Against The Catechumen on the Canon
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 жов 2024
- Rev. River Devereux argues against @thecatechumen's claim that in order to believe in Scripture we must first believe in the 'true Church.' Instead, the core books of the New Testament serve as the foundation of our faith and norm everything else, and are believed due to the work of the Holy Spirit within our hearts. The inspiration of those books is therefore more clear to true Christians than is the identity of the 'true Church.'
See also:
The Homologoumena, Sola Scriptura, and the Canon:
• Sola Scriptura & The B...
Why we can Believe in the Disputed Books of the Bible:
• Why We Can Believe in ...
Defending Sola Scriptura:
• Defending Sola Scriptura
The Catechumen's Video:
• You Need the Church to...
Greetings from a reformed Presbyterian. Much love for my faithful Anglican brothers. I adore the liturgy of the Anglican tradition. Many wonderful Anglican theologians to study. Thanks for the video.
Thank you brother!
I appreciate the interaction! I've just subscribed to your channel and will enjoy having another well-learned Protestant channel in my feed. I'll have to interact with your counter-arguments soon. Blessings
Deacon Devereux thank you so much for this astute defence of Sola Scriptura! I have recently endured a brother depart from Anglican Protestant doctrine over this very issue, it was as though you were answering all his arguments as he heads Eastward! You explained this so much better than I ever could and edifyed me massively.
Thank you for the support Reverend! I'm sorry to hear about your friend, it's very sad when that happens, but I'm also glad you found this video helpful.
This is an excellent argument. Thank you for lifting up Jesus. He is the One we should always look to.
As a lutheran who just found your channel I feel very grateful. You are putting into words many thoughts I've had. It's like fresh water to the soul to finally hear someone address this who doesn't leave GOD out of the picture, could not God through his word create the church? Is not the word alive and acting? Will he not send us his spirit? He who has ears to hear, let him her. Does not the sheep recognize the voice of his Shepard? The word creates the church, not the other way around.
God bless.
Thank you, Reverend! I'm a soon-baptized Anglican (next week) with many Roman friends and associates and this, along with your other videos, have taught me much. Thank you!
God bless you!
Looking forward to watching this response video.
the new lighting and production quality is awesome! keep it up
Thank you!
Im loving the background!
Thank you!
Thank you so much for this video. Much appreciated and God bless you. I found it very informative and educational.
I'm glad to hear that, thank you for the encouragement
At about the 13:10 point, you said, "Anglicans believe that the Apocrypha are part of the canon of Scripture." Then at the 13:29 point you say, "We just don't believe that those books are canonical like the other books are." I found that confusing. I've always understood Article VI to distinguish the 66 canonical books from "the other books," which by implication are not canonical. But you seem to be saying that all of the books mentioned in that article are canonical, though some are canonical in a different and lesser sense.
My apologies, I could've explained that better.
The Anglican theologians of the 16th and 17th centuries (such as John Cosin, William Whitaker, and Richard Hooker) made a distinction between being part of the canon, which just means a book is in the Bible, and being canonical, which means it is part of the inspired and infallible standard of truth. The Apocrypha are in the former category but not the latter.
@@newkingdommedia9434a very confusing distinction I would be curious to see support for in the 10th or 11th century, say.
Taking it at face value, it seems like that supports the Catholic position more than the Protestant position because it admits the reception of the Catholic tradition of certain books as canonical, but has to invent some absurd distinction in order to actually side with the rest of protestantism. No doubt it was politically expedient and theologically expedient for anglicans to have that position. What would really help? Your case is helped by finding Christians who held the Anglican position consistently before there were any Anglicans.
@@benabaxterthis was plainly the position of Athanasius and Jerome, and if you read Cosin's history of the Canon of Scripture you'll see him prove that countless fathers agreed with them.
@@newkingdommedia9434 - thanks for the clarification. I think we agree.
All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them Canonical. 39 Articles of Religion
recieved from whom?
@@brycebensing The Apostolic Churches.
Brother, I love this presentation. Very interesting and helpful, historically and theologically. Keep up the good work!
Thank you, much appreciated!
Thank you River. You are a God send
This video opened to me a new way to approach to this topic. Greetings from a brazilian anglican.
Thats wild that reception theory isn't adequate in his eyes. Have the EO's been ripping him apart for that one?
Yeah it's weird
Great video, Jay Dyer's videos on Eastern Orthodoxy make very similar arguments.
Thank you!
in Revelations Jesus had John write a letter to 7 churches. of those seven only 1 was doing the right thing. 1 was doing ok but the rest God threatened to nuke from orbit for falling away and 1 of them it was to late punishment was coming, and all this while the last disciple of Christ wasn't even dead yet
if only 1 and a half churches were on the right track when the church was in its infancy. do you honestly think things are any better now?
Paul even praised a church for cross referencing what he said against scripture. he didn't say "fools i am the church! i determine what you believe!" and by their logic that is basically what would have happened if the Church > Scripture. and he gives plenty of warning about false prophets and how does he say to vet them? did he say "bring them to me or the church and i'll vet them"? no, he said do they teach a different gospel and you will know they are a heresy
You make a great point about Catholics possibly trying to evangelize for the wrong reasons and how it can get Protestants to question their faith entirely.
Your arguments seem to be able to be used against Protestants, though.
Beautiful vid as usual Rev!
Thank you brother!
but but but the church is "the pillar and the foundation of the truth"
Protestantism hates this verse 1 Tim 3:15 because it points to the Truth of the CC!
@@geoffjs if you are prooftexting
@@geoffjsyes. Gods people are the foundation of the truth
@@geoffjs also context
@@thomasthellamas9886the church is more than just the laity
Great video!
Excellent
Thank you!
Recently I listened to a Anglican minister in California a friend of mine goes to the church. I was rather shocked at some of the things he was saying and made some notes.
I would like to send them to you and have you review them what's the best way to do that?
I'll just add the quotations here 👇
By embracing our creature lean us we become God
Engaging in our creatureliness that God makes us God.
Be true to our nature to become partakers of the Divine.
Live up to our nature.
And then he quoted Genesis saying Adam and Eve wanted to be like God responded by saying that was always the plan.
I've been a Christian 40 years in predominantly reformed Baptist and Presbyterian churches have never heard that type of language
Your argument is that the Holy Spirit works through the church (in its entirety) in order to produce the scripture. That’s the root. And that is the argument of the Catholic Church. Big fancy words do not change that the Holy Spirit worked through the Body of Christ, not through the Rema. The scripture alone would necessarily require the scriptures to explicitly state what’s in the scripture, not depend on the discernment of God’s people through the work of the Holy Spirit.
And this I find very difficult to figure out because I believed this even as a Protestant - what is the barrier to understanding God works through his people? That’s always been the principle manner through which God works - only one time do we have God’s finger writing words on stone (10 Commandments). The rest of scripture is produced THROUGH his chosen people. That includes Moses, Israel, the prophets, and the church.
Saying that God principally works through his people is not driving a wedge. We rely on and depend on the scriptures because God is unchanging and because Jesus is the full revelation, anything that is taught, developed, or interpreted MUST be cohesive with what has come before with the scriptures being the principle of what has come before.
The argument for the church is that she has the authority to interpret scripture - not just individuals working independently of the church. And the fracturing of denominations and distortions of scripture are evidence of 1 Timothy 3:15 being true.
To argue that Catholics are causing division and doubt of the scripture is very rich considering it is Protestants who have consistently moved away from the original teachings of scripture, whether it be baptism, the Eucharist, or the perseverance of faith. It is through that moving away that spawns new churches and schisms. As a convert from the Episcopal church, I am well aware of what taking only parts of God’s ordained authority ends up looking like. And it never looks good. Which ultimately why I came to recognize the necessity of the authority of the church bound to the authority of scripture. Not one, but both.
Also, the Catechumen? He is very young and some of his arguments were poorly presented and quite messy. He’s barely out of college. You couldn’t find someone with a bit more experience to steel-man his arguments?
Its interesting to give emphasis that Luther rejected books that were not in the Jewish canon, which were defined at the Synod of Jamnia at the end of the first century A.D. However, this synod was an occurrence of the Jews against the Christians, who used scriptures said to Deuterocanonicals/aprocrypha to defend faith in Jesus as the Messiah. Furthermore, the Jewish canon was not uniform, as there were other Jewish communities, such as the Ethiopians and Egyptians, who accepted the Deuterocanonicals/aprocrypha as sacred.
Also, Luther rejected books that were not written in Hebrew but in Greek or Aramaic. However, this is not a valid criteria, as the New Testament itself was written in Greek (greek is less safe or sacred than aramic?), and there is evidence that some Deuterocanonicals/apocrypha, such as Tobit and Judith, were originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic but were lost over time.
The point to question is, did the christians never used those books before middle age? its a fair question. In case someone states books were put during middle age, lets remember the Hippo Concil (393) that reafirmed the oficial canon, too earlier.
The Council of Jamnia never happened.
The first Bible, the Latin Vulgate, was created in 382 A.D. It had the Catholic canon.
An important point: for first-century Christians, Scripture was the Old Testament. It wasn't until later that the New Testament documents began to be treated as sacred scripture or started to be complied together at all. For example, nowhere in the New Testament, where it is clearly written that a text is quoting Scripture, are those quotations taken from other books of the NT, its OT only. Jesus himself didn't write a word (except in the sand) and the earliest books of the NT were written decades after Jesus died. Jesus didn't command his Apostles to write anything, but rather to go and preach. Surely if Sola Scriptura was so important, Jesus, or the Apostles would have said something and led by example? The early Christians didn't read books, not surprising as the printing press wasn't invented until (surprise surprise) the time of the Reformation when "sola Scriptura suddenly arrived en masse 1,500 year later, let alone that for many centuries the majority of people couldn't read. If sole scriptura was necessary, then we would have to attach learning to read being a pre-requisite for entry into heaven, as we couldn't take for granted that a preacher was correctly quoting scripture, unless we could read it ourselves. At no time before the Reformation was Sola Scriptura considered a rational concept. It wasn't possible until the time of the printing press for mass reading of the Bible, as it all had to be written out by hand, and techniques hadn't been developed to sustain the life of paper (papyrus). The early church relied very heavily on Apostolic tradition, as did subsequent periods of Christianity copying what they had picked up as a lived experience of Christianity going back to the early church, where truth was passed on mainly by oral preaching and some writings. Unfortunately, only Churches that have a direct line of succession back to the early Church, like the Catholics and Orthodox still do this today (though fortunately, this makes up 3/4 of Christians in the world, with the other thousands of denominations coming from a Sola Scriptura position, at least historically if not any more). This is why St. Paul said "know who your teachers are" (2 Tim 3:14). That is, accept only teachers that have a direct succession back to Apostles, that are in communion with each other. This is how even today we can take St. Paul at his word and know which are the Churches that teach authentically the Word of God. Jesus asked us to preach, not write a book. Those that believe in Sola Scriptura ignore at their peril the primacy of the Church which Christ founded. Jesus founded a Church, not a book. That obvious fact should speak volumes to anyone in terms of what is of prime importance. Prior to the reformation, there were not the tens of thousands of denominations there are now. Sola Scriptura creates denominalisation. If Scripture is the prime or the only true source of truth, then its a case of "my interpretation of scripture against yours", which of course leads to division. Sola Scriptura therefore has brought division, not unity, so cannot possibly be considered of sole importance for finding out the truth.
Adam was the first to experience the oral form of solace scriptura when God told him not to eat from the tree.
@@soteriology400 oral is what we mean by oral tradition, so Adam's experience of hearing God telling him not to eat of the tree is the first form of tradition, what has been heard, not what has been written (scripture). The Apostles heard Jesus, and spent time with him, doing what he did. So Adam and Eve walked in the garden with God talking and listening, this is oral tradition. Jesus didn't want this to not be avaliable to others as well, so he commanded to his Apostles to go and preach, he didn't command them to "Go, write down...". Therefore, Jesus intended the oral tradition to continue, not to be stopped and replace with writing. Jesus knew that people have relationships with others, not learning words from books (alone). The idea that oral tradition is replaced by writing is non-scriptural and was invented in the 1500s, it profoundly anti-Jesus who told his Apostles to "Go, Teach" not "Go Write".
@@peterhamilton244 The commandment to preach continued, the oral traditions of taking what God said, was partly written down (Not everything Jesus said was written down). This ended in AD66, the year knowledge ceased (revelation from God). The New Testament was largely oral (repeating the things Jesus said to the apostles and repeating them to the Jewish people). Eventually some was written down, the things Jesus said, and was not fully canonized until AD66. Later of course, it was decided which books of the New Testament was inspired, even though it was already written.
It appears you drifted from "commandment" to "oral tradition". Just wanted to correct you in a mean-spirited way. :)
@@soteriology400 No problems, a healthy debate :-) Preaching is passing on God's Word, if I teach my children that God is Father, Son and Spirit, I am passing on to them God's Word. Thefore, preaching is oral tradition or transmission which continues to this day. Therefore, sola scriptura is not really a thing even protestants believe in. If the Bible has to be explained, which protestants agree with, then it is really not possible to have sola sciptura, as then the listener is needing someone's preaching to really get to grips and truly "get" or truly "hear" God's word. Nothing magic happened in AD66, other than the death of the last Apostles. The Church in AD 66 didn't suddenly commission writings, ban the orally passing on God's word. There was no council that decided to now switch to Sola Scriptura. There is no evidence at all of any sudden switch to Sola Scriptura, so it literally did not happen. It was oral tradtion before, it was oral tradition which continued afterwards from AD66. It is the oral tradition that helped the early Christians to know and discern what went into the Bible. The only reason there was consensus on at least some of the Books from say 100AD, was because those books were held up to the light of tradition, and found to have no error. So the only reason we can be sure of certain books in the Bible then, was only becuase Christians already believed the message in those books, so the Books were validated by the Church's understanding of God's word it already had via tradition (which is the transmission of God's word orally). This peaching God's of word, its interpretation and explaination has never stopped, it was begun by Jesus and continues to this day, it is only Sola Scriptura that was invented some 1500 years later. If you believe sola sciptura was believed by the early Christians, you'd need to come with evidence for it, as at present, the arguments in the video have relied on saying they belived it without providing any actual evidence. Which early Christians mention sola scriptura? I don't know of any. I am not aware that Sola Scriptura was a thing until 1500. To me, it is an anycronism, someone 1500 years or so later attempting to shoe-horn it into history when it was never actually there, as it fits with their changed theology that Christians never believed before. This is why Newman in the 18th century who was Anglican, became Catholic. He wrote "To be stepped in history, is to cease to be protestant". Because if a protestant looked at the Church in the first 1500 years, they don't find the novelties they have taken and accept, for example sola scriptura, it simply aint there if you study history, it is a relatively modern construction. Please do prove me wrong, go and find in history sola scriptura, as a concept, in the early church, even the first 500 years say. Surely there must be some protestants who think someone said it before? Incidentally, this is also why Jehovah's Witnesses manage to pick up protestants. The Bible doesn't say that God is three persons, consubstantial and equal. Scripture seems contradictory on this point, or vague, or non-commital. For example, in John, Jesus said "The Father is Greater than I", or St. Paul who said Jesus was in the "Form" of God, or that Jesus prayed to his Father, why would he pray to "God" if he was God? The council fathers of the council of Nicea realised they couldn't get any where with the Arians via scripture, they had to appeal to tradition and logic. Therefore, even the most fundamental believe in Christianity, the truine God, equal in three persons, is not explicit in the Bible and relies on tradition of the Church, even to this day.
@@peterhamilton244 Thanks. In Romans 3:1-3, Paul mentioned God entrusted the Jews with His oracles right? How did they do this? It was through their traditions. It was either oral, or written traditions (2 Thessalonians 2:15). Preaching is oral for sure, but what is preaching based on? What God has already spoke, right? Whether it be from the mouth of God, or what was inspired and written. Teaching/preaching does not produce canon, does it?
Preaching was a tradition for sure, but I do not think that is what was meant by oral tradition in the Jewish community (disagree?). Another form of oral tradition, the rabbis would repeat over and over again to his disciples what the word of God says, for memory sakes and due to papyrus being so expensive and rare commodity back then. But this put the word of God in their minds, not on paper.
Sola scriptura in written form was not complete until Ephesians 2:20 "20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, ", this was around AD63. This did not include books of vision and prophecy, like the book of revelation or John's epistles. Paul was referring to what was already revealed up to this point, to build one's beliefs or theology on. We don't build our theology on the book of Revelation, do we?
The word "built" in Eph. 2:20 is past tense, right? The foundation of our beliefs according to Paul here are apostles, prophets, and Jesus Christ. Where can we find the writings of all 3, Paul was referring too? Did Paul had in mind, a future entity to be used as a foundation of Christians beliefs, when looking at the grammar? Did Paul have in mind future "church fathers", magisterium, or pope when observing the grammar? Those who build their opinions and theology on "church fathers", magisterium, and popes, are they not extending the foundation that was already "built" and continuously pouring the foundation, even to this day, after no more revelation has been given after AD66?
Same with 1 Corinthians 3:11 "11 For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. "
"Laid" is past tense, and compare 1 Corinthians 3:11 to John 1:1 and 1:14 (Jesus Christ).
John 1:1 " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
John 1:14 "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth."
Notice the difference between 1 Corinthians 3:11 and Ephesians 2:20? 1 Corinthians 3:11 makes no mentions of prophets and apostles. Whenever this was written, suggests the oral traditions, pertinent to the oracles of God, was already fully established to build one's theology, or foundation.
Do you see what Paul had in mind, only the scriptures, or do you see it differently based on his usage of grammar (past tense)?
So many inconsistencies in your argument:
1. If, according to you, inspired Scripture is self authenticating because whoever has the Holy Spirit can recognize what books are inspired and what books are not, then it means pretty much no Christian had the Holy Spirit in them because it took them 400 years at least to come to an agreement on the 27 books of the NT. The difference between homologoumena and antilegomena cannot be explained in this “self authentication” framework: why would some books be perfectly self authenticating and others less?
2. Anglicans don’t recognize the deuterocanonical books as inspired. The fact that they were in the Bible until after the 1600s but then were dropped speaks in favor of the Catholic canon. Unless you assume Christians for 1000 years kept in their Bible, which is supposed to be the word of God, books that are not the word of God.
3. The fact that Protestants have the same 27 books of the Catholic canon is obviously not a coincidence. It’s simply because the Catholic Church canonized it so (if they had canonized it differently Protestants would have now less books) and Protestants never dared to remove books, even though Luther himself tried by explicitly saying that, according to him, neither James nor Revelation were inspired (I guess the guy that started the Reformation didn’t have the Holy Spirit in him after all).
4. No Christian in the history of Christianity had exactly the same canon Protestants accept today. This should speak volumes on who is derailing from the Christian orthodoxy.
5. Obviously the Church comes chronologically and logically before Scripture. Scripture was a great gift given by God to the Church through the Church to help the Church establish the Church on earth, not to replace the Church.
6. You say it is gravely wrong to say the Church is the basis and foundation of the faith. The Bible says otherwise: “the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” (1 Tim 3:15)
7. You warn against people that like to “quarrel and create division.” Coming from someone that identifies as a “Protestant” sounds very ironic.
Very well put. Have you read any history books by Hilaire Belloc?
@@sebwoz8766 nope, sorry
1. The work of God’s Holy Spirit inside us is enough to bring us to a sufficient, but not necessarily perfect, faith. For instance, He allows us to be sufficiently orthodox, but not necessarily correct about all things. With the books of Scripture, since the Gospels and Paul are most necessary to be believed, the Spirit opens our eyes to see their inspiration, but books like 3 John are not necessary for salvation. Moreover, since Romans or John so fully and richly unveil the Gospel, we are far, far more easily able to see their inspiration and Divine authorship than with books like James that do not reveal the Gospel as much. So a Christian in the 1st century would have been far more able to be pushed by the inner testimonium towards faith in the homologoumena than to be pushed into faith in the antilegomena, since naturally doubts and concerns about those books may have arisen.
2. Many fathers and Medieval theologians believed the apocrypha were not inspired, and yes, the Roman church did indeed mistakenly include the apocrypha as inspired, which is nowhere near as bad as their other errors.
3. As I stated above, doubting the antilegomena doesn’t make you not a Christian.
4. Wrong. I can name two: Athanasius and Jerome, off the top of my head.
5. Where was the Church before God’s word came to Abraham? Where was the established church of Israel before God’s word came to Moses? Where was the New Testament church before God’s Word Himself came to the Apostles?
6. God’s word is the truth, the Church upholds it.
7. Standing against damnable errors is not being quarrelsome, but trying to get people to doubt the Scriptures is.
@@newkingdommedia9434 4. I am curious how the 73 books Saint Jerome translated and the 73 books that Saint Athanasius acknowledged as essential are the same as the 66ish of the protestant canon.
5. There were definitely various priests and kings of the old testament who tried to uphold the Holy of holies, and they tried to have a united Jewish people (despite failing). They did not have God incarnate tell His apostles to start the church. Since Saint Peter started the Church it definitely had its fair share of sinful blunders, as does every protestant denomination throughout the years. The difference between someone like St. Athanasius and Martin Luther is that one was fighting for Christ and Christ's bride, the Catholic Church, without starting his own. There were many saints who were unjustly excommunicated for opposing human or demonic corruption of the Church, but they stuck it out, often until martyrdom or very long exile. Eventually, through the graces of the Holy Spirit the Church would stay afloat. Unfortunately, Luther fragmented the body of Christ, despite having some relevant critiques of certain corruption that was occurring with certain leadership in the Church in his times. Unfortunately, none of his critiques were valid critiques of Dogma at the time, but he acted as if he was the enlightened one. Sadly, he regretted downplaying the importance of the book of James before his death, as he saw the massive bloodshed that was on his hands from de-emphasising the importance of faith and works being inseparable.
@@newkingdommedia9434 I stopped reading when you said the 3 John is not necessary for salvation. You have the audacity of trashing the word of God just to defend the indefensible principle of sola scriptura. Speechless.
The point about the church being logically prior, this is Augustine saying basically the same thing “I would not believe the gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so” Also I would point out that your division of the books into disputed and undisputed missed the point, nowhere in the Gospels or Paul’s epistles do we learn what books will be added to the bible and there are a bunch of Orthodox letters, how do we know that 2nd Peter is in the Bible but 1st Clement isn’t? Or the letters of Ignatius? I know many people deeply moved by those letters, and who is to say that doesn’t make them scripture the way that you claim the same feeling makes the letters of Paul scripture?
That quote from Augustine is completely misinterpreted and all of main Reformers have debunked its use by the Romanists. Literally just read the Confessions as you'll see that it was the power of the Scriptures that converted.
Also, Clement and Ignatius plainly fail to meet the requirements of Scripture as they were not written by or under the supervision of the Apostles.
14-16I hope to visit you soon, but just in case I’m delayed, I’m writing this letter so you’ll know how things ought to go in God’s household, this God-alive church, bastion of truth. 1 Timothy
Why did this verse say that the Church is the bastion of truth instead of scripture?
Repent.
And how can I, unless some man shew me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
[Acts of Apostles 8:31]😂
stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.
[2 Thessalonians 2:14]😂
Wait, can you find the ecclesialist doctrines in the scriptures? NOPE
If you could with your hand over your heart say that you knew the books of scripture were the books of scripture as opposed to any other godly writings simply by reading them, then you would be consistent. But I would be certain you were lying. Reading something and knowing it is part of a collection of books that it doesn't say it is part of is simply logically impossible.
Nobody I have ever spoken to has come to know and love scripture in this way. It is always because they were raised in or came to know a tradition that was centered around scripture and handed down what books comprised the bible. Christ established His church which handed down His revelation through both scripture and tradition. This is how all Christians come to know and love scripture.
This talk is nonsense. Scripture doesn’t say Sola scripture is the rule. So this “Rule “ is itself not scriptural. On the contrary, the New Testament says that the Church is the pillar of Truth.
Secondly, it was not obvious in the 1st century that there were going to be 4 gospels. There were other gospels in circulation. It was the Church that limited the canon to 4 gospels. This guy seems to have no knowledge of actual history.
Sure, the canonical scholar has no knowledge of canonical history, and is going to be schooled by yet another Romanist in the UA-cam comments.
I'm well aware there were other pseudo Gospels, but I'm also well aware that none of the Fathers gave any credence to them because everyone who has a brain can read them and tell they are devised by heretics. However, you seem to actually think you would require the True Church(TM) to tell you that those Gospels are fake in order for you to realise it, which is frankly pretty sad.
As for the Church being the pillar of the truth, yep, the Church does indeed uphold the truth, and what is that truth? God's word. Since Scripture tells us that God's word is the rule, and since it doesn't tell us about any other infallible rule, we believe that only God's word is the rule.
The Scripture is above the Church.... Church chose the Canon, the first Pope wrote a good part, the Apostles wrote how the Church should function according to the teachings of Christ. 1400 years later, a maniacal bourgeois, invented Protestantism while going to the Tower (WC) to take a shit, he understood the scriptures and not the Apostles... It makes sense. "Pidache" Go read it, direct and unmanipulated teachings of the Apostles as the church should functio and daily life of the Christian.
Strange to argue for sola Homologoumena but I guess thats an approach. Why is HS illumination the basis for the core books but not the disputed? Seems arbitrary and special pleading - God inspired both for his ppl to hear and follow. This then obviously ties into historical and current disputes on the OT canon. This vid also sidesteps the issue of disputes over authenticity of verses (incl the core books).
Who decides - whomever has more of the HS? You see why this approach to the extent and scope of canon just devolves into subjectivism and bosom burning.
You claim God providentially guided his people to recognizing the canon. Rome agrees. The question is how are his people objectively identified and why Protestants trust He guides the church in this doctrine but others can be rejected based on the individuals private judgment. The early church did not appeal to this subjectivism - as Augustine stated (whose canon incl the deuteros which he used to support doctrine) - "Now, in regards to the canonical Scriptures, he must follow the judgement of the greater number of catholic churches."
I said that the Spirit also illumines us to recognize the Antilegomena. The difference is that we can much more easily perceive the Homologoumena's inspiration.
@@newkingdommedia9434 but why the difference? Again seems ad hoc.
Ask yourself: is the Church the pillar and bulwark of the truth or is it scripture with no bulwark of truth to interpret it and protect it from abuse? Scripture on its own is useless. It needs an official infallible interpreter without which all interpretations are fair game.
Thank you, I'll be adding this to my collection of all time worst takes and posting it on my feed so that everyone can see just how appalling your views are.
@@newkingdommedia9434 if you consider the verse 1 Tim 3:15 appalling then you're the one who is anti scripture not catholics. Anyhow I knew you wouldn't have a response to it. You just prefer ad hominems when the scripture you revere so much refutes you. It doesn't say scripture is the pillar and bulwark of truth it says the Church is. Are you denying scripture?!
@@MrJayb76I'm not going to answer a fool in his folly. Everyone is laughing at you.
@newkingdommedia9434 who is laughing you're the only reply on here. Now let me try again. Give me a coherent answer to my post. Prove me wrong. If you don't then you're a total fraud and joke.
The Church (Body of Christ) is the authority, not the Bible. No Church means no Bible. This does not mean the Church is more important than the Bible, or you have to believe in the Church before reading the Bible. It simply means the Church was established before the finalisation of the Scriptures, which the Church was responsible for in the first place.
The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter the "rock" of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him "shepherd of the whole flock"( Matt. 16:18-19. John 21:15-17.) The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head. This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church's very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.
Sacred Scripture:
It was by apostolic Tradition that the Church discerned which writings were to be included in the list of the Sacred Books. This complete list is called the Canon of Scripture. It includes 46 books for the Old Testament, and 27 books for the New Testament.
Unless you belong to the One, Holy, Catholic, (Universal ) and Apostolic Church, there is no salvation.
How come you don't follow Martin Luther, the reason for the Reformation in the first place ? Do You believe the Reformation was justified ?
It's a shame you have a distorted view about the Catholic Church. Most non-Catholics , as they grow up start to listen to Protestant Preaches telling lies to their congregations about the Church. This is no surprise. Even from its beginnings, the Church has fallen into all types of sin. There is corruption in the Church, bad Popes, pedophile Priests, holy wars, wrong tradition and much more. However, Christ did say his Church must suffer great trials and persecutions on its earthly journey. Don't forget these are the sins of men.Christ has nothing to do with them.He is still the HEAD of his Church and the members are the BODY. The Church is the "sinless one" (Christ) made up of sinners (members).
The Bible is not the authority? Wow.
Your blasphemy will not go unpunished, mark my words. Unless you repent, you will weep and gnash your teeth.
@@newkingdommedia9434 Why did you only read the first sentence i said and nothing more ?
@@newkingdommedia9434What authority did Christians have for 1500 yrs before the bible was mass printed & even then, most people were illiterate until recent centuries? Where does scripture confirm sola Scriptura? Protestantism is the work of Satan!
Authority has three legs, Sacred Tradition complements Sacred Scripture which does not contain everything Jn 21 25 & the unifying authoritative interpretation of the Magisterium p, a reliable & objective pillar & foundation of Truth 1 Tim 3:15
@@newkingdommedia9434and unless you address his arguments, then this is a bad faith response
@@thebenzaga sometimes it's best not to answer a fool in his folly. This isn't all about intellectual arguments and debates, sometimes people say things that are simply unacceptable and they need to be rebuked.
Shameless Popery already has a video refuting the scriptures being supposedly self-attesting. This is the same way the LDS make their arguments. The spirit will tell you the Book of Mormon is true.
The canon of the scripture is clear because of Jesus’s Church.
The Orthodox Church?
The Catholic Church is orthodox so sure.
@@bourbonrebel5515 but they have a different tradition than the Catholic church in many respects. How about the Ethiopian Orthodox? Or the Assyrian Check of the East?
I never said the other apostolic churches hold the same traditions as the Catholic Church.
@@bourbonrebel5515 but they do.
This guy contradicts himself.