An Explanation of Sola Scriptura
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 сер 2024
- My website: www.jordanbcoop...
Patreon: / justandsinner
This video is an explanation of the teaching of Sola Scriptura, or Scripture alone, in the Lutheran tradition compared with the views of Roman Catholicism, the Anabaptists, and the Reformed church.
It's the beard. They see the beard and assume Orthodox. :)
Thank you for walking the razor's edge for us in your videos. God's peace be with you
to lcms christain you should make more videos
Tradition is always manmade after Paul included the tradition he approved of. Scripture is God breathed and is the gold standard for all other teachings.
Wow. Two videos and you are nailing my journey from radical reformation tradition to...not sure yet where I'm going to land but Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, Lutheranism, and Rome are on the radar. Lutheranism wasn't on the radar till I started watching your videos. Maybe you can get a sign-on bonus ifI join a Lutheran congregation? Lol
Where have you ended up?
How’s the journey going?
I, too, am curious about how your journey has gone.
Yeah, where did you end up?
@doubtingthomas9117 he's all of them at the same time!
As spaniard I can understand sola scriptura vs solo scriptura, thats to say: Scpriture alone vs Scpriture only.
Lutherans admit that Church history is messy but redeemable. Reformed tend to see it as messy and irredeemable, and in this sense they are rooted in a more "modern" spirit that dismisses much of the past. You are right to point out how its really a soft form of Restorationism. I also think it leads to a sort of historical naivite, even ahistoricism.
I like the Lutheran view of history.
Catholics and orthodox view it with filtered eyes seeing their doctrines in places where it's not there. Lutherans don't seem to try and force the fathers to agree with them and accept history as it is but still as a valuable tool.
@@JP-rf8rr You put that magnificently. Hurry up and copywrite that so you can sue me when I plagiarize it!
It's great (and informative!) to hear discussions like this without the animus towards differing or opposing views that too often comes into play.
I grew up Methodist. In my late teens, after having read the Bible and trying to make sense of it, and having to deal with all its harder sayings that most Methodists just ignored, I gave up. I just decided I didn't believe it any more. I still believed in God and Christ but I no longer believed the Bible. I viewed it as a mere history book, as accurate or inaccurate as any history book.
Then I became interested in Catholicism, which taught that the Bible is indeed the inspired word of God, but that it has to interpreted by the Church. A believer reading the Bible and just forming his own opinions left and right as to the meanings---I found out that the Catholic Church condemns that approach (this does not mean the Church condemns individuals for reading the Bible on their own), and that that approach is actually condemned by 2 Peter 1:20, a verse I of which I was before that unfamiliar (you won't ever hear a Protestant minister preaching a sermon on it). The Catholic Church, I found out, has its own interpretations, interpretations based on what early Christian leaders, the "Church Fathers", taught. (The Methodist Church never taught anything about any Church Father.) I found out that the Bible is not the only way God revealed Himself, that equal to Scripture is Tradition, the handed down doctrines of the Church mentioned at 2 Thessalonians 2:15. Without this Tradition, without these Church Father interpretations and explanations, without the teaching authority, or magisterium, of the Church, the Bible simply does not make much sense. Without all of this the Bible can be made to say anything anybody wanted it to say.
And it's true. Without the teaching authority of the Church, and the Church Fathers' teachings, the Bible can mean literally anything. As thousands of Protestant denominations, all teaching something different, show us. Without the Catholic Church and her teaching authority all we have is doctrinal chaos.
@Asaph Vapor Some of the harder teachings of Jesus are the existence of Hell, that sinners go to Hell forever, that divorce and remarriage are wrong, that we must be meek and humble of heart, that we must forgive our enemies, that if we even look at a woman in lust we commit adultery with her in our heart. Genesis' admonition to be fruitful and multiply, which means no contraception, is a hard saying for some.
The above list is a list of hard sayings I knew about when I was Protestant. Some harder teachings of Jesus I knew nothing about when I was Methodist: that we must literally eat Jesus' Body and drink His Blood (John 6:48-69) and that Purgatory exists (Matthew 5:25-26).
Protestants think that if they are "saved" they can just ignore all of the above. That's what I did.
"We're going to continue to worship in the way that 'the Church' developed"...this is precisely where the Baptists part company with the broader Protestant perspective. All Protestants agree that 'the Church' (by which we mean the political-religious establishment that developed under the auspices of the Roman Emperors and their successors) developed in harmful & ungodly ways, while Catholics and Orthodox deny that such 'ungodly' development is even possible. There is a spectrum of view among Protestants as to how much of that "development" was wholesome, with Baptists generally taking the most extreme view that is still consistent with the New Testament, and concluding that NONE of the post-Apostolic developments (especially in ecclesiology & views of the sacraments) were valid.
One of the reasons I am not Eastern Orthodox is that they don't have an assurance of salvation. I've heard two priests confess they don't know if they are going to heaven.
Wow.
I am desperate for an answer on this question. Let me just take one disagreement between Catholic and Protestant. The question is how can we trust the Bible? Catholics say the Church put the Bible together. Protestants say “NO the Bible revealed itself." Protestants say "the Church no more gave us the Bible than Newton gave us gravity.” For me not growing up in a religious home I just read the Bible until I was convinced that it was not a myth. I read it carefully many times, so I know the contents pretty well. So to the question as to why we should trust anything the early Church did; this is what the Bible says: Jesus said 1) He was going to build a single Church. 2) He said the gates of hell would not prevail against it. 3) He said that He would be with the Church until the end of the age. 4) He said that He was going to send the "Spirit of Truth" to guide the Church in all truth. Then Paul says 5) the pillar and bulwark of truth is “the church.” Okay so let us look in church history at the Canon. In 382 AD the Church had the Council at Rome and determined that the canon was 73 books. They chose which books are infallible. That would be a radically important thing right? So the question is why would we trust those 73 books? Well, the answer is that Jesus said he would be with the Church to the end of the age. He also said he would give it the Holy Spirit to guide it in all truth. So we should trust what he says right? So from 382 AD to 1520 AD the Church that operated on the earth had the 73 book canon. But then Protestants come along and around 1520 AD and they claim that the early Church got the 73 book canon wrong. I am not being rude or belligerent but I really would like someone to explain - calmly and in simple language because I am slow - Please tell me how that is not absurd to say the Church got the 73 book Canon wrong based on Jesus promise to be with the Church to the end of the age and to send the “Spirit of Truth” to guide the church in All TRUTH.
I am not being belligerent here really, I earnestly want to know. Did Jesus lie? Did He make a mistake? Did the Holy Spirit make an error with the 73 book canon?
I cannot for the life of me believe that the church which is described as the “pillar and bulwark of truth” was not even on the earth from 382 To 1520. But then let’s move on; let’s say that the Protestants are right and the Church errored in the 73 Book canon. If the Church errored in the 73 book canon did God wait from 382 AD until 1520 before He restored the real truth? Are we really going to believe that for 1200 years the true Christian Church was not there? You could not say the true church was there if they could not even get the correct books in the canon. And I don’t see any other church in history declaring anything different than the 73 book canon. So the real church with the correct Bible was not on earth if the Protestant claim is true. Can that make any sense? I am just a guy who read the Bible very closely and came down on the Catholic side only recently but now I have Protestants telling me I am going to hell. I am not being rude or accusatory. But please tell me how it is not incoherent that Jesus says he would create one Church, He would be with the Church to the end of the age, He would give it the Holy Spirit to guide it in ALL TRUTH. But then for one of the most important issues in all of Christianity the early Church gets 73 book canon wrong and so the real truth on this issue does not even exist until 1520? If that is true that would make me question the Christian truth claims entirely. Just a reasoned answer to this question would really really help me. May peace be with you.
Some of the books that were taken out were books that were not even accepted by the Israelites as scripture. That is what I have been told.
Jordan, I am wondering if you have a video addressing Apostolic tradition? I am currently reading about that lately. Thanks.
Its something I plan on delving into soon.
Hey do you know of any good small books with collections of writings from the church fathers? Just a small book that has some good quotes and church father writings?
Thanks for the video. I’m an evangelical, Sola Scriptura, my theology is reformed, but slightly more dispensational in some areas. Let’s just say, my favorite preacher right now is John MacArthur. That’ll give you some context.
You say that scripture is the only infallible authority, and we agree here. My question is, why would we want to hold to an authority that isn’t infallible? If it isn’t infallible, is it even an authority, as far as our faith is concerned?
You mention at the end that this was what the church was doing “so we had no reason not to do it” or something along those lines. I think this is flawed thinking, because if Christ didn’t say not to do something, that doesn’t mean we should.
I don’t have a huge issue with most of the Lutheran views of the church, but I just wanted to point out that if scripture is the only infallible authority, I don’t think we can assume that the fathers or any other authority is necessarily correct. And which fathers? They didn’t agree. Just something to think about
God bless you, brother!
SOLA( my private interpretation of )Scripture
Alfredo Díaz del Castillo No, Sola (Scripture’s own interpretation of) Scriptura
@@solascriptura5980 , you claim to be in line with Scripture, so do I, so does the Witness of Jehovah... The Bible never shouts , no, he isn't!!
The prouder a man is he will claim to be always in line with Scripture and deny the other to be in line with Scripture.
The bottom line is Scripture alone contradicts 2 Thess 2:15
The basic problem is one of authority. If Christians have a sincere disagreement, who decides? Whose interpretation of Scripture? Yours alone?
Alfredo Díaz del Castillo Which traditions is Paul referring to in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 as being spoken? Do we know what he told the Thessalonian Church in words? We can’t possibly know-we only have what has been preserved in the Bible.
In fact, Luke contrasts the Thessalonians with the Bereans in Acts when he says “Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.”
Acts 17:11 ESV
What about 1 Corinthians 4 where Paul instructs the church of Corinth “not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another” (Verse 6)?
The examples of other belief systems that claim to have the correct “interpretation” of scripture, as well as the Roman Catholic Church, all have one thing in common: their beliefs go directly against scripture’s teachings. In that sense, the Bible absolutely says “no, he isn’t!” Scriptures warn us of false teachers throughout.
How are any of these systems to be trusted as the correct one? The whole point of Sola Scriptura is that you have to look at scriptures as a whole if you can’t understand the meaning of a particular passage. God’s own interpretation of His Word is the most reliable.
@@solascriptura5980 ,"And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him" Acts 8 :31
"Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,
And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone."Mat.4:5
Scripture ALONE . Who taught that doctrine? Neither Jesus nor Philip, nor Paul (2 Thess 2:15)
We have a great capacity to deceive ourselves; and Protestants believe this capacity is even greater due to total depravity...
Martin Luther had to choose between Heb. 13:17 (Scripture) or his own private interpretations…
" Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you."
I don't want to obey a human (visible) authority, I obey my own interprettions.
What is the difference between Sola Scriptura and Prima Scriptura?
That definition of sola scriptura sounds like prima scriptura (Wesleyan Quadrilateral for example)
That's what sola scriptura is. Sola scriptura is often misrepresented as solo scriptura which is not the same view
Every church says they are the way, or we have the way, and a lot say, we are the only way. Jesus said the Kingdom of God is within you. You need to seek and find it. He also said, few be there that find it.
Great job! I actually come from solo scriptura tradition and have been learning a lot. People like you are definitely helping correct the distorted view of Lutherans Catholics like Chesterton initially taught me lol
And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”
There you go. God breathed on them His Holy Spirit. The authority of the apostles is also God-breathed.
As a non-denominational, I can see your point about us being "Restorationist" ...except we aren't. If you look at Mormonism for example, they claim things were "lost" that need to be restored by way of external revelation (BY and Joseph Smith). We simply don't do that. In fact, I would say we non-denominational DO follow a liturgy, but we have developed our own and we do not hold to a specific format as a necessary liturgy. Think about it:
1. Welcome Prayer
2. Worship Songs
3. Time of Giving + Lord's Supper
4. Announcements, church life, hosting
5. Message
6. Closing Prayer
7. Worship
8. Dismissal Prayer
How is that NOT a liturgy? I would say, why can't liturgy change? It seems to me that historical liturgy developed overtime until the Middle Ages put a stop to development of liturgy. Why are stained glass, pews, organs, etc NECESSARY to be considered liturgy? The Evangelical culture has developed its own liturgy, and we also submit it to Scripture (example: Giving Time is scriptural with tithing). Now what is wrong with meeting in houses like in Acts? Like the early church did? Isn't that a cool liturgical practice to restore? It seems to me, you're limiting liturgy to the AD 500 - 1000 mainly. A Mormon restorationist will try to find practice and doctrines that isn't even there and "restore" those. We don't claim use of a projector screen to display notes and slides is an early church practice, but we will say it helps us spread the Gospel. Most non-denominational churches also have "lead pastors" or "co-lead pastors" over other pastors, and we see this "tradition" in the early church as well. How is that not historic? However is the LDS president historic? No! So I don't think labelling us as "restorationist" is accurate if applied like the LDS have, but rather Reformed like Lutherans are to Catholics.
Fair point. My church would be considered non-denominational as well (we’re a 200-year-old Protestant community in Kerala, India), and our liturgy is very similar to what you mentioned here. We don’t have icons, liturgical robes or chanting (though I personally wouldn’t mind the first two). Liturgy is something that varies from place to place, time to time. It’s perfectly acceptable to change things here and there, as long as it agrees with the principles laid out in God’s Word.
He's not Eastern Orthodox, he just likes looking like one.
I'm a former eastern orthodox and I need help, because I sometimes feel fear and guilt and think that I should not be lutheran :(
A "5 reasons I'm not a Eastern Orthodox" would be AWESOME
Don t fear that s not something that God s want , He loves you and wants you to be saved ! Accept Jesus as your savior and other things will be added by time :) !
I'm Orthodox. Can you describe it a little what you are dealing with?
It’s better to be united in the Word of God and the Body of Christ and not have denominations that divide everyone :)
Same thing with me, but previously Catholic!
@@calebjohnston_youtube Is it Christ that saves you, or any church or man that saves you? Keep reading the bible, and that will become clear.
I wasn't Catholic or Orthodox, but I fell into a type of Christian cult that was very legalistic and told me they were the only ones saved. When I left them, it took awhile to shake off those same feelings of guilt and sometimes fear that I might not be saved w/out them. There is a type of indoctrination that happens. It will release. Trust God. "God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love, and of a sound mind."
The CAtholics and Orthodox leave you in a constant state of insecurity of your salvation, even when you're w/ them. You have to keep doing all their traditions, or else. even when you do them all faithfully, you could still end up in purgatory. Almost certainly you'll end up in purgatory. Which is a doctrine that really angers me, as it so takes away the sacrifice that Jesus made for us. We are saved by Christ's atonement. So to say that we have to go suffer for more hundreds to thousands of years for our sins some more. But if we pay the church, then they can buy us some time out of purgatory, by dipping into the treasury of merit. If that is not a manmade doctrine, to control people by fear and to get money out of them, I do not know what is.
Thank you for the video Pastor Cooper. Perhaps you will address this in the coming video you mentioned to another user, but I was wondering what you thought about a particular argument which I recently read that Sola Scriptura reduces to "Solo Scriptura." The argument is perhaps best illustrated by an example. Say that someone rejects the divinity of Christ based off their interpretation of scripture alone, and they've come up will all sorts of interpretations and explanations for passages that are difficult for their position. Someone else counters that this is not the traditional Christian interpretation of the Bible, to which our heretic replies that it doesn't matter, since tradition is only a subordinate authority to Scripture.
Based off examples like this, it looks like that under solA scriptura, tradition only has authority insofar that it agrees with scripture. But then tradition has no unique authority of its own, and becomes more of a set of guidelines than an actual authority that must be acknowledged. If that's the case, then solA scriptura is little different that solO scriptura, dressed up nice. One can at that point appeal to the clarity of scripture, but then who gets to say that their opinion is clearer than the other's? Thank you for your thoughts, and God bless!
The basic problem is one of authority. If Christians have a sincere disagreement, Who decides? Whose interpretation of Scripture?
There is not Scripture that supports the thesis that "the Bible is the sole and sufficient infallible authority for the man of God". Show me what Scriptures tell us which books are supposed to be in the Bible. Sola Scriptura is not found anywhere in the Bible and is thereby self refuting. "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 Tim. 3:15;
"His intent was that now, through the CHURCH, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms" Eph 3:10. NO CHURCH!!! Protestants don't trust what the Bible warns, they rather believe SOLA (my private interpretation of )Scripture
@Asaph Vapor "Believers accepted Apostle's letters as Scriptures". How can you tell the book of Hebrews was written by an Apostle? We can tell the book of Hebrews is part of Scripture because the Church said so. Scholars know until the year 400 Christians debated 25 % of the Bible. We don't even have the original books written by its authors. We have to trust the Church copied them right.
Certain universally accepted doctrines like the Trinity are not expressly stated in the Bible but taught implicitly. The sane can be argued for those doctrines that non-Catholic Christians commonly object to because they do not comport with their own theology.
@@Alfredo8059 THANK YOU for you comments!!!
I just had a huge epiphany recently (sooo many epiphanies since my Catholic Reversion this past February):- Every believer who names the name of Christ and uses The Bible has placed their trust in The Catholic Church in some way, shape or form. Doesn't matter if you are Catholic, Lutheran, non-denominational Evangelical, whatever.....you are trusting The Catholic Church. PERIOD.
Like you said, how do we know for sure that the book of Hebrews is not a machinated fraud by The Catholic Church?? It very well could be. You have to trust what The Catholic Church has said about the book of Hebrews as God's Truth, to be able to receive it. Whether you are ignorantly and blindly trusting her or not is not relevant to the argument!!!!!
@@thekingslady1 , THANK YOU for sharing your testimony!!!
"Whether you are ignorantly and blindly trusting her (the Church) or not is not relevant to the argument." God bless you always
Excellent video. I also enjoyed the complete podcast episode on the topic.
My thoughts exactly.
Is it sola scriptura or is it
you plus sola scriptura ?
Here. This is a pretty full answer to your question/challenge:
ua-cam.com/video/7Pav94WgsR0/v-deo.html
You don't consistently hold to Sola Scriptura. Does the word "Sun" mean "Sun" in Joshua chapter 10? You won't touch that one!
The problem with the Bible being the ultimate authority is that much of it can be interpreted multiple ways. “This is my body” is interpreted literally by Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans…and symbolically by other Protestants. Who is the ultimate decider? Catholics say that early interpretations and practices matter, and the Church has that authority, and Orthodox aren’t that different. But Protestants leave it up to the individual which has resulted in countless church splits and heresies. Christ wanted unity, the splits within Protestants show that sola scriptura is a false doctrine.
norma normans (the rule that rules) norma normata (the rule that is ruled) The RC disingenuously uses Scriptural authority to establish the papacy which reserves itself the authority to speak outside of scripture.
Councils, creeds, and church fathers. Is that what you use to figure out what the Bible is saying?
This is an excellent video. You explained this very well and it's helped me a lot!
If sola Scriptura (Bible alone) and sola fida (faith alone) are all you need why do Protestants have churches and ministers to explain the Bible to them.
Zwingli removed singing from worship? That’s so stupid. Paul tells us to admonish one another with “hymns, psalms and spiritual songs”. I wonder what Zwingli thought of that?
Tradition is a important source of information for a wide variety of reasons. You can’t throw it out entirely. But all tradition should be subjected to the Word of God, like anything else. If a tradition agrees with the Word, keep it. If it doesn’t get rid of it. This is something I realised later on in my spiritual journey.
Have you been to a Catholic Mass?
Yes, I have.
Dr. Jordan B Cooper What did you think?
I hope it wasn’t a Novus Ordo mass.
Is the Total Inerrancy of the entire Bible an issue in Lutheranism - or is there a variety of permitted doctrines on the matter ? Thanks.
Simply, Sola Scriptura is an innovation of the Reformers and an idea that gets superimposed onto the Bible. Sola Scriptura never existed as an idea or doctrine in the one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, which Protestants are not part of. Quote mines of the fathers are not helpful to Protestants because one quote can appear to support Sola Scriptura while another quote or the context those quotes are in or the writings of the fathers themselves as a whole correct any false notions of Sola Scriptura or it’s ideas as having existed prior to the Reformation.
Exposing Sola Scriptura as a mere innovation of Reformers isn’t an attack upon the Bible, but a defense of Scripture and the Church that produced it.
Sola scriptura was a Doctrine first popularized by Martin Luther. Although your analysis is a very reasonable one you have to think of where it's lad Christianity 2 what it's led to is divisiveness 35000 different churches each with their own separate doctrines. It was a small change that had a very profound effect. A profound negative effect.
And Rome is any better? Jesus help us.
I have made an in-depth reply to this video from a Catholic perspective:
"Is Sola Scriptura Biblical?" (4-25-22)
It's posted at my blog, "Biblical Evidence for Catholicism".
Sola Scriptura is a man made concept, where fallible individuals take their false beliefs about scripture, then claim the Holy Spirit gave it to them. Then they claim everyone else does not understand clear scripture or is guided by the Holy Spirit. In other words it is built on Pride.
If Scripture (aka the compiled Bible) is God breathed, then why remove bits parts or books from said God breathed Scripture?
God doesn't have nostrils or lungs. Stop taking the metaphors so literally
All serious Christian denominations believe that the Bible is the most important book and that their denomination is the only one that actually follows the Bible. The issue has always been who gets to interpret the Bible. There have been millions of different interpretations of the Bible, and everyone swears that theirs is the correct one. Sola Scriptura, the way you have defined it, is pretty redundant. It's all about who has the authority to interpret.
I was thinking the same thing. He said that the bible is the biggest authority and is going to judge other authorities, but, the divinity of holly Spirit is not in the Bible, it was decided in a council. So, I can say that holly Spirit is not God because this is not in the scripture.
Even Protestants need authority above the Bible. I am sure that if I defend the Bible-based prayer for saints, I would be excommunicated. After all, what matters is not what I think is in the Bible, but what the Lutheran confession says that is.
Scripture requires correct interpretation and understanding so it can't be "sola". Everyone relies on some kind of interpreter outside the text itself
Sola scriptura does not say anything about interpretation and does not forbid the use of external sources
@@duckymomo7935 Which is why it's a self refuting concept
@@1337Jag not at all, how is it self refuting
@@duckymomo7935 the concept of "scripture alone" is not in the Bible so it doesn't meet its own criteria. There are many other problems with it friend
@@1337Jag that's not sola scriptura though nonr what it teaches...
St Teresa Benedicta of the Cross, pray for us, that we all may come to truth by the Spirit of Truth, Amen
"The sword of the spirit, the word of God, must abound in your mouths and hearts. Let all you do have the Lord's word for accompaniment."
Thanks for another great video.
Respectfully, the question remains: The Scriptures (Cannon & Interpretation) according to who? If the locus of authority resides in the individual, then, the individual is the ultimate source of authority. Essentially, every man submits to his own doctrinal convictions, as did Luther.
Here's a pretty good discussion on that issue with Dr. Cooper.
ua-cam.com/video/7Pav94WgsR0/v-deo.html
Consider 1 John 2:27, ESV: "But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie-just as it has taught you, abide in him."
Would be nice to click on a video when they just say what it is from the first word instead of the forever preamble. It takes 4 minutes just to get to the title of the video. Come oooooon 👏👏👏👏🤠 in UA-cam time that's an eternity
I know you are a serious scholar but how can you not see the complete breakdown of any logic and reason when you say if there is a descrepancy between councils and scripture than scripture is superme. The councils actually pre date the canon and it was out councils that what we all know of as the Bible sprang forth. You actually have the Bible recounting the first Council at Jerusalem.
The only infallible authority for the Christian is the Apostles.
The current Papacy is the succession of several obvious anti-popes. The Papacy is fallible.
Apostolic succession has become arbitrary, and preserves traditional heresies. It's fallible.
Sola Scriptura is the historical result of a process of elimination. It is the only untainted Apostolic authority remaining.
@@Mygoalwogel no, Jesus put apostles in charge of spreading the gospel, what they bind on earth is bound in heaven, their first council is in Acts, their successors had future councils that defined the Trinity while books of the Bible were still being debated, these same successors then gave you the infallible Bible. So these successors are legit, otherwise the Bible is not legit. The Bible isn’t self evident in its TOC, otherwise it would have been canonized immediately. And even though the Bible is inerrant, it needs an interpreter. Without this you get the Protestant crazy splits. All churches have a Pope, it’s either your pastor or it’s you.
@@billmartin3561 The New Testament was canon as soon as the apostles wrote it. The job of early Christians and the continuing job of Christians is to defend it's authenticity against imposters and continue to pass it down. It does not get it's authority from tradition. True tradition has always gotten its authority from the words of Christ and his apostles.
@@Mygoalwogel you totally get it.
Dr. Cooper. You really should interact with some learned Catholics on this. There are so many objections that you are not dealing with here that I would love to hear how you respond to. I would also ask why you use Jesus as an example for quoting scripture as an authority, when Jesus also used His own authority to override scripture (say on divorce). This line of reasoning actually goes against your point.
The Catholic claim is that Jesus invested His authority in the magisterium to interpret scriptures when needed. Jesus did asserted His authority over in interpreting God's will in scriptures many times too. Catholics venerate scripture as authoritative too, just like Jesus did, but Catholics don't buy into the idea that scripture is the only binding authority in revealing God's will or that it can somehow be interpreted by itself. That is something that is not logical nor is it found in scriptures. Scriptures actually show us in many places that God established an authority to settle disputes (
Regarding 2Tim3:15-17, i noticed Prots stress the qualifiers attributed to the man of God ("complete" and "fully" and "every") but fail to stress the qualifer attributed to Scripture which is "All".
The qualifier "All" leaves open the possibility of other things being inspired of God. Stressing the qualities of the man of God does not teach Sola Scriptura.
Let me give an example: All military documents and manuals are useful/profiitable for making a soldier complete, fully equiped for every military duty.
The above does not mean Sola Manual. Soldiers need Military leadership, training, battle field Intel and much more.
Prots only source of Truth is Scripture and yet they don't even understand basic grammatical logic.
2 Pet 3:16
"as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures."
This is what Sola Scriptura means:
Luke 1:4 Scripture is what gives certainty of doctrine.
John 5:39 We have eternal life from the Scriptures only because they bear witness about Christ.
John 10:35 Scripture cannot be broken.
John 20:31 The Gospel of John alone is enough tell us what to believe so that we can have life in Jesus' name.
John 22:24 The Gospel of John is a true testimony. No authority may contradict it.
Acts 17:11 We are to examine the Scriptures daily to see if anything taught as doctrine is true.
Acts 24:14 We are to believe everything laid down by the Law and written in the Prophets.
Romans 15:4 Scripture was written for our instruction to encourage us and give us hope.
1 Corinthians 14:37 If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he must acknowledge that the things Paul wrote to us are a command of the Lord.
2 Corinthians 1:13 Paul did not write anything other than what lay people of Corinth and Achaia could read and understand. Some partially understand; some fully understand. Paul will boast of all on the day of the Lord.
Galatians 1:20 Paul did not lie in what he wrote.
Galatians 3:22 The Scripture imprisoned everything else under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
1 Timothy 3:15 This letter tells us who may and may not become overseers and deacons.
1 Timothy 4:13 We are to devote ourselves to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching.
2 Timothy 3:15 The scriptures are able to make us wise for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.
2 Timothy 3:16 Scripture is profitable for correction in righteousness. No doctrine that isn't supportable by scripture may correct scripture or render it unprofitable.
2 Timothy 3:17 Scripture makes preachers (men of God) complete. Scripture fully equips preachers for every good work.
1 Peter 5:12 This letter is the true grace of God. We must stand firm in it.
2 Peter 3:2 We are to obey the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through his apostles.
2 Peter 3:16 Those who twist the scriptures do so to their own destruction.
1 John 1:3-4 The writings of the apostles are what give us fellowship with the apostles, with the Father, and with His Son.
James 2:8 Love of neighbor as taught by scripture is enough to keep us busy for the rest of our lives.
_All military documents and manuals are useful/profiitable for making a soldier complete, fully equiped for every military duty. The above does not mean Sola Manual. Soldiers need Military leadership, training, battle field Intel and much more._
In that analogy we must conclude one of two things:
*Either* the manual does not make the soldier completely and fully equipped, and the manual lied about itself.
*Or* the manual includes everything the army wants the soldier to know about leadership, training, battle field Intel and much more.
@@Mygoalwogel
Luke 1:4 you need to give up on Sola Scriptura. This verse does not teach Sola Scriptura because what Luke wrote was based on Oral Tradition passed down from the eye witness and ministers of the word of God. see Luke 1:1-3
"Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed."
If the Scripture is God Breathed then it follows that the Oral Tradition from which Scripture originated from is also God Breathed. Furthermore, Sola Scriptura is impossible to apply in the real world. Luke receives Oral Tradition but since the Gospel of Luke has not yet been written how can Luke use Scripture to determine whether the oral tradition he received was God breathed.
Your arguments prove to me that Sola Scritprura is not of God because you are looking at the same verse as me but you failing to understand what you read. You need God Inspired Traditon and Church Authority to guide you.
I am not going to debunk the rest of the scripture because none of them prove Sola Scriptura. It feel sorry for all these Protestants who think beleive in Sola Scriptura but fail to understand or see verses that show other things are inspired by God or God Breathed.
I hope you do not expect me to debunk each of the verses you listed because all of them do not prove Sola Scriptura.
The Bible teaches that Scripture, Oral Tradition, and Churhc Authority are inspired by God.
John 5:39 This verse is totally agains Sola Scriptura. Although the Jews were reading scripture, they refused to come to Jesus so that they may have life. They failed to understand scripture and denied the authority of Jesus. Just like Protestants read scripture but fail to see that Sola Scriptura is false.
@@Mygoalwogel
The other possible conclusion is that "All" does not mean "Only" which leaves open open the possibility that other things are needed to make soldier complete, fully equiped for every military duty.
@@James224to26 No. You need to give up on your caricature of what Sola Scriptura means.
No apostolic tradition will contradict scripture. Popery has demonstrably contradicted scripture:
Lateran Council 1 Canon 21: We absolutely forbid priests, deacons, subdeacons, and monks to have concubines or to contract marriage.
1 Timothy 4:1-3 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and *teachings of demons,* through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who *forbid marriage*
1 Corinthians 9:5 *Do we not have the right* to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?
Canon 21 continued: We decree in accordance with the definitions of the sacred canons, that *marriages already contracted by such persons must be dissolved,* and that the persons be condemned to do penance.
Matthew 19:6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.
And actually, your current Pope agrees with Luther more than you do.
"I think that the intentions of Martin Luther were not mistaken. He was a reformer. Perhaps some methods were not correct. But in that time, if we read the story of the pastor, a German Lutheran who then converted when he saw reality-he became Catholic-in that time, the Church was not exactly a model to imitate. There was corruption in the Church, there was worldliness, attachment to money, to power . . . and this he protested. . . . And today Lutherans and Catholics, Protestants, all of us agree on the doctrine of justification. On this point, which is very important, he did not err. He made a medicine for the Church." --Pope Francis
Both scripture and the Pope oppose your uncatholic opinions.
Dpes not 2 Thessalonians 2:15 utterly refute sola scriptura?
But does scripture have authority outside of the church?
Of course. An unbeliever can pick up Scripture and become a part of the church w/o another church member. It's binding and authoritative. Unless you believe God is somehow limited and it becomes un-inspired outside the church. Especially in areas where there is no churches like Somalia.
Wilson W.T. Well I do think that it has no authority outside of the church. How can it? Does a Muslim quoting scripture have authority?
Great video.
Thank you!
Well said!
Dr. Jordan Cooper, 6 of the 12 Apostles taught with oral authority and never wrote anything down. Peter the rock and sole key holder, stood up and put an end to all the debating at the council in Jerusalem, since Scripture alone could not, as the manifold wisdom of God is revealed through the Church. The same Church authority that existed way before the new testament was even written, or that later determined which of the over 75 letters written, were to be included in the new testament and which were not. You are in my prayers! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink
Not a very good analogy since Jesus and the apostles were constantly backing their beliefs up with the Scripture they had (Old Testament) and what they knew was from God (what Jesus told them eventually became the NT) and they appealed to that to settle the circumcision debate. OT Scripture is still Scripture. For example I could say "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God" which is still Scripture.
@@wilsonw.t.6878 not a very good analogy, as Jesus Christ never taught Scripture alone, nor did the Apostles, nor the Jewish people before Jesus Christ! 6 of the 12 Apostles taught with oral authority and never wrote anything down! Peter the rock and sole key holder, stood up and put an end to all the debating at the council in Jerusalem, since Scripture alone could not, as the manifold wisdom of God is revealed through the Church. The Written Word Actually states circumcision of the Flesh is to continue for all generations, ( Generations 17:12). Peter the rock and sole key holder, declared circumcision of the Flesh is no longer necessary though! You are in my prayers! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink
The keys were given to *all of the disciples* - not to Peter alone. From St Matthew 18:
“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* . Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”
The *you* in the passage, *is in the plural - not the singular* . This passage supplements the more famous passage in 16.13-19.
biblehub.com/esv/matthew/18.htm
@@JamesMC04 Not True, as the keys of the Kingdom were given to Peter alone. In Matthew 16, Peter alone received the keys of the Kingdom.( Soi, singular). In Matthew 18, The keys are never mentioned for the other Apostles.
Jesus Christ renamed Simon alone as Cephas which is Aramaic for rock, and Jesus prayed for Peter alone to strengthen his brethren and Jesus gave Peter alone the command over all the flock of God.
The same Church authority in Peter the rock and sole key holder, who stood up and put an end to all the debating at the council in Jerusalem, since Scripture alone could not, as Peter authoritatively ruled circumcision of the Flesh was no longer necessary, even though Holy Scripture said that it was.
The Apostles indeed have authority, as do all Bishops, their successors, such as Timothy and Silvanus, but Peter alone was given the keys of the Kingdom. The office of sole key holder is one of succession biblically. The Apostle Matthew acknowledges the primacy of Peter as he lists Peter as FIRST, ( Protos, chief, leader, Matthew 10:1,2), when naming the Apostles! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink
@@JamesMC04 I LOVE bible hub!
You have a beard any Calvinist would be proud of!
Because you have a beard is why people assume you are going Orthodox😎
There is no scripture in the Bible. This is Luther's delusion. Show me a passage in the Bible, where is Sola Scriptura? On the contrary, there is a tradition in the Bible. It begins with the sentence: "Now, brethren, keep ye the tradition which ye have received from us by word and by word." This corresponds to the history of the Church.
Why do you marry gay people if the scripture is an authority ? I’m in favor of that but I don’t really grasp what sola scriptura is .... I’m still lost after seeing your video
@@alephnaught8343 because ir happens in all lutheran Nordic countries (?)
@@alephnaught8343 it doesn’t matter, in America, evangelical lutherans do it. So what ?
@@alephnaught8343 yes, but it doesn’t matter. Lutherans marry gay people. Around the world. It happens. In a majority actually
@@alephnaught8343 ok
You want to know what the role of the Bible is for the people of God?
Then ask yourself what the role of the Bible was for Israel...(!!)
Sola scriptura is go good for Islam. It is not Christian teaching. Paraclete is not incarnated in collection of books, albeit He inspired them
This is what Sola Scriptura means:
Matthew 1:1 Matthew is Scripture.
Mk 1:1 Mark is Scripture.
Luke 1:4 Scripture is what gives certainty of doctrine. Luke is Scripture.
John 5:39 We have eternal life from the Scriptures only because they bear witness about Christ.
John 10:35 Scripture cannot be broken or invalidated.
John 15:20 No one may contradict or neglect the Apostles and be a Christian.
John 17:20 The word of the Apostles is the source of true faith.
John 20:31 The Gospel of John alone is enough to tell us what to believe so that we can have life in Jesus' name.
John 22:24 The Gospel of John is a true testimony. No authority may contradict it.
Acts 17:11 We are to examine the Scriptures daily to see if anything taught as doctrine is true.
Acts 24:14 We are to believe everything laid down by the Law and written in the Prophets.
Romans 15:4 Scripture was written for our instruction to encourage us and give us hope.
1 Corinthians 12:28 All other teachers and servants in the Church come after the Apostles in priority.
1 Corinthians 14:37 If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he must acknowledge that the things Paul wrote to us are a command of the Lord.
2 Corinthians 1:13 Paul did not write anything other than what lay people of Corinth and Achaia could read and understand. Some partially understand; some fully understand. Paul will boast of all on the day of the Lord.
Galatians 1:8 No one may contradict what the Apostles preached.
Galatians 1:20 Paul did not lie in what he wrote.
Galatians 3:22 The Scripture imprisoned everything else under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
Eph 2:20 The Apostles and Prophets are the foundation of the Church and the faith with Christ as cornerstone. All other authorities must build on that foundation and no other.
2 Thessalonians 2:15 We are to firmly hold to the teachings of the Apostles. They are the only true standard by which other teachers and doctrines are to be judged. I challenge anyone to identify an oral Apostolic teaching that is not written in the New Testament.
1 Timothy 3:14-15 This letter tells us who may and may not become overseers and deacons, and how the Church is to be godly. This godliness is unchanging.
1 Timothy 4:13 We are to devote ourselves to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching.
2 Timothy 3:15 The scriptures are able to make us wise for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.
2 Timothy 3:16 Scripture is profitable for correction in righteousness. No doctrine that isn't supportable by scripture may correct scripture or render it unprofitable. Scripture is the only true standard by which all teachers and doctrines are to be judged.
2 Timothy 3:17 Scripture makes preachers (men of God) complete. Scripture fully equips preachers for every good work.
1 Peter 1:25 The Gospel of the Apostles is the word of the Lord and it endures forever.
1 Peter 5:12 This letter is the true grace of God. We must stand firm in it.
2 Peter 3:2 We are to obey the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through his apostles.
2 Peter 3:16 The ignorant and unstable who twist the scriptures do so to their own destruction. Paul's Epistles are Scripture.
1 John 1:3-4 The eye-wittness writings of the Apostles are what give us fellowship with the Apostles, with the Father, and with His Son.
1 John 4:6 The Apostles are from God. Whoever knows God listens to the words of the Apostles; whoever is not from God does not believe the Apostles. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.
Hebrews 4:12 The word of God judges the reader and the Church, not vice versa. The Epistle to the Hebrews has done this since the first time it was read.
James 2:8 Love of neighbor as taught by scripture is enough to keep us busy for the rest of our lives.
Each book of the canon was canonical as soon as the Holy Spirit and the human author wrote it. Other books not of the Holy Spirit and true human author were rejected by their intended audiences in the primitive Church.
For example the Peshittas, which have no relationship to papism or even later councils, does not include the "gospel" of Thomas. Thomas and his immediate disciples did evangelize the Assyrian Church of the East, but he didn't author any "gospel" to them.
Now the Lutheran Church accepts the same list as the Chalcedonian Churches and quotes the deuterocanon as scripture in the Lutheran Book of Concord. Our only caveat is that books which were historically disputed shall not stand alone when proving true dogma.
@@Mygoalwogel I appreciate ur faith in Scripture, I also do belive that it is the way/ but not the only one
think , even ur humble word about Gospel to someone could be decisive, but many more citations of Christ Our Lord perrish in vain. That is up to Spirit and I suspect we ought not to dictate Him our will
@@Mygoalwogel Matthew 1 skips many generations . It seems in purpose
@@Mygoalwogel Mark 1;1 says only abut Gospel (as of Evangelion, noy the books (sic!)
I just bought 2 books I really emburned that witaly and burned out with reformed Calvinism and harshness and no Christ and no participation no incarnationalism I really am tired of the puritans I'm tired of people's writing and engrossing every book store everything written from that perspective I find the puritans to be so confused about what the gospel really is
So Protestants can't even agree on what "Sola Scriptura" means....just as I suspected 🤔
Atheist: So Christians can’t even agree on what “church” means... just as I suspected 🤔
@@ThiagoCT9 Catholics agree on what Church means.
@@thekingslady1 Lutherans agree on what Sola Scriptura means
@@ThiagoCT9 that's not what this Doctorate-holding Theologian says in this video....
@@thekingslady1 Yes it is... he clearly says that different Protestant churches (anabaptists, calvinists, reformed etc..) have different views of Sola Scriputra, but the Lutheran church itself (same could be said about other prot churches) agrees upon themselves about what it means. See 4:18 for example... You’re doing exactly what he says at 4:40 that Catholics and Orthodox normally do.
You just want to seem smart.
It's either there's no church or there is a church to belong to. Jesus didn't ask Luther to build a church.
Protestant beliefs are contradcitory and self refuting which proves it is not of God.
1)All beliefs must be derived from scripture
2)All scripture refers to the old testament in 2 Tim 3:15-17
3)2 Tim 3:15-17 is not part of the old testament
4)Conclusion, 2 Tim 3:15-17 cannot be used to prove Sola Scriptura
Except Luke obviously said testimony was being written so we know what is true.
@@jonnbobo agreed but the Sola Scriptura is not part of the truth being written down
@@James224to26 the "truth" is the testimony that Christ is sufficient for our salvation. That's definitely "Sola Scriptura." But you're right, it's Scriptures and Holy Spirit, not just Scriptures.... but "Sola Scriptura" assumes you have the Spirit.
@@jonnbobo there is no scripture that teaches Sola Scriptura
@@James224to26 The testimony of Christ is sufficient, and that is scripture. To claim the scriptures don't instruct us to go to scripture isn't true, as again, Luke and others were writing the testimony of Christ down so that we know what is true.
Oh Sola Scriptura, among all the devastatingly idiotic inventions of modernity, this one figures somewhere between napalm, nerve agent gases, and nuclear weapons.
@@alephnaught8343 Yes, I can, I am capable of doing so. Do I want to? Hm, depends who's asking.
@@alephnaught8343 Sola Scriptura doesn't just mean that you use the Bible to undergird your philosophy. It means that the Bible is the "sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice." Of course, this is an idiotic idea, simply because it is irrelevant whether a source is infallible (though this itself is kind of a bad idea for numerous reasons), because the source does not self-interpret since it's not a living, cognizant being, but a collection of texts written over several millennia that have been variously changed, corrupted, or modified over time and a set of texts, moreover, that are not even agreed upon by any major Christian tradition and the canon of which has been decided---again, variously---by bodies of humans (mostly men) who must themselves then actually interpret the texts themselves. And if the Scripture is the sole source of authority that is infallible, the presumption is humans---who must interpret the Bible---are fallible and therefore, even if the Bible is infallible, those who interpret it are not. So, either way you will end up with doctrinal error. Let me sum it up in bullet points:
1. There is no "Bible," but numerous Bibles that significantly differ in terms of canon and the manuscripts they're based on. We have no originals, so everything is a copy of a copy and the copies we have don't even agree on all things.
2. Even if this already problematic text were somehow infallible, and indeed, the only infallible source, it still has to be interpreted by human who are fallible, so whatever interpretation they have of the Bible is liable to be fallible, so the Bible's infallibility doesn't get us any closer to sound doctrine.
3. What the Bible itself is---what books constitute it---is itself the result of human decisions. Are those also infallible? If yes, then there is another infallible source; if not, then how is the Bible infallible?
4. Sola Scriptura has not even passed its own test: presumably, if it were infallible, there would only ever be one church and it would agree on all matters of faith, doctrine, practice, etc. But that is patently not the case, again, because its presumed infallibility makes no substantive difference in the real world of Christian faith and practice.
I could go on, but I think you see why there is really no good reason to think that Sola Scriptura is an especially good idea.
@@ljss6805 so, you're saying that the witness testimony that Jesus is the messiah isn't sufficient... mmmmmK
@@jonnbobo I'm saying that Sola Scriptura is insufficient and a bad idea to boot.
@@ljss6805 yes, you're saying that witness testimony that Jesus' sacrifice is sufficient for our salvation, is insufficient. That's what Sola Scriptura is, and you need more than Christ testimony.