousands of manuscripts that have been collected, reviewed, and evaluated for commonality. And during that review there have been entire sections that were added in or completely missing. My personal Bible(ESV) does mark out which sections are suspected to have these erroneous verses and gives an accurate explanation of why they felt to include it as part of the main text.
I'm not talking about book like Mathew who everyone can agreed was written by an apostle. I'm talking about the books that people can't confirm the author of, such as Hebrews. Is it not strange how this book just randomly appeared in the church one day? Who wrote it? When was it Writen? From my understanding, no one knows definitely and it's a highly debated subject. And while we're at it, who wrote the books of the Apocrypha (the 7 books left out of the protestants bible) and when were they written.
As for the last section, I may have wrote that part in a fit of rage when someone was talking about kicking people out of the church. Forgive me.
Nobody is saying that the Bible is not authentic or the word of god. That's a straw man argument. We're saying that the Bible alone is not biblical and there is no passage in scripture that says to go by the Bible alone or that is the final Authority for a christian. And Protestants have to do thousands of gymnastics around this point and change the subject a thousand times to avoid the obvious fact that the Bible alone is not biblical and not taught in scripture.
@@luxordfaith8506 *_Martin Luther didn't coin the term Sola Scriptora, the term was already in use a century before Luther used it. Try again._*
OK that's fine. Not seeing your point though. So you agree that not a single Christian from the time of the Apostles until the 1400s believed in Sola Scriptura. You think this proves what exactly?
*_For the authenticity of the Bible, we have thousands of manuscripts that have been collected, reviewed, and evaluated for commonality._*
And none of them date before the year 200. So once again if you think they don't understand the Bible then why do you trust they kept the correct books safe and hand copied them correctly?
*_I'm not talking about book like Mathew who everyone can agreed was written by an apostle._*
Once again without the Church how do you know this to be true? Matthew's name wasn't added to the Gospel until the end of the second century, long after his death and anyone who knew him died.
*_I'm talking about the books that people can't confirm the author of, such as Hebrews. Is it not strange how this book just randomly appeared in the church one day? Who wrote it? When was it Writen? From my understanding, no one knows definitely and it's a highly debated subject._*
Well I'm not seeing evidence that it randomly appeared. Most likely it was sent to local Churches by Church leaders from other Churches who had the authority to teach and preach. Basically just like the unnamed Gospels where probably sent from Church to Church.
*_And while we're at it, who wrote the books of the Apocrypha (the 7 books left out of the protestants bible) and when were they written._*
Well we call them the Deuterocanonical books. Anyway why does it matter who wrote them? Who wrote Genesis?
The 7 books were written between 200 and 100 BC. They were also included in the Septuagint which is the Greek translation of the Old Testament that the Apostles used and referenced when writing the New Testament. There are also numerous New Testament writings that point back to these 7 books. So not really seeing why Luther pulled them out of the canon?
The canon of Scripture, Old and New Testament, was finally settled at the Council of Rome in 382, under the authority of Pope Damasus I. It was soon reaffirmed on numerous occasions. The same canon was affirmed at the Council of Hippo in 393 and at the Council of Carthage in 397. In 405 Pope Innocent I reaffirmed the canon in a letter to Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse. Another council at Carthage, this one in the year 419, reaffirmed the canon of its predecessors and asked Pope Boniface to "confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church." All of these canons were identical to the modern Catholic Bible, and all of them included the deuterocanonicals.
These councils are historical evidence that these books were always part of the canon and show that Luther removed them, proving the claim the Catholic Church added them in the 1500s to be a false claim.
*_As for the last section, I may have wrote that part in a fit of rage when someone was talking about kicking people out of the church. Forgive me._*
No biggie. Just wanted to point out that even Paul kicked someone out of the Church to get them to repent. So it is a Biblical practice
Busted! I know deep down you really believe that the apostles were Lutherans.😅
Lol. I do. ... Or maybe Calvinists. Or maybe followers of Zwingly. Or...
@@CatholicTruthOfficial keep up the good work brother. God be with you.
Trolls everywhere
Well Jesus never told any person to write it down, so bible itself is unbiblical? No but yes
Actually, Jesus DID tell them to write it down. Jesus specifically told Jeremiah to write the prophecies that the LORD gave him, and Jesus told the apostle John to write the entire book of Revelation. Also, Jesus id the living, eternal Word of God who inspired the writers by His Holy Spirit to write it down. So, in that sense, the Lord Jesus is the true author of all the written word of God. " Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holly Spirit."-2nd Peter 1:20-21.
@@jamestrotter3162 yes, but he never said to apostoles, "truly truly i said to you, you will wrote book called bible and on IT alone will be churches builded" he never said IT, they just wrote most important things down for us to belive
The weird thing about Sola Scriptura really is the canon because there’s not an index that says which Old Testament books are inspired it’s up to interpretation I like Tobit and Judith, but my best friend doesn’t think they are. So who’s right? Which ones are inspired? Just like the rest of Sola Scriptura it’s up to interpretation. Besides the Bible never sees Jesus handing the KJV before his ascension. It was passed down orally through tradition and artwork.
Tobit and Judith have glaring contradictions.
Please explain in full detail.
Atheists say that about the Bible you accept as well. The only difference is you try to find every excuse to solve those contradictions but you don't do that with the rest of scripture. You're arguing like an atheist
You did an expert job disproving sola scriptura.
However, the argument for the Catholic Church's authority is every bit as circular. You're presenting this as if disproving sola scriptura proves Catholicism.
The only logical conclusion is gnosticism. You've probably been led to believe we're all eccentric and elitist and think the Old Testament is invalid. That is not true. It's just as diverse as protestantism and orthodoxy. Protestants were on the right path, but were ultimately duped by fear and anger. That's the real reason behind things such as the culture wars: it's bait. It distracts Christians, and gives God a bad name through them all at the same time.
*_However, the argument for the Catholic Church's authority is every bit as circular._*
Just curious how is it a circular argument?
*_You've probably been led to believe we're all eccentric and elitist and think the Old Testament is invalid._*
I don't believe the Catholic Church has ever taught the OT is invalid.
According to the Church “The New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New,”
*_Protestants were on the right path, but were ultimately duped by fear and anger._*
I think many people on these forums are definitely duped by anger.
*_That's the real reason behind things such as the culture wars: it's bait._*
Personally, I think the real reason behind the culture wars is everyone wanting to be their own authority.
To me that is basically the appeal of Sola Scriptura is in a nut shell.
Everyone gets to make Jesus be who they want Him to be and get to worship Him however they want instead of how he asked.
It's like the me and Jesus movement. Ever notice who gets put first in that relationship?
*_It distracts Christians, and gives God a bad name through them all at the same time._*
Agreed. I think those light show "worship services" with the coffee bars distract from God as well.
Sola scriptura is much better than being Anti-scriptura.
Rome says, “We will use the title Father for our clergy.”
But Scripture says, “call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven” (Mat_23:9 ).
Rome says, “Our bishops cannot be the husband of any wife.”
But Scripture says, “A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife...” (1Timothy 3:2 ).
Rome says, “There is nothing wrong with having statues and icons.”
But Scripture says, “Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am the LORD your God.” ( Lev. 26:1).
Rome says, all our saints are dead.
But Scripture says that EVERY member of the congregation must be a saint while they are still living. Romans 16:15, 1 Corinthians 1:2, 1 Corinthians 6:2, Ephesians 2:19, Ephesians 4:12, Ephesians 5:3, Philippians 1:1, Philippians 4:22, etc.
Rome says, Astarte (Easter) and Saturnalia (December 25th). These were already pagan holidays of Rome before Christianity got there.
But Scripture says, “And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.” (1 Corinthians 11:24-26). In other words, when He said, “this do ye as often as ye drink it” He was referring to the cup of Passover wine of the Passover meal He was having with His disciples.
The Elders of the Church are Called “Fathers” and the Faithful “Children”😎😎
Matt. 23:9 - Jesus says, “call no man father.” But Protestants use this verse in an attempt to prove that it is wrong for Catholics to call priests “father.” This is an example of “eisegesis” (imposing one’s views upon a passage) as opposed to “exegesis” (drawing out the meaning of the passage from its context). In this verse, Jesus was discouraging His followers from elevating the scribes and Pharisees to the titles of “fathers” and “rabbis” because they were hypocrites. Jesus warns us not to elevate anyone to the level of our heavenly Father.
Matt. 23:8 - in this teaching, Jesus also says not to call anyone teacher or rabbi as well. But don’t Protestants call their teachers “teacher?” What about this commandment of Jesus? When Protestants say “call no man father,” they must also argue that we cannot call any man teacher either.
Judges 17:10; 18:19 - priesthood and fatherhood have always been identified together. Fatherhood literally means “communicating one’s nature,” and just as biological fathers communicate their nature to their children, so do spiritual fathers communicate the nature of God to us, their children, through (hopefully) teaching and example.
Eph. 3:14-15 - every family in heaven and on earth is named from the “Father.” We are fathers in the Father.
Acts 7:2; 22:1,1 John 2:13 - elders of the Church are called “fathers.” Therefore, we should ask the question, “Why don’t Protestants call their pastors “father?”
1 Cor. 4:15 - Paul writes, “I became your father in Christ Jesus.”
1 Cor. 4:17 - Paul calls Bishop Timothy a beloved and faithful “child” in the Lord.
2 Cor. 12:14 - Paul describes his role as parent over his “children” the Corinthians.
Phil. 2:22 - Paul calls Timothy’s service to him as a son serves a “father.”
1 Thess. 2:11- Paul compares the Church elders’ ministry to the people like a father with his children.
1 Tim. 1:2,18; 2 Tim. 1:2-3 - Paul calls Timothy his true “child” in the faith and his son.
Titus 1:4 - Paul calls Titus his true “child” in a common faith. Priests are our spiritual fathers in the family of God.
Philemon 10 - Paul says he has become the “father” of Onesimus.
Heb. 12:7,9 - emphasizes our earthly “fathers.” But these are not just biological but also spiritual (the priests of the Church).
1 Peter 5:13 - Peter refers to himself as father by calling Mark his “son.”
1 John 2:1,13,14 - John calls the elders of the Church “fathers.”
1 John 2:1,18,28; 3:18; 5:21; 3 John 4 - John calls members of the Church “children.”
1 Macc. 2:65 - Mattathias the priest tells his sons that Simeon will be their “father.”
II. The Lord, Mary, the Apostles and Others Refer to Spiritual Leaders as “Fathers”
Matt. 3:9; Luke 3:8 - Jesus refers to Abraham as our “father.”
Mark 11:10 - the people cried out blessed is the kingdom of our “father” David that is coming!
Luke 1:32 - God’s angel says Jesus will be great and be given the throne of his “father” David.
Luke 1:55 - Mary says that He spoke to our “fathers,” to Abraham and to his posterity for ever.
Luke 1:73 - Zechariah says the oath which he swore to our “father” Abraham.
Luke 16:24,30 - Jesus, in His parable about the rich man, says our “father” Abraham.
John 4:12 - the Samaritan woman asks Jesus if He is greater than our “father” Jacob.
John 7:22 - Jesus refers to the “fathers” who gave the Jews the practice of circumcision.
John 8:56 - Jesus tells the Jews your “Father” Abraham rejoiced that he was to see my day.
Acts 3:13,25; 5:30 - Peter teaches that the God of our “fathers” glorified His servant Jesus and raised Him to life.
Acts 4:25 - Peter and John pray to God and refer to our “father” David.
Acts 7:11-12, 15,19,38,44-45,51-52 - Stephen refers to our “fathers” in the faith.
Acts 7:32 - Stephen calls God the God of our “fathers.”
Acts 13:17,32,36; 24:14; 26:6; 28:17,25 - Paul also refers to the God of our “fathers” in the faith.
Acts 22:3 - Paul says he was educated according to the strict law of our “fathers.”
Acts 22:14 - Ananias says the God of our “fathers.”
Rom. 4:1 - Paul calls Abraham our “forefather.”
Rom. 4:16-17 - Paul says that Abraham is the “father” of us all and the “father” of many nations.
Rom. 9:10 - Paul calls Isaac, a spiritual leader, our “forefather.”
1 Cor. 10:1 - Paul says that our “fathers” were all under the cloud, referring to the Old Testament spiritual leaders.
Gal. 1:14 - Paul says that he was zealous for the tradition of his “fathers.”
2 Tim. 1:3 - Paul thanks God whom he serves with a clear conscience as did his “fathers” in faith.
Heb. 1:1 - the author says God spoke of old to our “fathers.”
Heb. 3:9 - the Holy Spirit says that your “fathers” put me to the test.
Heb. 8:9 - God says not like the covenant that I made with their “fathers.”
James 2:21 - James says was not our “father” Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac?
1 Peter 1:18 - Peter says you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your “fathers.”
2 Peter 3:4 - Peter says ever since the “fathers” fell asleep, all things have continued as they were from the beginning.
III. Other Examples Where Jesus Uses the Word “Father” When Teaching
Matt. 15:4-5; 19:19 - Jesus uses “father” when He teaches God’s commandment to “Honor your father and your mother.”
Mark 7:10-12; Luke 18:20 - these are more examples of Jesus using “father” when teaching about honoring our fathers and mothers.
Eph. 6:2,4 - Paul also teaches to honor your “father” and mother, and says “fathers,” do not provoke your children.
Matt. 10:21; 35,37; Mark 13:12 - Jesus says “father” will deliver up his child in the last days.
Matt. 19:5; Mark 10:7,19 - Jesus says a man shall leave his “father” and mother and be joined to his wife. See also Eph. 5:31.
Matt. 19:29; Mark 10:29-30 - Jesus says whoever has left mother or “father” for His sake shall receive a hundredfold.
Matt. 21:31 - Jesus uses “father” when he teaches about the parable of the two sons and asks, “who did the will of his “father?”
Luke 6:23,26 - Jesus speaks about reward and punishment with reference to what their “fathers” did to the prophets.
Luke 11:11 - Jesus says what “father” among you will give his child a serpent when he asks for a fish.
Luke 11:47-48 - Jesus tells the lawyers they are witnesses to the deeds of their “fathers.”
Luke 14:26 - Jesus says we must leave our “fathers” and mothers and come to him, or we cannot be His disciple.
Luke 15:12,17-18,20-22,27-29 - Jesus repeatedly uses “father” when teaching about the prodigal son.
Luke 16:27 - Jesus uses “father” when teaching about the rich man in purgatory.
John 6:49,58 - Jesus says your “fathers” ate the manna in the wilderness and died.
Celibacy is Church Practice, Not Dogma🤦♀🤦♀
Matt. 19:11-12 - Jesus says celibacy is a gift from God and whoever can bear it should bear it. Jesus praises and recommends celibacy for full-time ministers in the Church. Because celibacy is a gift from God, those who criticize the Church’s practice of celibacy are criticizing God and this wonderful gift He bestows on His chosen ones.
Matt. 19:29 - Jesus says that whoever gives up children for the sake of His name will receive a hundred times more and will inherit eternal life. Jesus praises celibacy when it is done for the sake of His kingdom.
Matt. 22:30 - Jesus explains that in heaven there are no marriages. To bring about Jesus’ kingdom on earth, priests live the heavenly consecration to God by not taking a wife in marriage. This way, priests are able to focus exclusively on the spiritual family, and not have any additional pressures of the biological family (which is for the vocation of marriage). This also makes it easier for priests to be transferred to different parishes where they are most needed without having to worry about the impact of their transfer on wife and children.
1 Cor 7:1 - Paul teaches that it is well for a man not to touch a woman. This is the choice that the Catholic priests of the Roman rite freely make.
1 Cor. 7:7 - Paul also acknowledges that celibacy is a gift from God and wishes that all were celibate like he is.
1 Cor. 7:27 - Paul teaches men that they should not seek marriage. In Paul’s opinion, marriage introduces worldly temptations that can interfere with one’s relationship with God, specifically regarding those who will become full-time ministers in the Church.
1 Cor. 7:32-33, 38 - Paul recommends celibacy for full-time ministers in the Church so that they are able to focus entirely upon God and building up His kingdom. He “who refrains from marriage will do better.”
1 Tim. 3:2 - Paul instructs that bishops must be married only once. Many Protestants use this verse to prove that the Church’s celibacy law is in error. But they are mistaken because this verse refers to bishops that were widowers. Paul is instructing that these widowers could not remarry. The verse also refers to those bishops who were currently married. They also could not remarry (in the Catholic Church’s Eastern rite, priests are allowed to marry; celibacy is only a disciplinary rule for the clergy of the Roman rite). Therefore, this text has nothing to do with imposing a marriage requirement on becoming a bishop.
1 Tim. 4:3 - in this verse, Paul refers to deceitful doctrines that forbid marriage. Many non-Catholics also use this verse to impugn the Church’s practice of celibacy. This is entirely misguided because the Catholic Church (unlike many Protestant churches) exalts marriage to a sacrament. In fact, marriage is elevated to a sacrament, but consecrated virginity is not. The Church declares marriage sacred, covenantal and lifegiving. Paul is referring to doctrines that forbid marriage and other goods when done outside the teaching of Christ and for a lessor good. Celibacy is an act of giving up one good (marriage and children) for a greater good (complete spiritual union with God).
1 Tim. 5:9-12 - Paul recommends that older widows take a pledge of celibacy. This was the beginning of women religious orders.
2 Tim. 2:3-4 - Paul instructs his bishop Timothy that no soldier on service gets entangled in civilian pursuits, since his aim his to satisfy the One who enlisted him. Paul is using an analogy to describe the role of the celibate priesthood in the Church.
Rev. 14:4 - unlike our sinful world of the flesh, in heaven, those consecrated to virginity are honored.
Isaiah 56:3-7 - the eunuchs who keep God’s covenant will have a special place in the kingdom of heaven.
Jer. 16:1-4 - Jeremiah is told by God not to take a wife or have children.
Ah the classic Prot take that Catholicism can’t be true since we call priests fathers and the Bible says call No man father.
Would just like to ask then, are Paul and Jesus anti-scripture? In 1 Cor 4:15 Paul says “I became your Father in Christ.” And in John 6 Jesus tells the crowd of their “father Abraham.”
So either the Bible is contradictory or you don’t know how to properly read it. Which do you think it is?
Protestants say: Take Matthew 23:9 literally, yet Christ also says call no man teacher, and also no man master. Why do we have Father's Day? Why does Paul refer to himself as a Spiritual Father to Timothy? Why is Abraham called a Father? It's clear that Jesus was being hyperbolic in the context of scripture.
Protestants say: Based on a literal interpretation of 1 Timothy 3:2, all Bishops must be married. But where does it say that all bishops must be married? Where in that verse does it require bishops to be married?
Protestants say: Images of Christ are the same thing as idols. Are they really? We have that same Commandment, yet we do not worship statues, or icons. God isn't trapped in stone, or paint, or wood. We are not worshipping anything material, or anything other than the Triune God. How are statues and icons idols?
Protestants say: Saints are dead. We say they are more alive in heaven than those on earth, because God is the God of the living, not the dead.
Easter is Pascha, which is from the Passover, and the name Easter was inherited because it occurred in Eastermonað in the English-speaking world. The name stuck there, but it is still called Pascha everywhere else. The Saturnalia theory is absurd. If the suggestion were correct, one would expect to find at least a single reference by early Christians to support it. Instead, we find scores of quotations from Church Fathers indicating a desire to distance themselves from pagan religions.
I think there are some misunderstanding by the meaning of Sola Scriptura by the Catholics. Just because the Protestant have Sola Scriptura as their doctrine, doesn't mean they don't use their brain.
Also, I have read the references about purgatory in the bible, And my opinion is that purgatory is unbiblical.
*_Also, I have read the references about purgatory in the bible, And my opinion is that purgatory is unbiblical._*
How are you defining purgatory? The reason I ask is because as you pointed out it might just be you misunderstanding the meaning of purgatory.
No offense, but countless Protestants don't use their brain. They literally have to turn it off. We know that's not all Protestants by far, but it's true for many. We see it every day.
At least there are references to purgatory. There's no references, not even one to go by the Bible alone or have it as your final authority.
@@Matt-1926 As I understand it, purgatory is a place where people that died go to to be purified. before later they also go to heaven.
@@CatholicTruthOfficial I think both for protestants and catholics have the same problem.. both religion have a lot of "believers", but most of them don't follow the word of God. I mean, look at the west right now...
If you're talking about Matthew 12:32, I don't think that is the reference to purgatory. If you take Jesus' word literally, you can say that there are two "worlds" and blaspheme against Holy Spirit will not be forgiven in both of them.
What do you mean by final authority?
The way I understand about sola scriptura is the same as what Jesus said when He was tested by Satan.. He said "One does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes forth from the mouth of God." Does that mean that we can also live just by the word of God and not eat anything.. of course not..
Anyway, this is only my opinion.. I'm not a bible scholar, so I may have some shortcomings..
The real problem is that Protestantism is not intellectually challenging appealing to the lowest common denominator whereas Catholicism is intellectually & spiritually uplifting, wise & benefits from 2000 yrs experience in the world. Open your eyes, you’re in the junior league & don’t realise it!
Purgatory
The concept of Purgatory does exist in Scripture which is very clear when it says, “But nothing unclean shall enter [heaven]” (Rev. 21:27). Hab. 1:13 says, “You [God]… are of purer eyes than to behold evil and cannot look on wrong…” How many of us will be perfectly sanctified at the time of our deaths? I dare say most of us will be in need of further purification in order to enter the gates of heaven after we die, if, please God, we die in a state of grace. Purgatory can be supported by II Maccabees 12:39-46, we discover Judas Maccabeus and members of his Jewish military forces collecting the bodies of some fallen comrades who had been killed in battle. When they discovered these men were carrying “sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear” (vs. 40), Judas and his companions discerned they had died as a punishment for sin. Therefore, Judas and his men “turned to prayer beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out… He also took up a collection… and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably… Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.” This may be why Luther removed Macabees from his bible & was tempted to do the same with the book of James
Luke 12 35-48 servants rewarded/punished in varying ways
1 Jn 5 16-18 refers to deadly & deadly sin ie mortal & venial. For some Protestants to say that all sin is sin and to not differentiate between mortal sin like adultery and venial sin like stealing a dollar is illogical & a poor understanding
Confession is in the bible Jn 20:23
Sola Scripture meaning the Bible alone contains all knowledge necessary for salvation. No purgatory, justification by faith, 2 sacraments ( baptism and Lord’s supper ).
The apocrypha was never found originally in Hebrew or the Masoretic Text and therefore not recognized as Canon
Sola Scriptura is rebutted by 2 Peter 1 20-21 as is sola fide by James 2 20-24 & Mt 25 31-46! What did people before the mass printing of the bible from the 16th century do & even then, most people until recent centuries were illiterate.
The apocrypha were in the Canon of 382 which the CC produced but removed by the heretic without authority Deut 4:2
Jesus instituted 7 sacraments & Protestantism can’t even agree on the necessity for baptism Jn 3:5 & His True Real Presence Jn 6 51
The apocrypha was included in the Septuagint that Jesus & the apostles used
Purgatory
The concept of Purgatory does exist in Scripture which is very clear when it says, “But nothing unclean shall enter [heaven]” (Rev. 21:27). Hab. 1:13 says, “You [God]… are of purer eyes than to behold evil and cannot look on wrong…” How many of us will be perfectly sanctified at the time of our deaths? I dare say most of us will be in need of further purification in order to enter the gates of heaven after we die, if, please God, we die in a state of grace. Purgatory can be supported by II Maccabees 12:39-46, we discover Judas Maccabeus and members of his Jewish military forces collecting the bodies of some fallen comrades who had been killed in battle. When they discovered these men were carrying “sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear” (vs. 40), Judas and his companions discerned they had died as a punishment for sin. Therefore, Judas and his men “turned to prayer beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out… He also took up a collection… and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably… Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.” This may be why Luther removed Macabees from his bible & was tempted to do the same with the book of James
Luke 12 35-48 servants rewarded/punished in varying ways
1 Jn 5 16-18 refers to deadly & deadly sin ie mortal & venial. For some Protestants to say that all sin is sin and to not differentiate between mortal sin like adultery and venial sin like stealing a dollar is illogical & a poor understanding
Confession is in the bible Jn 20:23
The Bible doesn't say that it contains all necessary knowledge for salvation, so it's still on biblical. But that's only one of the definitions of the Bible alone. The true definition is that it's the final Authority for Christians on matters of Doctrine and again, not biblical.
Even if it was true that everything was contained in scripture for salvation, it doesn't mean that people properly interpret scripture so that they can Garner the true meaning out of it or even salvation. Therefore, the Bible alone still fails.
You also see there's no sacraments, and yet you're ignoring the Bible that you claim to follow. Because you're reading your man-made theology into it. Let's just take the sacrament of baptism which is extremely biblical and necessary for salvation.
Jesus said whoever has faith and is baptized will be saved (Mk. 16:16). Likewise, Jesus said we must be born again through water and the Spirit (Jn 3:5), and this refers to baptism. All Christians forever have seen this as a reference to baptism.
1 Timothy 2:11-12 says we must die with Christ in order to live with him. Scripture says this happens through baptism (See Col. 2:11-12). We also see this in Romans chapter 6:1-11 where it says that we are buried with Christ and born again to new life through baptism. It also says we are justified.
We are baptized into the body of Christ (1 Cor. 1:16) and become incorporated into the body of Christ through baptism. So, we cannot be part of Christ or his body if we are not baptized. Therefore, it is more than just a outward symbol and necessary. It's also why the Bible says baptism saves us. Or Jesus saves us through a baptism. It's not just symbolic or the removal of dirt, but an interior renewal of conscience (1 Pet. 3:21).
In Acts 16:22 Ananias Tells Paul to arise and wash away his sins by being baptized and calling on the Lord. After Peter's speech in the book of acts, they ask him specifically what they need to do to be saved. Peter says repent. Peter says repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins.
Finally, in Matthew, 28:19-20, Jesus commands the Apostles to go make disciples of all nations baptizing them and teaching them everything that they were commanded to do.
So baptism is not just a simple symbol or a reminder or a recommendation. It's a command from Christ and absolutely necessary. This was the unanimous teaching of all the earliest Christians
And yes, the seven books in question that you call the Apocrypha or found in hebrew. Among the Dead Sea schools. So, you actually need to do some actual research.
@@CatholicTruthOfficialProtestants have a serious & embarrassing deficiency in their thinking which is typically illogical, a function of their flawed philosophy & theology which they can’t or refuse to acknowledge.
By way of example, I have lapsed Catholic Bible believing sola Scriptura relatives who think that baptism is optional & symbolic, likewise, with the Eucharist & believe that grape juice rather than wine be used. Such messed up people, who, consequently, make fundamental mistakes in their daily decisions.
GOD is more than just the Bible it’s just a small part of who He is. They’re limiting GOD In just one holy book where is the common sense eh. GOD is powerful, infinity and limitless!!! Hallelujah!!!
✝️❤️🕊️
Galatians 1:6-12 New King James Version (NKJV)
But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.
Brian, I can't believe you actually said that the Bible alone is not biblical. I'm sorry but the traditions and doctrines of the Catholic Church are not equal to the inspired word of God as written in the Bible. The catechism has been updated over the centuries with things that are contrary to mscripture as well. And then there's pope Frances, who has stated controversial things like atheists can go to heaven. I guess Jesus was lying about Him being the only way.
Sola Scriptura is unbiblical & refuted by 2 Peter 1 20-21 which together with personal interpretation explains the confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects which is not of Jesus who willed unity Jn 17 11-23
@@geoffjsYou have misinterpreted 2 Peter1:20-21.
It's talking about a persons private interpretation and not the Bible standing alone. They are two entirely different dynamics. The Bible is to be read and understood by all but even the apostles interpreted Jesus ministry differently. The fact that we have four Gospels and not one is evidence of that and so the Bible on its own shows us that. And secondly it's specifically talking about no PROPHECYof the scripture is of any private interpretation and not scripture itself. Just like Daniel interpreting Nebuchadnezzar's Dream was moved by the holy spirit; 2Peter1:21. This is not about interpreting scripture but prophecy. You Catholics love to bend scripture to defend your church rather than seeking the truth.
Half a truth is a whole lie. - Yiddish proverb.
@@gandolfthorstefn1780Sola Scriptura is unbiblical & is refuted by 2 Peter 1 20-21. Explain how it could have worked up until the mass printing of the bible in the 16th century & even then, most people were illiterate until recent centuries.
Sacred Tradition, which existed from the time of Jesus complements Sacred Scripture under the unifying authoritative interpretation of the magisterium, the balanced three legged stool, far more rational & objective than the flawed unbiblical one legged stool of sola Scriptura