The REAL Reason Why I'm Not a Catholic or Orthodox Christian...
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 сер 2024
- The REAL Reason Why I Am Not Catholic... 🎁: Get a Free 7-Day Trial on Patreon! / kingsdream
🙏: Check Out the Bless God Shop: blessgod.shop
🆓: Free PDF of the Bless God Prayer Journal: blessgodpdf.shop
📰: Bless God Newsletter: www.mastermyha...
🔓: FREE Freedom Habits (Course w/My Therapist): www.mastermyha...
📲: SMS Text from Ruslan (Don't Send Links Please) 714-710-1017
This video contains links to products and platforms that we've created because we truly believe they can help you in your journey. By choosing to purchase through these links, you're not only investing in something beneficial for yourself, but you're also partnering with us in our mission to create content that blesses and inspires others. Your support directly helps us continue to provide valuable content. Thank you!
Fair Use Disclaimer:
This video may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.
Bio: Ruslan KD is a Christian UA-camr of Armenian descent who was a refugee from Baku, Azerbaijan, before moving to the United States as a child. He started his UA-cam channel in the mid-2010s, which has since grown into a popular platform for discussing faith, lifestyle, and music. Known for his insightful commentary on Christian living, culture, and personal development, Ruslan has built a community of followers who value his thoughtful approach to contemporary issues. In addition to his UA-cam presence, Ruslan is a speaker, author, and advocate for godly ambition, often addressing topics related to leadership, mental health, and the integration of faith in everyday life.
Our mission is to encourage, empower, and inspire people to live a life that Blesses God, in accordance with His word. As the Psalmist proclaims, "Bless God in the great congregation, the Lord, O you who are of Israel's fountain" (Psalm 68:26 ESV), and "Every day will I bless Thee; and I will praise Thy name forever and ever" (Psalm 145:2 KJV). Just as Simeon, after encountering Jesus, "took him up in his arms and blessed God" (Luke 2:28 ESV), we seek to lead others in a life of stewardship, relevant engagement, and practical living that honors and blesses the Lord.
🤝: Check Out The Bless God Prayer Journal Here: blessgodprayer.shop
Ruslan, I love your videos, but you link allll of these links promoting you and your prayer journal, but you have no link for the source video you reacted to. You should do this please.
If someone ask you. What orthodoxy believes i guess the best you know is that there priest have beards not as catholic and dont have a pope ,thinking there are just catholics
The thing you miss is that scriptures overcomes the Revelation of God. Revelation of God is not the Bible but is the actuall view God in his divine majestic uncreated Glory. You think the Bible text is revelation. The Bible text can say about the revelation authentic says but the actuall revelation _ Theosis overcomes the Bible text book .
Spot on bro, truly I lament that so many of our brethren ignore this for the sake of their traditions
Interpretation of scripture as a weapon is definitely fallible too Ruslan. And I don't mean you or all Protestants. That should not happen, this political interpretation of scripture. Definitely, definitely NO. So having a right guide to the Scriptures is imperative.
I also believe that Scripture is infallible. But I have to ask myself, whose interpretation is infallible?
Real 💀
I always heard that the KJV is the closest to the manuscripts but idk
@alexz7025 that's a translation, I think OP is referring to interpretation as in how you understand the meaning of the words.
Have you guys ever looked at some of the Greek text of the Bible before?
@@joshrichards9121 yes, some. I took 2 years of koine greek in Uni
The Church established the Canon of Scripture. The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit.
Guided to make thousands of martyrs of Christians? To have inquisition and forced people to convert or be tortured? Ja I don't believe that.
You offered no rebuttal to anything said in the video but only make this empty claim! God bless you nevertheless
Wasn't a rebuttal. Orthodox makes same claim
@@GospelwithElijah I think Catholics and orthodox agree that scripture is infallible but they also acknowledge you need an infallible interpreter to explicate and disseminate Christian teaching. The proof is in the heresies that took place in the 2nd,3rd, and 4th centuries. You can have a perfect book but if an organization not led by the Holy Spirit is in charge having the book is almost meaningless. The pro alphabet gang churches, and the jehovas witness are prime modern day examples of this.
I believe this is what TairyGreen is getting at. The church “recognized” the infallible canon of scripture is a better way to say it I think. The animated video claims that scripture is the only infallible rule for Christians. Yet many Protestants scholars, famous pastors, and just regular church people claim the list of books and the very number of verses we have them is an infallible list. If that is true, than not just the words of scripture are infallible, but also the list of books is infallible which would invalidate sola scriptural as the “sole” infallible rule. Some other Protestants say the scripture/canon is a fallible list of infallible books. If that were the case, then you might not have the right scriptures. Many Protestants would be binding people to too much scripture. While some would be binding people to not enough scripture. Think of the ending of Mark, John 8, and other texts Protestants disagree about. Also, some Protestants have come up a “New” New Testament. You can find it on Amazon. More could be said.
The problem for me is that there are different interpretations. Who is right? Even the important things like Baptism are disagreed upon.
Have you watch Day's of Noah 4 parts.
That worries me too. The best solution seems to be just reading the Bible yourself and being very honest with yourself about what it says. Don't rely on others' interpretations unnecessarily.
I dont think so, because the Bible and faith is not about I, it's about a Body, and then it get to a problem, people who read the bible alone, sometimes goes to heretics paths like Jehova' witness, mormons, oneness pentecostals, arians, gnostics, etc... The bible is hard to read, and for example timothy was someone who was under the direction of Paul, in the Bible we can see a lot of times how everyone has to see on each other and let them by guide by them, that's why in a lot of letters from the NT and the Apostolic Fathers we hear a lot about bishops and autority
There are open handed issues and closed handed issues. The fact is this… The main points (the fundamentals of the faith) are all agreed upon by every denomination. And as long as those are gravy then the open handed stuff can be discussed freely.
@@dizzydisciplewhat are the fundamentals of faith all denominations agree on?
Christian orthodox and Catholic Church are the very first church build by the apostles and they were one. Later split into catholic and orthodox.Protestant church came later and was established by Martin Luther in 1517… I respect all who believe and worship our lord Jesus Christ but I will definitely stick to a church that was established by those who were close to Jesus Christ, The apostles. In the end however just believe in our lord Jesus Christ try to stay righteous in this sinful world we live in. God bless everyone.
I agree with what you're saying. I'm personally Lutheran, and while I believe the Apostles had unique authority (as given by Christ himself), I don't believe that justifies the Pope or Bishops or cardinals. God has the ultimate infallible authority, and scripture is the word of God.
No mortal man is infallible. There have been many Popes in history that have been less than holy. Martin Luther isn't an exception, either. But anyways, I digress.
The reason I hold to the Lutheran stance is because he never intended on separating from the church. He simply pointed out the corruption going on and was nearly killed for it, and if we go by scripture, there are a lot of traditions in the Catholic Church that contradict what Christ tells us.
For example, there's no mention at all of purgatory. There is heaven and hell. Catholic view on purgatory from my understanding (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that sinners who don't have an opportunity to repent for their sins before death, to a priest specifically, are only saved if someone living contributes to their salvation. Which, during Luther's time, was by paying indulgences. And if I'm reading this correctly, it's still a practice now under "charitable contributions" which we have in our church, only it is a donation to the church to keep it going and does not absolve sin alone.
Another example is in the Eucharist, or communion. Transubstantiation means the bread and wine are made into the body and blood, but the Lutheran view is this, quoted directly from Luther:
"We do not make Christ's body out of the bread … Nor do we say that his body comes into existence out of the bread [i.e. impanation]. We say that his body, which long ago was made and came into existence, is present when we say, "This is my body." For Christ commands us to say not, "Let this become my body," or, "Make my body there," but, "This is my body."
So while Catholics believe it is there through a sort of transformation, we believe it is there by consecration the bread and wine.
And another point is faith and works. Catholics believe faith without works is dead, and vice-versa. But as a Lutheran, I believe that faith naturally results in works. To be a Christian means to strive to be a good person, and to follow the Word of God. That's why we don't have to worry at the end of the day, or the beginning of the week of how many good deeds we have done, worrying whether or not it was enough for us to be saved. We know because we keep to the faith. As long as we keep true to the word of God, and we recognized that Christ died to forgive us of our sins, though we sin daily, we believe that Christ will show the way to everlasting life for us when our time here is over.
And, of course, praying to Saints and Mary as a mediator. I don't think I'll ever understand it. Though we do pray for each other, we pray to God directly for our sins to be forgiven, or for family and friends to get through difficult times, etc. If there is any mediator to us, it would be Christ, who is also God.
I hope I didn't offend you with anything. I believe you're doing wonderfully as a fellow Christian, and I'm not one of those people that think any other denomination is heretical because it doesn't line up with my own. You believe in God and keep to the faith, in your own way, and that's what is important as you said. God bless you, and have a good night ❤️
P.S., I'd love to have a respectful conversation if you can offer insight or would like me to try to explain what I'm talking about more. I'm trying to understand the word more every day.
@silverstargaming20 The manner of your reflections and comparing the spiritual truth claims of Catholic doctrines and traditions to the scriptures they say their authority derives from represents the essence of the one church body perfectly. The spirits of prophets are tested against prior prophets to see if they are of God. It is better to have 33,000 disagreeing denominations holding their various interpretations in respectful tension than to have one unassailable voice having the power to declare inaccuracies or inventions indisputably valid. Anyone who declared himself the vicar or ultimate embodiment Christ on earth has already discredited himself, and those who follow him are not following the God they all claim to represent who is identified and described by the scriptures they defy in order to make the false claims that they loftily distinguish themselves from the real body of Christ with.
@silverstargaming20 what did the resurrected Jesus say in the last chapter of Mathew? He said go put overseers over the nations. Don't be catholic. Be orthodox.
Your reasoning makes no sense my friend. If the RCC and the Orthodox churches were one and then split later but still consider them both “the first churches” then you can use the same argument for Protestants churches - they also came out of the Catholic Church. All reformers were Catholics, so basically they’re also part of the first church. The problem is that you focus on the institutions not on the truthfulness of their teachings and doctrines, and we know for example when most of the doctrines and dogmas of the Catholic Church were established… it doesn’t matter if it is true that you were the first church (actually you are not, sorry) but even if it were true, your doctrines are contrary to scriptures and the first century church and the teachings of the apostles that we find in scripture. That’s why you have to rely on “traditions” because the scriptures contradict your beliefs.
@@AlexartCorp then who's the first.
"Therefore, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold on to the traditions that we taught you, whether by speech or by letter." - St Paul in his second epistle to the Thessalonians 2:15
That word translated as "traditions", in this NET rendition, is the same word used when Christ condemns the pharisees for clinging to "*traditions* of men", and yet, it is very often translated into a different word, such as "teachings" here in this passage. The reason is an anti-Catholic bias passed down from the reformers who wanted to distance themselves(not immediately, but it didn't take long either) from the Catholic Church and its traditions. So, they translated the same word in both cases one way for the negative use of it and another for the positive use of it, despite the function of the word being the exact same in both situations, with the only difference being whether or not said traditions were contrived or inspired by the Spirit. Which, one of the Traditions handed down by the Spirit IS the Scriptures, which is why they can't be the ultimate rule. They are perhaps the greatest gift of the Spirit within the Orthodox Tradition, aside from the Mysteries themselves, but a thing cannot rightly rule over that which produced and created it. Tradition made Scripture, and then anything new that may come about must be discerned and judged BY Scripture(which, in function, is the same as being judged by Tradition).
Scripture > tradition
Deal with it.
@@arcguardian, insightful.
@@terrencemedders1867 Do you worship drawings of so called saints? "icons"? Is Mary the mother of God and do you pray to her? Do you call men "father"?
What about 1 Timothy 4?
No.
Yes.
Yes.
the pharisees held the seat of moses-- this is what the ¨law of the elders¨ is what ever rule the pharisees made was binding on the jewish ppl UNLESS it conflicted with scripture. To me this is Gods saying this process is his chosen form of transmission of his will-- both a codex and tradition with a codex giving supremacy. Any catholic would agree, if there where a church teaching or practice in existance that contradicted the bible, that practice is invalid.
The problem is that this makes the claim that you could get perfection from imperfection, infallibility from fallibility.
When we see it said that scripture is God breathed, we need to ask ourselves, what exactly IS scripture, define what scripture is. How can you trust that the fallible church gave you an infallible book? If the Church doesn’t have the living Tradition guided by the Holy Spirit then how can you trust it to produce the Holy Spirit inspired and perfect word of God?
Peace and blessings to all my Protestant friends, the Lord be with you all ☦️
Because we have many clear translations that link back to original documents, or close to it. We can see what has been changed and what hasnt by looking through the copies as they have been passed around and further copied. It isnt like the gospel of Luke is really different depending on which denomination is reading it.
Ah, yes. Which is why Jesus knocks at the door. Receiving him and the guidance of the holy Spirit is also connected to his words. It was never about certainty in the first place, but of faith. The faith he gives you is the faith that guides you into all truth. I don't just say these things. If you ask of him yourself, to open the door and see, he will show you.
@@aaronadamson7463 Having clear links to original documents doesn’t answer the initial point of what scripture is? Who told you the canon of the bible? That isn’t within the scripture itself. To get the biblical canon, and thereby determined that which is God-breathed you have to go to Sacred Tradition that compiled the scripture through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
TLDR: This is circular reasoning. It doesn’t answer the question I made. Peace and blessings be with you my friend.
@@abford03it actually wasn't that sacred, they just had a standard. U need common sense parameters like reliability, consistency, dating etc. It wasn't like they casted lots or lit candles.
@@arcguardian yes, but again, where do the standards and common sense (the nous) of the fathers come from? They are inspired by the noetic powers of the Holy Spirit for this purpose. The church fathers tasked and entrusted with the preservation of the church against the gates of hell were people of great piety, love, and devotion to Christ who were graced to carry out this task ( by the means of prophecy and laying on of hands by the apostles and so forth in succession) in the context of conciliar assesments and judgments (in type of the first council described in Acts) between the church leaders and the Holy Spirit. So too they accomplished many other tasks including the establishment of creeds and doctrines, refuting heresies, and defining normative practices of liturgy and sacrament for the entire body. The canon of scripture is a fruit of this process, so its intrepretation should also be yoked to the same process. It is the pattern that is established in the scriptures.
The problem with Sola Scriptura is that everyone thinks their interpretation is the infallible truth. However, not all interpretations can be true if there are contradictions in theology. 2nd Peter 3:16 teaches that the scripture can be used to deceive, and Jesus on many occasions names the church as the authority for teaching truth if there is a dispute. It is not like many of the heresies of the early church did not appeal to scripture or what would be later recognized as scripture. There are many controversial theological concepts that I could defend or reject with Sola Scriptura. Some will say Purgatory is not scriptural, but under Sola Scriptura, I would use Jesus' parable of the four servants from Luke 12:41-48 along with 1 Corinthians 3:15 as solid text in support. On Sola Fide, many passages in the book of James, along with Paul referencing persevering in righteousness until the end seem to show our willful cooperation with God's grace, and continued obedience to him, is necessary for salvation. Jeremiah 18:1-10 and the book of Jonah show humans have free will, and that God will even turn back his decreed judgements in response to our free will choice to renounce evil and follow God's way. These passages would counter the viewpoint held by some Protestants that God's sovereignty overrides our free will, such that only those God sovereignly "elects" will come to him. In the end, I think Sola Scriptura, even though often well meaning, devolves into a "my truth" philosophy, which can often be deceptive.
How. So having standards is "my truth". Your interpretation of 2 Peter 3: 16 is just wrong 😅. Just means people twist scripture for their own benefit. Theological doctrines are deprived from the whole scope of the Bible. Rely on Gods word is deceptive? 🤣🤣
This is a very weak argument and ignores the fact that catholics and orthodox disagree on interpretations of things within their circles. It pretends as though this is a problem for just Protestants.
What makes "my truth" less preferable than the Catholic Church's "truth"? This debate all boils down to evidence that the Pope is fallible, which Protestants find lacking.
@@yblackie I think Sola Scriptura's rejection would be accurate even if Protestantism were true. Yes, I believe the church that Jesus established, whatever that church is, would have proper authority over an individual's Sola Scriptura conclusion that contradicted. Let's take an example that all Christian churches agree upon. Jesus states in Luke 14:26 that anyone that comes to him must hate their parents. All Christian churches have looked at the historical and cultural reference of this statement, and understand that hatred did not always mean despise, but to love less than. Clearly, Jesus was not violating the ten commandments. However, a novice Christian could read this as them no longer having any duty to their parents. If one quoted honor your father and mother, they could assume like circumcision, they are no longer bound by Mosaic law. This would be a misunderstanding, but one that could not be fixed by scripture alone. If that person talked with a priest, pastor, or some other church authority, the church leader's conveying of church teaching would be superior to the understanding of the novice, and they should submit to it in this instance. A similar example could be used with the cutting off of one's hand or plucking out an eye due to sin. All churches teach this as a figurative statement, to show the truthfulness of the seriousness of sin, but not one that should be followed literally. It is not by scripture that we could correct these errors. That is why Sola Scriptura is not tenable.
You do the same for anything you put your trust in, because you do that of yourself. (that includes leaning on your interpretations) Trusting any authority is you making a judgment that you're correct about something. Faith does not have that certainty, but it has confidence, a hope that is in spite of that. It is not something you give yourself, it's only something you can receive. That is what makes it truly different. When reading scripture and being guided by the holy Spirit your interpretations always come after, not before your trusting of his word. Sola Scriptura, though it intends to go in the right direction, is a subtly fallible understanding. God really does guide you even before you understand anything, and his guidance is what helps bring you to correct understandings. You don't judge what truth is, the Lord does, and you only receive his truth by accepting his gift of faith. To receive his faith is to receive truth itself.
For me, I see people who aren't Orthodox or in E. orthodoxy have their lives changed radically from an experience with Christ like myself. My life was radically changed seeing Christs love manifested in Christians genuinely living and showing Christs love in their life. When I called out to Christ it was on my bedroom floor, I asked him to fill my heart with his love, his hope, his joy and his peace. Things I seen Christians have that I desired. I experienced a fire start inside of me and it felt like i was engulfed in it, but it was the most amazing experience, something i could never fully explain to someone. i changed in that moment. My hatred, anger, emptiness and despair was all gone. Then I hear in Orthodoxy "We're the true church, you cant worship with Protestants because their worship isnt valid and sacramental." Or "oh you can pray with them if you lead the prayers and its from an Orthodox prayer book"
Or "oh you were immersed and baptized in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit but it wasn't a dunk each time?? Nope not valid. Your salvation is in jeopardy. Oh you didnt have christmation oil to seal you with the Holy Spirit? Nope not valid, you're in jeaopardy." Just very legalistic things. But then I've also seen the beauty of the liturgy, the chants and the reverence. However then you look at monasticism in E.Orthodoxy and its extreme asceticism practices they did. Just going into caves and starving themselves and depriving themselves of sleep to stay up praying and just having this really miserable experience believing thats what they need to do to be close to God. Yet I read George Mueller and his autobiography about relying on God for all his needs through prayer and it was uplifting. The Lord took care of him and through him founded orphanages, outreach, mission trips and George never asked anyone for money. He only went to God in prayer. That uplifted me more than someone prostrating a million times and starving themselves and sleep depriving themselves while being isolated in a cave because they think thats what they need to do to be close to God
Amen. Thank you for expressing this. I've had a similar journey and reached the similar conclusions. I'm new in my walk with Christ. He saved me without me having to jump through ritualistic hoops, and the Holy Spirit continues to convict and comfort me. I pray to stay close to our Heavenly Father on the narrow path. No bells and whistles needed; just prayer, repentance, humility and the Inspired Word of God.
@@josierose8 that is so awesome my brother, welcome to the family of Christ. I remember 10 years ago how amazing it was walking in a new life in Christ. If you need anything as a new brother in Christ let me know. Apologia Studios is a good Christian resource. And Jeff Durbin, the pastor of that church and ministry has an amazing testimony and is an awesome brother in Christ
Jesus is God but still got baptised my sola scriptura friend. Why did he do it? Who put together the bible? Jesus offered his blood and body and asked the disaples to do the same in his rememberance. Jesus named the Church his bride guess where? In the Bible... once you deepen your spiritual journey you ll find the answers you re looking for only in Orthodoxy
@@ellikatachana3607 I was in the EO church for almost 4 years. Thanks be to God, He pulled me out. I have the Bible because God worked through infallible men, in the early church to preserve and put together His Holy word. Yes Jesus was baptized and yes he instituted what we call "The Lord's supper". We who hold to Sola Scriptura do not deny that. The reformed tradition doesn't deny the Eucharist and doesn't deny baptismal regeneration, albeit some differing views. However we don't believe the sacraments are what save you. It's Faith alone in Christ alone. Sola Scriptura also allows for traditions, confessions, creeds and councils. So long as it's nothing that supercedes the Infallible word of God. I'll trust that which is God breathed, over something of fallible men that claim sacred tradition.
It really is that simple, people just can’t get past all the auxiliary claims by their respective tradition.
Like which ones? I’m happy to answer any “supplementaries” we have.
I trust early church with bible canon and all of their teachings. I also belive first 1000 years were golden age of christianity that set foundations and example of how our faith is to be lived and how we submit to Jesus Christ, that is why church survived most difficult times.
Yes, you’ve figured out the word and the churches have been wrong for 1000+ years.
@@mot82I fully trust the bishops and popes who were guided by the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, for that time period, as well.
What was that Church in the first 1000 years ?
@@crmac135 Where is your proof? So you’re saying hell prevailed against Jesus’ established Church?
Ah now it makes sense why you believe in certain concepts and disregard others good luck with your journey brother
What do you mean??
@@DaughterOfChrist1997who translates the Bible teachings on the Protestant side ?
@@Netomp51u don't need a translator.
Sola my interpretation is huuuge slippery slope
“Tradition” isn’t saving the Catholic Church from wokeness either.
@@frankm6546 if that's your standard guess orthodoxy is ture w guy
You use sola interpretation to determine which church you believe is true
@@firesoliderrinfan1 I'm actually fairly sympathetic to Eastern Orthodoxy, but the obsession with icons is weird and ultimately Scripture should be the final authority above tradition outside of the Holy Spirit.
@@frankm6546 the obsession with calling icons idols is also weird
Ruslan, do you have a video where you explain how you validate that the Scriptures are infallible? This is the big part of Sola Scriptura, even as you/Gavin have outlined it here, that I don't understand. The canon was not established until we'll after the Apostolic Age; wouldn't this mean an infallible collective produced an infallible document? I don't understand how one can square that unless we have some understanding of Apostolic succession being a source of authority (which then itself confers great authority upon the Bible as we know it today).
This is what convinced me away from being Protestant, ultimately. Most people will say that the Holy Spirit guided the process, but there is really no grounds for that claim besides that the Church tells them so. As such, they still rely on the infallibility of the church.
Some might say that the Spirit reveals the truth to them individually, but that's not a verifiable claim. Certainly many parts of scripture are not self-evidently true to me. I have to rely on infallible authority to tell me so.
@@pixelarrowproductions6308
You day this disabused you of being Protestant, but what do you believe now? Your comment makes it seem like you also were not convinced by the Churches that claim Apostolic succession.
@quinnyp18 oh no, I'm starting rcia lol. Apostolic succession is chill with me. Idk where you saw that but I didn't mean to imply I had any problems with it if I did.
I think sola scriptura gets dumbed down to “I’m throwing out the early church”. I believe the early church is very authoritative, I just don’t agree that they’re infallible.
Exactly
You have to at least believe that the church infallibly picked the canon of Scriptures. Because otherwise you have to believe that the Bible is infallible but the canon is fallible, which makes no sense.
@@chrisalder9096 sure. Doesn’t change the fact I don’t believe the church isn’t infallible
@MFPmarcus so how does one determine who has the infallible interpretation of the bible? There are clearly more than one if you count the number of Protestant denominations who adhere to solar scriptura, so then how do we determine who is correct? Otherwise, if there is no way to determine this, how does one know that they aren't in heresy? Or is there no such thing as heresy and we have no need for Christ's narrow way to heaven for there is no way we could go astray, and therefore no need even for the Shepard? Please consider these questions with an open heart. I am praying for you, as I hope you will for me. God bless!
@@chrisalder9096that's not difficult. They used a standard for labeling the Canon. I imagine that standard can be tested for EVERYTHING that made it into the Canon and EVERYTHING that didn't make it into the Canon.
In essence, it doesn't even rely on their infallibility, if anyone can test manuscripts etc.
Gavin Orton begs the question. Sola Scriptura isn't biblical for one because the church came before the full canon was decided and two, the very book Protestants appeal to as the infallible source was infallibly decided about 400 years after the writings of the NT. Lot's of writings were vying for canonicity and someone had to decide what was in and what was out. So for 400 years, the canon was unresolved. The books of Paul were there and being copied and shared with the churches, but no one church had a full NT. In addition, imagine being at the church of Thessalonians and you received 2 short letters from Paul and you could only keep the instructions written in those letters in order to hold to Sola Scriptura. Even being gracious, let's say they had Colossians and Ephesians and the Torah. How in the world does Sola Scriptura even work here? It doesn't! They had Paul spoken words which was also God's word.
Most Christians couldn't read and absolutely didn't own a copy of the Bible in their homes until the late 19th century. So, for almost the full history of the Church, the layman at home wasn't studying scripture, that was done in the church. The bottom line is Sola Scriptura isn't even practical let alone scriptural.
So the "church" compiled the Bible? I think not. God uses fallible people and churches because that's all there is.
Very true what you have said. Even today in the 21st century many people cannot read and even if they can read they cannot understand. The faith of many people, say Catholics, is sustained by attending Mass, reciting the rosary and reciting prayers learn by heart.
A very modest claim against the Sola Scriptura camp goes like this: "No prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation..." 2Pet 1:20 So when u say test against Scripture and see the truth, against whose interpretation of Scripture? Against everybody's or against the interpretation of those who were given the binding and loosing power?
Ur question doesn't make sense. The scripture says it isn't about one's own interpretation, then u ask who's interpretation should be upheld... u test by using scripture and interpret with scripture.
Learn how to do exegesis instead of eisegesis.
2 Peter 1:19-21
New American Standard Bible
19 And so we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. 20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture becomes a matter of someone’s own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
@@arcguardian If Scripture is tested against Scripture, Protestantism would be over. If the Protestant interpretation of Paul's teaching on salvation had been tested with James, John, Peter, the Gospels and the rest of the Scripture, faith alone doctrine would have been scrapped as unbiblical long ago.
@@joeythemonk007if it were so u wouldn't use arguments from authority to some monks in the 7 th century
@@juandoming6688 I think u don't understand what an argument from authority is. Which 7th century monks are u referring to? Why not rather try to explain how u can reconcile the teaching of the Bible with the doctrine of "faith alone"? I can explain to u how to understand Paul's teaching in a manner consistent with the rest of the Bible and to understand Paul in the context in which he wrote those things.
@joeythemonk007 none of that matters anyway. The real question is why would u chose Mary and the saints as your mediator over the Eternal Son of God, and why would u accept the 5 extra biblical sacraments over christ sufficient death on the cross as the absolver of your sins. Your other points are vain.
I recommend Seraphim Hamilton. He has great videos on Sola Scriptura from an Orthodox perspective.
Doctrines of demons. The Bible says not to. They are liars and deceivers.
Why has he named himself after an angel?
@blissseeker4719 anyone named Gabriel or Michael is named after a angel
Most of the times it is just as simple as who are your circle of coworker, friends, family. Many accepts theology only after they accepted the community.
Where in the Bible does it teach that the only infallible authority is the Bible?
We should be all United as one church
There is only One church. You want to unite with the Body of Christ, become Orthodox.
@@kardz1848 Here we go again...
@@kardz1848bro still missed the point after 1k years
@@DavidTextle 2000 years of Christ or 500 years of heresy. You choose. Your not the first heretic to pervert Christ's message you won't be the last.
@@chad7070 Realizing the truth of Christs Church and rejecting is blasphemy of the holy spirit. Educate yourself then repent from your perverse ideology.
The fruit of sola scriptura has become confusion and personal interpretation. The church tradition authority is needed to be the primary interpreter through the intercession of the Holy Spirit.
Even church tradition needs to be interpreted. The problem of interpretation is not a problem unique to protestants. Take the most recent declaration by the Pope for example. It caused a lot of confusion with some Catholics stating it was wrong and others the opposite. Human experience requires interpretation
There will always be argumentation and constant reclarification. This is the very reason why the church exists to deal with these human issues. The issue with Protestantism is that churches split and create their own theology and this is considered acceptable. As opposed to trying to keep everyone on the same boat while trying to root out bad theology.
This is why we have heretical church with rainbow stuff. I believe this has been a powerful trap set all along for many centuries
Facts
If we cant trust early church with bible canon, liturgy and tradition at least until 1054. then all of christianity can be questionable.
The problem I have WITH solar Scripture is that it leaves too much room for individual interpretation and if someone does not like what is said on the pulpit they go ahead and make their own church.
Which is the fruit as we can se in the many denominations in the protestant community.
Im saying I like everything the pope says. But I do have to respect it.
But this can go both ways. Since if the final authority is placed in a man or a certain traditions then that man can become corrupted too. Miss interpretations can happen and will always happen but if at some point the Holy Spirit supported by scripture correct us then we must not turn a blind eye and fix whatever is wrong
Jesus said that the gates of hell will not prevail over his church, which I would say makes the Eastern orthodox the most accurate belief since they have held the most firmly to tradition since the first century
@@katerinejonhson4416 Right but the Pope (the man) can be a complete goober in Catholic teaching (as Peter himself was at times) and still carry the authority of his office. What Catholics believe and what has been defined is that he is only gifted infallibility when defining doctrine for the whole Church. This gift is not for him, like some kind of super preacher it is to protect the bulk of Christians in the world from following a heresy to their damnation.
The example that Gavin screenshot in the video is actually a bad one since St. Pope John Paul II speaking on what Muslims believe is not a statement concerning faith and morals for the people of God to take into their practice or theology pertaining to Christian belief. It is the theological position of the man himself which is incorrect as well intentioned as he was, bless him.
Except that they have traditions and doctrines contrary to scripture and what we see from the 1st century church. It brings me no joy to say that.
@@Shane_The_ConfessorOh here we go. Like what?
The issue is I see in parts of modern-day Protestantism as a symptom of modernity, and even though you highlighted the positives, the negatives of sola scriptura still lead some down a rabbit hole of 'my interpretation', 'my truth', which ironically is like what the New Age crowd is like in worshipping how they want to worship let's say. Regardless of the flaws, the tradition of the apostolic churches is a lot more appealing in the modern age in its connection to tradition and Christ, which the modern world in parts of the West has lost. Eastern Orthodoxy, in particular, is slowly on the rise for this reason (plus connection to monasticism, which many sects of Protestantism do not have and therefore suffer the ideological possession side of Christianity rather than the embodiment side). Love brother regardless
@@MaddieMS636 protestantism = relativism
@@nicolasbascunan4013 okay.
#1- that didn’t answer my original question.
#2- next time a fellow Christian is asking about your religion, instead of insulting their intelligence and making demeaning statements like this, maybe you could just answer it 🙄 I can’t believe it’s that hard for Catholics to act mature and respectful.
#3- I NEVER said I was a Protestant. Your statement was immature and unproductive. Treating Protestants as if they’re too “stupid” to seek the truth is so insulting anyway.
Catholics might be more successful in converting others with simply how they respond/ treat non-Catholics.
I genuinely, graciously and curiously asked about Catholics and the OG commenter never responded.
Answer my question or don’t.
@@MaddieMS636 I don't see your comment or question.
So how did we end up with the scripture if the church that canonised it is fallible? Who determines the interpretations that are derived from sola scriptura ? Since you basically have thousands of denominations and within the congregations no one can agree?
The fact that the church is fallible doesn't mean its always wrong. We grant that they were right in this case because we have other ways of verifying the validity of these scripture claims. Eg checking for contradictions with the old testament and most notably asking the holy Spirit/God for guidance. So the church established the scripture right? I agree. But tell me which is more likely to change over time: written word which is verifiable over and over again as needed, or the church made of imperfect humans with their own desires, agendas and flaws? This is not a jab at the church don't get me wrong. We are only saying that the established scripture is the only thing on earth we can know FOR SURE is God's revelation. A church could very well be right. But we can't know that unless we verify with God himself or the next best thing, his word.
As for who determines the correct interpretations, we actually believe the same thing. Its the holy spirit/ GOD. Only difference between us is you have a middle man (the catholic church) and we don't. Because you would agree that the catholic church and pope still has to be lead by the Holy Spirit right?
Anyway lets remember to put aside our egos aside, humble ourselves before GOD and seek HIM earnestly so he may reveal the truth to us. Its all about HIM after all. Pray for me as I pray for you. While we're at it lets pray for everyone in this comment section too. I pray the truth will be revealed to us if we are wrong.
GOD bless
The scriptures were accepted as truth by christians before the they were put together into one Bible.
If you think thousands of the denominations are differing from the Gospel in its simplicity you are mistaken. There are alot of theological distinctions that often dont really matter, and some truly false ones like Mormonism in its false scripture and jehovas witnesses
But the truth is for many Protestants is they believe in the Gospel. And you cant have differing interpretations about the Gospel or you just dont believe at all.
used to hold to sola scriptura, but now am a prima scriptura person. the reason is simple, we can't reject tradition. tradition and scripture goes hand in hand but scripture is always the primary authority
According to the Bible, God did not care about tradition. Do you like the prophet Jeremiah?
matthew 15 disagrees with you
@@saiyasho16 Matthew 15, Jesus was telling the Pharisees that they changed the Commandments of God to their own traditions, He even cited directly about their false teachings: ”For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die.’ But you say, ‘If any one tells his father or his mother, What you would have gained from me is given to God, he need not honor his father.’ So, for the sake of your tradition, you have made void the word of God.“
Matthew 15:4-6
And Hebrew tradition was incredibly important, especially to Jesus, as well:
”Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.“
Matthew 23:1-3 RSVCI
Do you know where “Moses’ Seat” came from? It’s no where in scripture, but the Jews and Jesus knew of it, He even verified this tradition and told the crowd to follow what the Pharisees teach from their own tradition, but don’t follow their actions since they were hypocrites.
@@saiyasho16 Matthew 15, Jesus is telling the Pharisees that they’ve added their own manmade tradition to God’s Commandment: ”He answered them, “And why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die.’ But you say, ‘If any one tells his father or his mother, What you would have gained from me is given to God, he need not honor his father.’ So, for the sake of your tradition, you have made void the word of God.“
Matthew 15:3-6 RSVCI
No where in context is Jesus speaking ill of tradition itself, just the Pharisees’ wrongly added ones to the “honor thy mother and father” commandment.
Here’s another passage:
”Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.“
Matthew 23:1-3
Do you know what “Moses’ seat” is? I can tell you you’ll find it no where in the Old Testament scripture because it was a Jewish Tradition. Is Jesus admonishing the seat for being a tradition? No, in fact He verifies this Moses’ Seat and tells the crowd for them to follow the Pharisees words of commands for faith, but do not follow their actions, for they were hypocrites.
You must have a VERY hard time reading Job, seeing as its suppose to be literal.
I would say I’m Sola Scriptura, and from reading the Bible, it feels obvious why. The Pharisees, scribes, Sadducees and teachers during Jesus’ time believed their traditions superseded the scriptures and they thought they had things right. Meanwhile, Jesus was trying to warn them that they have added to the scriptures and corrupted His word with their man made traditions. That in itself should alert you that tradition is no infallible, and it can lead you astray.
Sadducces certainly didnt add anything, more like took away from scriptures, what they all added is their interpretation of Messiah, which is a man to liberate jewish people through war, not God who came in flesh to take sacrifice for all people.
i agree traditions if taken for granted can lead you wrong way, completely rejecting them puts Christianity is on very thin ice
Problem is that sola Scriptura itself is a tradition. The tradition of the Pharisees was not from God. The question is does Sola Scriptura come from God.
Catholics believe in the infallibility of scripture, we dont believe our traditions supersede it. We believe our traditions ARE biblical in nature.
Love y’all ❤️ but the Protestant movement started in the 16th Century, so where was The Holy Spirit during those 1400 years. Did He fail at preserving His church? (Matthew 16:18) Did Jesus fail at preserving His church for those 1400 years?
Love you too, but it's not a very good argument, the Church was absolutely there ! but it was lead by people who were corrupt, the reformation wasn't to create or re-create the Church it was just to turn away from the corrupted leaders in the Catholic church. That's the Protestant view. (I personally don't consider myself protestant yet, I still need to do some research.)
I understand this argument, but Protestants didn't just pop out of nowhere, and the Catholic Church has changed over time. The first Protestants were reading scripture and saw discrepancy between what the scriptures teach and what the church was doing, and they wished to move closer to scripture.
The church the apostles founded is not the church of the 16th century is not the church of today. The goal of protestants has always been to go back to teachings of the earliest church possible. As for the argument of "where was the Holy Spirit during tbose 1400 years," there were people that help Protestant beliefs all throughout the history of the church. It was just in the 16th century that the mainline teaching got far enough from what those with protestant beliefs held that theh felt a need to beanch off and do their own thing. The Protestant movement didn't introduce anything new.
@@HSuper_Lee The earliest churches possible are the Catholic and Orthodox churches, that go all the way back to the time of the apostles. And what you’re saying is Jesus let His church be led astray by teachings that the “early church” didn’t have and then He had to bring it back in the 16th century. The Protestant movement is the cause for all these heretical denominations like JW’s, Mormons, 7th Day Adventist, who wanted to branch off from the true church and interpret scripture their own way.
@@HSuper_Lee Some examples that are Biblical but Protestants don't believe, Protestants believe saints(those in Heaven) can’t intercede for us believers. And they always bring up 1 Timothy 2:5 that Jesus is our only mediator, but if you read the context, Paul starts off by urging believers to intercede for one another, “I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgiving be made for all people”. If Jesus was the only mediator there would be no reason for intercession, just bring it to Jesus. So why does Paul urge, not just suggest, but urge for intercession to be made between the brethren. And the example of Stephen interceding in Acts 7:58-60 for those who killed him, and the Lord heard his prayer and intercession and went after Saul in chapter 9, who was there consenting and approving to his death (Acts 7:58; 8:1). If the Lord hears his children on earth, how much more those who are perfected in His presence in Heaven. Who are not dead because of Jesus' promise (John 11:25-26). How much more will the Lord hear their prayers for us. That is why The Catholic Church doesn't worship saints, but ask saints in Heaven to pray for us. But the Protestants think thats heresy.
@@HSuper_Lee Another example on Mary being the queen of Heaven. Protestants don’t believe Mary is the queen of Heaven, yet Revelation 12:1 a woman clothed with the sun, the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars who was pregnant and gave birth to a male child who is to rule the nations, who was caught up to God and to His throne. Jesus Himself says in Revelation 3:21 that He conquered and sat on His Father’s throne. That child is clearly Jesus, then who is the woman with the crown on her head (something only queens wear) with twelve stars that gave birth to Him?
I was baptized as a Catholic and received confirmation and communion. But as a teenager I always sympathized with Protestantism (Protestantism in Switzerland). Now that I'm older and see Protestantism in the US... honestly... I'm glad to be Catholic. Sometimes I have the feeling that in the USA every Protestant simply intrepetates as they please and that everyone somehow starts their own church. I am therefore happy to belong to the global church. If I went to the Philippines, or South Korea, or Latin America, I would find the same church. An ancient tradition, an ancient teaching since St. Peter. An elite of church scholars such as Thomas Aquinas, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, as well as THE institution that canonized the Bible. I used to laugh at the rosary... thought it was a nice piece of jewelry... today I'm learning to pray it... in Latin. Confession, communion, mass, the priests, monks and nuns, the Pope, the holy, ancient Catholic Church with its splendor and also its flaws is something that I don't want to miss. This sola sciptura is noble, but also dangerous and you hardly notice it and you have one heretical church after another and a new religion emerges like Islam, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses. No offense intended, but I just feel like Protestantism is a Christianity for the lazy people. Make as little effort as possible, do only what is necessary and you will "buy" eternity.
Catholicism isn’t Christianity. It was born out of Roman Paganism.
@@martindj1988 Thanks for confirming my view.
@@drangue9017 it’s funny how in your comment you mention “confession, communion, mass, the priests, monks and nuns… etc etc.” yet you failed to mention the only thing that matters. JESUS. Thank you for confirming MY view 😂
@@drangue9017 Being Catholic is heavy cross to bear, starting from monday knowing at the end of week you have to live clean to take Eucharist or humiliate yourself at confession which is always uncomfortable, forces you to live certain way,
free of sin, or at least forces you to give your best.
@@martindj1988T.H.I.S. Honestly that was a mic drop moment
I love that you are doing The Lord's work through evangelizing and I also quite like Gavin Ortlund. But I have Two objections to this video. I am sure you have thought of them and do not want to posit that these will be new to you but rather want you to consider them further. First of all, I think that there is a major issue saying that Sacred Scripture is ontologically unique. Even if we grant that tradition, the Pope when he speaks ex Cathedra, the magisterium, peoples private revelations and prophecies, and any other authority that some Christian considers to be infallible is in fact not infallible it makes little since to consider Sacred Scripture ontologically unique. The reason being is because the word of God predates scripture. Let's assume you believe that Saint Paul only wrote down things which he preached and generally preached things similar to what he or another apostle wrote down(personally I think I am being more than charitable to protestants with this assumption.) We still have a problem. St. Paul's preaching was also inspired of the Holy Spirit. In other Words the Word of God existed apart from Sacred Scripture. This means that sacred scripture is not completely ontologically unique because at the very least it was predated by other means by which the word of God was transmitted. I will note that at 3:50 in Gavin's video he references Galations 1:8 which tells the Galatians to test messages from anyone against that which St. Paul had already "PREACHED to them" not that which St. Paul "WROTE to them." Scripture is ontologically unique from something that is truly good but not the word of God like *The Imitation of Christ*, but even if Scripture is the only way modern man can access God's words, it is not true that Scripture is ontologically unique as the word of God since the word of God can exist in spoken form. If the Word of God exist in spoken form then it is possible for it to be passed down through other means such as a magisterial authority and written/oral traditions of the Church. In other words Sola Scriptura has to be false since the word of God can exist apart from Scripture given that the word of God predates Scripture. Please feel free to reply if you see a flaw in my logic. Keep it civil I am a sensitive soul and you might hurt my feelings. So if you want me to be a protestant... be nice ;p
Amen! Great points! Thank you for your objections. God bless
Excellent points here. When I first became a Christian after 28 years of atheism, there were some hardcore Romanists who demanded I join their church as all others were apparently "corrupted". I actually joined them for a couple services and they were absolutely filled with many unbiblical things. Rosarys, scapulars, plenary indulgences, being asked to pray to Mary to speak to Jesus for me etc etc. They certainly saw the church's traditions as being just as crucial if not moreso than the bible, which you couldnt be trusted to read yourself anyway. Very glad I didnt bother with them, it was all very works based from my short experience. Most Romanists I've met since have been lovely but I'll never forget those zealous legalists and clericalists.
How sad for you. We'll still pray for your conversion.
A better source is Trent Horn, Catholic Truth and Catholic Answers here on UA-cam.
Why people continue to run to hateful Protestants who make a living of "disproving" Catholicism vs ACTUALLY talking to real Catholics who understand both the faith, history and deep theology is beyond me.
That's like asking a golfer how to become an NBA legend. Sure it's sports, but you ain't gonna learn much.
By the way... The Catholics gave the world the Bible by canonizing it. You're welcome. 🙃🤷🏿♀️💁🏿♀️
Jehovahs Witnesses say much the same thing.
AMEN ask @Jimmy Akin to be on as well 🙏🏼 or @Joe Heschmeyer.
He literally had Trent Horn on his show.
Should invite @Trent Horn again and thoroughly pick a topic and dialog about it that would be fair.
@@dr_that_guy I mentioned more than Horn. Again, going to Protestant sources as one's main use as a rebuttal is fruitless. I challenge and encourage him to have more than simply Horn. Open the actual dialog to more Catholic apologists, scholars, and clergy. What's the harm and fear in that? Someone seeing the truth?
7:54 It is very ironic that when he pretends to analyse that the NT shows no hint of post-Apostolic infallibility, he screenshots Titus 1, which gives us the precise mechanism by which Apostolic Tradition is _usually_ transmitted _correctly_ to later generations.
Can you please explain more
Be humble and submit! The Catholic Church is the source of God's word. Don't walk your own walk, submit!
I cannot tell you how invaluable Gavin and his channel has been on my walk as of late.
100% agree with this! I’ll add Nate from WiseDisciple as well
walking towards heresy is a bad walk
@@kardz1848 Feel better now?
@@lohi172 who?
When Protestants claim that the Bible is their “infallible authority”, what does that mean? They’re saying scripture is never failing, incapable of mistakes or being wrong for teaching. The Bible logically cannot teach itself. If you don’t know what a passage means, the Bible literally cannot tell you how it’s suppose to be read, because you’re forced to reference back to your “only infallible” source again-the same passage in the Bible you just questioned. You need an infallible, outside source to tell you how passages are interpreted.
If I write a simple comment, like, “I didn’t say you stole the cookies.” You, the reader, have multiple ways of interpreting this by simply emphasizing any one of those words to change the original meaning of the what was conveyed. The only way to get the original meaning is to ask the person or those who the person told the meaning to, right?
And Jesus’ Church was obviously established as the infallible source when concerning truth spoken by God and the contents of scripture.((I’ll use Protestant translated bibles: ESV, NIV, NKJV, to show you scripturally))
”“If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you. “I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. Yet a little while and the world will see me no more, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you.“
John 14:15-20
[[He’s speaking to His apostles, the twelve men who are going to build, expand and run His Church, and that the Spirit of Truth would be with them. FOREVER. Not till they’re dead. But forever, until the Church ceases to be when Jesus Christ returns. He never said all believers will be with this truth, He’s talking to the twelve in private.]]
”“These things I have spoken to you while I am still with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.“
John 14:25-26
[[Jesus clarifies who this Spirit of Truth, the Helper, is. The Holy Spirit, Who Jesus right before said to the apostles that The Helper will be with them, the men who will be running His Church, FOREVER, and He will TEACH you all things and bring remembrance all that He said.]]
*”“I still have many things to say to you,* but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will *guide you into all the truth,* for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and _he will declare to you the things that are to come._ He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.“
John 16:12-15
[[Jesus explicitly says that He has MANY things to tell them, the truth, but He will be sending the Helper, the Holy Spirit to guide them, the Church, _forever,_ as spoken before. If He teaches all truth, and that forever, how is it possible that the Church can err or erred in matters of faith, at any time, or in any point of doctrine? In this supposition, would not the Holy Spirit have forfeited his title of Spirit of Truth?]]
”“If your _brother_ sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he _does not_ listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, *tell it to the church.* And if he refuses to listen even to the *church,* let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.“
Matthew 18:15-18
[[It looks like Jesus’ Church has the final authority on matters of those faithful in Christ in regards to sin? I wonder what else His Church has the final authority of if the Holy Spirit of Truth is guiding His Church forever?]]
”I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive.“
Romans 16:17-18
[[Paul is writing to the CHURCH OF ROME. The same Church given authority by Jesus and is guided by Him, through the Holy Spirit of Truth, and Paul is saying to watch out for those who deviate from the *doctrine* that you have been *taught*. For those who deviate from the doctrine don’t serve the Lord. How do you know that any one of these Protestants that all speak and teach different doctrines aren’t one of these Paul spoke of? How do you know for certain they’re guided to the truth? You can’t. They’re not guided infallibly. The DOCTRINES TAUGHT by the Apostles are TRADITION, infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit.]]
”“I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.“
John 17:20-21
&
”I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.“
1 Corinthians 1:10
&
”Finally, all of you, have unity of mind, sympathy, brotherly love, a tender heart, and a humble mind. Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless, for to this you were called, that you may obtain a blessing.“
1 Peter 3:8-9
[[Jesus prays that we, those who follow Him and part of His Church are ONE. United. Peter writes to those in the Church to be a unity of mind, sympathy, love, heart and humble mind. And Paul literally begs for no division of mind and judgement to His Church.
Jesus wants us to be one and united so the world sees that He is the truth, and Peter and Paul implores the same. Which Church as been United and One since the beginning of Christ’ establishment?]]
”Of this gospel I was made a *minister* according to the gift of God’s grace, which was given me by the working of his power.“
Ephesians 3:7
[[Authority, ranks in His Church]]
”For this reason I write these things while I am away from you, that when I come I may not have to be severe in my use of the authority that the Lord has given me for building up and not for tearing down.“
2 Corinthians 13:10
[[Paul has God given AUTHORITY, He is guided by Spirit of Truth, he’s infallible and inerrant in these writings]]
All of these passages deal with Church Authority and how His Church operates:
3 John 1:1; 3 John 1:9-10
Titus 2:1-15
1 Timothy 3:14-16
1 Timothy 4:11-16
2 Timothy 2:1-7
Titus 3:1-11
2 Corinthians 13:1-10
1 Timothy 5:17-25
[[I can go over these passages if you wish. But this comment is getting large]]
Acts 8:26-35
[[The Ethiopian eunuch literally asked Philip, a disciple of the Apostles, on how to interpret scripture within the Old Testament, and with his God given authorities and taught traditions on interpreting scriptures, Philip told the eunuch exactly what those scriptures meant.]]
*_I’ll leave you with these last two passages…_*
”which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come. And He put all things under His feet, and *_gave Him to be head over all things to the church,_* which is *His body,* the *fullness of Him* _who fills all in all.“_
Ephesians 1:20-23
&
”Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.“
1 Timothy 3:14-15
[[“Sola Scriptura isn’t the PILLAR and FOUNDATION of TRUTH… *_THE CHURCH_* is. The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church]]
TLDR
@@arcguardian Bible verses too long for you?
That's not true. Scripture interprets scripture. Your thinking is flawed. Good luck
@@br.m Scripture interpreting itself is a circular argument. If you don’t know the interpretation of a verse/passage, how do you interpret it? You have to go back to exact same verse/passage you still don’t know.
@@HellenicPapist Friend I have an interpreter you know nothing about.
Don't worry if you read the Bible you should notice it is repetitive. Scripture interpreting scripture is not complicated.
Friend if you don't understand one parable, Jesus will try again with another. Good luck
Just a few thoughts: So we have been given an infallible book by fallible authorities. How does it work? Especially because Luther wanted a different canon.
Then, I think, the real turning point is not what importance the Bible has, but how exactly grace works. I think it would be more important to look at how penal substitution was defined during the Reformation period and why the focus on these issues ultimately led to a break. If you really limit it to religious conflicts. Although I don't think that these were not the reasons for the Reformation. There were other, more political reasons.
If the apostles had a special infallibility, when and why did this charisma disappear.
The view of the Reformation. American Christians have a very limited understanding of what happened in German-speaking countries during the Reformation. The socio-economic reasons for the Reformation are completely ignored. It's often portrayed as saying that there was deliverance for the average believer, but there wasn't. In the Protestant countries, only the ultimate authority shifted from bishops and pope to bishops and princes. Sola scriptura was useless to the average German farmer because 80% of the population could not read at all. The ability to find out what is written and the power to interpret it remained in the hands of a small elite for a long time, who used it to support their own power politics. This had less to do with faith than with economic policy.
A lot of fancy articulation but you have a fundamental misunderstanding of God’s Word: you believe the “church” produced it. And thats just baffling to a Protestant like me who knows God’s Word is.. God’s Word. He preserved it. It’s infallible and we conform to His word who is also Jesus.
@@jakeschwartz2514 But the Protestant Bible contains different scriptures than those that Jesus and the Apostles were referencing (Septuagint). So why would you assume that you have the infallible canon? At some point, you have to reason that the canon itself would have to be an infallible rule that is outside of scripture, so who had the authority to make that rule?
@@jakeschwartz2514 So in your interpretation, God found it more important to preserve a book than a charism in his church. That sounds a lot like Islam. Wouldn't it have made more sense if Jesus had written the New Testament? But Jesus didn't write anything - except once in the sand. He called people and gave them authority. Nowhere in the New Testament does he encourage his disciples to write anything down. When Jesus refers to Scripture, it is to the Old Testament and often to writings that were not accepted as part of the canon by all Jews in his time. Even the writings of Moses, which were generally accepted, are interpreted radically differently. This was a point of massive tension between him and the scribes and later the point at which the young church separated from the synagogue.
So if one assumes that God preserves the Scriptures but not the charism of interpretation, how did the Protestant Reformation even happen? If there is no infallible interpretation, where then did Protestants get their authority? The thesis of self-interpretation of the Holy Scriptures collapsed when Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and the Anabaptists could not agree on a Reformation.
The only reason the Reformation was able to gain a foothold on the European continent was because Luther made himself the puppet of the princes who financed the massive propaganda battle against the Catholic Church. It wasn't about faith, it was about dominance in Germany. And they were after land, political influence and money. Nothing else. There is no other way to explain the forced dissolution of monasteries and the violent expulsion of monks and nuns. There was and is no place in the New Testament that prohibits this way of life. The story that these people were held in monasteries against their own will is nonsense.
The Reformation was not an intellectual dispute over the interpretation of Holy Scripture, but a violent revolution in favor of the secular rulers in Germany.
But he didnt show where it is in the bible
He pulled out plenty of Bible verses to prove his point
@@travionwaiters4135 and yet none actually showed said doctrine
If the Bereans can do it, so can u. No excuses.
Acts 17:10-12
New American Standard Bible
Paul in Berea
10 The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 Now these people were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. 12 Therefore, many of them believed, along with a significant number of prominent Greek women and men.
@@arcguardian what does this prove
How does Sola Scriptura teaches itself, though? Calvin, Luther and Zwingli all thought they could all interpret the Bible alone, and all three came out with totally different, fundamental beliefs on salvation. You clearly need an infallible interpreter and overseer of scripture or else everyone literally becomes their own pope.
Amen. His Church is the infallible interpreter guided by the Holy Spirit, whom Jesus Christ promised He would send and be with them forever.
Yes, that would be nice but humans are not infallible.
@@ByzantiumArchon Okay, which one? 😂😂😂 See the issue?
Ok but then you have to demonstrate that this interpreter is in fact infallible.
@@unamusedmule which holy spirit? There's only one, and jesus said he would be the spirit of truth that would come and dwell in all Christians. That's how we can interpret the bible
Here’s where I get caught up (I’m Protestant btw)
I believe the scriptures are infallible. But the problem I run into is at the end of the day, humans still wrote the books of the Bible, and humans still canonized certain books in the Bible. The scriptures didn’t fall from the sky. It was all through humans. There were many books written in the apostolic age that are not included in canonized scripture.
I think the main point people need to keep in mind is WHY something is canon and not. There's a clear contradiction in the notion that Purgatory exists and you can pay your sin debt yourself after you die. Heretical.
No it’s not unless you want to call every Christian in the first 15 hundred years of the church a heretic
Definitely go and look into how the canon was chosen. Also feel free to read those extra biblical texts. It won't hurt you and it's not a threat to the Christian faith.
Short answer: Humans wrote it, but inspired by the Holy Spirit. How do we know it is inspired? It doesn’t contradict Old Testament, instead, the New Testament is a direct revelation of the New Testament- meaning-> it was always there just not yet revealed until Jesus Christ came.
Old and New compliment each other, they don’t go against each other, where they all point to the personhood of Jesus.
Apocrypha-> still good to read for historical knowledge and stuff but in reality, the Jews didn’t (and DONT) consider it to be cannon of the Old Testament, and non of the New Testament writings refer to the apocrypha as Scripture
@@noahfletcher3019It was recognized, not chosen. God chose the cannon, we, the church recognized it.
As an Orthodox Christian, this was my Twitter to reply to this video that Zoomer posted. So I’m not attacking YOU Ruslan. I’m just copying and pasting.
Let me get this straight; The Bible is “Devine Speech” or “God breathed” yet you refuse the very Church who compiled the very scriptures you yourself accept is “God breathed?” That Church was the “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church” officially in the 3rd or 4th century.
Before the Great uncial codices were fully compiled, Christian’s depended on the “didache” for instruction on doctrine from the Apostolic Church Fathers.
So by YOUR logic; the early Apostolic Church Father’s were in fact the hands, feet, eyes, word and work of God.”
Here is the odd thing about this video and this argument as a whole. I sat quietly and listened to this and the big question that never gets addressed and should in order to move the conversation forward is this:
If councils, creeds, popes etc. have to be tested against scripture who is the referee which states this council is in accordance with scripture and this council isn’t, and same with creeds and popes? Since scripture doesn’t interpret itself but must be interpreted.
Ultimately it seems like it’s up to the individual to determined what scripture says which is why apostolic Christianity looks at this doctrine as silly, because someone has to actually act as the referee.
Also just because something is define infallibly later in church history doesn’t mean it wasn’t always believed, by that same logic we can say the trinity was a new doctrine and was never believed until later councils.
Actually scripture does interpret itself. Just practice exegesis instead of eisegesis
@@arcguardian really? Lol and yet people still come up with different Interpretations and doctrines. For example for many Protestants the question how to be saved is still a debate, and wether one can lose their salvation, or wether baptism saves.
Someone still has to interpret, this is not saying we cannot deduce things from scripture or that scripture isn’t clear on somethings but the essentials are still debated in Protestantism. While for those in apostolic Christianity it has been settled centuries ago because it was interpreted by an authentic interpreter.
Wether you defer to someone as that interpreter or you defer to yourself, you still need an interpreter of scripture.
@@simplydanny Friend... If you would read the Bible you would see it is nothing new, even the Pharisees and Sadducees interpreted scripture differently. Fortunately all I have to do is believe in the Lord.
The person you responded to above is absolutely correct. Scripture interprets scripture. You follow the ways of men. I follow the way of Jesus. You sound like you are in a cult
@@br.m right but there was a way in ancient Israel for people to get definitive answers, this is called the Seat of Moses, and it is referenced in Matthew 23, even Jews had ways to solve doctrinal issues and the Church was modeled after Israel, meaning since the beginning there was a definitive way to solve issues and we see that modeled in Acts 15. Do you know what else is man made tradition? Sola Scriptura. Not found in scripture at all.
@@simplydanny Dude oh well. Jesus told me all I need to know. Which is in the 4 Gospel accounts.
This is definitive. Nothing else. Sola Scriptura is just my defense against the doctrines of demons. Tradition be damned.
Your only other option is to say I am an apostle and so I make the tradition and I say the tradition is Christ alone. No Mary, no saints, no icons, no traditions.
Bye.
9:15 _"not the only authority, but the only infallible authority"_
Well, sounds like a copout to me.
Now, is it the only authority that's:
* binding
* on all?
Or can other authority also be, fallible or not:
* binding
* on all?
If a JW says "why should I believe the Trinity, the word is not there in the Bible, and you said yourself that Nicaea and the Creed have no _infallible_ authority" can you say he is still bound (and as long as he remains JW, condemned) by it?
If no, how can you _define_ Christianity?
If yes, how is that humane, unless God _grants_ infallibility to the authority that's binding on all?
Half of my family is Catholic (my uncle is a priest) and the other half is protestant. There is no moving one side on the points of the other. However, We are all Christian so we are good.
Gal 1:8 is not teaching Sola Scriptura, it is affirming the preaching authority of apostles
Scripture has to be interpreted as a community. Acts (the Jerusalem Council) is a clear example of this.
The expectation is that the Holy Spirit will guide the ecumenical council.
The same Holy Spirit who guided the canonical structure of the New Testament.
Many very devout and smart individuals present wildly different interpretations.
Sola Scriptura is ultimately untenable. Just look at the wildly different Protestant views. Many of them extremely different.
Protestant views aren't very different at all, much less "extremely" different.
So because views are different that means the source isn’t the highest standard and infallible authority? That doesn’t follow. If everyone looked at the sun and came up with all different shapes and colors for it, does that mean we cant trust what the sun looks like?
Yeah once you have people individually interpreting scripture you could all these crazy kind of heresy to come out. People doing multiple baptisms, or not believe in baptism at all as a means to salvation as a sacrament. It gets messy really fast. I do have a lot of criticisms of the Catholic Church, but they haven’t delved into the craziness that is what the protestant movement has become. That is either hyper individualistic like the Baptist are, or borderline Unitarian like the main lines are
It's true scripture have been interpreted by a community (like your local church)
But It's the responsibility of the indivdual to read and study scripture to see if something is so
To read the verse and it's context to verify if the interpretation is so
Diff prots beliefs is not cause of sola scriptura. People interpret what they want even without scripture
Then what about all the people who couldn't read or have access to a personal copy of the scriptures prior to the printing press?
If you don't acknowledge that the same supremacy and holiness was first endowed on the church fathers, then you have no reason to trust or venerate the book that they assembled. Also, if you haven't personally vetted every single book in the bible, then you're inarguably putting faith in the church fathers and the authors themselves, and by definition cannot believe in sola scriptura.
I don't disagree that the offices were possibly unique, but why? It's still the same Holy Spirit and still the same word of God. Doesn't He not change? And since He doesn't change, why would the manifestations and offices set forth by God change?
Every Protestant has the same Bible but thousands of opinions. If all are guided by the Holy Spirit, all cannot be right.
That's weird because it was the infallible church authority that brought about scripture. Christianity was a family oriented oral tradition. But now we all think we smart.
Gavin is unbelievably good right now! I love how kind he is whilst still remaining firm in his convictions. Enables honest and fruitful dialogues.
Watch Agnus Dominis critique of Ortlund. Ortlund actively deceives his audience by purposefully misquoting the church fathers. Nobody should be watching his content until he addresses the accusations made against him.
I think he directly addressed that exact video, if you look it up its his most recent responding to criticism one i think@@JesusIsGod747
Eastern and Catholic Churches celebrate all holidays on the same day, but on different calendars. Like for example we both celebrate Christmas on December 25th BUT due to the different calendar’s their December 25th is our January 5th, that’s the same for other main holidays too like easter
Talk to Jay Dyer
I would love that too
Fr
Yep ☦️
Problem with church history being authoritative: Sure, you can read a historical source and find things that agree with scripture, or at least your interpretation of scripture, but almost every single source will also say thing that do not line up with either. Historical sources are cherry picked and twisted just as much as scripture is. That is why we should stick with scripture and the plainest, simplest, interpretation possible. Instead, we come at it with presuppositions, find fragments of isolated scripture to support, and start inserting various forms of metaphor and returning to the handful of fragments to forcibly interpret the mach larger part of scripture that does not agree. This is why theologians, and especially modern social media based one’s, always end up debating VERSES.
The one moment that changed how I studied scripture was the day I decided to read Romans through without stopping to get lost in any weeds. I was so shocked, I did it twice more that day. I then went back and listened to various teachers on the book and I could hear them framing the book according to their presuppositions from page one, skipping details, reaching ahead or to other books to justify adding and taking away from what was plainly written. Why do you think so many writers require so many volumes to describe and defend their interpretations of any single book of the Bible?
I have defended sola scriptura from a Protestant magisterial perspective for a very long time. The one thing that sola scriptura fails to account for is
1. The Canon of scripture. Why is this important? Because the Protestant assumes that the canon the he has is the correct canon. How does the Protestant know what is God breathed scripture? And what method does he use to identify it? The Protestant is working on a foundation that has already been given to him by the Catholic Church. And then turns around and says that the canon that the church has is wrong. On what bases? On what authority?
This is like the atheist who assumes that rape is evil, murder is evil, stealing is evil. He is working on a foundation given to him by Christianity, that states that morality comes from God. Then the atheist wants to turn around and say “God does not exist “ which in turn makes morality subjective.
And that’s exactly what Protestantism is, it is subjective authority. The individual is the final authority in what is the correct way of interpreting the scriptures, what is correct doctrine, what is the government of the church.
It’s a system that is bankrupt. It works on borrowed capital
Strawman. Stop doing this to other Christians you pharisee. God’s Word is PRESERVED. Anyone on earth can reasonably have access to it in our time. God wants people to seek Him and understand not some false interpretation but the Gospel truth.
You either believe God’s Word and Jesus based on the Gospel which is in the Bible. Or you dont
@@jakeschwartz2514 you still didn't answer his question, where does your canon come from?
God made the canon, He revealed it to His people. If you use your personal judgement to judge the Orthodox Church as true and I use my personal judgement to judge sola scriptura as true, why is your judgement objective and mine subjective?
No one is saying God doesn’t guide the church, we are saying that I’m at least not sure that God outsourced that guidance authoritatively to a specific institutional changing body of men who I need to outsource my conscience to.
@@michaeldyer7421 outsourced? That's why apostolic succession is so important. Christ told the apostles that on them He will build His Church and that He gives them the keys to the kingdom of heaven (Matt 16:18-19) and that they have the authority to "bind and loose". You can't exactly do any binding and loosing at pastor Bob's Mega Jesus Emporium. But the Church with universal (Catholic) authority can anathematise, excommunicate and clarify issues regarding dogmas, faith and morals (through councils). My jurisdiction is within the Antiochian Patriarchate, this See can trace its succession all the way back to St. Peter. It is through the Holy Traditions of the Orthodox Church we have the sacred Scriptures and the holy sacraments. I will pray for you brother.
@@alabamamotionpictureproduc6626ok great, is it the Orthodox Church that has this authority, or is the Roman Catholic Church, or the Assyrian Church of the East, or the independent Catholic Churches (OlD Catholic, sedevacantists, etc.)? The Pharisees could trace their authority back to Moses they still crucified Christ (we all did but you know what I mean), taught for doctrines the commandments of men, and were the children of hell. Thing is I’m not really even telling you not to be orthodox, because I don’t know all the ways God works in the lives of men. To borrow a text, I hope not sacrilegiously, but God is able to raise up stones to be the children of Abraham, He can also raise up sons to Peter from rocks. And the thing is what I’m concerned about is when something contradicts the Bible or seems to, “trust me I’m the church” doesn’t seem like it should cut it. That’s the outsourcing of conscience, I would rather rely on scripture, the same way the fathers didn’t hesitate to argue from scripture all the time. They usually didn’t just say “I’ve got Peters seat so shut up”.
Theres no debate on when Pascha is. The debate is whether the Leap year should be a part of the calender or not anf what adding the leap year did for the revisions of calenders.
All believing Christians can agree in the infallibility of scripture. The problem arises (and it immediately did with the Reformation) when you ask, what is scripture or what is the Bible? Because the Bible doesn't define itself. If scripture is what we are supposed to look to as the highest and surest authority on matters of faith and morals, then it must also definitively describe itself as one (and arguably the most) important aspect of faith. But it doesn't do that. The Bible is a library or canon of books and it never even refers to itself by that index of books. It only refers to "scripture", but it doesn't define what is and is not scripture. For that you need a canon and the canon is a tradition of the Church. So, you're claiming that the Church is fallible, yet capable of giving you something that is infallible. But that's logically impossible. A thing or person cannot give what it does not have. Something infallible cannot be contingent upon something that is fallible. If we insist on putting unreserved trust in the Bible, we just have to look a little further down the chain of contingency to realize that we are necessarily putting our faith in an infallible Church if we do so.
Yo I've been following Gavin for a while. He's a great guy
Gavin is SO GOOD on all of things you talk about in this video and more. He’s one of my favourite Christian UA-camrs.
I thought so until I saw ortland vs Trent Horn for sola scriptura. His ideas couldn't stand up at all. Trent could dismantle them in so many ways I finally came to grips that Catholic doctrine is invincible
Trent Horn took him to school and did it with charity.
There are 4 other solas that differentiate us from Catholics. The main one that needs to be addressed is Christ alone. Council of Trent Session 6. Canon 9, 11, and 12 make Tri listing in Christ alone Anathema. This plays out in what Bishop Baron says the Council of Trent balks at the “Imputed righteousness of Christ.” There may be some nuance to this in the modern Catholic Church but the Council of Trent is a still ratified doctrine in the church today.
protestantism = relativism
The current form of Sola Scriptura is not Luther’s version of the doctrine or Calvin’s for that matter. Neo-Protestants are worse off defending why they believe what each individual denomination holds to, particularly those things they consider necessary for salvation that other Protestants disagree with them on while still claiming Scripture as their only infallible authority.
This is not a good reason to discard the bulk of Christian practice and tradition. Also to clarify, the Pope is only infallible when defining doctrine on faith and morals. The doctrine itself was defined semi recently but it can actually be found referenced throughout the councils (6th ecumenical, introductory letter from Agatho).
Protestants don't "discard the bulk of Christian practice and tradition". We will have better conversations when catholics stop saying stuff like this. Protestants should not be discarding traditions and if they are then they shouldn't be. That doesn't mean they should now become Catholic.
@@noahfletcher3019 I will clarify, the liturgy and teaching around tradition specifically, as well as the hierarchy of the Church has been abandoned by the majority of Protestants (High church Anglicans are the closest to the ancient groups. What I said is not just the view point of Catholics but also Orthodox and every other Christian group that traces its origin to the first millennium.
By the “bulk” would reference the first 1500 years of the church, these Christians do not resemble Protestants by and large in their structure, liturgy, practice, or beliefs have abandoned what was held by early Christians. If you read them for yourself this becomes clear very quickly in their sacramentology, sotieriology, etc.
I was a Protestant for 32 years, in researching the ancient church I was disturbed at how little I had in common with them and the more I read the greater that feeling became.
@@slyguy.7216 yeah and the more I read these guys the more disturbed i am about how much disagreement they had between them so I just remain protestant and just learn to evaluate their arguments by their own merits. I can do both
@@noahfletcher3019 that doesn’t reconcile what the church (including the fathers) unanimously believed about what authority the church has in the lives of lay people..the position you are holding to elevates each individual believer to be their own college of bishops and Pope as if you disagree with the interpretation of the word with your pastor there is nothing stopping you from dissenting and starting your own church.
In terms of the fathers, they did not have disagreements on the sacraments or even the basic structure of the church at least for the first thousand years - you are overstating their respective “disagreements”
For example, you cannot name one church father who held that baptism is not regenerative or that the Eucharist is not the body and blood of Christ, or that the authority in the church lies with the bishops and to reject the bishops authority is to reject Christ’s authority, the list goes on.
@@slyguy.7216 I don't see any issue with that. Unanimous agreement doesn't exist in the early church either. The obsession with doctirnal certainty hasn't really been that successful. And unanimous agreement says nothing about whether the doctrine is true. The assumption of Mary is a good example of this.
I could be wrong about this, but it seems to me that even Roman Catholics apply the principles of Sola Scriptura (even though they deny it) in that they are almost always tryi to appeal to Scripture to support their traditions.
I still have no reason to believe God stopped giving the Church the authority to teach doctrine infallibly, if it was able to do so when assembling the Canon of Scripture. At what arbitrary point did apostolic authority cease to be important?
I always wonder this too. Can a protestant let me know when they believe the infallible apostolic authority to teach doctrine stopped, and most importantly WHY? Why would God leave the church so bereft, especially in light of Christ's promise the Gates of hell would not prevail against the Church. By what other means is the preservation of the faith once delivered to the saints possible? It truly leaves us with nothing besides our own individual reasoning and understanding. We are free to hop from teacher to teacher, preacher to preacher, church to church as our own reasoning leads us because there is no trustworthy authority of interpretation to bind our conscience. 😢
@@SweetImmaculateHeartits amazing you still believe the Roman Catholic church is some infallible thing.. like your pope. Whether its the ignorance about the penalty for reading the Bible outside the church in those days, or of indulgences and people paying their way out of sins to fund buildings in Rome, or stupid private revelations and mariam worship. How far could i take it?
@@jakeschwartz2514 I am not Roman Catholic, nor do I believe in the supremacy or infallibility of the Pope. I'm Eastern Orthodox.
I do believe in the grace given by the Holy Spirit at Pentacost to the Church, headed and handed down by the Apostles, to disciple and appoint clergy by prophecy and the laying on of hands, to discern, interpret, and canonize scripture, to define liturgical worship and administer the sacraments (chiefly the Eucharist), to combat heresy, to establish the creeds, and to preserve and impart right teachings and traditions to the church--which were not and could not possibly have been completely and thoroughly contained in the scriptures alone, though they are always in harmony with the scriptures as both are a co-revelation of Christ Himself--over the centuries. ( 2 Thes 2:15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.)
I believe that Rome fell away into schism from the One True Church and consequently fell into error by developing novel doctrines not passed down by the Apostles or discerned by the grace of the Holy Spirit through ecclesial councils (as modeled in the book of Acts), and that some of the doctrines and traditions you point out are included in those errors, amongst others. I understand that the Protestant Reformation was a reaction to those errors, but I believe the reformers erred even further by falling into schism from Rome and establishing yet more novel doctrines and traditions based on their own personal interpretations of scripture, many of which were completely unknown to all of Christendom throughout history, rather than returning in joy and humility to the preserved doctrine of the Eastern Church. And the schisms and fragmentation of the western church hasn't stopped since, nor will it. I understand you likely do not agree with my beliefs, but I thought I would at least clarify what I believe since it isn't what you presumed.
Check out Jay Dyer.
Recently I have read "Will the real heretics please stand up" by David Bercot. It has tilted my universe. I could not put the book down (which is not my normal for theological books). I agree with Sola scriptura, but also agree that so much of what is taught from the pulpit is interpretation through man's understanding. If you want even more to consider when choosing the best church to worship and grow, I highly recommend reading the letters from the early church. David Bercot's done some great work to make it more accessible (he has a great reference book).
You either know the Gospel and believe it and understand or you dont.
Why be Protestant if not in agreement with the Protestant position on RC?
Umm why not?
@@arcguardian definitions matter
Without Orthodoxy I would still be an Atheist. Orthodoxy is the answer for many who are disappointed in Protestantism and Catholicism.
Glory to God! Likewise to me. I started attending classes at my local Parish. Protestantism wasn't even in the realm of consideration to me because its so obviously false religion filled with false teachers that Paul warned us about.
Jesus left us the church, not the scripture
Solid point....
What Bible version do you use for Sola Scriptura?
Stop, you’ll make them think too hard.
Considering the apostles themselves even used a translation authoritatively (the Septuagint) we can see that any reputable translation can be used authoritatively, we just need to be wise in selecting a translation, thought for thought is good alongside a literal translation but not good by itself.
Same version the Pope uses.
@@charlibrown7745 but if I read and self interpret the KJV Bible am I receiving more or less inspired words?
@@bruinranger13 what is reputable? What is complete? A table of contents?
Even though I’m not Catholic or Orthodox, I respect my brothers in Christ in both of the Churches cause they hold God’s beauty and grace to a standout and express it in their pictures, painting, and works of art
“Sola Scriptura” relies on the external traditional claim of the infallibility of scripture, paradoxical in and of itself.
If tradition is fallible, then the New Testament, made canon by the Church in late 300’s, well after the ascension of Christ and the deaths of the apostles, is fallible. The New Testament came after Sacred Tradition.
Glad to be a Protestant! Jesus held the word of God than traditions. That settles it for me
That same Jesus who spoke through Paul to say that we need to hold to the TRADITIONS passed down the Apostles, whether by word or deed? That same Jesus?
II Thessalonians 2:15 NKJV
Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.
Just because a certain tradition is being condemned by Christ when He rebukes the Pharisees, doesn't mean ALL tradition is then thrown out the window... The Bible itself is a tradition, as is the gospel (1 Cor 15:1-7).
That is no reason to be a Protestant, and in fact should be every reason to cease being a Protestant. You're appealing to a tradition (Scripture) without acknowledging where that tradition came from (the church that Christ established through the Apostles and led to form the Canon)
@@MrOlu109 First of, watch that video because it seems you didn't watch the video. You're making errors. You don't even know what protestants believe. Watch the video to gain insight and stop caricaturing protestanism.
Secondly, you quoted a verse that looks as though there was a tradition separate from the epistles. You are already assuming that tradition is nowhere found in the Bible. Can you show me the traditions according to the verse you quoted?? I know you can't answer that. What is the traditions Paul is talking about??
P.s: If the Bible is the traditions, then you shot yourself in the foot to say Protestants don't follow traditions. To be deep in history is to cease being Roman Catholic or Easter Orthodox. There's no evidences for your belief. It's fact!!
@@raphaelfeneje486 Lool first of all, I watched the video. Maybe I was a little hasty in commenting, as you weren't exactly clear on what you meant by "Jesus held the word of God, rather than traditions". I assumed you were talking about Matt 15, and so forgive me if I was wrong.
Secondly, I am a Protestant (technically) and so don't know how I can be strawmanning a position that I have held to all my life until recently. No doubt I'll be leaving soon though. Not sure which church yet, but it was the Bible and Church history that makes Protestantism an untenable position to hold.
I've heard and believe I've experienced the exact opposite of what you said - To know the Bible and Church history is to cease to be Protestant. Protestantism goes back only to the 16th century. If Protestantism is correct, then you're saying the church for 1500 years had it wrong... I don't know how you can argue that with a straight face lol.
Traditions Paul was talking about were ones passed down by the apostles to the churches by word or letter.
Well then, let's see... At the very least, this must be all the traditions that were held in common by the universal unified church for the first 400 years before any splits... So that's Water Baptismal Regeneration, Infant Baptism, Church Structure of Bishops, Priests and Deacons, Wider canon of Scripture, Intercession of the Saints, Eucharist being the flesh and blood of Christ, Prayers for the dead... And these are just practices I'm aware of! There may be others that come up, but all of these are hallmarks of all traditions outside of Protestantism. Protestantism I understand isn't a monolith, and whilst there are some who would agree with at least one thing in that list, I don't think there's any Protestant who would agree that all of these things are biblical. Yet they are all ancient practices, and as ALL other Christian traditions would say, do not contradict Scripture.
Traditions passed down by the Apostles include what is in the Bible, that's what is referred to as "letter". But what do you understand by traditions passed down by "word"?
@@MrOlu109 Good. You've made a claim that those oral traditions were praying to dead saints, icon venerations and so on. Now let's do it one after the other. Let me show you that you never even know anything about Protestantism. That you identify as one doesn't make you one. Let's start with one fundamental structure. The papal infallibility. The office of a pope and that the pope is infallible in their decree. Show me from the early church, emphasis on the early church where there was in fact a Pope that was regarded as infallible. I am waiting. Let's probe your claim. I want to show you that Church history is in favour of protestanism than Roman Catholicism. That's a fact and I am ready to prove it. I am waiting
@@raphaelfeneje486 I haven't studied the Papacy or the Catholic teaching that the Pope under certain circumstances is infallible in what they decree, and so cannot speak on this. But are you aware there are other traditions that are not Catholic or Protestant? What about the Coptic Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, Oriental Orthodox?
Notice I didn't even mention the Pope. I mentioned practices that ALL these ancient traditions that extend back to the Apostles have in common, not ones where they differ. So why have you picked out something I didn't say, and sought to attack that to prove your point. You know that is the very DEFINITION of straw-manning an argument? 😂
Let's go back to what I actually said lol. Of the practices that I listed, which I said all other traditions have in common, and these were held by Christians in the first 4 centuries of the church, which do you reject and why?
I love Gavin. Ever wanna feel small and unintelligent yet learn a bunch of stuff, listen Gavin ortlund
I hope you come away not just learning a bunch of stuff but have a change of feeling small and intelligent to feeling loved and encouraged.
@@toonnaobi-okoye2949 oh of course. There was a half joke in there. I've learned more about assurance of salvation from him than most. Don't fully agree with him on everything (Calvinism) but I thorough enjoy his teachings about church history and the beauty of Christ's sacrifice
Ruslan what’s your take on Theosis?
It’s all circular reasoning. You say scripture is the only authority that is infallible but you still need to interpret it. How do you know the correct interpretation? You preconceived bias will make you interpret it a certain way, which will make you agree or disagree with councils, etc. Nobody who is “sola scriptura” is sola scriptura. They’re sola their own interpretation. And in there lies the issue. Church being the authority over yourself
The thing is you need some sort of authority to determine the proper interpretation of scripture. Scripture alone leads to people manipulating the word of God to suit their own personal beliefs. Sola scriptura is a man-made tradition not held by Christians until the medieval age and leads to disunity in the Church.
Pretty simple, it’s a question of authority and wanting to find comfort in your infallible authority. Catholic/Orthodox want that authority to be the institutional church. Protestants want that authority to be the Word of God. Being in the Protestant tradition I take the Bridegroom speaking as the authority not the Bride which hears the voice and compiles it.
Just curious, how do you know anything about the Bridegroom? The only reason anyone is Christian is because of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, the church founded by Christ on the Apostles who passed on oral tradition which was later written down and confirmed by CATHOLICS!
Dude you put out so much content. This whole time I was hoping you would have Gavin Ortlund on and didnt realize this came out two weeks ago haha
Sola Scriptura. HOLY BIBLE ALONE!!. No other traditions. If it doesnt align with Gods Word, cut it off.
Yep! Thats what the reformers thought too. Thats why you cannot find a 66 book canon prior to the 1800s. 🤷🏽♂
Sola scriptura is a heresy. It is circular reasoning, and makes no sense, because protestants have no way of defining what the canon is or why it should be what it is.
You know them by their fruits. Since "sola scriptura" became the norm; the protestant "church" now has hard-right fundamentalists, people who believe in flat earths, people who believe only one race is saved, gay marriages in church, women pastors, entire congregations that disagree if left alone too long, thousands of denominations, "prophets" charging people "seed offerings", and in the midst of it; the total stripping of the access of millions from divine liturgies and sacred mysteries/sacraments. I weep for my separated brethren. Of course, scripture IS infallible. The issue is when you take infallible scripture and put it in the hands of fallible individual believers who all feel their interpretation is correct. This is why the ancient church had councils comprised of Bishops to properly interpret the scripture in an infallible, or as close to it thereof, fashion.
Yeah i agree but the earth IS flat
Flat earth is doctrine, the rest is blasphemy. Ps.. The Earth is flat.
It is interesting how you can simultaneously blanket "protestants" and also point out there are thousands of denominations. Clearly there are many that misquote and twist scripture to mean what they want, but putting it behind bishops has not exactly spared the catholic church from corruption.
The early Renaissance Catholic Church promoted indulgences. Shall we therefore lump all Catholics into a group of those lovers of filthy lucre as a result? Or shall we confess that all churches-Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant-have their share of people in them who twist the Word to suit their fancy?
The issue I see with this statement: "the ancient church had councils comprised of Bishops to properly interpret the scripture in an infallible" is you're still putting the interpretation in the hands of sinful mortals. They can and do get it wrong. Why do that when there's a better alternative?
The best process is to let Scripture interpret itself. As St Paul says, "In the mouths of two or three witnesses shall every word be established." 2 Corinthians 13:1 Let Scripture be the witness for itself. The church I attend will not accept any doctrine unless we can find it supported in AT LEAST TWO places in the 66 canonical books. If you can find THREE passages, even better!
The problems with all the different denominations you mention are when people allow human logic and reason interpret rather than letting the Scriptures speak for themselves. Every core Christian doctrine: the fall of man into sin; the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ; the Trinity; salvation by grace through faith and not of works; etc. All of these have multiple passages to support them. In the end, that's all you need: two passages in agreement with each other. Go beyond that, and you tread on mortal, fallible grounds.
Christian doctrine of salvation (i.e. justification) is surprisingly simple, yet the consequences of it (i.e. sanctification) are astonishingly rich and complex. It's when fallible humans reverse the order of those two that we get problems.
P.S. I do not find multiplied denomination particularly problematic so long as they hold to core teachings, some of which are mentioned above. Certainly, there are other minor teachings (adiaphora) where we can disagree and still hold true to the faith. Catholics have the same issue: there are "USA" Catholics, South American Catholics, and European Catholics.... yes, they all claim to more or less support Rome, but just take a look at family planning (i.e. birth control) in the states and you quickly find that actions speak louder than words. Catholics just don't admit they have multiple denominations within their organization. But in their hearts, I find Catholics just as divided as most Protestants.
You wanna talk about the pope and gay marriage?
According to Revelation, we will simultaneously see 2 more prophets before Christ returns.
U assume "more" but it's possible they are old.
Those two witnesses are jewish and gentile believers in Jesus. Two groups of witnesses
@@jakeschwartz2514 Revelation chapter 11 has two literal prophets.
3 And I will appoint my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for 1,260 days, clothed in sackcloth.” 4 They are “the two olive trees” and the two lampstands, and “they stand before the Lord of the earth.”[a] 5 If anyone tries to harm them, fire comes from their mouths and devours their enemies. This is how anyone who wants to harm them must die. 6 They have power to shut up the heavens so that it will not rain during the time they are prophesying; and they have power to turn the waters into blood and to strike the earth with every kind of plague as often as they want.
7 Now when they have finished their testimony, the beast that comes up from the Abyss will attack them, and overpower and kill them. 8 Their bodies will lie in the public square of the great city-which is figuratively called Sodom and Egypt-where also their Lord was crucified. 9 For three and a half days some from every people, tribe, language and nation will gaze on their bodies and refuse them burial. 10 The inhabitants of the earth will gloat over them and will celebrate by sending each other gifts, because these two prophets had tormented those who live on the earth.
11 But after the three and a half days the breath[b] of life from God entered them, and they stood on their feet, and terror struck those who saw them. 12 Then they heard a loud voice from heaven saying to them, “Come up here.” And they went up to heaven in a cloud, while their enemies looked on.
8:41 _"fallible human beings" / "God and His word"_
Any NT book:
* was written by the hand of someone who, as the person he was, was a fallible human being;
* was accepted as God's word by at first one and then more local Churches, also consisting materially of persons who, as the persons they were, were fallible human beings.
This is not the Atheist argument that the Bible isn't the word of God.
It's more like "either you're Atheist or you're Catholic or you're inconsistent" ... Kristi Burke simply took Gavin Ortlund's outlook, also obviously, Ray Comfort's outlook on the Council of Trent, or of Florence, and then applied the exact same logic to the writing of Luke or Ephesians.
Yes, Luke, like Eugene IV, was:
* human
* still "in via" -- i e not yet having died
* therefore in and of himself fallible.
If we admit God could grant _him_ infallibility, for the occasion of a Gospel giving infallible and inerrant truth, why would or could God not grant a council the same, for a very comparable purpose? If God couldn't or wouldn't grant the council or the Pope that, why was St. Luke special?
Why be Catholic/Orthodox......the Eucharist. No where else is this grace given by God.
Wait until you realize the “presence” is in every believer who has been baptized in the Holy Spirit and by fire. Why? Because of the sacrifice of Jesus which is what the Eucharist is supposed to be about. Its the passover dinner with new meanings for the wine and the bread. Why is this so hard for self righteous christians to understand?
Love Gavin ortlund!
Same
John Henry Cardinal Newman once said, "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant."
You first need an extra biblical authority to tell you which books the NT comprises. At the end of the fourth century the Catholic Church canonized the christian bible.
Sola scriptura is theologically inconsistent.
How? Eve listen to other sources other than the words of God. And guess what. It lead to destruction
But Interpretation through an Evil Pope is useful? No!
This just seems like common sense to me.
You mean the Bible that was changed by Luther and the Reformers? Comepletly disregarding what God did 1600 years prior to that??
This video made me Catholic
based. can’t wait to see Dr Ortlund on the channel
If he was based, he’d be Catholic or Orthodox. Trent Horn took Gavin to school and did it with charity. Sola scriptura simply doesn’t stand up.
@@CJP.-pq3kr Trent Horn, who can't help but strawman arguments that he can't attack forthright?
I love your channel and hear what you're saying. I really understand the appeal of such a view, but I also have questions because it just doesn't line up in my head.
How do you get the doctrine of Sola Scriptura when Sola Scriptura is not in the Bible?
And how do you deal with the text from 2 Thessalonians 2:15? Would these traditions handed down by the Apostles not also be infallible as, by the infallible source, must be practiced and adhered to? Sola Scriptura requires at least acceptance of some tradition as infallible.
Also what does this mean for the Bible itself? The Bible was not "settled" until 384 at the Council of Rome? There were no Apostles present at this time. Are we not then placing our trust in fallible human beings stating this collection of books is infallible?
The claim that "the Pope is infallible" is misleading. There are only specific circumstances in which the Pope can be infallible.
The right of private judgement is where the breakdown of authority is at. No one can bind your conscience, meaning if you don’t like the authority, you can just be your own
I'm a new Chistian but I think this guys is spot on, lean not on mans logic but gods inspired word.
The canon, the translation, the reading/interpretation.
Each step, is a possible branching point of the infallible meaning of the scripture. I do think it's important that something needs to be the rock / foundation of our faith, and sola scriptura is the attempt at it. But imo, the more robust formulation is that the scripture in union with the church is infallible, but without each other, is like love without lover.
I would be inclined to agree with that but as much as it pains me to say it, churches demonstrate that idea is false by holding doctrines and traditions contrary to scripture. Not just Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Churches either.
1st Corinthians 3:13-15. Malachai 3:2,3. Zechariah 13:8,9. Mathew 5:25. 2nd maccabees 12:46. 2nd timothy 1. Revelation 14:4,5. Revelation 15:2,3. Luke 16:22-28. Isaiah 6:5-7. Mathew 18:34,35. Mark 9:47-49. Hebrews 12:23. So many references of cleansing by fire. Nothing unclean will enter heaven. You can be saved without being perfect. The word purgatory might not be in the bible but purification by fire clearly is. Something thr ancient jews beleive aswell and also pray for the dead. You dont get to sin without consequence. God bless.
1cor 3:13-15 is not about purification but revealing motive of what you built. , Mal 3, 2-3 is about the day of the Lord, Zechariah is about choosing g a remnant of people from a larger group if people, 2tim:1 never mentions any refining at all, Rev14:4-5 is thr remnant of Jews, no refining fire or hint of purgatory,Rev 15 2-3 nothing again.......aim gonna just stop there. Did you even read these? Or did you pull it.off a list you found and then never actually looked these up? ZERO HINT of the dictrinenof purgatory. Read the full chapter in context and poof......the reading of doctrine INTO scripture is all you can do......its most definitly not coming out of scripture. Not meaning to offend but these scriptures are a very large stretch to claim and type of purgatory doctrine.
@@bairfreedomon a phone so this will be short. 1st Corinthians. He will suffer loss though he himself will be saved but it's only through fire. Malachai for he is like refiners fire. He will purify the sons of Levi and refine them till they present right offerings to the lord. Zachariah. 2/3s will be cut off and 1/3 shall be left alive, and I will put this third into the fire and refine them as one Refines silver.
See original post for exact scripture. Timothy. Paul is praying for a deceased friend. If he's either in heaven or hell why would he do this? The revelations. They were blameless and went straight to heaven. Next revelation. They were in a sea of glass blowing with fire but they had harps of Moses. Saved but had to go to "purgatory" first. Isaiah. I have unclean lips.seraphim flew to me with burning coals and touched my mouth. Behold your guilt taken away and sin forgiven. You didn't question Isaiah but I put in there cuz purification by fire is quite clear even tho very fast and minor for him. It shows that everyone is purified differently. Clearly purification by fire for our sins is real.
Also doesn’t address the clear problem of “whose interpretation is correct?”
Sorry but the apostolic fathers who knew scripture, the language, AND the culture and context better than anyone today would disagree with the assertions in this video. That’s a problem when st ignatius - direct disciple of John- disagrees with you.
Could someone who is catholic please explain why bishops aren't allowed to be married? (Assuming that is the case, I'm not catholic myself, just going off of what i know about it). In 1 Timothy 3:2-5, it says that a bishop must be the husband of one wife. And it doesn't seem like its referring to "being married to your work (or in this case, the church)" because later it makes a distinction of ruling over your own household and children well.
They can be but it’s a discipline in most places to have bishops unmarried, so they can attend to their clerical duties better. Paul himself even encouraged celibacy for some people.
this video doesn't even have sold arguments lol... Protestants really love to cope