This is such a true message. I was brought up Catholic. However, after reading the bible myself I saw how highly Catholics put their traditions and rituals above anything else including scripture. I come from an Italian background and where my parents are from traditions such as celebrating saints to the point of building statues of them and following it being held high around their village is more important to them then spending time with God, reading scripture and repenting. I am a Christian with no denomination now and I pray for my Catholic brother's and sister's that they repent. Thank you Jeff and God bless
The Holy Scriptures were canonized and compiled by the Catholic councils of Hippo 393, and Carthage 397 and 419. Church tradition evolved long before the Reformation which gave birth to the Scriptures.
And? Are you saying that these Roman Catholic traditions are based accurately on the Scriptures? They are not. Sure, nice work putting the books together, but the truth of which book were Scripture was settled long before any of those dates. You want to support a religion (Roman Catholicism) that hid God's word from most people AND was a central part in killing people who attempted to put God's word in the hands of common people. And still practice idolatry even to this day. Yeah, that sure sounds like a loving, God-obeying, faithful church to me.
MATTHEW 23 Woe unto you all Pastors. At the beginning of the missionary activity of Jesus, the doctors of Jerusalem went to Galilee to observe Him (Mk 3:22; 7:1). Disturbed by Jesus’ preaching, they had based their attacks on saying that He was possessed (Mk 3:22). All along the three years the popularity of Jesus grew. And at the same time, the conflict between He and the religious authority also grew. The origin of this conflict was the way in which they placed themselves before God. The Pharisees sought their own security, not so much in God’s love toward them, but rather in the rigorous observance of the Law. Before this mentality, Jesus insists on the practice of love which makes the observance of the law relative and gives it its true significance. Matthew 23:1-3: The root or origin of the criticism: They say but they do not do . Jesus recognizes the authority of the scribes and of the Pharisees. They occupy the chair of Moses and teach the law of God, but they themselves do not observe what they teach. So Jesus tells them: You must, therefore, do and observe what they tell you, but do not do as they do, because they say but do not do! This is a terrible criticism! Immediately, as in a mirror, Jesus shows some aspects of the incoherence of the religious authority. Matthew 23:4-7: Look in the mirror in order to make a revision of life. Jesus calls the attention of the disciples concerning the incoherent behavior of some doctors of the Law. In meditating on this incoherence, it is helpful to think about ourselves and not about the Pharisees and the scribes of that time already past. They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on people’s shoulders, but will not lift a finger to move them; they do their works in order to be admired; they love to take the first places and to be called doctors. The scribes liked to enter into the houses of the widows and to recite long prayers to receive money in exchange! (Mk 12:40). Matthew 23:8-10): You are all brothers. Jesus orders that we have the contrary attitude. Instead of using the religion and the community as means for self-promotion in order to appear more important before others, He asks not to use the title of Rabbi or Teacher, of Master, Father and Guide because only one is the guide, Christ; only God in Heaven is Father, and Jesus is the Master, the Teacher. You are all brothers. This is the basis of the fraternity which comes from the certainty that God is our Father. Matthew 23:11-12: The greatest must be the servant. This phrase is what characterizes both the teaching and the behavior of Jesus: The greatest among you must be your servant; the one who raises himself up, will be humbled (cfr. Mk 10:43; Lk 14:11; 18:14). • Matthew 23:13: The first “Alas for you...” against those who close the door of the Kingdom because in this way you will not enter and, you do not even let those who want to enter. How do they lock people out of the Kingdom? They do it by presenting God as a severe judge, leaving very little space for the mercy of God; by imposing, in the name of God, laws and norms which have nothing to do with the commandments of God, by presenting a false image of the Kingdom and by killing the desire to serve God and the Kingdom. A community which organizes itself around this false god “does not enter into the Kingdom,” and it is not even an expression of the Kingdom and prevents its members from entering into the Kingdom. • Matthew 23:14: The second “Alas for you...” is against those who use religion Pastors to enrich themselves (Prosperity Gospel). You devour the property of widows, though you make a show of lengthy prayers. The more severe will be the sentence you receive because of this.” Jesus allows the disciples to live the Gospel, because He says that the laborer has the right to his salary (Lk 10:7; cf. 1 Cor 9:13-14), but to use prayer and religion as a means to enrich themselves, that is hypocrisy and does not reveal the Good News of God. It transforms religion into a market. Jesus drives out the merchants from the Temple (Mk 11:15-19) quoting the prophet Jeremiah: “My house will be called a House of Prayer for all people; but you have turned it into a bandits’ den!” (Mk 11: 17; cf. Isa 56:7; Jer 7:11). When Simon the magician wanted to buy the gift of the Holy Spirit, Peter curses him (Acts 8:18-24). Simon received the “most severe condemnation” which Jesus speaks about in the Gospel today. • Matthew 23:15: The third expression of “Alas for you...” is against those who proselytize. “You travel over sea and land to make a single convert, and anyone who becomes one you make twice as fit for hell as you are.” There are people who become missionaries and proclaim the Gospel not to radiate the Good News, but to attract people for their group and their church. John once prohibited a person from using the name of Jesus because he was not part of His group. Jesus answered, “Do not stop him, because anyone who is not against us is for us (Mk 9:39). The document of the Plenary Assembly of the Bishops of Latin America, which was held in March 2008 in Aparecida, Brazil, bears the title: “Disciples and Missionaries of Jesus Christ, so that our people may have life in Him”. That is to say,, the purpose of the mission is not to work in such a way that people go to Calvary Chapel, but rather that people may have life, and life in abundance.
Sola scriptura? 2 Thessalonians 2: "Stand firm, then, brothers, and keep the traditions that we taught you, whether by word of mouth or by letter." John 5 :39-40: "You pore over the scriptures, believing that in them you can find eternal life; it is these scriptures that testify to me, and yet you refuse to come to me to receive life!" In conjunction with this, the Bible tells us that the living Christ-filled _church_ is the pillar and foundation of the truth, not the scriptures' filter-words, language and sentences set in isolation. It is the _events_ and _beings_ detailed in Scriptures that matter, not simply and solely scriptures as something separate and special and alone. Jesus promised that the gates of hell would not prevail over his _church_. His words will never pass away because of the _living beings_ who speak those words, chief among them the Living Word, who is _not identical_ with your printed bibles. The latter are necessary and wonderful, but the two are not one and the same. Fundamentalists fatally misunderstand this.
But without the Scriptures you wouldn't know Christ at all except via the word of people, which would be reduced to mere hearsay. Christ is the word, yet the Scriptures are distinct from God, though are not separable. Just like the three Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct yet not separable as being one. This is why Solus Christus is also included. Your argument that the church being the pillar and foundation of truth should not be taken to have authority over the word of God. In fact, the church is suppose to protect said truth and be a witness to it not according to it's own authority, but rather the authority granted to it by Christ. Don't be deceived by Sola Ecclesia. There wouldn't be any church if there wasn't a "word" to begin with. "Word" being that spoken and written (Scripture) by God.
Jesus Christ has ultimate authority. 2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
How could scripture be the ultimate authority when there are multiple interpretations of scripture? The pharisees thought this and yet they missed the very Messiah that the scriptures spoke about.
The pharisees missed it because they were sinners blinded by power and hypocrisy. Look at who was highly praised in Acts 17 - the Jewish Bereans. They were considered noble because they searched the Scriptures to see if what the Apostles taught were in accordance with what was dictated by God. They are even compared to the Jews in Thessaloniki as being MORE noble than those Jews. So we have two groups of Jews, one noble and the other not as noble. The difference being that the noble Jews were fervently searching the Scriptures to test the message of Paul.
1). Sola scriptura presupposes that one must already know what the contents of scripture are before anyone can claim that scripture is the only source of divine revelation. 2). The apostles were commissioned with preaching the word, not writing it. 3). The Apostles waited quite a bit of time to write anything down. 4). If the early Church had a sola scriptura attitude, it's incredible that they should have taken so much time to define the Biblical canon. 5). There could not be agreement on the canon if the authority of the Church wasn't taken as given. 6). The doctrine of sola scriptura (in the sense that the only source of divine revelation is to be found in “scripture”) is nowhere to be found in scripture itself. The doctrine of sola scriptura in the sense of all divine revelation being written would have been foreign to the minds of Jews and Christians in the first century. In Judaism, oral traditions ostensibly from the time of Moses played an important role in interpreting and amplifying the written Law, and that continues to be the case today. The Gospel was first circulated by oral tradition, and put to writing only belatedly, even reluctantly in the cases of Mark and John. The preferred mode of teaching was by a living voice, as attested not only by Papias, but by Plato and various ancients. The Gospel oral tradition likely continued into the mid-second century, and private reading did not become common until much later. In the earliest centuries of the Church, the Scriptures were those writings that were read in the churches. There was no separation of Scripture from the authority of the Church. You couldn't take the scrolls home to study them, any more than you could from a synagogue. Worship and discourse on the Scripture was consistently communal. It's only later, in the fourth-fifth centuries, that you have a distinctly literary culture with private reading. This remained confined to monks, clerics, and aristocrats due to the great expense of acquiring and copying texts. Luther's notion of sola scriptura was very much a product of its age, made possible only by the printing press and Renaissance notions of the individual. You'll find no analogue to it in any earlier culture, Christian or non-Christian. With regard to who has the authority to interpret Scripture, you'll find once again that Protestant notions of private interpretation would have been alien to the ancients. The term "rabbi" means "teacher" precisely to designate that he is qualified to teach, namely, to interpret the law. This is because he has studied not only the Torah, but also the oral tradition (Mishnah) and its commentaries (Gemara). The reason you see Pharisees in Galilee throughout the Gospels is that they were sent to teach the rustic Galileans to make sure they followed correct doctrine and law. There was not a rigid organizational structure like you would find later with the Catholic Church, but the rabbis generally enjoyed a respect and awe for their authority. They were not infallible, as proved by the fact that they contradicted themselves, and even recorded their contrary opinions on various issues. This was common practice in legal matters. Their intent was not to authoritatively decide an issue for all time, but to try, as best as possible, to discern what the Law demanded in each circumstance. In the Christian Church, the Apostles enjoyed a teaching authority that was unquestioned. This was not because of any personal virtue, but was subordinate to the revelation they received from Christ and were divinely commissioned to preach (orally, not in writing). By the early second century, a distinction between right-believing (orthodox) and heretical churches was established, on the basis that the former were in communion with the churches founded by the Apostles and retained their doctrines. The infallibility of the orthodox Church was not formally defined, but was clearly presumed by the fact that only those in communion with this Church, under the teaching of its bishops, were considered among the elect who had received the Gospel. Later, when there were disagreements on doctrinal subtleties even among the Apostolic churches, the mechanisms of regional councils, ecumenical councils, and appeals to the Pope were introduced to resolve these matters. Again, no one worried about formal criteria of infallibility, since obedience to these authorities was expected regardless. The idea of individuals choosing for themselves when to obey a public authority would have been utterly foreign to that cultural milieu, indeed to the very notion of authority.
The fact that the Holy Apostles and their immediate successors did not see fit to define a specific canon of Holy Scripture, either for the Old or New Testaments, says much about the relation between Scripture and Revelation. The central Revelation of the Church is Christ Himself, and Holy Scripture is but one means of revealing Christ, not even the primary means. The Apostles carried out their divine commission by preaching Christ, and the two who wrote Gospels did so only reluctantly, according to tradition. Most of the New Testament is a haphazard collection of apostolic epistles that were providentially preserved. Some were at first read only in the churches to which they were addressed, and only eventually spread to the rest of the Church. The authority of the New Testament writings was grounded in the personal authority of the Apostles, so any local church that doubted the authenticity of a given epistle would not receive it. The Apostles never defined an Old Testament canon either, though their writings used the Septuagint, including the deuterocanon, and even some apocrypha. Here the criterion for inclusion was murkier, but from an early date, the Septuagint was the accepted Christian Old Testament, with no distinction among classes of books such as the Jews used (i.e., the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings). In fact, the Septuagint intersperses the deuterocanonical books among the protocanon. Again, there was no formal proclamation, only an acceptance of what had been received, and the Septuagint was used by Christians since the Apostolic age. All of this points to a thoroughly un-Protestant ecclesiology, where the font of authority, even in defining Scripture, is in the patrimony of the Holy Apostles and the judgments of their successor bishops in the Church. The Orthodox, to this day, consider Holy Scripture to be the Book of the Church, i.e., that which is to be read in church. When the early Patristic writers favor the canonicity of a book, they say as evidence that it is “read in the churches,” clearly making the Church, which is Christ manifest on earth, the source of authority.
Points you miss out on: The Apostles used OT scriptures to preach their Gospel. Further, in the beginning, the group of believers was small enough that they could control what was being taught. But in short time, heresies were springing up to drive believers away from Christ. Because the Gospel had spread wide and far, and they couldn't quite control the spoken message as they had before, they began to write everything out. Paul's first letter was written only a few years after he began his missionary travels. The fact that he had to write down the essentials of the Gospel and exert his authority shows that it was an important and right step. Peter, in his letters, takes this a step further and says that Paul's writings to those churches should be considered as authoritative as the Old Testament scriptures. Because of the lack of sticking with the Scriptures as the source of authority, now many are deceived by beliefs and practices that are directly in contradiction with with the apostles taught, and they claim it was from "church tradition". Well, if the founder of your church says that another apostle is writing revelation directly from God, and your church traditions are in contradiction, it would appear that your traditions and dogma are incorrect.
"Sola scriptura presupposes that one must already know what the contents of scripture are before anyone can claim that scripture is the only source of divine revelation." Jesus assumed that his hearers knew what he meant when he cited the scripture. There was no infallible declaration of the canon in AD 30. So Jesus himself falsifies your claim.
If you don't have the word, you don't have anything. That's right... completely nothing. The word created everything. God spoke and it was so. The church does have a great importance, but to place it above God's word is not only wrong, but could be considered a serious case of idolatry. What did King David say he would meditate on day and night? The church? Nope. God's precepts; law of the Lord. His word. The church has no authority without the God's word. The church cannot claim truth of itself nor claim to be self-evident. God's word is truth, self-evident, and can checked within itself without being charged with circular reasoning.
Scripture AND tradition AND the successors of the apostles. By reading from your bible, you acknowledge implicitly the legitimate of Catholic tradition. Namely, the table of contents.
For the Catholics who don't believe Sola Scriptura please tell us what else we should consider infallible authority I love it how these Catholics come into a Christian forum and try to teach Christians what we should believe
Catholics are followers of Christ, as are Copts, Maronites, Orthodox, Amish,.... Christ is the content and authority of Christianity, and his apostles. If Modernists calling themselves 'Christians' have lost touch with the roots of the faith, it's very welcome if Orthodox and Catholics can come and graciously help out. What completes the broken picture of the church is the inter-sprinkling of what Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox pour onto each other and so water the mustard seed/tree of Christ's still-growing church.
Since Jeff only addressed it by saying it’s his preference (and referenced PNG as the standard), can someone please clarify why Leviticus says not to tattoo our bodies and Paul instructs us not to look like the world? I really want to understand this view of piercings and ink and gages as being a biblical way to present ourselves. Thanks.
If scripture has ultimate authority can someone provide the moment when scripture decided between two competing biblical interpretations since by definition an 'authority' can make decisions and wield power?
Tyson Guess no I'm not but I'm also saying that there are true Christians and false Christianity pretty much all organized "Christians" such as Catholic, Mormon, and charismatics are false believers and pervert and corrupt biblical teachings to fall in line with their beliefs so that they can continue to believe in their ways (mostly to have their comforts) most true believers pretty much agree that the Bible is pretty literal and don't really need interpretation
Infact I dare say that John MacArthur is a good sound teacher and all true believers would agree with his teachings and theology and biblical worldview
Then I have no idea what you mean when you say, "that's an oxymoron there are no contradictions in Bible with Bible" My statement is very clear. Jeff is teaching that the bible has the highest authority. If that is true, then it is fair for me to ask for any time when the bible decided between two competing interpretations of scripture. A perfect example is the Arian Heresy. Did the bible decide the difference in the interpretations? Or did something else? Because, by definition, an authority must be able to make decisions and wield power. The bible is a thing (ie..a mechanism), and things can be authoritative but they can't be authorities. Just as the Constitution of the United States is the highest authoritative document in the land but the authority that interprets it is the Supreme Court. In other words, claiming that the scriptures are the highest authority is a categorical error in logic between mechanism and agency. Mechanisms cannot be an authority because an authority is an agent or agents.
This Pastor himself admits he has no authority except Scripture. He has his understanding of Scripture. If you have no authority, how do you know for certain your understanding is the correct one? How can you dare say another's understanding of Scripture is wrong, while at the same time admitting you only have your understanding Scripture, without any authority?
Rex Legorreta lol. When your church goes out multiple times a week for the ministry of saving babies from abortion I imagine you're gonna have a few in there on Sunday.
Jeff: "Rome teaches....there are two deposits" False; What is spoken orally and written are the same deposit. "He who hears you hears me" - Jesus speaking to his apostles - so evidently the things the apostles taught their successors is (by definition) the Word of God. "What you bind on earth will be bound in heaven" - Jesus to Peter - so evidently Jesus said the church founded on Peter will make decisions infallibly "...If he doesn't listen even to the church, then treat him as a tax collector" - Jesus presupposing a church that makes decisions If I told you 1 +1 = 2 orally would that deposit of information be a different deposit of information if I wrote it down and gave it to you? of course not.
You made some serious assumptions. You assumed that the successors were all faithful. That they perfectly taught throughout the centuries. We know that is not the case as the 1st century church was already battling against false teachings. Quite the logical fallacy with attempting to make the claim that the church would make decisions infallibly. Inquisition much? Surely you are unaware of what the Jesuits do. Heck, Peter himself had to be rebuked by Paul. God's word is truth, perfect, etc. Peter was not perfect. Peter did write some Scripture, but it's God who was the author of it, which is why it (not Peter) that is perfect. No one says that the church doesn't make any decisions. They are supposed to safeguard "the Word" and be a witness to it... without being higher than it. Your 1+1 analog is invalid. It's an objective math law so whether you state it orally or write it down doesn't matter. You cannot just use that and make a claim that all traditions or oral (from man) comments are objectively true. And how would anyone know if they are true? You test it against God's word. If it matches (without personal subjective interpretation), then it is true. If it doesn't match, then it's false. The church is not the standard. It's subject to Christ, who is the standard... and the word, since He is the word. John 1
@@paulrichards383 Peter being corrected by Paul is also demonstrative of the way the Church operates today. Paul did correct Peter, but Paul also submitted to Peter's authoritative decision at the end of the day.
@@robertluechtefeld5017 yeah, he agreed, but after Peter admitted his error. By the way, Jesus didn't establish the church upon any man. That's a gross interpretation. Delegating authority isn't the same thing. The foundation is still His word and the commandments given. To place Peter, Mary, or anyone on a pedestal is idolatry.
Anti scripturists should stop using the word ‘tradition’. Christ’s word is not tradition, it was codified and passed down. Then written by people who lived among Christ. Tradition is flawed by appeal to authority/consensus. It’s not merely a ‘tradition’ to say, “so and so lived with Christ, and repeated what he said.” That’s the spoken word, and transmission. If it boils down to Christ’s teachings, which we have original autographs of, and a modern biblical interpretation that contradicts those teachings...which do you go with? You know the answer.
Jeff is HUGE on science. He has done a lot of podcasts featuring Christian scientists. What he's referring to here is science as a religion. They talk about this a lot in their podcasts as well.
Chris Williams: Yes, Jesus is the final authority. But he's the one who inspired the Bible, therefore, what we read are the words of Jesus -- and are the ultimate authority.
John 5:39-40: "You search scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that testify on my behalf. Yet you refuse to come to me to have life." This is Jesus confronting the Pharisees who saw the scriptures as ultimate authority, yet they did not follow Jesus. Why? The Torah was their god. Let us not do the same lest we miss the Messiah in our midst.
In what sense are Jesus and the scriptures the "same"? This represents a category error. Scripture isn't an "authority," although it is authoritative. For example, I wouldn't call the constitution an "authority," although I would call it authoritative. As a previous commentor noted, "In other words, claiming that the scriptures are the highest authority is a categorical error in logic between mechanism and agency. Mechanisms cannot be an authority because an authority is an agent or agents." Unless of course you think the scriptures are self-interpreting.
All scripture is God inspired according to 2 Timothy 3:16. God is our ultimate authority - and has spoken through his Word. So how is scripture not the final authority were to subject ourselves to?
"Sola Scriptura" begs the question of what makes something scripture. Is "scripture" anything that is in the Bible or anything that is divine revelation? Jesus mentioned "the law and the prophets", but that doesn't include "the writings" in the OT, so He didn't even embrace the whole OT as we have it now. Also, when Jesus told the Pharisees to focus on the law, none of the NT had been written -- He hadn't even revealed everything He was going to. I understand the step of logic Jeff is making, but Jesus saying "focus on the law vs tradition" doesn't tell us *what* to consider scripture among NT writings, nor that *only* scripture should be considered.
"The Law" and the "Prophets" meaning the God breathed, spoken Word of God; further meaning, The Prophet's, or what the Prophets "wrote", through the revelation of God (the OT). Sola Scriptura, John 1:1, revealed/revelation. The Word is God, obey Him. This is my understanding (revelation). Vanity vanity, all is vanity, Ecclesiastes 1. Follow no man, for he is born of the flesh, cursed by God from the beginning for disobedience. We are all prone to sin, to deceive, to serve the self; it is a characteristic of the flesh. The good works that we perform are ONLY manifestations of the Holy Spirit (God) that resides within us (and within the World, God's creation). Even those that don't know Yeshua, still can perform good works, because they are God's subjects. He is sovereign over His creation; He has authority over all things, even the devil (Colossians 1:16). Scripture (Yeshua, John 1:1) is the Way, the Truth and the Life, or the standard (John 14:6). I don't know if I fully understood your perspective/position, but this is my response based on my interpretation of the word. Shalom
AntiCalvinist Indeed, that's why Jesus mentions that the Pharisees have authority over Israel because they sit "in the Seat of Moses" as Jesus said. Of course Jesus coming at the end of the age of the Jews and being the Messiah overpowers that. Niw what remains is the Seat of St. Peter as even Orthodox Patriarchs openly admit but are stubborn enough to sidestep. Jesus did not leave us with a Bible, although it is very important no doubt. But what is even more important is the Church. And that's what he left us with. It spares us from faulty interpretations and promotes unity in the faith as God's holy nation.
Cani: No, "the Law" meant the Torah to 1st century Jews, and "the prophets" are the dozen or so books of prophecy that are the end of our OT. "The writings" are everything else (Kings, Chronicles, Psalms, Proverbs et. al.). Jeff's citation of Jesus rebuking the Pharisees for adding to the Law makes perfect sense, but it doesn't support either "sola scriptura" nor does it help us know what "scripture" consists of -- it just says the Pharisees should not have added to the Law.
WWT: What does that metaphysical mumbo-jumbo even *mean,* separate from whether it is true? Is Jesus a Divine Person, the ontologically equal Son of another Divine Person, or is He merely "the Word" of YHWH, or just of The Father, or what? Why did you even *quote* that? I'll bet you have no coherent idea of what it supposedly means.
BIBLICAL AUTHORITY RELIES HEAVILY ON CIRCULAR REASONING! The term "Biblical Authority" gets tossed around a lot! Let's recall where this idea came from--when Catholics in some parts of Europe were fed up with "Papal Authority" in Rome, and had become quite certain the leadership of the Church had been teaching ideas that, people like Martin Luther, were convinced were foreign to Early Christianity, like paying indulgences to get people out of Purgatory. How, then, to counter Papal Authority in Rome? Well, they could have just appointed a different Authority, like the Eastern (Orthodox) Church did centuries earlier, by making a Patriarchal Authority or something similar. Had Luther wanted to, he might have made himself a sort of Protestant "Pope." But he and other Protestant leaders decided to counter Papal Authority with "Biblical Authority." Thing was, WHAT was the Bible? The idea most have is that the "Bible" was a book that had been around since Jesus' day...which is true, as long as one understands the Bible Jesus used was the Tanakh, the Jewish Bible, or what Christians call the "Old Testament"! But the Christian Bible has a "New Testament" that came from...where exactly??? Well, as it turns out, the Early Church never said which books and letters should be considered equal to the Jewish Bible! There were some favorites, popular in some parts of the Church, and others popular elsewhere! But as the bishopric of Rome became increasingly more powerful, especially after the conversion of the Roman Emperor, the bishops of Rome began rejecting books favored by many other Christians. In summary, it was Papal Christianity that ultimately settled on which books would be considered the Christian Bible, or we should say CATHOLIC Bible! Now, Martin Luther knew this, so when the time came for him to translate "The" Bible into German, guess what he did, or tried to do? Toss out a bunch of books favored by the Catholic Church!!! For example, he got rid of I and II Maccabees (largely because they contain passages that support the belief in a Purgatory). He also tossed out others, like Bel and the Dragon (No! That's not a Disney movie! It's a book that was in "The" Bible for 100s of years!)! Luther also wanted to get rid of Revelation, but he was talked into including it in printed editions toward the back, along with other apocryphal books, like the Shephard of Hermas. He wrote a preface, though, that made it clear Revelation was NOT to be regarded as an inspired text...which the American Bible Society REMOVED in 1807 in their printed editions (Yeah, THAT is how Revelation got in the Protestant New Testament)! In other words, when we use the term "Biblical Authority," there's some major CIRCULAR REASONING going on! To counter the Catholic Church's Papal Authority, Protestants asserted "Biblical Authority" was superior...even though it was the Catholic Church which had selected which books should be in the Bible!!! So, what's a Protestant Christian to do? Well, we can blindly believe that, somehow, the same Church we say had begun swaying from the teachings of Jesus as early as the Second Century was divinely guided into making the perfect choices as to what would later be regarded equal to the original Jewish Bible (though they added books to the Tanakh as well)... or, we can use the brains God gave us to realize what we call the Bible is a MAN-MADE collection of writings in which many a frail, sinful, human being tried to understand what God was trying to tell us! We can, in other words, find God's words and the authority they convey CONTAINED in the Bible, but it's foolish to blindly believe men with many an ulterior motive at several, religious power centers, from Rome to Philadelphia (HQ of the American Bible Society) received a singular book from the hands of angels, perfectly dictated, word for word, by God Himself! Rick Lannoye, author of www.amazon.com/Rightly-Dividing.../dp/B091LSMD9N Are you a victim of Bible Abuse? Get help at ricklannoye.com/contact
Silver Bullet Argument against Sola Scriptura All Protestants, regardless of denomination, hold to a doctrine known as Sola Scriptura (SS). It could be said that it is the only distinctive teaching that unites all Protestant denominations. So if Sola Scriptura is proven to be false, all of Protestantism falls. To briefly define this unique Protestant doctrine, Sola Scriptura asserts that “Scripture” is the “only” source of divine revelation. Sola Scriptura presupposes prior knowledge of what constitutes “scripture”, which is to say, it assumes the canon of scripture. So when Protestants speak of “scripture” as the only source of divine revelation, they are pointing to a well-defined canon of scripture. However, by claiming that a particular canon of scripture is the ONLY source of divine revelation, they are necessarily excluding all others. Hence, sola scriptura is an essentially exclusivist position. It is exclusivist because there can only be ONE canon of scripture which is the ONLY source of divine revelation (hence the term “only”). Divergent canons cannot equally serve as the “only” source of divine revelation, since it would be an inherent contradiction. The problem with Sola Scriputra, however, is that Protestantism doesn’t allow for a definitive canon, since it teaches that the canon of Scripture is fallible in principle. The exclusivist position implied by Sola Scriptura goes even beyond the Council of Trent’s definition, since the council in question only defined that the books contained in the Catholic canon were inspired; it never excluded that possibility that there might be other inspired books as well. Since Protestantism doesn’t allow for a definitive / exclusive canon, Sola Scritpura is therefore self-refuting. To put the argument in the form of a syllogism: Premise 1: Sola Scriptura (in the sense that Scripture is the only source of divine revelation) implies an exclusivist position in regard to the canon of Scripture. This is so because only one canon can be the “only” source of divine revelation (hence the term “only”). Divergent canons cannot equally serve as the “only” source of divine revelation. Premise 2: Since Protestants consider the canon of Scripture to be falliable / alterable, then the canon of scripture can never be definitively defined. Conclusion: Since Protestants can never definitively define the canon of Scripture, Sola Scriptura is therefore self-refuting. For a seven point refutation of sola scripture: (1) Scripture is the only source of divine revelation (definition of Sola Scriptura) (2) Scripture for Protestants = 66 book canon of the Protestant Bible (3) 66 book canon of the Protestant Bible = Only source of divine revelation (4) Protestants teach that the canon of scripture is fallible/alterable (5) 66 book canon of the Protestant Bible =/= Only source of divine revelation (6) #’s 3 & 5 contradict each other. (7) Sola Scriptura is self-refuting.
reason and science are the ultimate authorities... "scripture" is judged and found wanting: biblical criticism, Genesis 1-11 as myth, evolution, quantum fields as ultimate physical reality, etc.
The letter you read near the end seemed to have valid questions that you waved off with some joke about Papua / New Guinea. "Hey look over there!" is called dodging the question, not addressing it. Do you have a good answer for his questions regarding worldliness seeping into the body of Christ in our Western dress, style, or pagan body modifications? Right here, in America. Not Papua New Guinea. How do pagan practices become acceptable over and against the teaching we do have from the apostles that indicates Christians should reflect Christ in what they do, what they say, and in their appearance, rather than ignoring the last part to do whatever we desire with our appearances? When the Bible says things like "having the appearance of godliness but denying its power" in regards to hypocrites that doesn't mean we shouldn't also have the appearance that truly comports with our reality (the part that the hypocrite lacks). We who are in Christ would have the godliness, the substance behind the appearance, in addition to the godly appearance. Scripture condemning Pharisees and heretics/apostates/hypocrites for trying to look like godly people but lacking the substance behind it, is not a license for us to discard the appearance of godliness. It's a warning to ensure that everyone who claims piety, as Christians would be expected to, are backing up that godly appearance with true faith and godliness in our thoughts, words, and deeds. Never does Scripture encourage is to look and act like the world. In fact, we are told to expect the world to hate us and that we are in the world but to not be of it, which in context clearly implies its practices and behaviors. So it seems the letter you read had some very reasonable concerns that you skipped past to joke about white clothing and aborigines. Who knows, maybe the writer went off on a tangent after that. Regadless, the part you read was mostly valid and would be great to address clearly, whether with repentance or a clear outline from Scripture of why it's okay to add truly pagan (and rebel, outlaw) elements into our appearance.
JEFF IS WRONG .... JEHOVAH .. THE SUPREME GOD OF THE UNIVERSE , HAS SUPREME AUTHORITY ... !!! EXODUS 6 : 3 , ISAIAH 12 : 2 , ISAIAH 26 : 4 , PSALMS 83 : 18 ... JESUS IS GOD 'S SON ... JOHN 17 : 3 , JOHN 20 : 17 ....
Gross interpretation. Meaning, it's false. Peter is not the cornerstone. He also was never a Pope. You glorify him when even he said that he is not to be worshipped. You ought not to confuse a delegation of authority (chosen a leader) with the actual foundation of a faith.
@@paulrichards383 Jesus calls Simon Bar-Jona by a new name: Cephas, or stone. Why? Peter means "stone" in Greek, St Paul calls him Cephas which is "stone" in Aramaic. Why does Jesus call Simon Bar-Jona "stone" if the very next phrase from our Lord's lips refer not to Peter, but himself? Why the name change from Simon Bar- Jona to "Stone" since you purport to have infallibility in your own interpretation of Holy Writ?
@@paulrichards383 You twist not only my words, but you twist the Word of God to fit your own interpretation, to fit your idea of what you believe is true. I freely admit that my understanding Scripture is not my own interpretation but is in conformity with the Church Jesus established in 33 AD.
The NT books were written in the 1st century but there were other manuscripts of that century (example: the Didache) that was not included into the official canon of Scripture. By the 4th century there were 300+ books circulating about Christ and the Christian faith. Confusion arose. The (Catholic) Church convened 3 councils (Rome, Hippo and Carthage) by the end of that century officialising the biblical canon. Thus, you wouldn't have the Bible if it wasn't for the Catholic Bishops. So by accepting the Bible as it is, you're accepting the authority of who compiled it. It's interesting how all protestants accepts this (with or without knowing the link) but chooses not to accept other authoritarian decrees of the RCC, as well as accepting the Catholic Tradition of meeting on Sunday, rather than the Jewish custom of meeting on Saturday. The earliest NT book was written around A.D. 50. From A.D. 33 to 50 it was a period of tremendous growth for the Church. How could it have grown intact, with the same teachings being passed on orally and consistently, unless the Holy Spirit was safeguarding the transmission of Oral Tradition (a.k.a. Sacred Tradition)? How were so many converted without the aid of Sacred Scripture, if not with the aid of Sacred Tradition? You see, Sola Scriptura is just a 500-years-old heresy, proven to be unbiblical, proposed by Martin Luther.
Fabio Rocha - youtuber catolico I would hope that you would believe God allowed and supervised the official canon of books knowing full well of this question being a big topic of discussion
Forgot to mention the official canon (table of contents) proclaimed by the 4th century councils contained 73 books, 7 more than the Protestant bibles contains.
Fabio Rocha your history is just a bit off. The Word of the Most High didn't need "Catholic Bishops" for us to have it and it seems you are trying to revise history to make out the early Bishops of the Church to be the same as Catholic Bishops and Church post 500AD? Katholikos was not even a term till late 1st century and only first appeared in writing by Ignatius in early 2nd century and then only meant the "whole" church or the "complete" church. Not a doctrine. Sacred Tradition? Try testimony of eyewitness brothers who saw specific prophecy fulfilled. Without Sacred Scripture you say? The Hebrew canon had been in circulation since 200 BCE. What do you think they were eyewitness to? The supernatural fulfillment of specific prophecy in Sacred Scripture. Most of these eyewitnesses were still alive when Paul wrote his first letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 15:3-11) around 50AD. The Most High did not do these things in secret, He did them in front of the whole world and there were MANY eyewitnesses. That testimony is why the church grew so fast, not as you say Sacred Tradition. All Praise be the the Most High for Martin Luther and the Ninety-five Theses. As well as for the 500 year old heresy of Tyndale and the bible being translated into the common tongue so all could read and know the truth of the Bible. Or did the Catholic Church have a problem with the common man reading Matthew 23:9-12? Or maybe it was preferring the purchasing of indulgences rather than actual repentance that was the problem with Martin Luther? Or could it have been the realization of common men that there is only one intercessor and advocate in Heaven and HE is King of Kings and Lord of Lords? Soli Deo Gloria!
Yes the term Catholic ('katholikos') means "according to the whole", "general", "complete", "universal". As you seem to know, the 1st time we see this term in reference to the Church comes from a letter written around AD 107 by Ignatius, bishop of Antioch. At that time, or shortly thereafter, it was used to refer to A SINGLE, visible communion, separate from others (heretical sects). The term "Catholic" is in the Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian creeds, and many Protestants, claiming the term for themselves, give it a meaning that is unsupported historically, ignoring the term’s use at the time the creeds were written. In the latter half of the second century at latest, we find it conveying the suggestion that the Catholic is the true Church as distinct from heretical congregations (cf., e.g., Muratorian Canon). What these early Fathers were envisaging was almost always the empirical, visible society. Thus people, yourself included, who proposes another meaning for "Catholic" are reinterpreting them according to a modern preference, much as a liberal biblical scholar does with Scripture texts offensive to contemporary sensibilities. The core teachings of the early church can be found only in today's Catholic Church. Hence, the early church was Catholic in the right sense of the term; therefore, the Bishops who conveyed the 4th century councils that defined the biblical canon were Catholic. Thus, it was indeed the Catholic Church who compiled the Bible as we know today (the one who contains 73 books, not the Protestant one who has 66). By the way, did you ever read Luther's theses? Did you know that Luther affirms the pope's authority to remit sins in them? That he affirms that God uses priests to communicate his forgiveness? I'm surprised that Protestants still celebrate these! Despite the fact his Theses played a key role in starting the Protestant Reformation, they do not deal with either of the main Protestant distinctives. They do not mention either justification by faith alone or doing theology by Scripture alone. Instead, they deal principally with indulgences (although he affirms the power of it in Theses #64 and even pronounces an anathema upon anyone who denies the bishop's authority to grant an apostolic pardon in Theses #69 and #71), purgatory, and the pope’s role with respect to the two. Indeed, even Protestant scholars today seem to recognize that Luther had some pretty big gaps in his understanding of Catholic teaching. About vernacular bibles spread throughout Christendom... Let me guess, you think before Luther or Tyndale came into the scene, the "evil Catholic Church" never gave the peoples Bibles in other languages because "she didn't want the people to know that truth". right? If you do a little bit of research, you'll see there was more than 300 editions of the Bible in many languages before the 16th century. Now, on Matthew 23:9-12... A careful examination of the context of Matthew 23 shows that Jesus didn’t intend for his words here to be understood literally. The first problem is that although Jesus seems to prohibit the use of the term "teacher", Christ himself appointed certain men to be teachers in his Church (Mt 28:19-20); Paul speaks of his commission as a teacher (1 Tim. 2:7; 2 Tim. 1:11; 1 Cor. 12:28; Eph. 4:11). There is no doubt that Paul was not violating Christ’s teaching in Matthew 23 by referring so often to others as "teachers." Fundamentalists like yourself slip up on this point by calling all sorts of people "doctor," for example, medical doctors, as well as professors and scientists who have Ph.D. degrees (i.e., doctorates). What they fail to realize is that "doctor" is simply the Latin word for "teacher." Even "Mister" and "Mistress" ("Mrs.") are forms of the word "master," also mentioned by Jesus. If the typical Protestant interpretation of Matthew 23: 9 is correct, then it makes St. Paul a sinner and invalidates the divine inspiration of his epistles, "I am writing you this not to shame you, but to admonish you as MY BELOVED CHILDREN. Even if you should have countless guides to Christ, yet you do not have many fathers, for I BECAME YOUR FATHER IN CHRIST JESUS through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:14-16). The same would apply to Stephen in Acts 7 (count how many times "father(s)" appears in that chapter!). At Mt 23:9, Jesus is admonishing the scribes and Pharisees who had gotten such an inflated sense of ego that they believed, because they sat on "Moses's seat" deciding matters by interpreting Tanakh / the "Old Testament" and applying it to specific cases brought to them by the People of God, that they were CHANGING clear prescriptions laid down in Torah (e. g. setting aside the commandment to 'Honor father and mother" by a child claiming the support they were obligated to give to their parents they would give to "God" because they decided it was a higher purpose, etc) and substituting their man made rules, as if they themselves were the "Father" / YHWH. Jesus was using hyperbole (exaggeration to make a point) to show the scribes and Pharisees how sinful and proud they were for not looking humbly to God as the source of all authority and fatherhood and teaching, and instead setting themselves up as the ultimate authorities, father figures, and teachers.
On indulgences and the "selling" of them... The pious use of indulgences dates back into the early days of the Church, and the principles underlying indulgences extend back into the Bible itself. The Church defines indulgences as "what we receive when the Church lessens the temporal penalties to which we may be subject even though our sins have been forgiven." The members of the Church became aware of this principle through the sacrament of penance. From the beginning, acts of penance were assigned as part of the sacrament because the Church recognized that Christians must deal with temporal penalties, such as God’s discipline and the need to compensate those our sins have injured. In the early Church, penances were sometimes severe. For serious sins, such as apostasy, murder, and abortion, the penances could stretch over years, but the Church recognized that repentant sinners could shorten their penances by pleasing God through pious or charitable acts that expressed sorrow and a desire to make up for one’s sin. The Church also recognized the duration of temporal punishments could be lessened through the involvement of other persons who had pleased God. Scripture tells us God gave the authority to forgive sins "to men" (Matt. 9:8) and to Christ’s ministers in particular. Jesus told them, "As the Father has sent me, even so I send you. . . . Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained" (John 20:21-23). If Christ gave his ministers the ability to forgive the eternal penalty of sin, how much more would they be able to remit the temporal penalties of sin! Christ also promised his Church the power to bind and loose on earth (Mt.18:18). As the context makes clear, binding and loosing cover Church discipline, and Church discipline involves administering and removing temporal penalties (such as barring from and readmitting to the sacraments). Therefore, the power of binding and loosing includes the administration of temporal penalties. Certainly when it comes to the eternal effects of our sins, only Christ can make amends or reparation. Only he was able to pay the infinite price necessary to cover our sins. We are completely unable to do so, not only because we are finite creatures incapable of making an infinite satisfaction, but because everything we have was given to us by God. For us to try to satisfy God’s eternal justice would be like using money we had borrowed from someone to repay what we had stolen from him. No actual satisfaction would be made (cf. Ps. 49:7-9, Rom. 11:35). This does not mean we can’t make amends or reparation for the temporal effects of our sins. If someone steals an item, he can return it. If someone damages another’s reputation, he can publicly correct the slander. When someone destroys a piece of property, he can compensate the owner for its loss. So, Indulgences developed from reflection on the sacrament of reconciliation. They are a way of shortening the penance of sacramental discipline and were in use centuries before money-related problems appeared. The Church NEVER SOLD indulgences because to do so would be a sin (simony). The financial scandal surrounding indulgences, the scandal that gave Martin Luther an excuse for his heterodoxy, involved alms-indulgences in which the giving of alms to some charitable fund or foundation was used as the occasion to grant the indulgence. People saw others giving money and receiving indulgences so they formed the "Oh, the Church is selling indulgences" perspective. The Council of Trent instituted severe reforms in the practice of granting indulgences, and, because of prior abuses, in 1567 Pope Pius V canceled all grants of indulgences involving any fees or other financial transactions. This act proved the Church’s seriousness about removing abuses from indulgences. On Christ be the only mediator... Catholic believe in that.
Bible doesn't say the world is flat...in fact, it says it is a circle/sphere. And it is on unmovable pillars that are fixed. We call those pillars the laws of nature - which are fixed.
i don't think laws of nature shaking is anything that could happen. no. also having made something doesn't mean one can "do everything" with it. i can build a house that i'm unable to eat. i'm also not sure how anything could make a universe or what that should mean. and if they could be made, i would not know if its maker could influence it. i would think that a universe is pretty much defined by being causally closed and therefore not influencable by nothing outside it. otherwise if would be just a big physical object, being part of some larger universe.. do you know any of these things?
"i don't think laws of nature shaking is anything that could happen" Then we aren't talking about the same thing. You, at most, are talking about a [g]od whereas I am talking about [G]od, who is by definition all powerful. That is to say, nothing can exercise power over [G]od in any way, otherwise that isn't [G]od. You, on the other hand, are proposing that a contingent creation of [G]od is greater than [G]od (who created the laws of nature) which would mean that the Laws of Nature are [G]od. However, but then you run into the logically absurd belief that [G]od can have a beginning or be created which is logically absurd because [G]od (by definition) is not contingent nor has a beginning. What this means is not only is your belief logically absurd but it commits the fallacy of equivocation because you are using the definition of [g]od in place of the definition of [G]od. "also having made something doesn't mean one can "do everything" with it. i can build a house that i'm unable to eat." You are not an all powerful being. Here is the argument you just gave me. Hopefully you will see why no person would ever think this statement is serious on any level. Premise 1 - If a contingent being cannot do 'X' then a Necessary Being cannot do 'X' Premise 2 - A contingent being cannot do 'X' Conclusion - Therefore a Necessary being cannot do 'X' Premise 1 - is false as it equivocates nor is it true that a contingent beings abilities would in some way also be the extent of a necessary beings power. That would require the false belief that a contingent being is a necessary being which is, again, an absurd proposition. So we don't have any good reasons to even think your belief is rational. It seems you should spend a little bit more time trying to understand the concepts for which you are making declarations.
How do I send a video of myself over months of learning and slowly becoming more sanctified and seeking God in deeper ways? 😉 PS it's the Holy Spirit who does the changing and convicting, Jeff's just a conduit who is obeying in preaching the word of God.
@@evanu6579 Ezekiel 20:12 Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the Lord that sanctify them.
jusme inokc Exo 40: 13 And thou shalt put upon Aaron the holy garments, and anoint him, and sanctify him; that he may minister unto me in the priest's office. 14 And thou shalt bring his sons, and clothe them with coats: 15 And thou shalt anoint them, as thou didst anoint their father, 👉🏻that they may minister unto me in the priest's office: for their anointing shall surely be an everlasting priesthood throughout their generations.👈🏻 Heb 7: 11 ¶ If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? 12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. Where does it say that the Sabbath was fulfilled?..... Matt 5: 17 ¶ Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Jesus said that not one jot can pass until ALL be fulfilled. That’s all or nothing. Either every jot and tittle (including the stoning commands, the Aaronic priesthood, divorce and remarriage, eye for an eye) of the Law still stands for us to observe and do, or Jesus fulfilled all of the law (including the Sabbath). Both Paul and Peter said that the law was a burdensome yoke.... Acts 15: 5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. 10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? Gal 4: 10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. 11 I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain 20 I desire to be present with you now, and to change my voice; for I stand in doubt of you. 21 ¶ Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? Gal 5: 1 ¶ Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Jesus also said the same thing about the law..... Matt 23: 1 ¶ Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: 3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. 4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. Jesus came to give us rest from the law (fulfill the sabbath)..... Matt 11: 28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light. Read Hebrews 4. The rest spoken of by God was spoken after the Sabbath was given and after they entered into the promised land. The rest was still yet future after those events. The rest is Christ. God bless
This is such a true message. I was brought up Catholic. However, after reading the bible myself I saw how highly Catholics put their traditions and rituals above anything else including scripture. I come from an Italian background and where my parents are from traditions such as celebrating saints to the point of building statues of them and following it being held high around their village is more important to them then spending time with God, reading scripture and repenting. I am a Christian with no denomination now and I pray for my Catholic brother's and sister's that they repent. Thank you Jeff and God bless
ByFaith ThroughGrace RC is a false religion with a false gospel. No church father was a RC and none of them believed the false dogmas of RC.
The Holy Scriptures were canonized and compiled by the Catholic councils of Hippo 393, and Carthage 397 and 419. Church tradition evolved long before the Reformation which gave birth to the Scriptures.
True.... AMEN
ua-cam.com/video/WObpHNZukRo/v-deo.html
And? Are you saying that these Roman Catholic traditions are based accurately on the Scriptures? They are not.
Sure, nice work putting the books together, but the truth of which book were Scripture was settled long before any of those dates.
You want to support a religion (Roman Catholicism) that hid God's word from most people AND was a central part in killing people who attempted to put God's word in the hands of common people. And still practice idolatry even to this day. Yeah, that sure sounds like a loving, God-obeying, faithful church to me.
Since apologia expanded and started a church in Hawaii please do expand again and start a church in Utah county Utah we need a sound church please
New England too!
If you in Utah come join the best church out here it's call Calvary mountain view and its in American fork
I used to go to Calvary back when it was by forbes elementary idk if it's the 1 for me
There's a church in Hawaii? Where?
Thanks.👍
Best Regards,
William Tyndale
Praise God
MATTHEW 23 Woe unto you all Pastors.
At the beginning of the missionary activity of Jesus, the doctors of Jerusalem went to Galilee to observe Him (Mk 3:22; 7:1). Disturbed by Jesus’ preaching, they had based their attacks on saying that He was possessed (Mk 3:22). All along the three years the popularity of Jesus grew. And at the same time, the conflict between He and the religious authority also grew. The origin of this conflict was the way in which they placed themselves before God. The Pharisees sought their own security, not so much in God’s love toward them, but rather in the rigorous observance of the Law. Before this mentality, Jesus insists on the practice of love which makes the observance of the law relative and gives it its true significance.
Matthew 23:1-3: The root or origin of the criticism: They say but they do not do . Jesus recognizes the authority of the scribes and of the Pharisees. They occupy the chair of Moses and teach the law of God, but they themselves do not observe what they teach. So Jesus tells them: You must, therefore, do and observe what they tell you, but do not do as they do, because they say but do not do! This is a terrible criticism! Immediately, as in a mirror, Jesus shows some aspects of the incoherence of the religious authority.
Matthew 23:4-7: Look in the mirror in order to make a revision of life. Jesus calls the attention of the disciples concerning the incoherent behavior of some doctors of the Law. In meditating on this incoherence, it is helpful to think about ourselves and not about the Pharisees and the scribes of that time already past. They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on people’s shoulders, but will not lift a finger to move them; they do their works in order to be admired; they love to take the first places and to be called doctors. The scribes liked to enter into the houses of the widows and to recite long prayers to receive money in exchange! (Mk 12:40).
Matthew 23:8-10): You are all brothers. Jesus orders that we have the contrary attitude. Instead of using the religion and the community as means for self-promotion in order to appear more important before others, He asks not to use the title of Rabbi or Teacher, of Master, Father and Guide because only one is the guide, Christ; only God in Heaven is Father, and Jesus is the Master, the Teacher. You are all brothers. This is the basis of the fraternity which comes from the certainty that God is our Father.
Matthew 23:11-12: The greatest must be the servant. This phrase is what characterizes both the teaching and the behavior of Jesus: The greatest among you must be your servant; the one who raises himself up, will be humbled (cfr. Mk 10:43; Lk 14:11; 18:14).
• Matthew 23:13: The first “Alas for you...” against those who close the door of the Kingdom because in this way you will not enter and, you do not even let those who want to enter. How do they lock people out of the Kingdom? They do it by presenting God as a severe judge, leaving very little space for the mercy of God; by imposing, in the name of God, laws and norms which have nothing to do with the commandments of God, by presenting a false image of the Kingdom and by killing the desire to serve God and the Kingdom. A community which organizes itself around this false god “does not enter into the Kingdom,” and it is not even an expression of the Kingdom and prevents its members from entering into the Kingdom.
• Matthew 23:14: The second “Alas for you...” is against those who use religion Pastors to enrich themselves (Prosperity Gospel). You devour the property of widows, though you make a show of lengthy prayers. The more severe will be the sentence you receive because of this.” Jesus allows the disciples to live the Gospel, because He says that the laborer has the right to his salary (Lk 10:7; cf. 1 Cor 9:13-14), but to use prayer and religion as a means to enrich themselves, that is hypocrisy and does not reveal the Good News of God. It transforms religion into a market. Jesus drives out the merchants from the Temple (Mk 11:15-19) quoting the prophet Jeremiah: “My house will be called a House of Prayer for all people; but you have turned it into a bandits’ den!” (Mk 11: 17; cf. Isa 56:7; Jer 7:11). When Simon the magician wanted to buy the gift of the Holy Spirit, Peter curses him (Acts 8:18-24). Simon received the “most severe condemnation” which Jesus speaks about in the Gospel today.
• Matthew 23:15: The third expression of “Alas for you...” is against those who proselytize. “You travel over sea and land to make a single convert, and anyone who becomes one you make twice as fit for hell as you are.” There are people who become missionaries and proclaim the Gospel not to radiate the Good News, but to attract people for their group and their church. John once prohibited a person from using the name of Jesus because he was not part of His group. Jesus answered, “Do not stop him, because anyone who is not against us is for us (Mk 9:39). The document of the Plenary Assembly of the Bishops of Latin America, which was held in March 2008 in Aparecida, Brazil, bears the title: “Disciples and Missionaries of Jesus Christ, so that our people may have life in Him”. That is to say,, the purpose of the mission is not to work in such a way that people go to Calvary Chapel, but rather that people may have life, and life in abundance.
Sola scriptura? 2 Thessalonians 2: "Stand firm, then, brothers, and keep the traditions that we taught you, whether by word of mouth or by letter."
John 5 :39-40: "You pore over the scriptures, believing that in them you can find eternal life; it is these scriptures that testify to me, and yet you refuse to come to me to receive life!" In conjunction with this, the Bible tells us that the living Christ-filled _church_ is the pillar and foundation of the truth, not the scriptures' filter-words, language and sentences set in isolation. It is the _events_ and _beings_ detailed in Scriptures that matter, not simply and solely scriptures as something separate and special and alone. Jesus promised that the gates of hell would not prevail over his _church_. His words will never pass away because of the _living beings_ who speak those words, chief among them the Living Word, who is _not identical_ with your printed bibles. The latter are necessary and wonderful, but the two are not one and the same. Fundamentalists fatally misunderstand this.
But without the Scriptures you wouldn't know Christ at all except via the word of people, which would be reduced to mere hearsay.
Christ is the word, yet the Scriptures are distinct from God, though are not separable. Just like the three Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct yet not separable as being one.
This is why Solus Christus is also included.
Your argument that the church being the pillar and foundation of truth should not be taken to have authority over the word of God. In fact, the church is suppose to protect said truth and be a witness to it not according to it's own authority, but rather the authority granted to it by Christ.
Don't be deceived by Sola Ecclesia. There wouldn't be any church if there wasn't a "word" to begin with. "Word" being that spoken and written (Scripture) by God.
Jesus Christ has ultimate authority.
2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Who can delegate His authority but the One with authority? Matthew 16:13-19
How could scripture be the ultimate authority when there are multiple interpretations of scripture? The pharisees thought this and yet they missed the very Messiah that the scriptures spoke about.
The pharisees missed it because they were sinners blinded by power and hypocrisy. Look at who was highly praised in Acts 17 - the Jewish Bereans. They were considered noble because they searched the Scriptures to see if what the Apostles taught were in accordance with what was dictated by God. They are even compared to the Jews in Thessaloniki as being MORE noble than those Jews. So we have two groups of Jews, one noble and the other not as noble. The difference being that the noble Jews were fervently searching the Scriptures to test the message of Paul.
1). Sola scriptura presupposes that one must already know what the contents of scripture are before anyone can claim that scripture is the only source of divine revelation.
2). The apostles were commissioned with preaching the word, not writing it.
3). The Apostles waited quite a bit of time to write anything down.
4). If the early Church had a sola scriptura attitude, it's incredible that they should have taken so much time to define the Biblical canon.
5). There could not be agreement on the canon if the authority of the Church wasn't taken as given.
6). The doctrine of sola scriptura (in the sense that the only source of divine revelation is to be found in “scripture”) is nowhere to be found in scripture itself.
The doctrine of sola scriptura in the sense of all divine revelation being written would have been foreign to the minds of Jews and Christians in the first century. In Judaism, oral traditions ostensibly from the time of Moses played an important role in interpreting and amplifying the written Law, and that continues to be the case today. The Gospel was first circulated by oral tradition, and put to writing only belatedly, even reluctantly in the cases of Mark and John. The preferred mode of teaching was by a living voice, as attested not only by Papias, but by Plato and various ancients. The Gospel oral tradition likely continued into the mid-second century, and private reading did not become common until much later. In the earliest centuries of the Church, the Scriptures were those writings that were read in the churches. There was no separation of Scripture from the authority of the Church. You couldn't take the scrolls home to study them, any more than you could from a synagogue. Worship and discourse on the Scripture was consistently communal. It's only later, in the fourth-fifth centuries, that you have a distinctly literary culture with private reading. This remained confined to monks, clerics, and aristocrats due to the great expense of acquiring and copying texts.
Luther's notion of sola scriptura was very much a product of its age, made possible only by the printing press and Renaissance notions of the individual. You'll find no analogue to it in any earlier culture, Christian or non-Christian.
With regard to who has the authority to interpret Scripture, you'll find once again that Protestant notions of private interpretation would have been alien to the ancients. The term "rabbi" means "teacher" precisely to designate that he is qualified to teach, namely, to interpret the law. This is because he has studied not only the Torah, but also the oral tradition (Mishnah) and its commentaries (Gemara). The reason you see Pharisees in Galilee throughout the Gospels is that they were sent to teach the rustic Galileans to make sure they followed correct doctrine and law. There was not a rigid organizational structure like you would find later with the Catholic Church, but the rabbis generally enjoyed a respect and awe for their authority.
They were not infallible, as proved by the fact that they contradicted themselves, and even recorded their contrary opinions on various issues. This was common practice in legal matters. Their intent was not to authoritatively decide an issue for all time, but to try, as best as possible, to discern what the Law demanded in each circumstance.
In the Christian Church, the Apostles enjoyed a teaching authority that was unquestioned. This was not because of any personal virtue, but was subordinate to the revelation they received from Christ and were divinely commissioned to preach (orally, not in writing). By the early second century, a distinction between right-believing (orthodox) and heretical churches was established, on the basis that the former were in communion with the churches founded by the Apostles and retained their doctrines. The infallibility of the orthodox Church was not formally defined, but was clearly presumed by the fact that only those in communion with this Church, under the teaching of its bishops, were considered among the elect who had received the Gospel. Later, when there were disagreements on doctrinal subtleties even among the Apostolic churches, the mechanisms of regional councils, ecumenical councils, and appeals to the Pope were introduced to resolve these matters. Again, no one worried about formal criteria of infallibility, since obedience to these authorities was expected regardless. The idea of individuals choosing for themselves when to obey a public authority would have been utterly foreign to that cultural milieu, indeed to the very notion of authority.
The fact that the Holy Apostles and their immediate successors did not see fit to define a specific canon of Holy Scripture, either for the Old or New Testaments, says much about the relation between Scripture and Revelation. The central Revelation of the Church is Christ Himself, and Holy Scripture is but one means of revealing Christ, not even the primary means. The Apostles carried out their divine commission by preaching Christ, and the two who wrote Gospels did so only reluctantly, according to tradition. Most of the New Testament is a haphazard collection of apostolic epistles that were providentially preserved. Some were at first read only in the churches to which they were addressed, and only eventually spread to the rest of the Church. The authority of the New Testament writings was grounded in the personal authority of the Apostles, so any local church that doubted the authenticity of a given epistle would not receive it.
The Apostles never defined an Old Testament canon either, though their writings used the Septuagint, including the deuterocanon, and even some apocrypha. Here the criterion for inclusion was murkier, but from an early date, the Septuagint was the accepted Christian Old Testament, with no distinction among classes of books such as the Jews used (i.e., the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings). In fact, the Septuagint intersperses the deuterocanonical books among the protocanon. Again, there was no formal proclamation, only an acceptance of what had been received, and the Septuagint was used by Christians since the Apostolic age.
All of this points to a thoroughly un-Protestant ecclesiology, where the font of authority, even in defining Scripture, is in the patrimony of the Holy Apostles and the judgments of their successor bishops in the Church. The Orthodox, to this day, consider Holy Scripture to be the Book of the Church, i.e., that which is to be read in church. When the early Patristic writers favor the canonicity of a book, they say as evidence that it is “read in the churches,” clearly making the Church, which is Christ manifest on earth, the source of authority.
Jesus spoke through the Apostles; his last revelations were, "coincidentally", Revelation. After that, no more.
Points you miss out on: The Apostles used OT scriptures to preach their Gospel. Further, in the beginning, the group of believers was small enough that they could control what was being taught. But in short time, heresies were springing up to drive believers away from Christ. Because the Gospel had spread wide and far, and they couldn't quite control the spoken message as they had before, they began to write everything out. Paul's first letter was written only a few years after he began his missionary travels. The fact that he had to write down the essentials of the Gospel and exert his authority shows that it was an important and right step.
Peter, in his letters, takes this a step further and says that Paul's writings to those churches should be considered as authoritative as the Old Testament scriptures.
Because of the lack of sticking with the Scriptures as the source of authority, now many are deceived by beliefs and practices that are directly in contradiction with with the apostles taught, and they claim it was from "church tradition". Well, if the founder of your church says that another apostle is writing revelation directly from God, and your church traditions are in contradiction, it would appear that your traditions and dogma are incorrect.
"Sola scriptura presupposes that one must already know what the contents of scripture are before anyone can claim that scripture is the only source of divine revelation."
Jesus assumed that his hearers knew what he meant when he cited the scripture. There was no infallible declaration of the canon in AD 30. So Jesus himself falsifies your claim.
If you don't have the word, you don't have anything. That's right... completely nothing. The word created everything. God spoke and it was so.
The church does have a great importance, but to place it above God's word is not only wrong, but could be considered a serious case of idolatry.
What did King David say he would meditate on day and night? The church? Nope.
God's precepts; law of the Lord. His word.
The church has no authority without the God's word. The church cannot claim truth of itself nor claim to be self-evident.
God's word is truth, self-evident, and can checked within itself without being charged with circular reasoning.
Scripture AND tradition AND the successors of the apostles. By reading from your bible, you acknowledge implicitly the legitimate of Catholic tradition. Namely, the table of contents.
Very helpful pastor Jeff.
For the Catholics who don't believe Sola Scriptura please tell us what else we should consider infallible authority
I love it how these Catholics come into a Christian forum and try to teach Christians what we should believe
Ggeg0000 Regardless of truth the only thing that gives something authority is belief.
Catholics are followers of Christ, as are Copts, Maronites, Orthodox, Amish,.... Christ is the content and authority of Christianity, and his apostles. If Modernists calling themselves 'Christians' have lost touch with the roots of the faith, it's very welcome if Orthodox and Catholics can come and graciously help out. What completes the broken picture of the church is the inter-sprinkling of what Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox pour onto each other and so water the mustard seed/tree of Christ's still-growing church.
Since Jeff only addressed it by saying it’s his preference (and referenced PNG as the standard), can someone please clarify why Leviticus says not to tattoo our bodies and Paul instructs us not to look like the world? I really want to understand this view of piercings and ink and gages as being a biblical way to present ourselves. Thanks.
Praying so hard for those less than pleased babies XD
If scripture has ultimate authority can someone provide the moment when scripture decided between two competing biblical interpretations since by definition an 'authority' can make decisions and wield power?
Tyson Guess that's an oxymoron there are no contradictions in Bible with Bible
So are you claiming that all christians interpret the bible in the same way?
Tyson Guess no I'm not but I'm also saying that there are true Christians and false Christianity pretty much all organized "Christians" such as Catholic, Mormon, and charismatics are false believers and pervert and corrupt biblical teachings to fall in line with their beliefs so that they can continue to believe in their ways (mostly to have their comforts) most true believers pretty much agree that the Bible is pretty literal and don't really need interpretation
Infact I dare say that John MacArthur is a good sound teacher and all true believers would agree with his teachings and theology and biblical worldview
Then I have no idea what you mean when you say,
"that's an oxymoron there are no contradictions in Bible with Bible"
My statement is very clear. Jeff is teaching that the bible has the highest authority. If that is true, then it is fair for me to ask for any time when the bible decided between two competing interpretations of scripture.
A perfect example is the Arian Heresy. Did the bible decide the difference in the interpretations? Or did something else? Because, by definition, an authority must be able to make decisions and wield power. The bible is a thing (ie..a mechanism), and things can be authoritative but they can't be authorities. Just as the Constitution of the United States is the highest authoritative document in the land but the authority that interprets it is the Supreme Court.
In other words, claiming that the scriptures are the highest authority is a categorical error in logic between mechanism and agency. Mechanisms cannot be an authority because an authority is an agent or agents.
This Pastor himself admits he has no authority except Scripture. He has his understanding of Scripture. If you have no authority, how do you know for certain your understanding is the correct one? How can you dare say another's understanding of Scripture is wrong, while at the same time admitting you only have your understanding Scripture, without any authority?
i always hear babies weeping in apologia studios' videos haha
Rex Legorreta lol. When your church goes out multiple times a week for the ministry of saving babies from abortion I imagine you're gonna have a few in there on Sunday.
Jeff: "Rome teaches....there are two deposits"
False; What is spoken orally and written are the same deposit.
"He who hears you hears me" - Jesus speaking to his apostles
- so evidently the things the apostles taught their successors is (by definition) the Word of God.
"What you bind on earth will be bound in heaven" - Jesus to Peter
- so evidently Jesus said the church founded on Peter will make decisions infallibly
"...If he doesn't listen even to the church, then treat him as a tax collector" - Jesus presupposing a church that makes decisions
If I told you 1 +1 = 2 orally would that deposit of information be a different deposit of information if I wrote it down and gave it to you? of course not.
You made some serious assumptions.
You assumed that the successors were all faithful. That they perfectly taught throughout the centuries. We know that is not the case as the 1st century church was already battling against false teachings.
Quite the logical fallacy with attempting to make the claim that the church would make decisions infallibly. Inquisition much? Surely you are unaware of what the Jesuits do.
Heck, Peter himself had to be rebuked by Paul. God's word is truth, perfect, etc. Peter was not perfect. Peter did write some Scripture, but it's God who was the author of it, which is why it (not Peter) that is perfect.
No one says that the church doesn't make any decisions. They are supposed to safeguard "the Word" and be a witness to it... without being higher than it.
Your 1+1 analog is invalid. It's an objective math law so whether you state it orally or write it down doesn't matter. You cannot just use that and make a claim that all traditions or oral (from man) comments are objectively true. And how would anyone know if they are true? You test it against God's word. If it matches (without personal subjective interpretation), then it is true. If it doesn't match, then it's false. The church is not the standard. It's subject to Christ, who is the standard... and the word, since He is the word. John 1
@@paulrichards383 Peter being corrected by Paul is also demonstrative of the way the Church operates today. Paul did correct Peter, but Paul also submitted to Peter's authoritative decision at the end of the day.
@@robertluechtefeld5017 yeah, he agreed, but after Peter admitted his error.
By the way, Jesus didn't establish the church upon any man. That's a gross interpretation. Delegating authority isn't the same thing. The foundation is still His word and the commandments given.
To place Peter, Mary, or anyone on a pedestal is idolatry.
Anti scripturists should stop using the word ‘tradition’. Christ’s word is not tradition, it was codified and passed down. Then written by people who lived among Christ. Tradition is flawed by appeal to authority/consensus. It’s not merely a ‘tradition’ to say, “so and so lived with Christ, and repeated what he said.” That’s the spoken word, and transmission. If it boils down to Christ’s teachings, which we have original autographs of, and a modern biblical interpretation that contradicts those teachings...which do you go with? You know the answer.
Did he say that Christian Science is a cult? 48:00
Keep in mind Christian Science isn't creationism. It's its own thing.
Jeff is HUGE on science. He has done a lot of podcasts featuring Christian scientists.
What he's referring to here is science as a religion. They talk about this a lot in their podcasts as well.
I hold a high view of scripture but wouldn't Jesus, the incarnate Word, be the ultimate authorty?
Chris Williams: Yes, Jesus is the final authority. But he's the one who inspired the Bible, therefore, what we read are the words of Jesus -- and are the ultimate authority.
So is Psalm 51 the words of Jesus?
John 5:39-40: "You search scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that testify on my behalf. Yet you refuse to come to me to have life." This is Jesus confronting the Pharisees who saw the scriptures as ultimate authority, yet they did not follow Jesus. Why? The Torah was their god. Let us not do the same lest we miss the Messiah in our midst.
In what sense are Jesus and the scriptures the "same"?
This represents a category error.
Scripture isn't an "authority," although it is authoritative.
For example, I wouldn't call the constitution an "authority," although I would call it authoritative.
As a previous commentor noted, "In other words, claiming that the scriptures are the highest authority is a categorical error in logic between mechanism and agency. Mechanisms cannot be an authority because an authority is an agent or agents."
Unless of course you think the scriptures are self-interpreting.
All scripture is God inspired according to 2 Timothy 3:16. God is our ultimate authority - and has spoken through his Word. So how is scripture not the final authority were to subject ourselves to?
"Sola Scriptura" begs the question of what makes something scripture.
Is "scripture" anything that is in the Bible or anything that is divine revelation?
Jesus mentioned "the law and the prophets", but that doesn't include "the writings" in the OT, so He didn't even embrace the whole OT as we have it now.
Also, when Jesus told the Pharisees to focus on the law, none of the NT had been written -- He hadn't even revealed everything He was going to.
I understand the step of logic Jeff is making, but Jesus saying "focus on the law vs tradition" doesn't tell us *what* to consider scripture among NT writings, nor that *only* scripture should be considered.
"The Law" and the "Prophets" meaning the God breathed, spoken Word of God; further meaning, The Prophet's, or what the Prophets "wrote", through the revelation of God (the OT). Sola Scriptura, John 1:1, revealed/revelation. The Word is God, obey Him. This is my understanding (revelation).
Vanity vanity, all is vanity, Ecclesiastes 1. Follow no man, for he is born of the flesh, cursed by God from the beginning for disobedience. We are all prone to sin, to deceive, to serve the self; it is a characteristic of the flesh. The good works that we perform are ONLY manifestations of the Holy Spirit (God) that resides within us (and within the World, God's creation). Even those that don't know Yeshua, still can perform good works, because they are God's subjects. He is sovereign over His creation; He has authority over all things, even the devil (Colossians 1:16). Scripture (Yeshua, John 1:1) is the Way, the Truth and the Life, or the standard (John 14:6).
I don't know if I fully understood your perspective/position, but this is my response based on my interpretation of the word.
Shalom
AntiCalvinist
Indeed, that's why Jesus mentions that the Pharisees have authority over Israel because they sit "in the Seat of Moses" as Jesus said.
Of course Jesus coming at the end of the age of the Jews and being the Messiah overpowers that.
Niw what remains is the Seat of St. Peter as even Orthodox Patriarchs openly admit but are stubborn enough to sidestep.
Jesus did not leave us with a Bible, although it is very important no doubt. But what is even more important is the Church. And that's what he left us with. It spares us from faulty interpretations and promotes unity in the faith as God's holy nation.
Cani:
No, "the Law" meant the Torah to 1st century Jews, and "the prophets" are the dozen or so books of prophecy that are the end of our OT. "The writings" are everything else (Kings, Chronicles, Psalms, Proverbs et. al.).
Jeff's citation of Jesus rebuking the Pharisees for adding to the Law makes perfect sense, but it doesn't support either "sola scriptura" nor does it help us know what "scripture" consists of -- it just says the Pharisees should not have added to the Law.
+AntiCalvinist The Word is Jesus Christ. The Word was good, the Word was with God, the Word is God.
WWT:
What does that metaphysical mumbo-jumbo even *mean,* separate from whether it is true?
Is Jesus a Divine Person, the ontologically equal Son of another Divine Person, or is He merely "the Word" of YHWH, or just of The Father, or what?
Why did you even *quote* that? I'll bet you have no coherent idea of what it supposedly means.
BIBLICAL AUTHORITY RELIES HEAVILY ON CIRCULAR REASONING!
The term "Biblical Authority" gets tossed around a lot! Let's recall where this idea came from--when Catholics in some parts of Europe were fed up with "Papal Authority" in Rome, and had become quite certain the leadership of the Church had been teaching ideas that, people like Martin Luther, were convinced were foreign to Early Christianity, like paying indulgences to get people out of Purgatory.
How, then, to counter Papal Authority in Rome? Well, they could have just appointed a different Authority, like the Eastern (Orthodox) Church did centuries earlier, by making a Patriarchal Authority or something similar. Had Luther wanted to, he might have made himself a sort of Protestant "Pope."
But he and other Protestant leaders decided to counter Papal Authority with "Biblical Authority." Thing was, WHAT was the Bible? The idea most have is that the "Bible" was a book that had been around since Jesus' day...which is true, as long as one understands the Bible Jesus used was the Tanakh, the Jewish Bible, or what Christians call the "Old Testament"!
But the Christian Bible has a "New Testament" that came from...where exactly??? Well, as it turns out, the Early Church never said which books and letters should be considered equal to the Jewish Bible!
There were some favorites, popular in some parts of the Church, and others popular elsewhere! But as the bishopric of Rome became increasingly more powerful, especially after the conversion of the Roman Emperor, the bishops of Rome began rejecting books favored by many other Christians. In summary, it was Papal Christianity that ultimately settled on which books would be considered the Christian Bible, or we should say CATHOLIC Bible!
Now, Martin Luther knew this, so when the time came for him to translate "The" Bible into German, guess what he did, or tried to do? Toss out a bunch of books favored by the Catholic Church!!! For example, he got rid of I and II Maccabees (largely because they contain passages that support the belief in a Purgatory).
He also tossed out others, like Bel and the Dragon (No! That's not a Disney movie! It's a book that was in "The" Bible for 100s of years!)! Luther also wanted to get rid of Revelation, but he was talked into including it in printed editions toward the back, along with other apocryphal books, like the Shephard of Hermas.
He wrote a preface, though, that made it clear Revelation was NOT to be regarded as an inspired text...which the American Bible Society REMOVED in 1807 in their printed editions (Yeah, THAT is how Revelation got in the Protestant New Testament)!
In other words, when we use the term "Biblical Authority," there's some major CIRCULAR REASONING going on! To counter the Catholic Church's Papal Authority, Protestants asserted "Biblical Authority" was superior...even though it was the Catholic Church which had selected which books should be in the Bible!!!
So, what's a Protestant Christian to do? Well, we can blindly believe that, somehow, the same Church we say had begun swaying from the teachings of Jesus as early as the Second Century was divinely guided into making the perfect choices as to what would later be regarded equal to the original Jewish Bible (though they added books to the Tanakh as well)...
or, we can use the brains God gave us to realize what we call the Bible is a MAN-MADE collection of writings in which many a frail, sinful, human being tried to understand what God was trying to tell us!
We can, in other words, find God's words and the authority they convey CONTAINED in the Bible, but it's foolish to blindly believe men with many an ulterior motive at several, religious power centers, from Rome to Philadelphia (HQ of the American Bible Society) received a singular book from the hands of angels, perfectly dictated, word for word, by God Himself!
Rick Lannoye, author of www.amazon.com/Rightly-Dividing.../dp/B091LSMD9N
Are you a victim of Bible Abuse? Get help at ricklannoye.com/contact
Silver Bullet Argument against Sola Scriptura
All Protestants, regardless of denomination, hold to a doctrine known as Sola Scriptura (SS). It could be said that it is the only distinctive teaching that unites all Protestant denominations. So if Sola Scriptura is proven to be false, all of Protestantism falls.
To briefly define this unique Protestant doctrine, Sola Scriptura asserts that “Scripture” is the “only” source of divine revelation. Sola Scriptura presupposes prior knowledge of what constitutes “scripture”, which is to say, it assumes the canon of scripture. So when Protestants speak of “scripture” as the only source of divine revelation, they are pointing to a well-defined canon of scripture. However, by claiming that a particular canon of scripture is the ONLY source of divine revelation, they are necessarily excluding all others. Hence, sola scriptura is an essentially exclusivist position. It is exclusivist because there can only be ONE canon of scripture which is the ONLY source of divine revelation (hence the term “only”). Divergent canons cannot equally serve as the “only” source of divine revelation, since it would be an inherent contradiction.
The problem with Sola Scriputra, however, is that Protestantism doesn’t allow for a definitive canon, since it teaches that the canon of Scripture is fallible in principle. The exclusivist position implied by Sola Scriptura goes even beyond the Council of Trent’s definition, since the council in question only defined that the books contained in the Catholic canon were inspired; it never excluded that possibility that there might be other inspired books as well. Since Protestantism doesn’t allow for a definitive / exclusive canon, Sola Scritpura is therefore self-refuting.
To put the argument in the form of a syllogism:
Premise 1: Sola Scriptura (in the sense that Scripture is the only source of divine revelation) implies an exclusivist position in regard to the canon of Scripture. This is so because only one canon can be the “only” source of divine revelation (hence the term “only”). Divergent canons cannot equally serve as the “only” source of divine revelation.
Premise 2: Since Protestants consider the canon of Scripture to be falliable / alterable, then the canon of scripture can never be definitively defined.
Conclusion: Since Protestants can never definitively define the canon of Scripture, Sola Scriptura is therefore self-refuting.
For a seven point refutation of sola scripture:
(1) Scripture is the only source of divine revelation (definition of Sola Scriptura)
(2) Scripture for Protestants = 66 book canon of the Protestant Bible
(3) 66 book canon of the Protestant Bible = Only source of divine revelation
(4) Protestants teach that the canon of scripture is fallible/alterable
(5) 66 book canon of the Protestant Bible =/= Only source of divine revelation
(6) #’s 3 & 5 contradict each other.
(7) Sola Scriptura is self-refuting.
#4 is not a teaching of Protestants as far as I know
reason and science are the ultimate authorities... "scripture" is judged and found wanting: biblical criticism, Genesis 1-11 as myth, evolution, quantum fields as ultimate physical reality, etc.
The letter you read near the end seemed to have valid questions that you waved off with some joke about Papua / New Guinea. "Hey look over there!" is called dodging the question, not addressing it.
Do you have a good answer for his questions regarding worldliness seeping into the body of Christ in our Western dress, style, or pagan body modifications? Right here, in America. Not Papua New Guinea. How do pagan practices become acceptable over and against the teaching we do have from the apostles that indicates Christians should reflect Christ in what they do, what they say, and in their appearance, rather than ignoring the last part to do whatever we desire with our appearances?
When the Bible says things like "having the appearance of godliness but denying its power" in regards to hypocrites that doesn't mean we shouldn't also have the appearance that truly comports with our reality (the part that the hypocrite lacks). We who are in Christ would have the godliness, the substance behind the appearance, in addition to the godly appearance.
Scripture condemning Pharisees and heretics/apostates/hypocrites for trying to look like godly people but lacking the substance behind it, is not a license for us to discard the appearance of godliness. It's a warning to ensure that everyone who claims piety, as Christians would be expected to, are backing up that godly appearance with true faith and godliness in our thoughts, words, and deeds. Never does Scripture encourage is to look and act like the world. In fact, we are told to expect the world to hate us and that we are in the world but to not be of it, which in context clearly implies its practices and behaviors.
So it seems the letter you read had some very reasonable concerns that you skipped past to joke about white clothing and aborigines. Who knows, maybe the writer went off on a tangent after that. Regadless, the part you read was mostly valid and would be great to address clearly, whether with repentance or a clear outline from Scripture of why it's okay to add truly pagan (and rebel, outlaw) elements into our appearance.
JEFF IS WRONG .... JEHOVAH .. THE SUPREME GOD OF THE UNIVERSE , HAS SUPREME AUTHORITY ... !!! EXODUS 6 : 3 , ISAIAH 12 : 2 , ISAIAH 26 : 4 , PSALMS 83 : 18 ... JESUS IS GOD 'S SON ... JOHN 17 : 3 , JOHN 20 : 17 ....
Interesting comments about building one's house on a rock, given His Church was also built on the rock of Peter.
Gross interpretation. Meaning, it's false. Peter is not the cornerstone. He also was never a Pope. You glorify him when even he said that he is not to be worshipped.
You ought not to confuse a delegation of authority (chosen a leader) with the actual foundation of a faith.
@@paulrichards383 I never said Peter is the cornerstone. You twist my words. Get behind me Satan.
@@paulrichards383 Jesus calls Simon Bar-Jona by a new name: Cephas, or stone. Why? Peter means "stone" in Greek, St Paul calls him Cephas which is "stone" in Aramaic. Why does Jesus call Simon Bar-Jona "stone" if the very next phrase from our Lord's lips refer not to Peter, but himself? Why the name change from Simon Bar- Jona to "Stone" since you purport to have infallibility in your own interpretation of Holy Writ?
@@paulrichards383 You twist not only my words, but you twist the Word of God to fit your own interpretation, to fit your idea of what you believe is true. I freely admit that my understanding Scripture is not my own interpretation but is in conformity with the Church Jesus established in 33 AD.
@@paulrichards383 When God entered into a covenant with Abram, He called Abram by a new name: Abraham and He also called Sarai by a new name: Sarah.
The NT books were written in the 1st century but there were other manuscripts of that century (example: the Didache) that was not included into the official canon of Scripture. By the 4th century there were 300+ books circulating about Christ and the Christian faith. Confusion arose. The (Catholic) Church convened 3 councils (Rome, Hippo and Carthage) by the end of that century officialising the biblical canon. Thus, you wouldn't have the Bible if it wasn't for the Catholic Bishops. So by accepting the Bible as it is, you're accepting the authority of who compiled it. It's interesting how all protestants accepts this (with or without knowing the link) but chooses not to accept other authoritarian decrees of the RCC, as well as accepting the Catholic Tradition of meeting on Sunday, rather than the Jewish custom of meeting on Saturday.
The earliest NT book was written around A.D. 50. From A.D. 33 to 50 it was a period of tremendous growth for the Church. How could it have grown intact, with the same teachings being passed on orally and consistently, unless the Holy Spirit was safeguarding the transmission of Oral Tradition (a.k.a. Sacred Tradition)? How were so many converted without the aid of Sacred Scripture, if not with the aid of Sacred Tradition?
You see, Sola Scriptura is just a 500-years-old heresy, proven to be unbiblical, proposed by Martin Luther.
Fabio Rocha - youtuber catolico I would hope that you would believe God allowed and supervised the official canon of books knowing full well of this question being a big topic of discussion
Forgot to mention the official canon (table of contents) proclaimed by the 4th century councils contained 73 books, 7 more than the Protestant bibles contains.
Fabio Rocha your history is just a bit off. The Word of the Most High didn't need "Catholic Bishops" for us to have it and it seems you are trying to revise history to make out the early Bishops of the Church to be the same as Catholic Bishops and Church post 500AD? Katholikos was not even a term till late 1st century and only first appeared in writing by Ignatius in early 2nd century and then only meant the "whole" church or the "complete" church. Not a doctrine.
Sacred Tradition? Try testimony of eyewitness brothers who saw specific prophecy fulfilled. Without Sacred Scripture you say? The Hebrew canon had been in circulation since 200 BCE. What do you think they were eyewitness to? The supernatural fulfillment of specific prophecy in Sacred Scripture. Most of these eyewitnesses were still alive when Paul wrote his first letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 15:3-11) around 50AD. The Most High did not do these things in secret, He did them in front of the whole world and there were MANY eyewitnesses. That testimony is why the church grew so fast, not as you say Sacred Tradition.
All Praise be the the Most High for Martin Luther and the Ninety-five Theses. As well as for the 500 year old heresy of Tyndale and the bible being translated into the common tongue so all could read and know the truth of the Bible. Or did the Catholic Church have a problem with the common man reading Matthew 23:9-12? Or maybe it was preferring the purchasing of indulgences rather than actual repentance that was the problem with Martin Luther? Or could it have been the realization of common men that there is only one intercessor and advocate in Heaven and HE is King of Kings and Lord of Lords? Soli Deo Gloria!
Yes the term Catholic ('katholikos') means "according to the whole", "general", "complete", "universal". As you seem to know, the 1st time we see this term in reference to the Church comes from a letter written around AD 107 by Ignatius, bishop of Antioch. At that time, or shortly thereafter, it was used to refer to A SINGLE, visible communion, separate from others (heretical sects).
The term "Catholic" is in the Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian creeds, and many Protestants, claiming the term for themselves, give it a meaning that is unsupported historically, ignoring the term’s use at the time the creeds were written. In the latter half of the second century at latest, we find it conveying the suggestion that the Catholic is the true Church as distinct from heretical congregations (cf., e.g., Muratorian Canon). What these early Fathers were envisaging was almost always the empirical, visible society. Thus people, yourself included, who proposes another meaning for "Catholic" are reinterpreting them according to a modern preference, much as a liberal biblical scholar does with Scripture texts offensive to contemporary sensibilities.
The core teachings of the early church can be found only in today's Catholic Church. Hence, the early church was Catholic in the right sense of the term; therefore, the Bishops who conveyed the 4th century councils that defined the biblical canon were Catholic. Thus, it was indeed the Catholic Church who compiled the Bible as we know today (the one who contains 73 books, not the Protestant one who has 66).
By the way, did you ever read Luther's theses? Did you know that Luther affirms the pope's authority to remit sins in them? That he affirms that God uses priests to communicate his forgiveness? I'm surprised that Protestants still celebrate these!
Despite the fact his Theses played a key role in starting the Protestant Reformation, they do not deal with either of the main Protestant distinctives. They do not mention either justification by faith alone or doing theology by Scripture alone. Instead, they deal principally with indulgences (although he affirms the power of it in Theses #64 and even pronounces an anathema upon anyone who denies the bishop's authority to grant an apostolic pardon in Theses #69 and #71), purgatory, and the pope’s role with respect to the two. Indeed, even Protestant scholars today seem to recognize that Luther had some pretty big gaps in his understanding of Catholic teaching.
About vernacular bibles spread throughout Christendom... Let me guess, you think before Luther or Tyndale came into the scene, the "evil Catholic Church" never gave the peoples Bibles in other languages because "she didn't want the people to know that truth". right? If you do a little bit of research, you'll see there was more than 300 editions of the Bible in many languages before the 16th century.
Now, on Matthew 23:9-12... A careful examination of the context of Matthew 23 shows that Jesus didn’t intend for his words here to be understood literally. The first problem is that although Jesus seems to prohibit the use of the term "teacher", Christ himself appointed certain men to be teachers in his Church (Mt 28:19-20); Paul speaks of his commission as a teacher (1 Tim. 2:7; 2 Tim. 1:11; 1 Cor. 12:28; Eph. 4:11). There is no doubt that Paul was not violating Christ’s teaching in Matthew 23 by referring so often to others as "teachers."
Fundamentalists like yourself slip up on this point by calling all sorts of people "doctor," for example, medical doctors, as well as professors and scientists who have Ph.D. degrees (i.e., doctorates). What they fail to realize is that "doctor" is simply the Latin word for "teacher." Even "Mister" and "Mistress" ("Mrs.") are forms of the word "master," also mentioned by Jesus.
If the typical Protestant interpretation of Matthew 23: 9 is correct, then it makes St. Paul a sinner and invalidates the divine inspiration of his epistles, "I am writing you this not to shame you, but to admonish you as MY BELOVED CHILDREN. Even if you should have countless guides to Christ, yet you do not have many fathers, for I BECAME YOUR FATHER IN CHRIST JESUS through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:14-16). The same would apply to Stephen in Acts 7 (count how many times "father(s)" appears in that chapter!).
At Mt 23:9, Jesus is admonishing the scribes and Pharisees who had gotten such an inflated sense of ego that they believed, because they sat on "Moses's seat" deciding matters by interpreting Tanakh / the "Old Testament" and applying it to specific cases brought to them by the People of God, that they were CHANGING clear prescriptions laid down in Torah (e. g. setting aside the commandment to 'Honor father and mother" by a child claiming the support they were obligated to give to their parents they would give to "God" because they decided it was a higher purpose, etc) and substituting their man made rules, as if they themselves were the "Father" / YHWH.
Jesus was using hyperbole (exaggeration to make a point) to show the scribes and Pharisees how sinful and proud they were for not looking humbly to God as the source of all authority and fatherhood and teaching, and instead setting themselves up as the ultimate authorities, father figures, and teachers.
On indulgences and the "selling" of them... The pious use of indulgences dates back into the early days of the Church, and the principles underlying indulgences extend back into the Bible itself. The Church defines indulgences as "what we receive when the Church lessens the temporal penalties to which we may be subject even though our sins have been forgiven." The members of the Church became aware of this principle through the sacrament of penance. From the beginning, acts of penance were assigned as part of the sacrament because the Church recognized that Christians must deal with temporal penalties, such as God’s discipline and the need to compensate those our sins have injured.
In the early Church, penances were sometimes severe. For serious sins, such as apostasy, murder, and abortion, the penances could stretch over years, but the Church recognized that repentant sinners could shorten their penances by pleasing God through pious or charitable acts that expressed sorrow and a desire to make up for one’s sin.
The Church also recognized the duration of temporal punishments could be lessened through the involvement of other persons who had pleased God. Scripture tells us God gave the authority to forgive sins "to men" (Matt. 9:8) and to Christ’s ministers in particular. Jesus told them, "As the Father has sent me, even so I send you. . . . Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained" (John 20:21-23). If Christ gave his ministers the ability to forgive the eternal penalty of sin, how much more would they be able to remit the temporal penalties of sin!
Christ also promised his Church the power to bind and loose on earth (Mt.18:18). As the context makes clear, binding and loosing cover Church discipline, and Church discipline involves administering and removing temporal penalties (such as barring from and readmitting to the sacraments). Therefore, the power of binding and loosing includes the administration of temporal penalties. Certainly when it comes to the eternal effects of our sins, only Christ can make amends or reparation. Only he was able to pay the infinite price necessary to cover our sins. We are completely unable to do so, not only because we are finite creatures incapable of making an infinite satisfaction, but because everything we have was given to us by God. For us to try to satisfy God’s eternal justice would be like using money we had borrowed from someone to repay what we had stolen from him. No actual satisfaction would be made (cf. Ps. 49:7-9, Rom. 11:35). This does not mean we can’t make amends or reparation for the temporal effects of our sins. If someone steals an item, he can return it. If someone damages another’s reputation, he can publicly correct the slander. When someone destroys a piece of property, he can compensate the owner for its loss.
So, Indulgences developed from reflection on the sacrament of reconciliation. They are a way of shortening the penance of sacramental discipline and were in use centuries before money-related problems appeared. The Church NEVER SOLD indulgences because to do so would be a sin (simony). The financial scandal surrounding indulgences, the scandal that gave Martin Luther an excuse for his heterodoxy, involved alms-indulgences in which the giving of alms to some charitable fund or foundation was used as the occasion to grant the indulgence. People saw others giving money and receiving indulgences so they formed the "Oh, the Church is selling indulgences" perspective. The Council of Trent instituted severe reforms in the practice of granting indulgences, and, because of prior abuses, in 1567 Pope Pius V canceled all grants of indulgences involving any fees or other financial transactions. This act proved the Church’s seriousness about removing abuses from indulgences.
On Christ be the only mediator... Catholic believe in that.
If you truly believe Scripture is the ultimate authority then you should believe what it says regarding the earth being fixed and unmovable and flat.
Bible doesn't say the world is flat...in fact, it says it is a circle/sphere. And it is on unmovable pillars that are fixed. We call those pillars the laws of nature - which are fixed.
Tyson Guess: well apparently the earth can be shaken out of its place and make the pillars tremle. (Job 9:6)
Why couldn't they? Are you saying that the maker of the universe couldn't cause His creation to tremble or shake?
i don't think laws of nature shaking is anything that could happen. no.
also having made something doesn't mean one can "do everything" with it. i can build a house that i'm unable to eat. i'm also not sure how anything could make a universe or what that should mean. and if they could be made, i would not know if its maker could influence it. i would think that a universe is pretty much defined by being causally closed and therefore not influencable by nothing outside it. otherwise if would be just a big physical object, being part of some larger universe..
do you know any of these things?
"i don't think laws of nature shaking is anything that could happen"
Then we aren't talking about the same thing. You, at most, are talking about a [g]od whereas I am talking about [G]od, who is by definition all powerful. That is to say, nothing can exercise power over [G]od in any way, otherwise that isn't [G]od.
You, on the other hand, are proposing that a contingent creation of [G]od is greater than [G]od (who created the laws of nature) which would mean that the Laws of Nature are [G]od. However, but then you run into the logically absurd belief that [G]od can have a beginning or be created which is logically absurd because [G]od (by definition) is not contingent nor has a beginning. What this means is not only is your belief logically absurd but it commits the fallacy of equivocation because you are using the definition of [g]od in place of the definition of [G]od.
"also having made something doesn't mean one can "do everything" with it. i can build a house that i'm unable to eat."
You are not an all powerful being. Here is the argument you just gave me. Hopefully you will see why no person would ever think this statement is serious on any level.
Premise 1 - If a contingent being cannot do 'X' then a Necessary Being cannot do 'X'
Premise 2 - A contingent being cannot do 'X'
Conclusion - Therefore a Necessary being cannot do 'X'
Premise 1 - is false as it equivocates nor is it true that a contingent beings abilities would in some way also be the extent of a necessary beings power. That would require the false belief that a contingent being is a necessary being which is, again, an absurd proposition. So we don't have any good reasons to even think your belief is rational.
It seems you should spend a little bit more time trying to understand the concepts for which you are making declarations.
I’d like to see some video of him actually changing peoples hearts and minds.
How would one film a heart changing exactly ???
RubyRed Slippers I would like to see you change the world! haha.
How do I send a video of myself over months of learning and slowly becoming more sanctified and seeking God in deeper ways? 😉
PS it's the Holy Spirit who does the changing and convicting, Jeff's just a conduit who is obeying in preaching the word of God.
Good words, but you failed to speak of the Sabbath
The Binary Epidemic
The Sabbath is fulfilled.
@@evanu6579 where exactly is that at in scripture?
@@evanu6579 Ezekiel 20:12 Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the Lord that sanctify them.
@@evanu6579 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.
jusme inokc
Exo 40: 13 And thou shalt put upon Aaron the holy garments, and anoint him, and sanctify him; that he may minister unto me in the priest's office.
14 And thou shalt bring his sons, and clothe them with coats:
15 And thou shalt anoint them, as thou didst anoint their father, 👉🏻that they may minister unto me in the priest's office: for their anointing shall surely be an everlasting priesthood throughout their generations.👈🏻
Heb 7: 11 ¶ If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
Where does it say that the Sabbath was fulfilled?.....
Matt 5: 17 ¶ Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Jesus said that not one jot can pass until ALL be fulfilled. That’s all or nothing. Either every jot and tittle (including the stoning commands, the Aaronic priesthood, divorce and remarriage, eye for an eye) of the Law still stands for us to observe and do, or Jesus fulfilled all of the law (including the Sabbath).
Both Paul and Peter said that the law was a burdensome yoke....
Acts 15: 5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
Gal 4: 10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.
11 I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain
20 I desire to be present with you now, and to change my voice; for I stand in doubt of you.
21 ¶ Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
Gal 5: 1 ¶ Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
Jesus also said the same thing about the law.....
Matt 23: 1 ¶ Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
Jesus came to give us rest from the law (fulfill the sabbath).....
Matt 11: 28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
Read Hebrews 4. The rest spoken of by God was spoken after the Sabbath was given and after they entered into the promised land. The rest was still yet future after those events. The rest is Christ.
God bless