Does The Bible Teach "Scripture Alone" (Sola Scriptura)? (REBUTTED)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 вер 2024
- Does the Bible teach sola scriptura? In this video Trent examines Jeff Durbin's sermon on the subject and shows where it falls short in proving this crucial Protestant doctrine.
Protestants: The Bible is infallible!
*removes several books from the Bible*
Yes, there's nothing more unbiblical than throwing out parts of the bible.
Lol 😂
Good one 😂😂😂
Cyrus Dabar which Jews?
@Cyrus Dabar - Most people today probably do not even know that the bible was ever different than it is. They will assume what ever is present in their bible right now is what was always there.
The oldest complete bibles that we have are the four great uncials, containing the entire text of all the books of the bible: Codex Vaticanus , Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus, and Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus. It is thought by historians that two of these were created by an order from Emperor Constantine. The books are copied from the
Septuagint, the oldest known Greek language manuscript containing the set of Hebrew scriptures (the Old Testament) This book does contain the deuterocanonical books ( apocrypha) It was created by a group of seventy rabbis in Alexandria in mid third century B.C. so that there would be a Greek version of the Jewish scriptures.
The Old testament quotations by Paul and the early Apostolic fathers were taken from the text of the Septuagint.
The bibles in Western Europe from the time of the Romans to the Renaissance did contain the deuterocanonical (apocryphal) books. Martin Luther was the first person in the Renaissance period to claim that those books did not belong in the bible. There is debate about why he did this. But I think the most likely reason is that those books contain material that supports Catholic doctrines. Since Luther wanted his bible to be as non-Catholic as possible, he excluded them.
Some bibles of the sixteenth century did contain the deuterocanonical (apocryphal) books. Some did not. Every King James bible up until the year 1666 did include them. The English puritans did not include them for unknown reasons. Some people had very bad reasons for not including them. For instance, the Scottish Bible Society did not include those parts of the bible because it saved on printing costs to make a shorter book.
There has always been disagreement amongst Jews about whether these books should be considered scripture. Certain Jews like Josephus thought that there were no more divinely inspired scriptures after the fifth century B.C. But of course, no Christian could possibly believe that, because it would mean that the New Testament was not divinely inspired.
It can be difficult to tell if a piece of writing is inspired or not. Language scholars can tell when a piece of writing was made, who might have written it, and what it was copied from, but a scholarly analysis of the writing cannot tell us if it is divinely inspired.
My own standard is to say that if it was good enough for Paul and the Apostolic fathers, then it is good enough for me. Remember, the apostolic fathers were the Christian theologians of the first and second centuries who personally knew the apostles or were very closely influenced by them. This includes people Ignatius, Polycarp, and Clement.
M is inspired or not. Language scholars can tell when a piece of writing was made, who might have written it, and what it was copied from, but a scholarly analysis of the writing cannot tell us if it is divinely inspired.
My own standard is to say that if it was good enough for Paul and the Apostolic fathers, then it is good enough for me. Remember, the apostolic fathers were the Christian theologians of the first and second centuries who personally knew the apostles or were very closely influenced by them. This includes people Ignatius, Polycarp, and Clement.
As a Protestant I'm appreciative of your response. I've struggled with this topic for years. Please pray that God will guide me into His truth. God bless
Trent, I'm a protestant and I don't agree with everything you're saying, although you made some very good points. I like how you did your rebuttal in such a kind and loving way. Very classy. I would love to see a debate between you and Jeff Durbin. 😊
@Johannes_Dewit watch his debate with James White.
@@gavin_hill do you have a link? I'd love to watch it.
Johannes Dewit
Jeff Durbin isn’t as experienced as a debater as White, but even white couldn’t handle Trent in their debate about eternal security.
@@jesuschristsaves9067
You are quite wrong about that, i watched the debate as a young christian and mostly sided with Trent because I did not have the foundation to understand what James was discussing and putting forward.
When you follow each to its conclusion eternal security is biblical whilst trents position is not.
@@jesuschristsaves9067 I don't agree with that. I watched the debate last week, and I may be biased in my opinion, but I would say James White won that debate. However, I still think Trent did a good job defending his side.
This is great, Trent you are a class act. God bless you...
I really like these videos, Trent. God bless you.
Its interesting that the Scriptures are God breathed, and Jesus breathed on the apostles when He gave them authority to forgive sins. That makes living Epistles make more sense
So you believe the Apostles were infallible? That was to recieve the Holy Spirit.
But remember believing man has free will means man can thwart God's plan, not according to Holy Scripture Job 42:2.
@@reformedcatholic457 Peter denied Jesus 3x, and Jesus chose him to be the Rock to build the Church. Believing in the order of the Church that Jesus found isnt believing in man, but trusting God through His divine plan for man.
Perhaps you would like to see Jeff Durbin respond to this?
ua-cam.com/video/i8Eq3Vv7iNA/v-deo.html
ONLY God can forgive sin. WOW. That was the point when Yeshua DID THE HEALING in Matthew. It was also why the establishment was offended!
@@davidturner1641 God gave that power to the Apostles in John 20:21-23. This is where your Protestant doctrine needs to be examined in light of scripture, and it will be found lacking.
Sir. Trent Horn I admire your work 💪✝️
On inspiration: I do enjoy it when Protestants say that their Pastor's preaching was inspired by God, or the claims from the pulpit, "God laid on my heart.", "God revealed to me." of other such claims, we are expected to accept that what they say is true because they say "God revealed to me." even when "God" revealed something contradicting their revelation to the Pastor down the street. So goes Sola Scriptura, which should be Ego Solus.
When I think of the term "scripture alone" I think of a passage like, 2 Timothy 3:16-17, which says, "All scripture is inspired by God, and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."
According to these verses, what more does the man of God need to make him complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work? "If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God" (1 Peter 4:11).
This is a very clear, cogent, and cordial response. Well done.
I had been waiting for this...
Do more James White rebuttals please
@Not_Well_Planned have you watched James Whites rebuttal on this video?
Sola Scriptura can not be summed in just one word or sentence. Just as Sola Eccelsia can not be summed in a word or sentence. The bible is everything one needs in order to know who God is and how to act upright before him. Love is just one word but encompasses the entirety of Christian worship and way of life. Love does no harm. What shall we say then concerning how do we test if something is true or not? How does one refute dualism or any other idea? Scripture is that source! If a person comes along and says something and can't be understood in light of scripture then we need to back off. That statement works regardless who says it: a Pastor, Priest, Bishop or anybody else. Therefore, by keeping your eyes fixed on Christ and his word we are confident that He will safeguard us and keep us awake!
One phrase you missed: "...explicitly taught in the Bible, OR NECESSARILY FOLLOWS FROM IT..." (or words to that effect). It is fully sufficient for all authoritative teaching (ecclesiastical traditions and human opinions have no binding authority on anyone).
Of course, WHO determines what NECESSARILY follows, and who determines which are authoritative teachings (since interpreters hold different views on pretty major issues).
Mate I can’t Stand the preacher’s voice anymore!. I must leave for work.
Friday’s are cool It’s not just that it’s sped up, his voice and mannerisms are just annoying
I thought Christ started the church and not the bible.
@Nard_Foru
He started his book with: in the beginning
So you are quite wrong
Jesus gave us a Church he didn’t start handing out Bibles.
@@gavin_hillJesus did not write the gospel of John
@@diegofuentes6639
Jesus book is the bible, since it is God's specific revelation to man, and Jesus is God. Quite simple friend.
I was actually speaking about Genesis, but that is fine.
Are you a Christian?
@@el_jefe_007
We are the church, he left us with the Holy Spirit and his Word.
Are you a Christian?
Pastor Durbin's preaching is noticeably separate from Pastor White and the other fellow (a Dutch name that escapes me). The latter two are noticeably more pointed in their Catholic criticism (and extremely less charitable in their discourse) than Pastor Durbin. I think Pastor Durbin and you would have an enjoyable discussion on your podcast.
I am not Catholic but I totally agree with you about this rebuttal.
Consider Catholicism. Jesus started Catholic church. Sign up for RCIA. God bless you!
@@johnyang1420 There are many faults I find with the Caesaropapist Catholic church and find no reason to embrace it. I am by choice an Orthodox believer.
I dont know why do people get caught up with Scripture being the breath of God. This image will only indicate that it is life-giving because in the scriptures the most common passage of God breathing is when he gives life to Adam. Also, Christ himself breathes on the apostle. That means that the apostle would have the same authority as the bible(if breathing gives you authority) and hence their successors.
NEVER believe humans who claim to NOT be able to err in doctrine
I hope there will be a debate between the Catholic faith defenders and Jeff Durbin - James White. Or Catholic faith defenders versus Bart Ehrman than this one.
Wow.... Ok so 33:10-33:50. Wrong again. Paul is not speaking on his own authority. You even say it yourself. "Not taught by man or received from man but by..." how? From who? Revelation. From Christ, who is God. Therefore God breathed. So he is NOT speaking on his own authority.
Now this is where I get off this crazy train. I may try again to finish but using false teaching to rebuke or rebut false teaching is crazy. Like I said in other comments just because pastor Durbin is wrong that doesn't make roman catholicism right.
Jacob Johnson good point 👍🏻
Yeah, I agree how the only reason Jeff is bringing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints, is to use emotion to drive a point. His audience is vehemently opposed to the Church and so whenever Jeff wants to drive an under supported and very crude point he will toss the 'Mormons' or the Muslims or the JW's in the mix to get heads bobbing. Sounds like the Billy Madison scene where all he has to do to make a valid point to his listeners is shout Go Football! and everyone cheers in agreement becoming increasingly intolerant about anything rational thought needed to carry a theological conversations. It is this constant grind that is separating the Christian world from each other and creating awful misconceptions about other's faith that in my mind is disregarding completely 1 Corinthians 1:10 and Christ's admonition to love one another.
Protestants: "Sola Scriptura is infallible. That's why we all disagree on the interpretation of every single word in Scripture."
Correction, protestants are unified on the gospel message itself. If you read the bible on your own and another catholic read the bible on their own, you would both have minor differences in your understanding. But rather you look to the authority of your church (man) to tell you what you are to understand. This is why RC's have held to different teachings throughout the centuries. God doesn't change but put man in charge and you get people burned to the stake. I don't know how one can study the history of the RCC and keep up with the things the new Pope is saying and STILL be a RC.
You do not ask God to reveal himself to you through his Word but instead go elsewhere. We as humans are flawed and it is because of this that there is some "fog" in the way of understanding some of scripture. HOWEVER, the majority of protestants (there are many that have been lead astray) are in agreement on Salvation through Christ alone. I am a brother to anyone who is in relationship with Christ. There is not relationship in religion but dictatorship. If you were able to peel the scales from your eyes and read God's Word for yourself then you would never conclude that of which the RCC holds to. Only the Holy Spirit can reveal this to you but pride which comes before destruction is the biggest obstacle in front of a devoted Catholic. If you can remove this and sincerely seek God as you read His Word then His Truth will be revealed to you.
Put your trust in Jesus and not man!
Holy Spirit is working overtime to produce hundreds of new interpretations. Brilliant.
@@aahlstrom93 Perhaps you didn't care to understand what I said. WE AGREE ON THE G-O-S-P-E-L M-E-S-S-A-G-E. We only differ on issues that are non-essential to ones salvation. We are not spoon fed from someone we elevate to a position of Godhood but rather seek after Christ hrough his Word. He never changes. I find it very troubling that RC's hold to the mass as what is essential to salvation when it was only adopted by the RCC 13 centuries after Christ. BUT that's what happens when you put man in place of God.
Can you please give me an honest answer to this one question?
How much time do you spend with God in his Word?
This is very telling of where one is at in their walk of faith. People who do not spend time with God are not in the faith but rather grasping onto a false sense of Salvation (an organized religion). This represents the majority of people who claim to be Christians.
@@romans1vs6teen Hi Romans, yeah I'll answer your question: I spend maybe 45 minutes to 1 and half hours every day praying and reading Scripture. That's largely how I became a Catholic Christian. I read the Scripture and compared what various Protestants taught against what the general teachings of the Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox taught.
I totally disagree with your claim that the hundreds of Protestant sects only disagree on non-essential questions unrelated to salvation. Let's take baptism for example. 1 Peter 3:21 verbatim says "baptism nows saves you". So High Anglicans will believe that baptism, quite literally, does save you. Baptists and Christians of the Evangelical movements will say "No, baptism doesn't save you, it's symbolic, it's a profession of faith" - so which one is correct? A verse that says baptism "saves you" is quite relevant to salvation, yet you can search through the Christians who accept the 5 Solas (Protestants) and come across a myriad of beliefs that are directly related to questions regarding salvation.
@@aahlstrom93 Good to hear you read the bible. There is more than one verse on baptism my friend lol. You can't make doctrine on one verse that might seem clear on a topic. You need to read the other 6 verses that challenge it then put things in context.
I know for certain you would not believe things your church teaches if you had God show you through His Word. The RCC adopts different doctrine over time. They boast on the unity in the RCC but if the RCC in 800 A.D. was to be in a room with the RCC today..... yikes! Your organization teaches different works over time are what will save you. Not biblical!
Keep reading the bible for yourself. This is something the RCC did not allow the people to do at one time because control of the people and money given to the church was critical. Keep seeking God and maybe He will speak to you as He did to Martin Luther.
My neighbor is a Protestant pastor.
He knows I’m Catholic, he invited me to his church. So I went to a 7pm service.
He didn’t quote the Bible for 45min.
I told him every Catholic mass the world over
Starts with a Bible quote.
“In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”
He got so mad at me
I started attending Mass during Lent and do like that every Mass includes multiple readings and the Homily to bring it all together. I would also admit that the Protestant churches I've attended over the years were pretty good at teaching from the Bible as well.
And? Catholics speak of a different Father, Son and Holy Spirit, so that really proves your church is worse off than the Pastors church; by an infinite stretch so.
@@markmeyer4532 our Father, Son and Spirit
Started one church and it has lasted 2000y.
Protestants start thousands of new churches and they don’t last
@@markmeyer4532how do we speak of a different father son and spirit?
@@markmeyer4532 why should I believe that the Protestant understanding is the correct one?
It's about darn time a Catholic has addressed Jeff Durbin. Thank you, Holy Spirit.
Check out the channel "how to be christian" the guy on there is catholic and has addressed Durbin, winger, and white before. He does it while being kinda funny too. You might like it.
@@off-meta-michael that dude is amazing. His video about James White and the cran raspberry juice was hilarious.
@Suicidal Dice the quick answer is free will. Not to mention some of the finest Catholics I've ever seen when it comes to knowledge and fervor of the faith are converts to the church. No such fire could exist without the struggle to come to a knowledge of the truth.
Paul says, "work out your salvation with fear and trembling." So we can use reason, argumentation, evidence, scripture, history, and prayer to help discern.
Jesus argued with church leaders, so did Paul, Peter, and everyone since then until now. The catholic church does claim however that the holy spirit protects the church from teaching error when it comes to central dogma and morals. So there is a version of what you are saying that exists in the church, but not individual to individual.
I recommend Dr. Scott Hahn and Steve Ray, both passionate Catholics who were once protestants.
When you go to Mass, don't worry. Just do what everyone else does, especially when they kneel, to show reverence. Don't expect to understand everything completely.
Also, if you want to learn more about the Catholic Faith, look into taking RCIA classes.
Peace be with you on your journey.
@Suicidal Dice don't be put off if people aren't very welcoming at first. Catholics tend to be quiet and more reserved in church than outside of church because the presence of christ is there in the eucharist. That's why you'll see people genuflect towards the altar.
You can't receive communion until you become a catholic. It's a sign of unity and belief in what the church teaches.
convert recommendations:
Scott hahn (protestant)
Steve ray (protestant)
Roy shoeman (was Jewish/ atheist)
Tim staples (protestant)
There's a lot more but these guys are all very engaging in their presentations and have lots of content.
If you want to get into the nitty gritty philosophy stuff then Ed Feser is another convert from atheism.
4:24 defing sola scriptura
16:00 scripture is inspired
19:15 church creates the canon?
31:50 paul in romans
36:00 matthew 15 / mark 7
41:10 acts 17
44:36 2 timothy 3 17
So glad that you pointed out how Jeff switches between the terms "Scriptures/Bible" and "The Word of God", as if they are synonyms.
Are you implying that the Bible is not the Word of God? Is there a difference between the Bible and the Word of God?
Qwerty and I agree with that. I’m asking how to be Christian what he means by his comment.
@@MrEvoXI Jesus is the Word. The Bible is the word of God. However, it does not mean the Bible is Jesus. The Bible is not the 2nd person of trinity. The Bible did not die for us.
이씨네 미국살이 The Lee Family in the USA I agree
@@MrEvoXI why don't you go to @how to be Christian 's UA-cam channel and find out what exactly they do and do not imply? Pretty easy to do
Trent this stuff is gold for catholics..... Keep it up please
Perhaps you would like to see Jeff Durbin respond to this?
ua-cam.com/video/i8Eq3Vv7iNA/v-deo.html
@Gavin Hill - Don't need too, I heard what he had to say and I know he is wrong, and I didn't need Trent to tell me so. I just like Trent's format.
@@Flagrum3
What exactly is he wrong about?
When you say you know he is wrong what do you mean by that
@Gavin Hill -Where do I start? I'll make it simple; Just about every refutation he has about Catholism.
@@Flagrum3
Well that makes no sense because he was doing a church service not a refutation on catholicism ...
Jesus said
“My flesh is REAL FOOD.”
BIble Christians, No No No.
This Protestant preacher needs a course in preaching: talking at such a pace produces in this listener nothing but aversion. However your commentary Trent is very useful. Keep up your good work!
Mark Hagan his speaking was sped up so as to rebut them quicker
To say you speak for so many makes the foundation of your comment a fallacy.
Trent, you do a great job to show the catholic position.
Perhaps you would like to see Jeff Durbin respond to this?
ua-cam.com/video/i8Eq3Vv7iNA/v-deo.html
@David Ortiz
Jesus Christ is the truth not the roman catholic church.
@@gavin_hill Trent Horn invited Jeff to a debate, but he didn't respond. Why's that?
@@MrMatt-kj3rr
Had not heard that, source please?
I don't see any reason Jeff Durbin would not debate Trent Horne. What was the topic?
@@gavin_hill Trent mentions it in his most recent video. He is aware of Jeff's "rebbutal." He said that the next step is a debate. Which I would personally love to see.
Trent you are a blessing to us catholics . Thanks for your good works
Perhaps you would like to see Jeff Durbin respond to this?
ua-cam.com/video/i8Eq3Vv7iNA/v-deo.html
Unless you have exceptional patience, skip the first six and a half minutes.
The problem with certain Protestant pastors is that they think they know the Holy Bible from cover to cover and can explain it inside and out. How about the relation of liturgy and sacraments to sola scriptura?
Yeah, they oppose a lot of that.
Who told you that there should be a sacraments?
@@willsavebygod7774 The Bible does
Baptism in numerous places including Matthew 28:19 and Mark 16:16;
Confirmation (not by name) in Acts 8:17 and 19:6;
Eucharist (Communion) in several places including 1 Corinthians 10:16 and 11:23-27;
Confession in James 5:16 and John 20:23;
Anointing of the Sick in James 5:14-15 and Mark 6:13;
Holy Matrimony (Marriage) in Matthew 19:4-6;
Holy Orders (not by name) in Acts 6:6, 13:3, and 1 Timothy 4:14.
It's a shame that this guy is wasting all his energy on something that's false. Imagine if he was catholic and preached God's true church. Protestant converts make the best catholics!
Definition of Reformation.
The Reformation was not really a ‘reformation’ of the RCC at all. It remained virtually the same in both theology and praxis in the years following the Reformation. The Reformation was actually a REFORM MOVEMENT, which BROKE AWAY from the RCC on issues of PRAXIS and many issues of THEOLOGY. It resulted in the formation of NEW NATIONAL PROTEST-ANT CHURCHES between 1517-1545 AD. The main reforming movement lasted only about 30 years but the entire REFORMATION ERA with the RCC Counter Reformation and the very bloody civil/religious wars would continue across Europe until 1648 AD. The REAL ISSUES of the Reformation related primarily to basic teaching of the Bible and Christianity. Eternal Salvation - RCC continued to teach it was accomplished through the sacraments as administered by the Church and its bona fide priests. Protestants declared that eternal salvation was by Faith alone in Christ alone. Authority - RCC said it was the Bible AND the CHURCH. Protestants said it was SOLELY the BIBLE . Nature of the CHURCH - RCC said it was an ECCLESSIASTICAL ORGANIZATION and PROTESTANTS said it was a SPIRITUAL ORGANISM. Christian Living - RCC continued to claim it was BY WORKS performed in human strength and Protestants taught it was by the POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT within the believer . Priesthood of the Believer - RCC continued to teach and believe that access to God was SOLELY through a certified RCC PRIEST and the Protestants taught that each believer has unhindered access to God and ought to have it to the Bible as well. Of Course, the REFORMATION IS NOT VIEWED in the SAME WAY by all people!! There are four primary views: . Roman Catholic View . It was a REVOLT against the only legitimate church by PROTESTERS such as MARTIN LUTHER who was in fact a HERETIC with ulterior motives in that he wanted to get married . Protestant View . It was a RETURN to BIBLICAL teaching of the nature of the Church and the authority of the BIBLE. Salvation by faith in Christ alone and the Bible as the authority were the two most important aspects of the Reformation . Religious View: The Reformation was CONTEST between the views and theology of Thomas Aquinas and Augustine. Thomas Aquinas taught that man is not totally bad and people were eternally saved by faith PLUS grace administered in the SACRAMENTS. Augustine taught the depravity of man (he is totally sinful) and is saved only by grace through faith alone. 2.6.9.4. Secular View 2.6.9.4.1. It was a REVOLUTION against the economic and the political powers of the CHURCH and its representative the POPE by the development of NATION-STATES of EUROPE (Teutonic Nations of the North against the Latin Nations of the South). Thus the Reformation was simply a part of the Greater RENAISSANCE movement . There is certainly a great deal of truth in views 2, 3 and 4. There is perhaps “SOME” truth in #1 - but not much. The Reformation was clearly a complex socio-political and economic movement. But most of all it was a PROTEST against the false doctrine and moral corruption of the RCC and RELIGIOUS REVOLUTION to return to the teachings of the BIBLE.
The Era of The Reformation - 1517AD to 1648AD Survey of Major Highlights of the Era.
The Era ‘formally’ began when Martin Luther nailed his Ninety Five Theses to the door of the Wittenberg Church on October 31, 1517. The Era ‘formally’ ended over 100 years later with the end of the Thirty Years War (1618-1648) and the signing of the Peace of Westphalia (actually a series of “treaties” signed from May through October) in 1648. It was during this period of 130 years that “Protest-ant-ism” was born and during which “Protest-ant-ism” BROKE FREE from the Roman Catholic Church.. There was a Roman Catholic Counter-Reformation during this era and the Jesuit Society was born.. There were many political, economic, cultural, and even very personal/individual factors that contributed to the developments of this Era - beyond the immense religious turbulence and transformations that characterized this Era.. It was during this Era that the America began to play a significant role in the history of the Church .
Indulgences, Inquisitions, & Independence all played key roles. The “SOLA’s” came into focus and prominence and profoundly changed the face of Christianity 6. Key people whom YHWH used to change the world (some good, some bad) emerged and whose lives and character and motivations and doctrinal beliefs are worthy of attention, study and understanding: Erasmus, John Wycliffe, John Huss, John Tauler, Savonarola, John Pupper, John Reuchlin, Philip Melancthon, Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, John Calvin, Heinrich Bullinger, Conrad Grebel, Balthasar Hubmaier, John Knox, William Tyndale, Henry VIII, Thomas Cranmer, Edward VI, Jacobus Arminius, Mary Tudor (Bloody Mary), Elizabeth I, James I, Oliver Cromwell, William of Orange, and many more!. The major “Denominations” were formed during that Era: Lutherans, Reformed (Presbyterians, etc.), Anglicans (Episcopalians), & all the various kinds of “Ana”- Baptists (or Baptistic groups who rejected “infant baptism” and baptize believers only and who are generally “congregational” in governance). All the various denominational groups that exist today came out of those four Reformation traditions.
The Reformation Era brought a major and ongoing SCHISM and the complete SEVERANCE of ROMAN CATHOLICISM and PROTEST-ANT-ISM (my reason for writing it that way is simply to “emphasize” that Protestantism - all of it - is simply a “PROTEST” against the Roman Catholic Church - its doctrine and it practice). Not only did the Protest-ants develop denominations, they also developed THEOLOGIES. The reason there are so many denominations is because these “Protest-ers” were not just protesting Roman Catholic practices but the theology as well. This is a major topic and consideration in Reformation Era studies. Bloody RELIGIOUS WARS occurred between Roman Catholics and Protestants. Spain, France, & England emerged from the Reformation Era as MAJOR NATIONAL POWERS 1.15. Puritans and Separatists from the CONTINENT and ENGLAND fled the religious persecution there and sought freedom to worship and believe as they understood the BIBLE to teach - IN AMERICA!. The BIBLE is now READILY AVAILABLE to the COMMON PERSON. They are able to read it and ‘EVALUATE’ the ROMAN CHURCH for themselves as to its theology, teachings, and practices!!!! That factor in and of itself was/is the greatest factor in the Reformation and in the world of Christianity since that day!
Background to the Era.
Political:
Rising National Powers in Europe - on the continent and in England - BITTERLY OPPOSED the claims and the corruption of the Roman Catholic Church. It claims ABSOLUTE and UNIVERSAL AUTHORITY over all religious life but also over all CIVIL life as well. The REFORMATION was the “BREAKING FREE” of nations and peoples from the OPPRESSIVE CONTROL of the RCC. England and France had been locked in a Hundred Years War (1337 -1453) which was actually 116 years or so long. This created a great deal of chaos in the lives of people throughout Europe. Joan of Arc emerged as the French Heroin during this time. She was a French peasant girl who had - she said - a VISION. In 1415, King Henry V of England defeated the French forces at the Battle of Agincourt. Ten years later (1425) this little peasant girl believed that Michael the Archangel and two others (angels?) appeared to her and told her that she had been chosen of God to throw the English out of France. She convinced a French Prince that it was true and she led an attack on the English. United under Joan’s leadership and mysticism the French troops reclaimed Orleans, France from the English. The French Prince was crowned King and Joan believed her vision had been fulfilled and wanted to return home (she was just a 13-15 year old girl at the time). The French King refused to let her go home and made her continue leading the fighting forces against the English. The English could not succumb to Joan’s claims and thus legitimize the idea that God was on the side of France and not that of England. So the English redoubled their efforts to capture or kill Joan of Arc. She was wounded in battle in southern France in May of 1430 and captured by the English forces. The French King were embarrassed to allow it to be known that he was indebted to a peasant girl and her visions for his title and he refused to ransom her. An English bishop bought Joan and imprisoned her in a dank dungeon where she was brutally ravaged by male convicts. Finally, the Church convened an INQUISTION convicted Joan of heresy. In May 1431, the now 19- year-old girl claimed that she had another vision. The Soldiers immediately burned her alive at the stake. Joan died believing and declaring that Jesus had ‘affirmed’ her and her nation. This young girl’s torment and her death were sad consequences of the tragic theological misunderstandings that characterized her day and time. In 1456 (25 years after her death), Pope Calixtus III admitted that the Inquisition had unjustly condemned Joan and in 1920 the RCC “SAINTED” Joan of Arc.
Economic :
The RCC had massive land holdings ‘everywhere’. This became a source of great consternation to people and nation-states forming and developing. These land holdings were “appealing” to the Kings of the Nation-States as sources of wealth and ongoing power. The RCC levied burdensome and anger-generating taxes on both rulers of NationStates and on the people. These too were HIGHLY RESENTED. And, the obvious wealth and greed, and graft among the RCC clergy fueled the fires of protest. The RCC was continually developing ‘money-grabbing’ schemes. They developed the whole system of “INDULGENCES” which turned out to be the RCC’s greatest error. Kings of Nation-states had to find ways to fund their rapidly growing economies and growing middle class. Commerce was growing and this needed to be fueled with ‘money’. The RCC was too greedy and corrupt.
There are many incorrect statements in your comments, sir.
I think that's an exaggeration. Even scripture warns about putting recent converts in places of authority. Best catholic are the ones who lived in the tradition of the apostles and have been building virtue in Christ's life for a longer time. That would make more sense.
@@ronaller5209 I begin with the point that I am not Catholic, but I am a Bible believer. I would think someone with your evident knowledge and intelligence would know that the 1500s were not the first time there was the true gospel of Christ believers in existence. Albeit they were at times a small remnant, they did exist and were persecuted and snuffed out of history.
Saw this the other day, glad that you make these available.
I would love to see your response to Servus Christi video on the Roman Catholic Church Masterpiece of deception. It was hard to watch and there are several things to debunk in his video. I’m not even a Catholic and was shocked at his misrepresentation of Church teachings. I’m really enjoying your video rebuttals and have been researching the early church for over a year now. Thanks for doing these videos 🙂
Servus Christi is close to a heretic, I encourage people to stay away from him, guillable people follow him, confessionless and creedless people.
What I don't understand about Catholics, is people who are of this religion ask for forgiveness of their sins from a man/priest in a box and call him father🤷♀️
There's only one father and one mediator and that ain't a priest in a box🤔
I'm shocked you refer to what the church says are 'teachings'. What a slander to the education system.
@@ttawhaki Well that is exactly contradicting the scripture too because the title "father" are not addressed only to God if you read the Bible closely
@@ttawhaki Jesus gave the apostles the authority to forgive sins (John 20:23). How are they supposed to do this, unless a person confesses their sins to them? The Apostles then gave this authority to other men (Acts 1:15-21; 2 Tim2:2; Titus 1:5). Forgiveness of sins through confession is Biblical and Apostolic.
If you have a problem with Catholics calling priests "father", then you will have to take this up with St. Paul. He called Timothy his "son" which certainly implies that he would have called him his "father". See 1 Tim 1:18; 2 Tim 2:1 or Phil 2:22. More over, Paul said to the Corinthians, "I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (1 Cor 4:14-15).
Referring to our spiritual leaders as "father" is something Catholics have been doing since the time of the Apostles. I know that anti-Catholic protestants have taken the Bible out of context and tried to attack Catholics on this point (See Matt 23:9), but if you read all of what Jesus says in Matthew 23 and then you look at the entire Bible as well as the tradition of that time, you will see it is perfectly fine to use the term father. Otherwise, St Paul was wrong.
I had been Protestant my whole life and I have always been a big fan of Jeff, thanks for making this video. And thanks for the respect you showed to Jeff, he has done a lot of good throughout his ministry and I think you did a good job of debunking his teaching while still showing respect to the man. I'm now striving to start catechism in the Russian Orthodox
I always naturally interpreted the phrase "Do not go beyond what is written" in 1 Corinthians 4:6 as an idiom similar to if we were to say "Do not exceed that which is prescribed" or "Do not overstep your proper authority" or "Do not read more into these letters than what is actually written, imagining us to say things that are not actually there." Translations of this phrase also vary from "Observe the proper rules" to "not to suppose more than whatever is written", with King James and Douay-Rheims both rendering it as a clause to the immediate text rather than an interpolation: "that in us you may learn, that one be not puffed up against the other for another, above that which is written."
I can’t stand his presentation delivery. Aside from being a self elevating egotistical scripture twisting manipulator. This guy was annoying, showing off his cool sleeve tattoos.
Ha! 🤣 (Commenting as I watch) I loved the aside about your height.
I'm grateful for you and Trent doing these rebuttals. On the Journey with Ken Hensley and Matt Swaim have a podcast on the Coming Home Network has been extremely helpful to gain the protestant perspective, especially their objections.
Perfect speed on this one! I love the rebuttals, keep it up. Will there be more in the Pastor Winger series?
@William Cloud Patrick? That's not me - did you respond in the wrong comment thread?
Perhaps you would like to see Jeff Durbin respond to this?
ua-cam.com/video/i8Eq3Vv7iNA/v-deo.html
@William Cloud the bible cannon was set in the 300s by the catholic church and books were removed by protestants in the 1500s. How do you justify your position of us adding the books?
@William Cloud These are the same tired arguments that have been lobbed against the Catholic Church and since the Reformation, and frankly it's embarassing to see them be used seriously. I suggest you do some genuine research into the beliefs if the Catholic Church.
@William Cloud Have you ever honestly looked into the claims of Catholicism? Even if you disagree with them, I don't see how you expect to change anyone elses mind if you use empty arguments that every serious Catholic has already heard.
Protestants: Scripture alone!
Protestants: No one will notice that that doctrine can be found nowhere in scripture.
Does anyone else wonder how someone could possibly sit through an hour of Jeff Durbin's whiny shouting without taking a break?
This guy has to claim that sola scriptura does not exclude a church. Of course he means his church. His salary and SUV depend upon this version of the doctrine. BTW Why does this guy have a delivery like a pitch man?
I'm.a.convert to.Catholicism, and I.realise.that after much.search and time that I found my way home.
Welcome home😊
I used to be a catholic, then I found out the church violates Mathew 5:45-48 to the point of questioning their true motive.
@Prasanth Thomas Why is the 4th Comandment singled out and replaced with a Great Value diet soda sabbath that we call Sunday?
@Prasanth Thomas Besides, you have to remember that many things only make sense if you want them to. I used to not observe the Sabbath until I remembered: "If you love me, keep my commands."
@@SweetTodd You might want to check the evidence that Jesus started the Catholic church. And then believe what his church teaches. You are doing the opposite. Google “Which church did Jesus start?” Catholic!
I love this channel ❤️ thank you Mr. Trent.
Do John McArthur anti Catholic rebuttals. His anti Catholic stuff is from 2001 and 2006 I think. It's terrible
Not Well Planned I would love to see him tackle this stuff
Perhaps you would like to see Jeff Durbin respond to this?
ua-cam.com/video/i8Eq3Vv7iNA/v-deo.html
sola scriptura contradicts protestant’s belief
@@qitzpaquitojr.reston2337
What do you believe sola scriptura is?
John Mcarthur and Rey Comfort lead me to come home to Rome.
Trent,
It is worth noting that the Decree of Damasus declared with authority what were the 73 books that are inspired by God to be in the exclusive "library" or Bible for all Christians. Such is the same list we use today in the Catholic Church.
absolutely
Good stuff. I'm an Orthodox Christian, but on this issue we're agreed :)
We're agreed on most things)) The division between Catholics and Orthodox is mainly a historical one based on some disagreements and bad blood, not born out of dissension, rebellion and divisiveness that is ongoing with Protestants. Honestly I think Catholics should spend more time building bridges with Orthodox than debating protestants or dialoguing with other religions. Seems to me it would be more productive since protestants just keep dividing themselves constantly. Unite the ancient Churches!
@@zatoichi1 could you imagine the testimony to non-believers and to Protestants if we Orthodox and you Catholics reunited? Oh my, what a world that would be. Imagine the unified Orthodox and Catholic church vs Protestantism.
The denominations pastors are not in the line of the apostles and their successors, pastors are not annointed by God through the Bishops only the catholic priests are in the line of the apostles worthy to serve God.
Absolutely true!!
"some writings of early church fathers were described as god-beathed"
Could you link a citation for that?
Protestants: the bible is infallible not the church
Catholic: where does the bible say which books belong into the bible?
Protestant:uhhh... ... 1st page, table of contents😥?
@LouisT as far as I know, the bible was compiled at the councils around 300-400 A.D. by the church leaders.
IF YOUR BIBLE IS MISSING; 1and 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit, Judith, Daniel and Esther, then you are using a Bible that was codified by the jews AFTER THEY HAD REJECTED CHRIST. If your Bible includes these books then your Bible was codified by the Catholic Church which was founded by Christ, the same church that wrote and codified the canons of the New Testament.
5:03 Imagine unironically thinking going back 400 years for your denomination is impressive... yeesh. Bro we can NAME the Popes from the very same century our Lord was crucified.
Watched this yesterday, funny enough. Wanted to do something on this myself, because it wasn't great.
Who is your profile pic? Is it Pope St. Pius the tenth?
@@timothyfreeman97 Yep, that's him. 😊
What's your page or channel?
@@JulioCaesarTM I just do a few blogs now and then. Please read my blog on protestantism, thanks.
whitecollarapologetics.blogspot.com/2019/07/what-scrupulosity-is.html
If sola scriptura is infallible who is going to interpret? Mathew 16 when Jesus ask his apostles who do men say I am? Many answered various interpretations on who is the word, Jesus Christ. That is up to now we have different interpretations who Jesus really is and now sects of Protestantism multiply daily,the dangers of individual radicalism.
Protestant sex?
My God, does Durbin have to shout like this ? I couldn't stand a sermon like this for so long.
Thank you so much for this Trent I’ve been learning so much. I have renewed trust and pride in my catholic faith because of you. God bless
@boogiman14
That is concerning
Gavin Hill why?
Gavin Hill ?
@@boogiman14
That you needed something like this to renew your trust and pride in your Catholic faith.
What happened to it before?
At any rate I was merely concerned that you now came back to faith in Roman Catholicism, that too is concerning
Do you believe that the pope possesses the authority to act in the power and place of Christ himself?
Gavin Hill
my story is I was baptized catholic by my father and went to catholic school until 6th grade. We learned about Jesus but we were never taught to DEFEND Catholicism I honestly never looked at christian differently until I started to attempt Protestant churches (Baptist, Pentecostal,Lutheran, Anglican, Church of Christ and non denominational)
Every Protestant church believes in different interpretations of the Bible but there can only be ONE Truth right?
So which denomination do I entrust in to help me Interpret the Bible correctly?
Protestants believe that the ONLY thing we should do is read the Bible and understand for themselves right? Well it’s clear Jesus Christ never wrote things down himself, he never instructed us to create a New Testament and there was NONE when he died.
What did Jesus leave us? 12 apostles. I want to know what they believed Jesus’s words meant. If Jesus wanted us to read and interpret the Bible individually on our own he would have left one for us, but he didn’t.
I believe the pope can show that his lineage of predecessors trace all the way back to Jesus Christ with NO GAPS. If any group knows the truth it’s Catholics.
Speaking of authority, why they didnt do his: "and with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."
So Martin Luther was a false prophet? I would say yes because bible alone is not working out so well. I.e. Dividing people. And we all know what fallen angel loves division.
Another amazing video. I've been sending people to your videos and using the information in these videos to help my friends and family understand or come back to the Catholic faith. I was recently challenged about my faith by a Reformed pastor at my local coffee shop and this was one Catholic that wasn't going to run away. Thanks Trent. Just finished "The Case for Catholicism". Awesome.
The Muslim's Quran teaches in Surah 5:72 if believe Jesus is the Son of God you go to hell.
But the Official Roman Catholic Catechism teaches
841 "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims.
Jesus Christ said he who has the Son has Life, he who does not have the Son does not have life but God's wrath remains on him.
I am going with Jesus Christ
That's funny that 11:02, Pastor Durbin says we should learn from the fathers when doing bible study, not just looking at it under a tree. So then, wouldn't that methodologically commit someone to Catholicism?
No. Quite the reverse. Catholicism is miles from anything the apostolic fathers taught.
@@spurcalluth6300 Regardless of whoever has been misleading you as to what the Church Fathers taught, committing oneself to interpreting scripture through tradition prevents one, in principle, from creating any new denominations. Reading Bible verses can bring up different interpretations, thus we get different denominations. (Apparently Jesus didn't want us to know whether we _need_ to be baptized to be saved). But it's impossible to have a unique interpretation of the Bible if you need to _also_ listen to thousands of pages of ancient commentary. One cannot possibly misinterpret whole bodies of literature from multiple authors, even if they can misinterpret one Bible passage.
For example, Augustine tells his son that Pelagians don't believe unbaptized babies go to hell if they die. Augustine argues to his son that babies will go to hell if they die and are not baptized _as babies_ because it is the necessary process for original sin to be removed. I can find you the reference if you want, but you can easily search up the work given what I just said. I was just reading it the other day and would have to go find it. How can you possibly come to interpretations of salvation held by so many protestants that it is by faith alone, or that baptism is not necessary, or that you don't need to baptize infants, if you can't even read AUGUSTINE without being flat-out contradicted?
Summary: there are two problems protestants have committing themselves to studying the fathers. 1) they cannot even in principle come to a new interpretation of the Bible, 2) the fathers often contradict their doctrines directly.
God bless you in your search for truth.
@@journeyfiveonesix, well, you know, Clement of Rome, disciple of the greatest apostles, said that we are justified by faith apart from our holy works. If Augustine disagrees with that, so much the worse for Augustine. Of course, I'd have to know if Augustine said this before or after his Retractiones in order to come to the conclusion that Augustine is at odds with Clement, but I try to learn what the church fathers said from the church fathers. Thanks for your prayer, and I pray God helps you in your road to truth too. Following Christ is a life-long walking towards Him Who is Truth, so I always want to encourage everyone to follow after truth.
@@spurcalluth6300 I take back what I originally wrote here. I think it would be most productive if you could send me the reference of St. Clement so I could read his words for myself
@@journeyfiveonesix
can you quote St Clement on justification in relation to faith and works?
I apologize for the confusion, but as I mentioned earlier, there are no known quotes from St. Clement of Rome specifically addressing the topic of faith and works. His epistle to the Corinthians, 1 Clement, focuses more on issues of church governance, unity, and the importance of obedience and humility rather than directly discussing the relationship between faith and works.
If you have any other questions or if there's anything else I can assist you with, please let me know!
This is what ChatGPT came up with and we would need to see the writing to understand Spurcalluth point. High probability he just picked a name or simply misunderstands the writing.
sola Scriptura (s/S) 50 FATAL FLAWS
. Firstly, every christian accepts the centrality, holiness and piety of God’s Word. However, sola Scriptura demands that Scripture alone is the only infallible authority we can appeal to define dogma
While God gave us intellects and reason, unfortunately the Bible could not be described as perspicuous (sorry Dr Luther) anymore than the challenge of someone trying to understand the many works of Shakespeare, a book on physical chemistry or a manual on Golf Techniques, by personal study alone. Right?
* If someone else is needed to tell the believer what the text means, Scripture would not be his sole authority; someone else would have binding authority
* Sola Scriptura is anarchic. This is evident from the endless multiplication of divergent theologies, doctrines and denominations within Protestantism.
* It is the freedom of all and sundry to assume the right of private judgment that has resulted in over 20,000 Christian Protestant denominations listed in the Oxford University Press's World Christian Encyclopedia.
* Sola Scriptura is culturally and historically impractical if not impossible.. Not only was ILLITERACY RIFE (>90%) for many centuries but also there simply was no such thing as the New Testament aka a Bible for centuries. The church fathers at the Councils had to sort through some 80 gospels and many letters to discern which were inspired.
* Historically, the reformation could only proceed from the mass availability of the Bible and the supporting documents of the reformation itself. ("Hey, I read the Scriptures, and this is what it says to me!").
* universal application of sola scriptura presupposes the mass manufacturing of books, and of the Bible in particular by the invention of the printing press
*The disintegration of Protestantism into so many competing factions, teaching different doctrines on key theological issues (What kind of faith saves? Is baptism necessary? Needed? Is baptism for infants? Can one lose salvation, are we say before the creation of the world or only by an act of repentance, can a righteous person fall awaybe gotten back? How? Is the Real Presence true? Are spiritual gifts like tongues and healing for today? For everyone? What about predestination, partial atonement, free will, baptism by immersion only etc etc
*s/S is a circular argument. There is no inspired list of contents. We can easily demonstrate that Christ established a Church through history and gave it authority to establish the Canon.
*In Protestantism, everyone is their own fallible pope or magesterium. This same “bottom-up” approach to God, existed once before, at the Tower of Babel.
*Anyone can claim divine inspiration but essentially, it is “I and I alone who am responsible for determining the true meaning of any given passage.” Each individual Christian is thus put in the position of being his own theologian.
*Sola Scriptura contradicts Scripture. This doctrine cannot establish the “sola’ nor the ‘Scriptura;. Scripture contains no table of contents
* The Bible does not teach Sola Scriptura, but it does teach the importance of the oral tradition which is not written down
*As Peter says, interpreting Scripture can be very difficult and sometimes it ends badly, especially with Paul’s letters! (2 Pt. 3: 16)
*A political Constitution, like the Bible, is not sufficient in and of itself to resolve disputes and differing interpretations. Judges and courts are necessary, and their decrees are legally binding.
*But Protestantism lacks this because it appeals to a logically self-defeating principle and a book that must be interpreted by human beings
*Obviously, given the huge divisions in Protestantism, simply “going to the Bible” hasn’t worked. In the end, a person has no assurance or certainty in the Protestant system
*In 1 Corinthians 10:4, Paul refers to a rock that “followed” the Jews through the Sinai wilderness. The Old Testament says nothing about such miraculous movement. But rabbinic tradition does.
*In the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:6-30), we see Peter and James speaking with authority. This Council makes an authoritative pronouncement (citing the Holy Spirit) that was binding on all Christians
*The Sadducees also rejected all authoritative oral teaching and essentially believed in sola scriptura. They were the theological liberals of that time. Christian Pharisees are referred to in Acts 15:5 and Philippians 3:5, but the Bible never mentions Christian Sadducees.
*Ephesians 4 Refutes the Protestant “Proof Text” This passage doesn’t teach formal sufficiency, Protestants extrapolate onto the text what isn’t there. If we look at the overall context of this passage, we can see that Paul makes reference to oral Tradition three times (cf. 2 Tim. 1:13-14; 2:2; 3:14)
*If 2 Timothy 3 proves the sole sufficiency of Scripture, then, by analogy, Ephesians 4 would likewise prove the sufficiency of pastors and teachers for the attainment of Christian perfection.
*s/S There were some 80 Gospels that the Church councils had to wade through , to determine which were inspired.
*Sola Scriptura is a novel idea. It did not exist until 500 years ago when Luther invented it. Protestants often complain about “man-made traditions” infecting Christianity - well, Sola Scriptura is one of them. It sounds quite a bit like one of those “winds of doctrine” which Paul warned about (Eph. 4: 14).
*James 1:6, instructs us to pray in faith without doubting. The goal is to avoid being "carried about by every wind of doctrine." False teaching changes regularly. Those who are immature can easily be fooled into thinking false teaching is accurate.
*Didn’t Jesus promise to be with his Church til the end of days? If so, God would NOT let Sola Scriptura remain an obscure but correct practice and then even fall out of existence for centuries until Luther was inspired to revive it?
*Jesus didn’t give us a Bible, nor tell his followers to write anything down, he gave us a Church
*What the prophets spoke was the word of God regardless of whether or not their utterances were recorded later as written Scripture. “For 23 years . . . the word of the Lord has come to me and I have spoken to you again and again . . . ‘But you did not listen to me,’ declares the Lord. . . . Therefore the Lord Almighty says this: ‘Because you have not listened to my words. . . .’” (Jer. 25:3, 7-8 [NIV]).
*If we compare 1 Thess. 2:13). with another, written to the same church, Paul appears to regard oral teaching and the word of God as synonymous: “Keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us” (2 Thess. 3:6).
*It took several decades for scribes to commit the bible to parchment. The printing press was not invented until the 15th century, but even then literacy was rare among Christians.
*Only a formal, divine-endorsed authority can decide what is Scripture and what is not. Yes to 2 Peter, no to 1 Clement. Yes to Revelation, no to The Shepherd of Hermas. Etc. The New Testament itself does not and cannot provide a guide - nor does the New Testament provide a list of what belongs in the O.T.\
Contd
50 fatal flaws in sola Scriptura Contd
* an authoritative Canon which did not assemble itself or fall from the sky necessitates an authoritative compiler.
*Seeing as Christ did not define a biblical Canon, let alone write anything himself, it logically follows He must have given authority to mere human beings to decide what texts God actually inspired!
* An appeal to Scripture to prove the authority of Scripture is perfectly circular. There is no a priori need for “Scripture” as an authority at all, let alone as the sole authority.
* Sola Scriptura is self-contradictory. It is an invention of Martin Luther, a mere man, and by those following him: also mere men. By obeying those who teach Sola Scriptura, the very doctrine is violated.
*Would God really leave us orphans in this way? Did the Word really in practice just become more Words? God did not abandon us, leaving only a special book behind… That is a bleak doctrine indeed.
*Peter declared, “No prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man,
*all Scripture is “profitable for teaching and correcting.” That is why the whole of both Testaments must be studied, not just a few verses like 2 Tim 3: 16
*There were local churches set up in many regions for a long time with little to no Christian Scriptures available, relying on the oral tradition of the apostles and their immediate disciples.
Paul taught daily for a year in Thessalonica. Would he only expect the church to pass on a measly 8 chapters in 2 letters? In 2 Thessalonians 2: 15 - “So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.”
*Paul obviously thought that more than Scripture might be necessary for safeguarding Christian doctrine.
*Scripture is Scripture only because it came from the mouth of the apostles
*Nowhere does Scripture say that the oral traditions have come to an end or that must hold fast to the written Word alone.
*The Church had the infallible authority to define the Canon because nowhere in Scripture does it define which books are or were inspired.
*In Matt 15 Jesus is NOT condemning all tradition. In Vs 9 it was the tradition of Jewish elders He condemned, referencing Isaiah. Contrast Mark 7:8 with reference to the Traditions of the Apostles
*The only conclusion we can reach from the Bible is what we call the “three-legged stool”: Bible, Church, and Tradition are all necessary to arrive at truth. If you knock out any leg of a three-legged stool, it collapses.
*While holy Scriptura is materially sufficient, it is not the sole or only source of divine revelation.
*All God’s Revelation is “God breathed and infallible. We are gifted with a brain having both a verbal and non verbal lobes. Does God not speak to our creative or intuitive side?.
*In Romans, Paul asserts from the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse
*All honest scientists from Galileo recognise that advanced mathematics is the language God used do write our (finite, abstract law-abiding, rationally intelligible) universe. Moreover, Ps 19-1-4 The laws, statutes and, precepts of the Lord are PERFECT perfect, trustworthy, firm and righteous.
*From a scientific analogy, science tells us nothing, only scientists do. Even if you assume science is the only source of knowledge, you still need mere mortals to identity, interpret its laws and make sense of it. Isnt that a fair analogy for what a manmade written book albeit "inspired" demands? Nevertheless, science can nowhere make the claim it is the sole infallible source of knowledge (a view cannot be proven by science itself). Would you try to study and make sense of a tertiary text on quantum theory without some expert to interpret it. Ergo, Sola scientifica likewise has to be a false doctrine.
_______&____________&&&&
As a newcomer and agnostic, I have read a lot of comments on this group site. I can believe the number of unsupported opinions, ad hominem attacks and logical fallacies that substitute for an argument or rebuttal. Nevertheless I think your assertion is right from the similar analogy I have given here.
Premise a) God reveals his omniscience, knowledge of himself, his will, and his divine providence to the world of human beings.
b) Sola Scriptura maintains that Scripture alone is the sole infallible source of God’s revelation
c) the Heavens declare the glory of God and reveal his knowledge Ps 19-1-4 The laws, statutes and, precepts of the Lord are perfect, trustworthy, firm and righteous.
d) in Vs 14 May these words of my mouth and this meditation of my heart be pleasing in your sight,
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine natur have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
_______________________
WHAT DOES James 2 actually MEAN? Well it means exactly what it says "without works, it is DEAD faith. Words are cheap and as we see twisted in many ways to justify all sorts of false doctrines! The Greek word to save, SOZO must be translated as our present continuous tense "being saved" It is by our actions as Paul says "fighting the good fight, running the race of our lives and avoiding temptation, we receive our reward. It is by being born again of water and the Spirit, by being attached to the true Vine, by continually producing "good fruit", by becoming laborers in the vineyard where the workers are few, by actualizing Jesus' words in the Sermon on the Mount, will the Kingdom of God be yours. Dead faith is from those arrogantly sitting on salvation mountain waving their get-out-jail "I am saved" free pass, expecting their judgment (or is it their reward (KJV?) to be a formality Matt 16"27 Rev 22"12 NOWHERE in SCRIPTURE DO WE FIND SALVATION IS BY FAITH ALONE !!!!
While God gave us intellects and reason, unfortunately the Bible could not be described as perspicuous anymore than the challenge of someone trying to understand the various works of Shakespeare by personal study alone, no matter how genuine we are. We are all fallible sinners..
Beautiful rebuttal Trent! Never from the time ecclessia Katholos appeared in Jerusalem has there ever been a Biblical or historical teaching of the non biblical Sola scriptura until man made Protestantism!
What do you think solar scriptura means?
The term "Sola Scriptura" appears in the bible [Original Latin Vulgate] one time only. It is in 1 Theselonians 1:5 and it says that the Gospel did not come to you in Scripture Alone.
Just like Faith Alone only appears in James 2:24 to tell us a man is NOT justified by faith alone.
What you find is Martin Luthers doctrines were not only unbiblical they are Anti-biblical because they are complete inversions of what is written.
This is inaccurate. “Sola Scriptura” isn’t mentioned in the Vulgate a single time.
But you’re dead on about how “faith alone” is only mentioned in James 2:24. -Kyle
@The_Counsel_Of_Trent
Will you contact Jeff Durbin for a live discussion about any of this?
Trent, you’ve got to stop slaying these guys. You got Mike Winger, James White, and now “cool Reformed guy” Jeff Durbin. So glad I found you guys from Catholic Answers.
@Justin_palmer
Let me ask you a question,
Do you agree Trent is right in asking 'where does the bible teach sola scriptura?'
Gavin Hill I do believe so. If you are going to declare a doctrine saying that we should only obey the doctrines explicitly apparent in the scripture, then you should be able to find that specific command given by the apostles in scripture.
We do not see
1. A single command from the apostles to obey only the rule of faith that they have written down
2. That the apostles ever claimed to have written down everything we need to know about the Christian faith
I agree with Trent that if you’re going to teach something as binding as Sola Scriptura, then you better find it TRANSPARENTLY in the Scripture
@@justinpalmer3948
Excellent, so you agree that for a doctrine to be true (and there for authoritative) it must be found in the scripture... congratulations you just defined sola scriptura.
Let me ask you this now, what do you think is meant by sola scriptura?
Gavin Hill I do not believe that. I’m showing how the claim of Sola Scriptura is self refuting. I believe we must adhere to the Scriptures, Traditions, and Magisterium. That can be shown through Scripture, History, and the early Ecumenical Councils. I do not have to prove my doctrines by showing them being explicitly mentioned in the Bible. That is because I do not view the Word of God as only parchment on paper or ceasing once it was written on paper.
Sola Scriptura is the belief that the whole of Christian revelation is contained in the Scriptures, and therefore the Scriptures must be the measuring tool of all traditions, creeds, and dogmas. If said traditions, creeds, and dogmas are not found in the explicit or implicit reference of Scripture then one could very well be adding to the Word of God. In other words, the only binding measuring tool is the Scriptures when it comes to truth. That is the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
@@justinpalmer3948
Sola scriptura is this
Defined as: scripture are the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice.
This means that if someone speaks and teaches contrary to scripture, regardless of their position, they do not absolve scripture. And scripture is used to refute such teaching as one is God breathed and contrary to it can not be of God.
So what about sola scriptura do you have an issue with?
protestants: the Bible is the infallible word of God, that is why I go by my own interpretation of it - I am infallible, you know, I feel things in my heart, that is why I am able to know the message of the Bible...?
He speaks so fast😥dude that's enough coffee for you.
I think the guy speaking said he
Sped it up on purpose
I'm sorry, did he say denying Sola Scriptura was apostasy from the faith? Did I misunderstand him there?
Jeff Durbin misquotes and misalignes many passages in the bible,and tends to impose his own beliefs on scripture. Very little substance and truth to Durbin's speeches.
So if you believe in sola scriptura, would you trust in Jesus' authority when He comes back?
@Joseph_jackson
If you believe in papal infallibility what will you do when Jesus comes back in judgement upon the whole creation?
@Qwerty
What type do you like?
Gavin Hill since papal infallibility comes from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, there's no dilemma between the authority Jesus gave to the Church and Jesus' authority. They're still both God's authority; both it in the Holy Spirit and the authority given to the Church.
@@josephjackson1956
So you are saying that Papal Infallibility comes from the Holy Spirit.
Can you provide any evidence of this?
@Prasanth Thomas
Matthew 16:18 Jesus states that the gates of death "hades" will not prevail against it.
What does this have to do with Rome claiming that papal infallibility exists ?
You must see that no man is on the level of scripture. That which is God breathed.
How can an unbeliever be saved friend?
Enjoyed listening to this. Very clear, factual and logical
IF YOUR BIBLE IS MISSING; 1and 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit, Judith, Daniel and Esther, then you are using a Bible that was codified by the jews AFTER THEY HAD REJECTED CHRIST. If your Bible includes theses books then your Bible was codified by the Catholic Church which was founded by Christ, the same church that wrote and codified the canons of the New Testament.
Funny thing is, there are Sola Scriptura adherents who DO believe that all they need is their KJV Bible, sitting under a tree with nobody around and interpreting it on their own with the help of the Holy Spirit. I run into these types quite often here on this site.
At least they are reading the Bible.
@@tatie7604
Of course.
@@tatie7604 So are prosperity gospel evangelicals, doesn't mean they aren't heretical
That is your excuse and misinterpreting it . What good is that and following bs teachings might as well read a dictionary. You don’t read the full Bible
Time to Jeff Durbin to convert to Catholicism...leave the man-made protestant church bro.
True!
Loving these videos! Happy to see that the podcast has grown into this. Our of curiosity? Do you have the citations of the early church saying the writings of the fathers where “God breathed”?
Perhaps you would like to see Jeff Durbin respond to this?
ua-cam.com/video/i8Eq3Vv7iNA/v-deo.html
It is time for the *great* response:
ua-cam.com/video/i8Eq3Vv7iNA/v-deo.html
Jeff Durbin & James White respond to Trent Horne
Trent, thanks for your input. I am a Protestant and I've been looking at How to be Christian's videos. It has been very, very annoying. I am so glad I have now watched one of your videos too, because I find your calm, non-abrasive approach much more helpful and much more thought provoking for me at least. I will continue watching your stuff and critically think about the questions that you pose to Protestantism. Can you recommend any other Catholic UA-cam channels that have an approach similar to yours?
matt fradd, and reason and theology UA-cam channel
how to be Christian can be annoying to those who don't like a bit of comedy with videos, I don't mind the comedy myself but I respect those who don't like it
Thanks, Pal
@@MZONE991, is it okay if I call you Pal? It is short for your handle.
@@spurcalluth6300
it's okay :)
At 23:40, yeah, before there was written scripture, God chose to speak to His messengers in person (Exodus 33:11) through a veiled form such as in the tent of meeting, or through the burning bush (Exodus 3), but today, God's word comes to us in the inscripturated word through His prophets and apostles, and you cannot point to a single word of God outside of scripture that can be demonstrated to be θεοπνευστος.
At 23:47, why does that matter? Are you trying to make the case that God COULD have preserved His word ONLY through oral tradition without anyone writing anything down? If that's the case, then why did the prophets and the apostles write it down? Or are you trying to make the case that they missed something? OK, then tell us all what they missed, and then demonstrate it to be θεοπνευστος.
Achilles heel of the Protestant position and one that moved me to becoming Catholic, was that the Church did tell us what the NT and the OT was in terrms of books. If the councils, made a mistake on the OT, then there is no reason to trust them on the NT. The OT, has deuterocanonical books that were included by the Church. The Protestant position for the most part is that this was an error. But what are they basing that on? How do they know? The same arguments many Protestants make against the deuterocanonical books, could be used against the other books of the Bible. Is it down to "our feeling"? Look at how many feel after reading the 5 books of Moses. Specifically the Law. People, have a problem with it. Does that mean its not scripture? Protestant's then would say you can't trust your feeling. So really, there is no real argument against the deuterocanonical books. If the Protestant Position is to go against the Church, then fine they can. But they should at least be consistent with their position.
Internal clues within certain texts.
@Nth_degree
So to sum up what you said,
You decided that you couldn't trust the men that decided the canon of scripture (as you put it) so you went for some other groups decision on scripture...
And you talk about consistency?
@@gavin_hill No, I am saying that if Canon giving to us which includes the deuterocanonical books, is wrong, then the Canon of the NT could be called into question, as it had its own "apocrypha". Martin Luther, wasn't okay with all the books in the NT. Personally, I believe in the Church's Magesterium to help us to know what scripture is.
@@nthdegree1269
So more should be questioned about it so you will go with the larger collection of potential suspects? That is not good risk limiting.
Do you believe that the pope possesses the authority to act in the power and place of Christ himself?
@@gavin_hill Let's break it down this way. If Martin Luther was around during the council of Rome synod back in 382 a.d, there is little chance he would have agreed on the NT selection. Maybe If I was there I might have come up with 20 books? Maybe less, maybe more than the 27 books of the NT. The fact that this council pointed to all 27 books must mean they either got really lucky or they got it wrong or had the authority to discern such. But the Protestant position is that the OT Canon, the council got wrong. Which if they did, then it's an obvious problem. It could mean their NT might only have 23 books right. Maybe 29 books should have been the Canon. Maybe 26 books etc
THE PROTESTANT DOCTRINES OF SCRIPTURE ALONE AND FAITH ALONE ARE NOT BIBLICAL:..
➔ The entire foundation of Protestantism is false:...
➔The Bible ITSELF Contradicts Luther's doctrine of "scripture alone" (solascriptura) The Bible tells us that the authority is THE CHURCH: ...
● 1 TIMOTHY 3:15 The pillar & foundation of TRUTH is the CHURCH.
● 2 TIMOTHY 2 Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things that thou hast HEARD from me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
● EPHESIANS 3:10 10 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,
● JOHN 21:25 Jesus said & did Many other things that are too numerous to be recorded in writing.
● 2 THESS 2:15 We are to hold fast to the TRADITIONS we have been given, either by WORD OF MOUTH or by the letter.
● 1 COR 11:2 I commend you because you remember me in everything, and maintain the TRADITIONS even as I have delivered them to you.
● HEB 13:17 Obey the eldars in the CHURCH.
● COR 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.
● HEBREWS 13:17 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.
2 COR 5:20 says that God appointed men in the Church to represent Him. And, in HEB 13:17, God appointed men in the Church to have the rule over His Flock.
● JOHN 13:20 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.
● MATT 18:15-17
15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto THE CHURCH: but IF HE NEGLECTS TO HEARTHE CHURCH let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
The True Church is a TEACHING Church: (to Teach means to impart knowledge that is not presently know....not in writing)
● JOHN 14:26-31
26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall TEACH you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have SAID unto you. (Spoken words...not in writing)
(To TEACH is to impart knowledge that is not presently known....not in writing)
● ACTS 8:31: And he said, HOW CAN I, (understand scripture) EXCEPT SOMEONE SHOULD GUIDE ME? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
(The scriptures are not for individual interpretation. They need the guidance of the CHURCH. It is PROTESTANTS who are following the doctrines of a man.)
Praise God! Thank you very much for all you work. I've recently started understanding the importance of apologetics and understanding the faith in this way (its relation and differences to other denominations and faith traditions). I have taken for granted much of what has been given to me. I'm happy to start this long process of understanding! Thank you!
Perhaps you would like to see Jeff Durbin respond to this?
ua-cam.com/video/i8Eq3Vv7iNA/v-deo.html
Either the holy spirit was active when canon was established or not.
One time I had a guy tell me that after the council of Rome the Holy Spirit left the Church. I guess God abandoned us after we canonized the scriptures.
@@bassman_0074 So he admitted the Catholic Church was the one true church and then claimed the Holy Spirit left it...What proof could someone have?
I make a few straight forward statements.. Mary is in heaven so is Peter so is many others you know there names some you don't... But who are they worshiping now? only God is omnipotent... all will worship God in heaven.. .. you see where I am going? the saints in heaven are not omnipotent... they cant hear your prayers...they can pray in heaven but they cant hear you...Jesus did it all and is enough for access to the throne of almighty God .. Jesus when He said it is finished was done with the redemptive work and God was fully pleased with Him....when you pray to other saints your realy not believing Jesus is enough.. its not gonna please God am telling this truth.. no need to talk about other dissagreements…we could do that forever...I want some catholic to offer there explanation how they continue to justify its ok . that they arent violating the first commandments... "have no other gods before me" only God is omnipotent almighty....its that so hard to understand? saints in heaven are not omnipotent.. .only God.... why exalt anything more than God in three. Father son and holy spirit.. that doesn't glorify Jesus Christ if Hes not enough.. Jesus prayer in John ch 17.. is a must read ….
Im nota Catholic, I think catholicism is wrong, BUT I like hear you.
Great video as always.
Is it possible for an evangelical pastor to just speak normally? Or is it essential to give your sermon like a raving lunatic?
Sola Scriptura is a circular argument: The Bible is true because the Bible says so.
@Gerad_Max
What is wrong with circular arguments? Are you an atheist?
@@gavin_hill Circular arguments are false because the conclusion is used to prove the premises. An example: The world is flat because flat-worlders say so.
I am not an atheist.
@@gerardk51
How does that make them false? So far you have assumed your answer to say that it is false which is begging the question.
So have you been born again then?
@@gavin_hill
Hmmm..A circular argument is false because you can say anything you like and then claim it to be true because you like it.
Some more examples: the Koran is true because the Koran says so.
Or: Hitler was good because he had many followers who believed he was good.
Have I been born again?... Have you?
@@gerardk51
Yes I have, but I asked you.
So have you?
At any rate; what do you think is meant by sola scriptura?
I can’t stomach Jeff Durbin almost as much as White. It’s funny how he says “the Bible is the sole infallible rule of faith,” yet one must hold to Calvinistic presuppositions before entering into scripture.
*What is clearly taught in scripture.:*
Salvation can be lost.
Jesus died for all men, not just the elect.
The Holy Spirit is given to believers, not given to spiritually dead men.
Faith comes before regeneration.
Men have free will.
Baptism is necessary for salvation.
All these are clearly taught in scripture and yet Calvinists reject ALL OF THEM.
Great videos Trent! This one hits me particularly different because I used to share specific doctrinal beliefs with Apologia and Durbin and others like them. If you look at Theonomy and Christian Reconstructionism you will get an idea of their beliefs. I was big into Rushdoony and Bahnsen for about 4 years or so before I discovered Catholicism.
@Zach_lee
You hadn't heard of Catholicism before then?
Why the change, was Jesus Christ not enough?
Gavin Hill Lol yes I had heard of it, but I hadn’t really looked into it enough. Of course Jesus Christ is enough, that’s why I wanted to be in full communion with him and his Church.
@@happy_warrior
So you previously had false communion? And were not apart of his church?
Do you now believe that the pope possesses the authority to act in the power and place of Christ himself?
Gavin Hill I don’t know about false but it wasn’t full. The Pope has the powers properly designated to him through Apostolic succession which began with Christ.
@@happy_warrior
I dont think you answered my last question:
Do you believe that the pope possesses the authority to act in the power and place of Christ himself?
If Jesus Christ is Master of the Sabbath, He is also Master of the Scriptures. Please, if You are a Christian, You cannot read and practice the Holy Scriptures literally. But within the enlightment of the HOLY SPIRIT. Because the letter kills but the the Spirit give live (SAINT PAUL).
God bless you Trent!! You da man!!
Perhaps you would like to see Jeff Durbin respond to this?
ua-cam.com/video/i8Eq3Vv7iNA/v-deo.html
Amen. Trent, would you please do a response to their reaction to this video? Jeff and James White both make a lot of false claims in their two-part videos, and would love you to clarify a few things for them.
“So The Word of God can exist in a written form and an unwritten form?.. Thanks. I.. I Agree.”
There is no Word of God in unwritten form today.
That is a lie from Satan.
Billn Heather ok. Give me example of it and how you know it is.
@Laudetur Jesus Christus Please give me a couple of examples of a teaching of Christ not found in the NT and how you know. How do you know Jesus taught that babies were to be baptized if its not in the NT? How do you know what Jesus said about marriage ceremonies if its not in the NT?
Churches sharing something does not mean it came from Christ Himself.
I disagree that there is no Unwritten form of the Word of God today. It is through Traditions passed down in the Church over the years from the end of Christ’s ministry on Earth up until today, where they keep and hold these traditional teachings that were there before there was even a written New Testament. There was a whole 60-90 years before there was any NT writings. For example: The belief of the real presence was understood through the Church from it’s initial institution. They were putting Christians to death for this misconception of cannibalism. And the Christians were willing to DIE for that belief. Because they affirmed to the bread being flesh and the wine being blood. I dare ANYONE to combat this with a hard fact. You can’t. Other than maybe that they didn’t like Christians, because they were evading taxes (which is true) but you don’t get put to death for owing money.. Even in the first century.
Trent, have you seen Jeff Durbin and James White’s rebuttal of your rebuttal? It would be interesting if you made a counter-rebuttal of their rebuttal to your rebuttal :) Here’s the video: ua-cam.com/video/tQva0RoKEvM/v-deo.html
I am not a Catholic but I do admire you Trent for not being this overly zealous fast talker. You actually do break things down with real facts and logic and your arguments do actually have some real value to them unlike the straw man arguments that Jeff Durbin tries to use. The real reason that Jeff Durbin talks so fast is so his listeners don't have time to evaluate his arguments and see them for being the useless straw man arguments that they are.
One thing among other that I can not tolerante inglés catholicism is the prayer to Mary or saints...