Alex if you see this please reply here or send me an email bereanperspectiveapologetics@gmail.com I enjoyed what I saw and like to have a friendly discussion with you. I hope to hear from you. Anyone who saw the debate what did you think of it? Kelly
@@BereanPerspectiveApologetics what did I think of it? Protestantism and Calvinism are built on intellectual sophistry and have led to the depravity of the Western world.
Its interesting that you did not get the point. Alex's use of Scripture to challenge Sola Scriptura does not imply an endorsement of Sola Scriptura. Instead, he uses Scripture as part of a broader argumentative strategy. His goal is to demonstrate, from scripture that proponents of Sola Scriptura accept as authoritative, that Scripture which itself does not teach the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
That actually does the opposite of refute Sola Scripture. Scripture establishing authorities means it is in a supreme position of authority to determine, allocate and create authorities. A CEO is the highest authority in his business, but he can create and allocate authorities in the form of management, Human Resources, supervisors and so on. His creating authorities does NOT refute his own but instead DEMONSTRATES his supreme authority by his power and decision to create and allocate authority.
@@markmeyer4532It does refute ‘cause sola scriptura says that the Bible is the ONLY infallible rules of faith and practice, while Alex demonstrate that it is not true, that there are other sources of authority, that scripture already tells us. By your logic. Not to mention that scripture was recognized by the Church. So, still, by your logic, one authority appointed to another and vice-versa.
@@markmeyer4532 good analogy bro...but just a small problem . Who appointed or validated the CEO. ? Here it is clear the church (authority) validated the Scripture (CEO). Just think about it 🤗. Secondly, your comment actually shows you did not get my point. If you say Bible is the CEO and that if the CEO itself does claim that he alone is the supreme. But his very appointment by the authority and the selection of him by the authority from a number of other candidates etc, will show you who calls the short here🤔. In fact your analogy of CEO is a self goal bro.
You’ve totally misunderstood his point. He’s saying he can disprove the doctrine of Sola Scriptura or Scripture Alone by appealing to… only the Scriptures. Alex is making the point that it's self refuting. He appeals to the only source of authority that White holds to. If he quotes from popes and councils, White would disregard it.
@@teeemm9456 Right Alex said when Jesus breathed on them, they received the Holy Spirit and that's apostolic tradition like we have today. First thing they didn't receive the Holy Spirit there not until Acts 2 with tongues of fire common misunderstanding. Also no where do we see the apostles passing on the ability to do supernatural miracles like they could do. So some things you can't pass on. They take things to unnatural conclusions.
obviously Alex cannot appeal to tradition or the magisterium, since his opponent james white is a protestant. so alex appeals to scripture because (as he said in the clip you played) it's an infallible authority accepted by both alex and white. in other words, it's common ground. so no, what alex did is not sola scriptura.
Which in turn demonstrates the condition Alex has to place upon himself. He has to appeal to Sola Scriptura to refute Sola Scriptura. His position inevitably traps him. This isn't an issue with White, because Scripture is his battle ground. Alex has to abandon his own weapons and battleground to fight empty handed against James. But you see, this is the same tactics Catholics use: Infallible Authority. Because only the Catholic church is allegedly infallible and can translate the content and context of Scripture; locking out all whom are not of their priesthood. Just as Alex makes an appeal to Sola Scriptura, Protestants would have to also appeal to the magesterium in regards to Papal Infallibility. But, Protestants can really and truly challenge Infallible Authority because they have their own in the form of Gods Word. It becomes their sword. Catholics CANNOT use their church as an authority, without appealing to Scripture first, to demonstrate the infallibility of their church. It's a lose/ lose/ lose situation for the Catholic Church.
Alex is doing what Jesus did with the Sadducees, he’s using the texts that they approve of to dismantle their faulty teaching. (See Matthew 22:23-33). Kelly, Alex is not referring to the Scripture as the only authority, rather he is appealing to Scripture because it’s the only authority both Protestants and Catholics agree is an authority while at the same time showing multiple examples and references from Scripture that it is not the only authority, but that also the Church and apostolic tradition are authorities as well. I hope you all have a conversation soon together, I would love to see that. ✝️
@user-rg4ni2hr6r It’s a perfect analogy. Just like Jesus unravels the Sadducees’ faulty logic using the only authority they deem valid, so too Alex did a great job with Dr. White showcasing numerous examples from Scripture that attest to other authorities outside Scripture. I say this as a Protestant. It was a clear W for Alex. As I have come to investigate the claims of Sola Scriptura, more and more I find real problems with it
2 Timothy 3:16 - All Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness. Please note God says scripture is what should dictate where doctrine should come from... His word! Not the traditions of men or some imaginary magisterium or pope! The Roman Catholic church is so full of herecy that it is more pagan than. Christian
@user-rg4ni2hr6r But Jesus did accept the Jewish Magisterium. He told the people they must listen to them and do what they tell them for they had the chair Moses (which got transferred to Peter).
@@axxel9626 The Bible doesn't affirm Sola Scriptura. It affirms the Authority of Scripture and the Bible also affirms the Authority of the Church and Tradition.
@user-rg4ni2hr6r fake account. delete the video Kelly or do a damage control video because (i hope and pray) you clearly know you didn't get this correct.
By the way only Alex was talking scripture, James was just talking about what he thinks and feels nothing biblical. White would laugh and giggle very disrespectful and childish while Alex in the other hand respectfully listen to White when he was talking. Alex smashed White with scripture and attitude very respectful thank you Alex 🎉 for a good win!!!
@thomasglass9491 Scripture is tradition you fool. Saint Paul tells us this very clearly - hold fast to the traditions we have taught you either by word of mouth or by epistle (Scripture). How do you not understand that?!
@@ThePreacherman9 Exactly, anyone can repent and enter into the Fullness of Christ in the Catholic Church, like St Augustine did. We are all sinners and can find forgiveness in Jesus Christ, through the Sacraments.
2 Thessalonians 2:15 (Hold fast to the traditions you were taught, whether by our spoken word or by our letter.) - 1 Corinthians 11:2 (I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you.) The Catholic Church emphasizes the importance of both Scripture and Tradition, seeing them as complementary sources of divine revelation. This perspective is based on: 1. The early Church Fathers' writings (e.g., Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Augustine) 2. The Council of Trent (1546) and Vatican II (1962-1965) 3. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992) In Catholic teaching, Scripture and Tradition are seen as two interconnected streams of divine revelation, with Scripture being the written word of God and Tradition being the lived faith of the Church, passed down through the centuries.
@@pepitodetijuas8949 exactly. Then add to it: 2 Tim 2:2 “And what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” Paul doesn’t say to protect what he wrote to Timothy and he doesn’t instruct Timothy to faithfully copy his letters or have other men who will faithfully copy Paul’s writings. The intention of Jesus and the Apostle’s was to create a living Church that could preach the gospel to everyone, not just people who know how to read.
Okay, what tradition were they presenting ? The gospel, everything they said is backed up by the bible. You Catholics can't confirm your authority without coming to scripture.
@@murilolinsdacruz4110 we have other ways to confirm Catholic Authority but since you adhere to Sola Scriptura, we try to appeal to an authority that you follow. Don’t you see how Sola Scriptura is self contradictory? It if you want, here is a historical source. St Irenaeus was Bishop of Lyons. He was the disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of St John the Apostle. Irenaeus wrote many works against the heresies of the Gnostics. One of his arguments to refute the Gnostics was apostolic succession, specifically the line of the papacy. So what does that prove? Well first, if Irenaeus just made this up (he was writing around 180 ad), then surely the Gnostics or even other Christian’s at that time, would have disputed and fought against Irenaeus, but we have no record of this. So we can conclude this was not a novel argument unless you have an alternative explanation. But where then did this reasoning come from? The apostles make the most sense because again, if it was invented in 150, or 130, or 110, we should expect to see other Christian’s disputing it. But we don’t. So this was taught to Irenaeus by Polycarp who learned it from St John, who along with the another apostles taught this as part of the deposit of faith. Which is exactly what we see when St Paul tells Timothy to train other men who would be also to teach and train other men. Paul also mentioning the laying on of hands to Timothy, another mark of succession. Or we could look St Clements letter to the Corinthians. Have you read it because most of the early Christian’s believed it to be inspired and included it in the canon during the 2nd and 3rd centuries.
Whoa @3:15 you said Alex was going to show Sola Scriptura is not accurate but Catholic Church authority is by appealing to scripture. You say this as if Alex is contradicting himself. Sola Scriptura can be false and the scriptures can still be authoritative, there is no contradiction there. So Alex can certainly appeal to scriptures as an authority because both he and James believe they are authoritative. The crux becomes that James believes they are the SOLE authority while as Alex explained Catholic have 3 authorities, the Scripture, tradition and the Church.
Scripture alone and self interpretation have resulted in over 40,000 denominations, saying they are the true church of Christ, only hate and confusion is the fruits of that. Jesus founded one church and prayed for unity not separation but the demon got his way 1600 years after Jesus' crucifixion.
What a caricature of sola scriptura! Scripture alone in the sense that the bible is the only infallible authority but traditions, councils, creeds and fathers are authoritative but under the word of God. Also stop spreadind the lies of "40,000" denominations when the roman catholic church has hundreds of denominations. One final thing the fathers did personal interpretation, also the magisterium does personal intepretation you hypocrity!
@thomasglass9491 Look it up before opening that pie hole, Protestants love lies and hate the truth. In these days and ages, with all the info in the palm of your hand nowadays, protestants shouldn't even exist anymore. Open your eyes before time runs out.
@thomasglass9491 Do the research before saying anything is the Catholic way. You should do the same, my brother. You could be the next UA-camr talking about how you soften your heart and stopped to actually listen, and then converted to the original and first singular church our Lord Jesus founded.
Kelly, what do we do when we disagree on what the Scriptures say? We both read the same Bible, one of us comes away thinking baptism is necessary for salvation and the other one comes away thinkint baptism is just an outward sign of an inward faith. How do we solve this dispute? Luckily, we can turn to the Bible for that answer as well: Matthew 18:15-20 Jesus tells us clearly; "Take it to the Church." The Church is there to mediate disputes, according to the Scriptures
Since the church is there to mediate disputes, wouldn't you agree that the Catholic church falls under the same dilemma? Since there are disagreements.
The church is there, it's just not the catholic church, nor the mormon church, nor the jw kingdom hall, it's the body of CHRIST those filled with the HOLY SPIRIT those that depend on GOD'S WORDS ALONE
That doesn’t go against sola scriptura, all sola scriptura says is that the Church can’t create a new dogma that must be followed without getting it from scripture. The Church would settle that dispute using scripture.
Not to be rude but how's your conscience? Does it work? If we are born of God (1 John 3:9) then you can't live in sin deliberately, knowingly, and habitually. That's the test of a true Christian and The early church had the Holy Ghost.
@@TheCabin777yet, God's Word is not limited to the written word, as even Holy Scripture teaches! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!
The irony of Catholicism is appealing to Scripture at all. If Sola Scriptura is false, then Scripture is not a requirement for a believer. If it is a requirement, then it is a need; and cannot be rejected, neglected or dismissed without inevitable consequences. Matthew 4:4 makes this clear; To reject or neglect nourishment is to lead to starvation and death. Without physical food, we die physically. Without Scripture, we die spiritually. The fact that Catholics reject the sovereign authority of Scripture, but then also appeal to Scripture, is hypocrisy; and completely disrespectful to Scripture; treating it as arbitrary; a means to an end. Appealing to Scripture to either justify or refute Sola Scriptura is a trap; but not for Protestants, but for Catholics. To refute Sola Scriptura, a Catholic MUST appeal to Scripture exclusively, that is, Scripture Alone, to expose any alleged inter-scriptural appeals to authorities outside itself. A Catholic MUST betray their own rejection of Sola Scriptura and make an appeal to Sola Scriptura to even attempt to refute Sola Scriptura. Catholics played themselves. Now, ANY external authority can say anything about Scripture, but unless the authority is God speaking from His own authority, and establishes an authority that parallels His own, No Catholic can refute or reject Sola Scriptura. God must PERSONALLY refute Sola Scriptura by His own testimony. A Protestant appealing to Scripture Alone is the opposite of an issue. It is our requirement, pleasure, honor and DUTY to define and defend the faith by Scripture; just as The Apostles gave their blood, sweat, tears and lives to do so, so we carry their mandate. Catholics don't reject Sola Scriptura because this doctrine allegedly doesn't make sense to them, but because they are conditioned by their church to reject it. That's it. Catholics are victims of ignorance, desperation and indoctrination, and cannot know better because they are not allowed to know better as the church prohibits knowledge, faith and critical thinking; of which the Catholic church is circling vulture; adding more tenants to the residency of hell through her own personal and preferred interpretation of Scripture.
@user-rg4ni2hr6rWhy would he appeal to Church authority when James White does not believe in it? This is why Christians don't appeal to the deuterocanon when speaking with Protestants because Protestants do not read the same canon of Scripture that Christ and all His disciples learned from.
Clearly this guy is just starting out in apologetics, he doesn’t even underage opening statement. Pray for his discernment and wisdom to grow before he leads others astray. Because we know God warns about those who try to teach what they don’t fully understand. He should be more like the Ethiopian and ask someone to guide him so he stops making false interpretations.
@@dann285Jesus gave the apostles the Holy Spirit. So how would their teachings not be infallible? Those teachings are what the catholic and Orthodox Church’s are based on
Alex from voice of reason destroyed the man made tradition of Scripture alone and exposed the false and unbiblical teachings of James White!! Holy Scripture never teaches Scripture ALONE is infallible, plus, why listen to fallible and unnecessary Protestant Pastors, when we have the infallible Holy Scriptures then as a Protestant must, but never will admit, that can never know with infallible certitude what Jesus Christ meant by "this IS MY BODY ", or who the Woman is in Revelation 12, or who the rock is in Matthew 16, as Scripture ALONE is allegedly infallible, thus making all their interpretations, FALLIBLE! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!
What debate did you saw? Alex performance was one of the worst by catholic in along time. You must be one of he's fanboys to say that. Also man made? Mark 7:1-9 clearly teaches sola scriptura.
@thomasglass9491 Alex from voice of reason, was absolutely brilliant in destroying the man made tradition of Scripture alone! Holy Scripture never teaches the man made tradition of Scripture alone. Plus, why listen to fallible Protestant Pastors like James White, when we have the infallible Holy Scriptures?🤔 6 of the 12 Apostles taught with oral authority and never wrote anything down! Peter the rock and sole key holder, who stood up and put an end to all the debating at the council of Jerusalem Regarding circumcision, since SCRIPTURE ALONE COULD NOT, as Peter authoritatively ruled that circumcision of the Flesh was no longer necessary, even though Holy Scripture said that it was! Protestants must have to admit that they can never know with infallible certitude what Jesus Christ meant by "this IS MY BODY " or who the Woman is in Revelation 12, or who the rock is in Matthew 16, as Scripture ALONE is infallible, thus making all their interpretations, FALLIBLE! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!
@@matthewbroderick6287 I love that you brought the same arguments that I already refuted. Also why are you talking about the eucharist? That's not the topic of debate. Sola Scriptura is that the Bible is the sole inafllible authority but traditions are authoritative. As we read the fathers is the same thing to listen to our teachers. When the Bible speaks of oral tradition is the oral teachings that they preached before they wrote somentig down, then they wrote down those oral traditions. You want to claim apostolic tradition? You need to bring evidence that indeed they're apostolic. Peter is the little rock, when he's confession is the rock that is the base of the church. The apostles are the key holders not just Peter that's clear in the gospels. The council of Jerusalem was inspired by the Spirit somenting that the seven ecunemical councils were not.
@thomasglass9491 I love how you provided absolutely no evidence of the man made tradition of Scripture alone! Not one piece of evidence! So, regarding the Eucharist, you admit you can never know with infallible certitude what Jesus Christ meant by "this IS MY BODY ", or who the rock is in Matthew 16, correct? Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!
@thomasglass9491 Jesus Christ renamed Simon as Cephas, which is Aramaic for Rock! Jesus Christ promised Peter alone the keys of the Kingdom. The office of sole key holder is one of succession Biblically! It was indeed Peter the rock and sole key holder, who stood up and put an end to all the debating at the council of Jerusalem Regarding circumcision, since SCRIPTURE ALONE COULD NOT, as Peter authoritatively ruled that circumcision of the Flesh was no longer necessary, even though Holy Scripture said that it was, as the manifold wisdom of God is revealed through the CHURCH! You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
The comments gave me hope. We are part of inw faith guys and one church and that church was there for thousand year, till someone decided to claim they can interpret the scripture for themselves. Now as Alex said we have liberal Christians who "interpret " the scripture the way they won't and they have no reason to listen to protestants since this is exactly what they doing.
Kelly my dear Protestant , Alex made it clear that Protestants only have scripture , Catholics have scripture, tradition, and magesterium. He went on to say at 2:14 that both sides agree about scripture being an authority so let’s “turn to it” since both sides agree on this point. That’s why he said let’s turn to the scriptures, not because he’s conceding to James white but because they both agree on this one point. The fact that you’re making this blunder on this very obvious point Alex was making makes me wonder how you would fare against Alex seeing how he went toe to toe with James White and your making obvious mistakes from the get go.
On the contrary Alex asserts in this debate to disprove Sola Scriptura by the Scriptures, thus proving Sola Scriptura. Secondly, Alex in his videos states he can prove all the RCC teachings from the Bible, thus again proving Sola Scriptura. So nice try but no go….
@@BereanPerspectiveApologetics Alex is using ONE of the 3 pillars of the Church ,Scripture tradition and the magisterium. Any one of these can be used in a discussion.
Turning to scripture as an authority isn’t a purely protestant thing. That’s been in the church since the beginning. He said Catholics affirm scripture AND what the church preached. But When you go to the scriptures, it doesn’t have the concept of sola scriptura in there. Demonstrated by the entire rest of the debate
Right he was just confirming that scripture is used he did not say it’s the only thing used it’s spoken in tradition and written I don’t get why this is do divided there was no New Testament book for years
So you said that he refuted himself. Sola Scriptura is a self refuting argument. 1. Sola Scriptura entails that Scripture is able to give us all the data of revelation that we need. 2. Scripture is necessary 3. If Scripture is necessary, knowing what is Scripture is necessary. 4. Scripture can’t give us the knowledge of what scripture is. Therefore, Sola Scriptura is false. What Alex said is correct. I don’t know what you’re trying to imply on this video because he says Scripture is still AN ultimate authority. Therefore, you use the Protestant’s own belief to prove the Catholic belief. Just like if I’m trying to disprove Islam, I’ll use their own Quran, not my Bible, because they wouldn’t accept it. It’s a simple tactic. You’re trying to imply that he’s accidentally said he needs to use Sola Scriptura to prove Catholic authority. Quite the contrary, he’s saying he can do it using Scripture, Tradition, or the Church. The thing is Kelly, this is pretty obvious and even James White knew that, which is why he would never bring up such a point like you did. This video comes off to me like you’re just trying to bait him. But if you decide to go this route and keep it up then that’s your choice.
@user-rg4ni2hr6r Respectfully, that’s not what Sola Scriptura means. Scripture is defined by what is God breathed, the implication being that you need the Scriptures that God helped the early church to discover. This, the early church finally decided upon in the 4th century, and even Protestants over 1000 years later still agreed for the most part. Honestly the only person I’ve ever heard agree with your point is Brother Josh, the pastor with Jidion. I’ve never heard anybody else share your view. Your point implies you can be a Christian without knowing the Gospel, the literal good news that you need the revelation of. Because if you only have Genesis but none of the four Gospel books, then you don’t even have the full context of the Old Covenant, and you have barely any context of the New Covenant. Also, there are books in the Bible that you can’t argue they teach Sola Scriptura. Which if Sola Scriptura is true, the Scripture needs to teach Sola Scriptura. I would heavily rethink the notion that you could use Sola Scriptura with just Lamentations.. just Revelation.. just Ruth.. just Esther.
@user-rg4ni2hr6r It doesn’t address the canon because the canon is the epistemic origin. Scripture and canon are one and the same. You don’t have the total Scripture without the canon. Jesus may have acknowledged the Scripture of the OT, but he obviously acknowledged there was more revelation to be given, therefore you need the new Scripture provided to us.
@user-rg4ni2hr6r really makes the Catholic position even stronger. A God breathed book in the hands of a dull minded person or persons will only get one so far. A Jew would also make the claim that their book in the hands of a Muslim would be like the Monalisa in a Pizza Hut bathroom.
Jesus didn't tell us, nor does the bible tell us what books/letters are considered God breathed Scripture. So who did? How do we today, know and trust every book in the bible is truly the word of God? Whom did God entrust with the task of discerning, throwing away the false and putting together the true inspired writings and make one glorious book? WHO DID THIS AND WHEN?
Lol. How is this refuting himself? God gave us the Bible AND tradition. They inform each other. Period. End of debate. Kelly Powers and James White are intellectual lightweights. More and more people are discovering this
@JesusChurchBible Through his church Jesus founded came the bible 300 years after, praise be to God !!! And if you go against his Church you go against Jesus himself. The gates of hell will never prevail against my church!!!!
This is, quite probably, the single *worst* argument against sola scriptura. Read more church history and the writings of early Christians for yourself. Stop letting your apologists and your church tell you what they want you to believe is there. And, most importantly, read your Bible more. Maybe then you'll see why it fails.
Dude, White literally said his interpretation is the right one because "little catholic ladies" said so. And the only other arguement he had was that the pope is liberal. He basically conceded in his closing statement.
I’m not a Roman Catholic and would say i’m an openminded evangelical. The point Voice of Reason (Alex) made was that there was common ground on scripture so he will apply to scripture to refute it because that i the only common infallible authority that they have in common. You just misrepresented Alex
1) argument from silence. Even the word Trinity is not in the Bible tho it's true. 2) the Bible affirms that Scripture is the ultimate authority multiple times
@@axxel9626 it is not the inly authority. The bibke literally says that the churchbis the pillar of truth and that we should follow teaching by letter and word of mohth The catholic church believes in only scrioture in a way that it shows that it is the ultimate authrority..but some protestant grouos act as if it is th only authority. Jesus and his diciples preached the gospel before it was written doen
@@cfG21 bro pls take your time to write well. Btw, you completely twisted the verse you are referring to. There Paul is saying that we should follow the teachings that THEY (Paul and his gang) left us. Not others. So that verse is refuting your argument. Come again
@@axxel9626 no it does not "Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught, either by word of mouth or by letter" is a verse from the Bible, 2 Thessalonians 2:15 Sola escritura, in the sense that scripture alone is authoritative without acknowleding that scripture never instructs us to follow the written word only is the biggest mental gymnastics since calvanistic double predestination . It says to follow their instructiin that is in written format and oral format. The Bible calls the Church "the pillar and bulwark of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15), but even though you say you belueve in Jesus you do not believe that Jesus left a church (with bishoops, priests, and deacons) to guide the church and help interprit the scriptures.
@@cfG21 True. The point is Catholics have more ground to claim that there is authority outside of scripture with that verse. That verse contradicts the concept of sola scriptura. But if you are a protestant you will find the way to reconcile this. Just don't tell us that we don't have proof of our concept
A lot of Catholics are saying you misunderstood Alex-I’m not sure they understand your point: if Alex says he will use scripture to prove that tradition and the church are also authorities…doesn’t that mean he also has to start with scripture as the first infallible authority to even get to tradition and church? I suppose the Catholics wouldn’t say Alex is appealing to Scripture, per se, but the Catholic Church and tradition’s interpretation of Scripture. I admit, I’m getting tired of the constant antagonism between groups who both claim to be of Christ. Let those who are truly of Christ show it more in gracious dialogue. The mockery and vitriol does not belong amongst believers.
The Apostles were tired of the constant antagonism of all the heretics, Gnostics, etc. As Christians we have to stop false teaching so people aren't led astray. Thats why this matters. As long as its done with love and the hopes that we all get to heaven!
Watch Q&A of the debate and listen it closely. You world may crumble as a protestant and hopefully end up in church recieving eucharist after repentance.
Wow same thing with sam shamoun. You twist the thier argument and edit things out of context. I hope you think about the excuse in the future when you face God.
The gospels and teachings of the early apostles already existed. Early believers learned these by hearing. They were able to go back to these and compare to later teachings, including heresies. Even before being written out, the message was already there😊😊😊
List of POPES (33 A.D. - 2013) 1. St. Peter (33-67) 2. St. Linus (67-76) 3. St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88) 4. St. Clement I (88-97) 5. St. Evaristus (97-105) 6. St. Alexander I (105-115) 7. St. Sixtus I (115-125) 8. St. Telesphorus (125-136) 9. St. Hyginus (136-140) 10. St. Pius I (140-155) 11. St. Anicetus (155-166) 12. St. Soter (166-175) 13. St. Eleutherius (175-189) 14. St. Victor I (189-199) 15. St. Zephyrinus (199-217) 16. St. Callistus I (217-222) Callistus and the following three popes were opposed by St. Hippolytus, antipope (217-236) 17. St. Urban I (222-230) 18. St. Pontain (230-235) 19. St. Anterus (235-236) 20. St. Fabian (236-250) 21. St. Cornelius (251-253) Opposed by Novatian, antipope (251) 22. St. Lucius I (253-254) 23. St. Stephen I (254-257) 24. St. Sixtus II (257-258) 25. St. Dionysius (260-268) 26. St. Felix I (269-274) 27. St. Eutychian (275-283) 28. St. Caius (283-296) 29. St. Marcellinus (296-304) 30. St. Marcellus I (308-309) 31. St. Eusebius (309-310) 32. St. Miltiades (311-314) 33. St. Sylvester I (314-335) 34. St. Marcus (336) 35. St. Julius I (337-352) 36. Liberius (352-366) Opposed by Felix II, antipope (355-365) 37. St. Damasus I (366-84) Opposed by Ursicinus, antipope (366-367) 38. St. Siricius (384-399) 39. St. Anastasius I (399-401) 40. St. Innocent I (401-417) 41. St. Zosimus (417-418) 42. St. Boniface I (418-422) Opposed by Eulalius, antipope (418-419) 43. St. Celestine I (422-432) 44. St. Sixtus III (432-440) 45. St. Leo I (the Great) (440-461) 46. St. Hilarius (461-468) 47. St. Simplicius (468-483) 48. St. Felix III (II) (483-492) 49. St. Gelasius I (492-496) 50. Anastasius II (496-498) 51. St. Symmachus (498-514) Opposed by Laurentius, antipope (498-501) 52. St. Hormisdas (514-523) 53. St. John I (523-526) 54. St. Felix IV (III) (526-530) 55. Boniface II (530-532) Opposed by Dioscorus, antipope (530) 56. John II (533-535) 57. St. Agapetus I (535-536) 58. St. Silverius (536-537) 59. Vigilius (537-555) 60. Pelagius I (556-561) 61. John III (561-574) 62. Benedict I (575-579) 63. Pelagius II (579-590) 64. St. Gregory I (the Great) (590-604) 65. Sabinian (604-606) 66. Boniface III (607) 67. St. Boniface IV (608-615) 68. St. Deusdedit (Adeodatus I) (615-618) 69. Boniface V (619-625) 70. Honorius I (625-638) 71. Severinus (640) 72. John IV (640-642) 73. Theodore I (642-649) 74. St. Martin I (649-655) 75. St. Eugene I (655-657) 76. St. Vitalian (657-672) 77. Adeodatus II (672-676) 78. Donus (676-678) 79. St. Agatho (678-681) 80. St. Leo II (682-683) 81. St. Benedict II (684-685) 82. John V (685-686) 83. Conon (686-687) 84. St. Sergius I (687-701) Opposed by Theodore and Paschal, antipopes (687) 85. John VI (701-705) 86. John VII (705-707) 87. Sisinnius (708) 88. Constantine (708-715) 89. St. Gregory II (715-731) 90. St. Gregory III (731-741) 91. St. Zachary (741-752) Stephen II followed Zachary, but because he died before being consecrated, modern lists omit him 92. Stephen II (III) (752-757) 93. St. Paul I (757-767) 94. Stephen III (IV) (767-772) Opposed by Constantine II (767) and Philip (768), antipopes (767) 95. Adrian I (772-795) 96. St. Leo III (795-816) 97. Stephen IV (V) (816-817) 98. St. Paschal I (817-824) 99. Eugene II (824-827) 100. Valentine (827) 101. Gregory IV (827-844) 102. Sergius II (844-847) Opposed by John, antipope 103. St. Leo IV (847-855) 104. Benedict III (855-858) Opposed by Anastasius, antipope (855) 105. St. Nicholas I (the Great) (858-867) 106. Adrian II (867-872) 107. John VIII (872-882) 108. Marinus I (882-884) 109. St. Adrian III (884-885) 110. Stephen V (VI) (885-891) 111. Formosus (891-896) 112. Boniface VI (896) 113. Stephen VI (VII) (896-897) 114. Romanus (897) 115. Theodore II (897) 116. John IX (898-900) 117. Benedict IV (900-903) 118. Leo V (903) Opposed by Christopher, antipope (903-904) 119. Sergius III (904-911) 120. Anastasius III (911-913) 121. Lando (913-914) 122. John X (914-928) 123. Leo VI (928) 124. Stephen VIII (929-931) 125. John XI (931-935) 126. Leo VII (936-939) 127. Stephen IX (939-942) 128. Marinus II (942-946) 129. Agapetus II (946-955) 130. John XII (955-963) 131. Leo VIII (963-964) 132. Benedict V (964) 133. John XIII (965-972) 134. Benedict VI (973-974) 135. Benedict VII (974-983) Benedict VII and John XIV were opposed by Boniface VII, antipope (974; 984-985) 136. John XIV (983-984) 137. John XV (985-996) 138. Gregory V (996-999) Opposed by John XVI, antipope (997-998) 139. Sylvester II (999-1003) 140. John XVII (1003) 141. John XVIII (1003-1009) 142. Sergius IV (1009-1012) 143. Benedict VIII (1012-1024) Opposed by Gregory, antipope (1012) 144. John XIX (1024-1032) 145. Benedict IX (1032-1045) He appears on this list three separate times, because he was twice deposed and restored 146. Sylvester III (1045) Considered by some to be an antipope 147. Benedict IX (1045) 148. Gregory VI (1045-1046) 149. Clement II (1046-1047) 150. Benedict IX (1047-1048) 151. Damasus II (1048) 152. St. Leo IX (1049-1054) 153. Victor II (1055-1057) 154. Stephen X (1057-1058) 155. Nicholas II (1058-61) Opposed by Benedict X, antipope (1058) 156. Alexander II (1061-73) Opposed by Honorius II, antipope (1061-1072) 157. St. Gregory VII (1073-85) Gregory and the following three popes were opposed by Guibert ("Clement III"), antipope (1080-1100) 158. Blessed Victor III (1086-1087) 159. Blessed Urban II (1088-1099) 160. Paschal II (1099-1118) Opposed by Theodoric (1100), Aleric (1102) and Maginulf ("Sylvester IV", 1105-1111), antipopes 161. Gelasius II (1118-1119) Opposed by Burdin ("Gregory VIII"), antipope (1118) 162. Callistus II (1119-1124) 163. Honorius II (1124-1130) Opposed by Celestine II, antipope (1124) 164. Innocent II (1130-1143) Opposed by Anacletus II (1130-1138) and Gregory Conti ("Victor IV") (1138), antipopes (1138) 165. Celestine II (1143-1144) 166. Lucius II (1144-1145) 167. Blessed Eugene III (1145-1153) 168. Anastasius IV (1153-1154) 169. Adrian IV (1154-1159) 170. Alexander III (1159-81) Opposed by Octavius ("Victor IV") (1159-1164), Pascal III (1165-1168), Callistus III (1168-1177) and Innocent III (1178-1180), antipopes 171. Lucius III (1181-1185) 172. Urban III (1185-1187) 173. Gregory VIII (1187) 174. Clement III (1187-1191) 175. Celestine III (1191-1198) 176. Innocent III (1198-1216) 177. Honorius III (1216-1227) 178. Gregory IX (1227-1241) 179. Celestine IV (1241) 180. Innocent IV (1243-1254) 181. Alexander IV (1254-1261) 182. Urban IV (1261-1264) 183. Clement IV (1265-1268) 184. Blessed Gregory X (1271-1276) 185. Blessed Innocent V (1276) 186. Adrian V (1276) 187. John XXI (1276-1277) 188. Nicholas III (1277-1280) 189. Martin IV (1281-1285) 190. Honorius IV (1285-1287) 191. Nicholas IV (1288-1292) 192. St. Celestine V (1294) 193. Boniface VIII (1294-1303) 194. Blessed Benedict XI (1303-1304) 195. Clement V (1305-1314) 196. John XXII (1316-1334) Opposed by Nicholas V, antipope (1328-1330) 197. Benedict XII (1334-1342) 198. Clement VI (1342-1352) 199. Innocent VI (1352-1362) 200. Blessed Urban V (1362-1370) 201. Gregory XI (1370-1378) 202. Urban VI (1378-1389) Opposed by Robert of Geneva ("Clement VII"), antipope (1378-1394) 203. Boniface IX (1389-1404) Opposed by Robert of Geneva ("Clement VII") (1378-1394), Pedro de Luna ("Benedict XIII") (1394-1417) and Baldassare Cossa ("John XXIII") (1400-1415), antipopes 204. Innocent VII (1404-1406) Opposed by Pedro de Luna ("Benedict XIII") (1394-1417) and Baldassare Cossa ("John XXIII") (1400-1415), antipopes 205. Gregory XII (1406-1415) Opposed by Pedro de Luna ("Benedict XIII") (1394-1417), Baldassare Cossa ("John XXIII") (1400-1415), and Pietro Philarghi ("Alexander V") (1409-1410), antipopes 206. Martin V (1417-1431) 207. Eugene IV (1431-1447) Opposed by Amadeus of Savoy ("Felix V"), antipope (1439-1449) 208. Nicholas V (1447-1455) 209. Callistus III (1455-1458) 210. Pius II (1458-1464) 211. Paul II (1464-1471) 212. Sixtus IV (1471-1484) 213. Innocent VIII (1484-1492) 214. Alexander VI (1492-1503) 215. Pius III (1503) 216. Julius II (1503-1513) 217. Leo X (1513-1521) 218. Adrian VI (1522-1523) 219. Clement VII (1523-1534) 220. Paul III (1534-1549) 221. Julius III (1550-1555) 222. Marcellus II (1555) 223. Paul IV (1555-1559) 224. Pius IV (1559-1565) 225. St. Pius V (1566-1572) 226. Gregory XIII (1572-1585) 227. Sixtus V (1585-1590) 228. Urban VII (1590) 229. Gregory XIV (1590-1591) 230. Innocent IX (1591) 231. Clement VIII (1592-1605) 232. Leo XI (1605) 233. Paul V (1605-1621) 234. Gregory XV (1621-1623) 235. Urban VIII (1623-1644) 236. Innocent X (1644-1655) 237. Alexander VII (1655-1667) 238. Clement IX (1667-1669) 239. Clement X (1670-1676) 240. Blessed Innocent XI (1676-1689) 241. Alexander VIII (1689-1691) 242. Innocent XII (1691-1700) 243. Clement XI (1700-1721) 244. Innocent XIII (1721-1724) 245. Benedict XIII (1724-1730) 246. Clement XII (1730-1740) 247. Benedict XIV (1740-1758) 248. Clement XIII (1758-1769) 249. Clement XIV (1769-1774) 250. Pius VI (1775-1799) 251. Pius VII (1800-1823) 252. Leo XII (1823-1829) 253. Pius VIII (1829-1830) 254. Gregory XVI (1831-1846) 255. Blessed Pius IX (1846-1878) 256. Leo XIII (1878-1903) 257. St. Pius X (1903-1914) 258. Benedict XV (1914-1922) 259. Pius XI (1922-1939) 260. Pius XII (1939-1958) 261. St. John XXIII (1958-1963) 262. Paul VI (1963-1978) 263. John Paul I (1978) 264 St. John Paul II (1978-2005) 265. Benedict XVI (2005-2013) 266. Francis (2013 - ) Is it worth sharing😀?
God Bless you , Kelly. My brother in Christ, I pray that the Spirit continues to guide you during your apologetics missions. You are truly a weapon for God. All honour and glory to Him alone. Gby brother
@user-rg4ni2hr6r It's ok, brother/sister in Christ. Pray for them. Show love and compassion as Christ did. God shall NOT be mocked...but judgement ultimately is His alone. GOD BLESS YOU ABUNDANTLY
The book of Acts is clear that the Church existed before any of the Apostles started writing down the Bible. The writings that would later be compiled into the New Testament. The Church comes before the Bible. We had Hebrews Scriptures during the time of the Apostles but they did not have a closed Cannon of the Hebrews Scriptures so the Jews did not have a closed Cannon of the Hebrew Scriptures during the time of Jesus and the Apostles. It was not until much later in the 4th century when the Church actually canonized all of the writings that make up the entire Bible. They canonized the Old and the New testaments. The historical records does not show this but it actually does because in the 4th century there were three separate councils that actually canonized the Bible. The first council was the Council of Rome in the year 382 AD that was when (Pope Damasus 1st ) in 382 ad commissioned this Council so that they could draw up a list of all of the writings that are inspired scripture and canonized the Bible. And in the year 393 AD the Council of Hippo affirmed this list and then in 397 AD the Council of Carthage reaffirmed the canons of Hippo from 393, and issued its own. And it was reaffirmed multiple times in the 5th century all the way into when it was dogmatically defined by the extraordinary and universal magisterium at the Council of Trent in the 16th century. The Council of Trent met to define the doctrines of the Catholic Church. The idea was to lessen corruption of clergy members and abuses of power and finances. The council determined that the Church's interpretation of the Bible was the final word but that the Bible had equal authority with the Church. So history shows us that the church canonized and gave us the Bible. The bible shows us that the Church came first because the church began or started at Pentecost on the 5th day after Jesus Christ rose from the dead. The Pentecost is when the Church was bored and it was not until atleast 17 years after that when the first book of the New Testament was written which would have been St. Paul first letter to the Thessolonians and it was not until around the year 70 AD when the entirety of the New Testament was inscripturated. So what happened between the year 33 and the year 50 because there was no New Testament at that time the apostles had not written anything down during the whole 17-year period. What happened was there no Church because there was no Bible. What happened from the year 33 to the year 382? What happened between Pentecost and the Council of Rome? Was there no Church because there was no Bible? , not in the form that we have it today. So, Yes, the Church came first and the Church gave us the Bible. And what are the Scriptures that Paul referring to? Remember the 1Corinthians 15 is actually one of the earlier writings of St. Paul that he wrote in the early 50s as well. So 1Corinthians is only the second or third epistle that St. Paul the Apostle wrote. So the scriptures that St. Paul referring to are the Old Testaments Scriptures and during the time of Christ and the Apostles there was not a closed Cannon of Scripture. And in the Old Testament does not say anything about the New Covenant Church . It was Jesus that gave birth to His Church and it was the Holy Spirit that breathed life into His Church at Pentecost. So the church does not come from scriptures, the Church came from God. God established the Church and God inspired certain men within that Church to write what is considered Holy Scripture. The most important part in between the Old and New Testaments is Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit descending onto the Church thus giving birth to the Church before the New Testament was written. So the Church and Scriptures are come from the same source, they come from God. The Bible is authoritative list lof authoritative books. If it is fallible list of infallible books that actually does not work because of the list itself is fallible because that list is something either missing or something in that list should not have be there or both. We could be missing inspired writtings or we could have writings in a list that are not inspired at all. So you need the list itself to be authoritative and that authoritative list was given by authority which is the Church because we know that the Church itself has Authority like St Paul the apostle says in 1Timothy 3:15 that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. And in Ephesians 3:10 that God's wisdom is made known through the Church, So its true that the Church gave us the Bible because the Church canonized the writinga of Scriptures and because God inspired men within the Church to write Scripture and The Holy Spirit guided men later on to put all of these writings together so history is on the Catholic side not on the other Chritian denominations like protestant.
@@Jesusfollower-x1j Before the schism, the Catholic and Orthodox Church was the one true apostolic church. Sola scriptural wasn’t part of any early church teachings nor from any early church fathers. Protestantism leads to endless schism (which is why there’s so many Protestant denominations) because there’s no magisterium and unity due to a lack of binding authority. The concept of *sola scriptura*, meaning "Scripture alone," is a principle of Protestant Reformation theology that asserts the Bible as the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice. Critics argue that *sola scriptura* is not biblical for several reasons: 1. **Tradition and Authority in Early Christianity**: The Bible itself does not explicitly teach *sola scriptura*. In early Christianity, the oral teachings of the apostles and the traditions of the Church were highly valued. For instance, 2 Thessalonians 2:15 says, "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter." This suggests that oral tradition was considered authoritative alongside written scripture. 2. **The Role of the Church**: The New Testament describes the Church as the "pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15). This suggests that the Church plays a critical role in preserving and interpreting Christian doctrine, not solely the Bible. 3. **The Canon of Scripture**: The Bible as we know it did not exist as a complete and universally recognized collection until several centuries after Christ. The Church played a significant role in determining the canon, which implies that the authority of the Church was recognized alongside the scriptures. 4. **Interpretation Issues**: *Sola scriptura* can lead to various interpretations of the Bible, resulting in denominational splits and theological disagreements. The absence of a central interpretative authority can lead to confusion over the true meaning of biblical texts. 5. **Biblical Writings**: The Bible includes letters and writings that were addressed to specific communities or individuals, suggesting the presence of context and situations not fully explained within the text. This indicates that understanding these writings often requires more than just the text itself-it requires knowledge of the traditions and teachings of the time. These points highlight the argument that *sola scriptura* may not be a doctrine explicitly taught by the Bible itself and that the early Christian community placed significant importance on tradition and the Church's authority.
Protestant will say that Jesu's words are the only foundation that will last then why we should we care about Saint Paul's, Peter, Saint John words or the words of whoever wrote the letter to the Hebrews. If protestants focused solely on the words of Jesus and His teachings, Protestant would see that in order to be saved we must be born of water and spirit or be baptized, we must eat Jesus's flesh which is food and true drink and we must remain united to Christ the vine become dead branches that are gathered up and burned or lose our salvation. So some protestants only focus on Jesus when they want to undermine the church's on going Apostolic Authority. But then they forget about Jesus and go straight to Paul when they want to defend doctrines like justification by faith alone. Instead the Bible clear that the authority we should submit ourselves to is the one church that Jesus Christ established. We should submit to our elders who have authority over us and know that the church ofvthe living God as Saint Paul said is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth. Paul even admonished Christians who claim to follow a single person rather than the church including those who said they only wanted to follow Jesus. He writes in 1 Corinthians 1:12-13 Each one of you says, "I belong to Paul," or "I belong to Apol'los," or "I belong to Cephas," or "I belong to Christ." Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you?. Paul makes clear in his writings all christians belong to one body and this body is not divided by the things of this word like countries or geography or incompatible theologies. And its divided by the things of thd next world either like death because Christ has conquered death. But what provides this unity in woship and doctrine across time and space is a sacred order. The greek is for this hierarchy a scared order that Christ instituted in His church starting with the apostles and continuing into their successors in the present.
The Word > Tradition Catholics want to be the only ones to handle Sola Scriptura but not be corrected by it. That is why they took their time in compiling the bible and making few of them. They took the artistic approach to delay the truth for many. If we are all given the Holy Spirit through baptism, then we can read the scriptures for ourselves and be led by the holy spirit.. The RCC wants to control and put on their yoke and not Jesus's.
Protestant will say that Jesu's words are the only foundation that will last then why we should we care about Saint Paul's, Peter, Saint John words or the words of whoever wrote the letter to the Hebrews. If protestants focused solely on the words of Jesus and His teachings, Protestant would see that in order to be saved we must be born of water and spirit or be baptized, we must eat Jesus's flesh which is food and true drink and we must remain united to Christ the vine become dead branches that are gathered up and burned or lose our salvation. So some protestants only focus on Jesus when they want to undermine the church's on going Apostolic Authority. But then they forget about Jesus and go straight to Paul when they want to defend doctrines like justification by faith alone. Instead the Bible clear that the authority we should submit ourselves to is the one church that Jesus Christ established. We should submit to our elders who have authority over us and know that the church ofvthe living God as Saint Paul said is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth. Paul even admonished Christians who claim to follow a single person rather than the church including those who said they only wanted to follow Jesus. He writes in 1 Corinthians 1:12-13 Each one of you says, "I belong to Paul," or "I belong to Apol'los," or "I belong to Cephas," or "I belong to Christ." Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you?. Paul makes clear in his writings all christians belong to one body and this body is not divided by the things of this word like countries or geography or incompatible theologies. And its divided by the things of thd next world either like death because Christ has conquered death. But what provides this unity in woship and doctrine across time and space is a sacred order. The greek is for this hierarchy a scared order that Christ instituted in His church starting with the apostles and continuing into their successors in the present.
@@theflash5553 First, let's clarify that the apostles' words were not their own but were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Secondly, their preaching always pointed to Jesus and the faith that He Himself established. Thirdly, it’s important to recognize that even the apostles could not come to faith apart from Jesus; their belief was rooted in Him alone. While the apostles played a vital role in spreading the gospel, they did not die for our salvation. Rather, they participated in the mission established by Jesus, whose redemptive work is the foundation and power of the gospel. No, we cannot lose what God has promised. Our faith is not rooted in our own works but in the works of God, and He is faithful to see it through to the end. Scripture affirms that we are saved by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9). Both grace and faith are gifts from God, and nothing is more powerful than His saving grace. To suggest that we can lose salvation is to imply that something is stronger than God's grace and faithfulness, which is not possible. Baptism, while an important act of obedience, does not itself save us; it is a public declaration that reflects the inward reality of salvation, which naturally produces good works. These works are not the basis of our salvation but the evidence of genuine faith in Jesus' redemptive work. Consider the example of the criminal on the cross (Luke 23:39-43): he was never baptized with water, nor did he partake in the bread and wine, yet Jesus promised him eternal life. This demonstrates that salvation is by faith alone, a spiritual transformation that cannot be measured by outward rituals but by a true belief in Christ. Jesus never commanded us to make apostles; rather, He instructed us to make disciples. This is a critical distinction that aligns with the teaching found in Matthew 23:8-12, where Jesus emphasizes that no one should exalt themselves above others. The spiritual principle here is that no one should lord over another because we are all equal in Christ. The Old Testament repeatedly shows the failures of man ruling over man, highlighting the dangers of hierarchy and domination. Claiming unity while seeking to be above others is disingenuous. Protestantism does not claim to be "The One Church" because there is only one true Church: the spiritual body of believers that Jesus Himself founded. This Church is not a physical institution created by human hands but a spiritual community united by faith in Christ. As Ephesians 4:12 teaches, the goal is for everyone to work together for God's Kingdom, with no one elevated above another. The story of the Tower of Babel serves as a cautionary tale: instead of spreading out as God commanded, people tried to build a name for themselves, seeking status and power beyond what was ordained. Scripture clearly defines the Church as those who believe in Jesus and embrace the faith revealed to us-not based on denominations or religious labels. The example of the criminal on the cross should humble us all; his faith was simple yet profound, reminding us that salvation is a matter of grace. His story exemplifies that God's grace is not tied to rituals or religious affiliations but is available to all who truly believe. As a side note, consider what true worship really means. I encourage you to reflect on Romans 12:1-8, which calls us to offer our bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God. This is our true and proper worship and being humble in serving in the Body of Christ. 1 Corinthians 1:12-13 can reflect how denominations and churches view themselves. All denominations point to someone who reflects their level of understanding and maturity in faith.
Scripture states the Church is the pillar and Bulwark of the truth,not Sola scriptura. The end of the day a protestant going to Scripture creates new Denominations.
2 Timothy 3:16 KJV All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 2 Timothy 3:17 KJV That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Yes we have all read this. All scripture is "profitable". Do you know what this means exactly? It means useful or beneficial. It does not mean Solo, Sola, Only, Bible Alone, etc. Also, do you know that this letter to timothy was written by Paul in 67 AD? They didn't have a Bible yet and the New Testament wasn't all written yet. So Paul was talking about the scriptures he and his fellow apostles all learned studied and memorized, the Old Testament. The Apostles and Paul didn't consider the letters they wrote to different people or churches (Philippians, timothy, romans, etc.) as "scripture". It wasn't until later, after most had died that they started to become known and referred to as scripture. This is why when one learns the history of Christianity most cease to stay protestant.
@@ravinderchahal2391 The god Muslims is not the same God as Christianity, absolutely true. Not sure why you're saying this, because it doesn't answer anything i said in my comment.
@@JesusChurchBible CCC 841, quoting the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium 16, from Vatican II, declared: The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day. They don't hold the faith of Abraham.
@@JesusChurchBible Ephesians_2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; That is why we should get rid of CCC841.
Scripture is clear, there is no protestant denomination that can interpret scripture infallible. Yet we do see their opinions of Scripture they claim is God Breathed.
You think you have a gotcha, but you don't. The Cathoic Church affirms the Authority of Scriptures and has always used Scriptures to teach our doctrines. The Bereans searched the OT to see if what Paul said about Jesus is True. They then would have to reject Scriptures in order to follow Paul and to follow Paul, they'd be following the Catholic Church since Jesus started the Catholic Church and therefore the Apostles were Catholic. A fallible Church cannot write infallible Scripture, and that is what you believe.
Whoa, whoa, whoa...you're making a lot of assumptions. Why would they have to reject scripture to follow Paul? And why does following Paul means following the Catholic church? Paul wasn't a Catholic and neither was the Lord Jesus.
@@StandupGuy55circumcision is clearly required in the OT. But Paul clearly and obviously teaches circumcision is not required. The very fact that the Council of Jerusalem decides that circumcision is no longer required testifies to the different manner in which the apostles understand the authority of scripture vs modern day Protestants.
@@vinciblegaming6817 Council of Jerusalem shows they consulted w scripture to make their decision ~ Acts 15:15 -18. IMO, Acts 15 doesn't show a strong case against solo scriptura and also Peter's supposed "papal authority" which an extra thing to note in v13,19.
@@StandupGuy55 so you tell me - how is it that they came to the conclusion that circumcision is no longer necessary based on principles of sola scriptura? And then explain to me how studying the OT scriptures would allow them to take Paul’s view of circumcision as NOT a contradiction.
You cant answer how the books of the bible are cannnon using only the bible, show me the list of books where they cannonise themself, no exactly the church canonised through orthodoxy not Catholicism
OMG I just finished listening to your video. I am sorry mate this is the dumbest take I heard. I know you mean well. But here is how you sound: Let's say I wrote a book and left some unknown references there, and in that very book I left my email with quote "if you didn't understand the references write to my email" Does it mean that my book is enough to understand references? If Alex said let's go to Church for the answer, what would James White say? Rewatch your own video sir.
@user-rg4ni2hr6r The first century church was an institution. Hence why the Church (Pillars/Columns, Apostles/Elders) held a Council. The Council of Jerusalem in 49-50 AD. They discussed what the various leaders of the Christian church were teaching (gentile circumcision...). Jesus started a church, that church was an institution led by the leaders Jesus put in place. The Prince of the Apostles was Peter, who was given the Keys to the Kingdom and was told by Jesus himself (no others were told this by Jesus), to "Feed my sheep/lamb and take care of his flock. Jesus also told Peter to imitate him in life and death and that Peter would be crucified when he is older. Joh 13:36; 21:19. And Peter was also the first Bishop of Antioch and first Bishop/Pope of Rome, which became the center for the Church and also where Peter and Paul were both killed under Nero. Nero is the emperor whom John describes as 666 (originally 616) in Revelation. Also, the inspired men who put pen to paper were part of the Church. Jesus established his church and his pillars of the church decades later wrote the Letters, whilst being members of the Church. Your argument that God is the author is the same as God being the builder of an apartment complex, although ultimately he is the source, the men who nailed the wood together we the workers who did the physical work.
@@catholicismwow5406 that’s nice. Go to my full video part 1 responding to Voice of Reason opening demonstrating Alex and Catholicism is unbiblical! Catholics attempting to use the Bible to refute Sola Scriptura is great because that proves Sola Scriptura! Good job! 👍
@BereanPerspectiveApologetics and I explain in my video why Catholics using the Bible to refute Sola Scriptura doesn't prove Sola Scriptura at all. That's a lazy argument. We don't deny the Bible has authority, we're just meeting you where you are and using the only authority you accept. Also, I do have responses on deck from your full debate review. I watched that earlier today
@@catholicismwow5406 this Tuesday I have open stream challenge for Catholics to come refute me on Sola Scriptura come on over! Let’s see how you do in a live discussion.
This is insanely dumb. It’s not like I’m gonna cite the Council of Trent to a Protestant or cite Aquinas to an EO. Why? Because YOU don’t accept them as authorities.
Duh...he's saying he can turn to scripture as both their common position. What they are debating is about scripture alone and no other, which is White's position. Alex is scripture in light of the Magisterium. Please unconfuse the confusion.
You missed the entire point Alex is going to make. Sola Scriptura is self refuting and Alex is going to use the Scriptures to demonstrate that. Or to put it another way. Where in the scripture does it say to only use the scripture as your sole authority? Please, chapter and verse and then you win. You can even provide several that together make this claim.
I think you missed the point. This is also a problem with Sola Scriptura. Anyone can misinterpret and miss the point of scripture and create more denominations
Voice of reason going to the scriptures isnt invalid reasoning. Protesants often use tradition to get to their canon. It doesnt mean they believe tradition is the only authority. This is so silly.
Protestants didn't get there canon from tradition, they got it from a bible printing and distribution company in the 1820's. British Foreign Bible Society. They wanted to save money by printing books with less pages in it and some of there board members hated the fact that the protestants who read the deuterocanonical books found out Catholicism was true regarding almsgiving, the teaching of purgatory, etc. so in an attempt to stop protos from converting they stopped putting them in the bible they printed.
Watch your own video maybe 2x more and it'll refute yourself. Alex point is in the debate he'll limit himself to the scripture and not use the Catholic Sacred Tradition.
I don't believe you understand the Catholic argument. Alex is stating that both Protestants and Catholics would agree that scripture is infallible. The difference is that Catholics recognize there needs to be an infallible interpreter, as well. Because what is the point in having an infallible book if it's just going to be fallibly interpreted? Let's build a scenario to help you better understand the illogical and self-defeating nature of sola scriptura. What happens when two non-Catholic Christians disagree on the interpretation of scripture? How do they reconcile who has the correct interpretation? What authority do they appeal to? It can't be scripture because that's what is being questioned. Now, you might say you could use secondary and tertiary passages of scripture to reconcile the primary disagreement, but there might be disagreement with those as well. This has actually made the problem worse, not better. Your only other option is to appeal to an extra-scriptural authority like a pastor, church elder, or council. However, based on the Protestant doctrine that scripture is the "sole" infallible rule of faith, any conclusion a pastor, elder, or council comes to, would be considered fallible, and we are no closer to a resolution on how to properly interpret the scripture. Now, you could argue that the pastor, elder, or council is being infalliblly led by the Holy Spirit to reach their conclusion, and that is why we can faith that their interpretation is correct, but that argument would negate scripture as being the "sole" infallible rule of faith. Either way you slice it, scripture cannot be the sole infallible rule of faith. Hope this cleared things up for you.
Kelly! I hope you can look into dr. Gavin Ortlund and Mike Gendron (ex catholic who has call to reach catholics). They make great arguments for protestant faith. Might not be a bad idea to check them out😊
@user-rg4ni2hr6r Ortlund is a more eloquent humble version of White. Both have been successfully refuted and debunked by many scholars. Ortland was the great white hope for the past couple years but he's been proven wrong enough times now people who do enough research have moved him into the refuted category completely now. Just because he make a good argument doesn't mean he is correct.
@@roses993 You haven't watched all the debates and debunked videos then. He's been refuted numerous times. Trent Horn, Jimmy Akin, Scott Hahn, Steve Ray, Fulton Sheen, Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, these men you need to learn. They are on much higher level than gavin.
I don’t see where his refutation of himself is being shown. Appealing to scripture is not sola scriptura lol True sola scriptura is that scripture is the only infallible rule. You didn’t even define the sola correctly.
Settling something with only scripture again is not assuming sola scriptura. What makes sola scriptura what it is is that it is the only infallible rule for the church. Which opens the door to allow all sorts of heresies to reemerge as we saw in the reformation. William lane Craig is a good example, he denies that Jesus has two wills. This was settled already.
Alex says Scripture is sufficient, then says we need the church to supplement Scripture. This makes no sense. Either Scripture is sufficient (in which case we don't need any additional source) or it isn't sufficient. This is doublespeak on Alex's part. Alex says we need to follow those who have been validly ordained in apostolic succession because "that's how we can know which leaders to follow and obey." Yet there are, and have been, plenty of bishops and cardinals in the RCC who were not truly godly men. History reveals a time when bishoprics and other clergy offices were bought and sold for money! Even the papacy was for sale at one time. With the current pope Francis in office, it's not hard to visualize the fact that successive ordination has been no guarantee of orthodoxy. Therefore, valid ordination in apostolic succession does not assure infallibility in the teaching office. The historical record indicates that the early church never viewed Peter's successors as holding an office of primacy over the entire church. The current RCC interpretation of Matt. 16:18-19 was not shared by the Christians of the first few centuries of the church age. Certainly we see no evidence of that interpretation in the Apostolic writings (the Bible); rather, we see Peter making mistakes and being corrected by Paul! Alex asserts that since the Scriptures don't say they are the sole source of infallible authority they cannot be the sole source. This is a fallacy. All we have to do is demonstrate that the other alleged sources fall short of infallibility, and that has been done many times over. As Alex admitted, there cannot be any new major doctrines because any essential truth would have been heard and attested to by many witnesses in the early church. Yet we have no early church attestation to the claim that one must be in the bosom and unity of the Catholic denomination to be saved, that one must be submissive to the Roman pope to be saved, or that one must believe in Mary's "immaculate conception" or bodily assumption to be saved; all of these are dogmas which were unknown to the early church and were added during the recent millennium... some as recently as the 19th and 20th Centuries! Clearly, these dogmas fail the test which Alex voluntarily introduced. He lost this debate before White even stood up to speak. One problem with the concept of the Catholic Church being an infallible source is that it gives the Catholic Church "carte blanche" to say whatever it wishes and claim that we must believe it. There are no controls, no verification tests or methods, to ensure that the RCC does not abuse its alleged authority. This is why we see that RC salvific doctrine has evolved over time to include such things as the Marian dogmas as beliefs required for salvation.
First of all Alex never said Scripture was sufficient for all the teachings, what he said is that the church and all traditions can be proven with the bible. The bible itself never mentions bible alone, many new apostles came in the bible like Paul, Barnabas, Adronikus and Junias and all of these has been passed down till today, which is the catholic church. Secondly, it's not true that Paul corrected Peter's statement about the doctrine. What the Pope's infallibility means is that whenever the pope establishes a doctrine to the church with official statements then the Pope is infallible. It does not mean that he is the pure leading example like Jesus was and that was what was mentioned in Galatians 2. Thirdly it never says that Marian dogmas is neccesary for salvation, only a thing catholics are expected to follow. The only things needed for salvation according to them is to die in a state of grace, which means to become baptized and don't have any sins in guilt, with exceptions for example aborted babies and so on. But we don't know who's going to be saved and not because it's up to God. We only know that he can make exceptions. New dogmas which were introduced are just dogmas and not requirements for salvation. The only requirements are like I said, to die in a state of grace. Since we always study the scripture and see new things to learn, the catholic church can make a clearer statement of that, like Jesus clarified Moses' teachings in the bible. These dogmas are not just inspired by the holy spirit or the church opinion. It has a lot of backup from scripture and tradition, which means what we have outside of scripture during Jesus' time. Dogmas are clarification of scripture, not adding words of God.
@@bishopspitfire4399 You claim that the church of Rome has not declared the Marian dogmas necessary for a Catholic's salvation. Here is proof that you are mistaken. The Marian dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption are official dogmas of the RCC. The CCC says in #88 that a Catholic is required (irrevocably obliged) to adhere to the official dogmas of the church. Pius IX solemnly proclaimed the dogma of the Immaculate Conception: "... We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which asserts that the Blessed Virgin Mary, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God, and in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, was preserved free from every stain of original sin is a doctrine revealed by God and, for this reason, *_must be_** firmly and constantly believed **_by all_** the faithful"* (DS 2803). When Pius XII declared the dogma of the Assumption, he included this warning as a part of the decree: “Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith....let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.” The 'chair of Peter' calls down the wrath of God upon any Catholic who does not believe the Assumption dogma; God's wrath is tantamount to damnation. The 'chair of Peter' says that every Catholic _must believe_ the Immaculate Conception dogma. If you believe that your popes hold the keys of binding and loosing, then any Catholic who does not believe either of these dogmas is in deep doo-doo, right? Your popes presume to extend their authority to all people, whether Catholic or not. _Unam Sanctum,_ issued in 1302, decreed damnation for any who do not follow the pope: *“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”* The Council of Florence (15th Century) doubled down on the above when it decreed _Cantate Domino_ in Session 11: “The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives...The unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church’s sacraments contribute to salvation.” Do you still want to claim that Catholic dogmas "are just dogmas and are not requirements for salvation"??
@@rexlion4510 First you mention ccc #88 which never mention that it is a requirement for salvation, what it says is that we as christians are called to follow and in order to be in fully communion with God. However, in ccc #1257 it says that it is an OFFICIAL REQUIREMENT to be baptized for salvation excluding God’s exception with not enough time for baptism and martyrdom ( ccc #1258 and ccc #1261). What it makes is that we will be in full communion with the church, which means that we can take part of the sacraments and access to spiritual support and guidance. However, the church is indeed the ideal way of salvation. In the document “ineffabilis deus” it mentions indeed that it must be “firmly and constantly believes by all the faithful”. What makes it irrelevant is that it never established a new requirement for salvation. And the word “faithful” here is directed to everyone who is in full communion with the church, so he’s saying with other words that if you want to still be in a full communion then you need to follow this new dogma. The thing you mentioned later by God’s wrath comes two paragraphs later and is pointed to those who try to change the dogma. The reason why he wrote this is because many people throughout history has tried to change the entire doctrine of the Catholic Church to fit in the modern society. For example Alfred Loisy who opposed the church so much that they had to excommunicate him, after 25 years of constant criticism and pressure to the Catholic Church to change their doctrine. We don’t forget Louis Duchesne who also was a critic who pressured the church to change their doctrine for modernism. To make it clear, it is not nice to God to oppose what was founded by his son, and all of these opponents have misunderstood that all these doctrines come from infallible statements by the Pope, which is not everything it says, it is needed to be supported by scripture, theology and tradition. When it comes to Unam Sanctam it is written in Latin and English translation is not accurate. The word ”salutis” is in genetive case, which means that it is the absolutely necessary of salvation, which points at a noun, the pope. Secondly the word necessary means in this case “altogether” and not “absolutely”, omnino comes from the word omnia, meaning all. ”Necessitate” here is in the ablative case, which means that the word “necessary” here is a cause from something else, in this context the salvation, not that the salvation is the cause of the necessity, which is your interpretation by a translation. So when we read it correctly: “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is altogether necessary(The document is necessary because of salvation) for the salvation (which comes from the Pope)” We see that it just means is that the gift of salvation is coming through the Pope, meaning that he is an ideal and to follow him will lead you to salvation. What all the other people are saying is just that the other denominations are not ideal and that the pope gives us the biggest chance of being saved and that his doctrine is the best example. So to answer your question, yes, I still believe that the only necessary part of salvation is to die in a state of grace and be baptized and also exception with martyrdom and not enough time to baptize. No Pope has and will never make an official statement that everyone outside of the Catholic Church will go to hell. In fact, the church says the completely opposite, that people outside the church can be saved, however, it’s not something you should do (ccc 847). However, what I believe and what all of these documents have mentioned all the time is that the Catholic Church has the ideal doctrine for salvation.
Acts 11:26. and when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass that for a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught many people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. Where, OH WHERE, does it say "Catholic?" The first pope is in the Bible though: Satan is the Catholic Pope.
Then one possessed with a demon was brought to Him, blind and mute, and He healed him, so that the blind and mute man both spoke and saw. 23 All the people were amazed and said, “Is He not the Son of David?” 24 But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, “This Man does not cast out demons, except by Beelzebub the ruler of the demons.” 25 Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation. And every city or house divided against itself will not stand. 26 If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. Then how will his kingdom stand? 27 And if I cast out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore, they shall be your judges. 28 But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. Mathew 12:22-28
The word Catholic doesn't have to be in the bible. Protestant isn't in the bible, is it? "Trinity" isn't in the bible, is it? Catholic means universal, meaning all. Jesus started One Church and it was to be united in its teaching for all time. the Catholic church teaches the same thing universally worldwide. Thats why they had so many councils, to make sure EVERY church on the planet was teaching the same thing, from India to Brazil. Just google early church fathers and catholic. They used the term catholic over and over. They were mostly bishops, deacons and priests of various churches, and they all stated they were a part of the universal Christian church, called "Catholic". You can literally search the origins of the Catholic name and meaning and learn for yourself. Why don't you do that instead of repeating nonsense you haven't even bothered to look up yourself?
Alex if you see this please reply here or send me an email bereanperspectiveapologetics@gmail.com
I enjoyed what I saw and like to have a friendly discussion with you. I hope to hear from you.
Anyone who saw the debate what did you think of it?
Kelly
A rookie Catholic debater defeated one of the most experienced debaters, and the best Protestantism has to offer in James White.
@user-rg4ni2hr6r I easily know it because they are sent by Jesus himself. Is your Church build by Jesus himself? Do you have Apostolic succession?
@@daniellennox8804 James White couldn't even talk his sister out of becoming Catholic.
@@daniellennox8804James White is not the best that the Protestants can offer 🤦♂️
@@BereanPerspectiveApologetics what did I think of it? Protestantism and Calvinism are built on intellectual sophistry and have led to the depravity of the Western world.
Its interesting that you did not get the point.
Alex's use of Scripture to challenge Sola Scriptura does not imply an endorsement of Sola Scriptura. Instead, he uses Scripture as part of a broader argumentative strategy. His goal is to demonstrate, from scripture that proponents of Sola Scriptura accept as authoritative, that Scripture which itself does not teach the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
well said
This is called a “by your own logic” argument
That actually does the opposite of refute Sola Scripture. Scripture establishing authorities means it is in a supreme position of authority to determine, allocate and create authorities. A CEO is the highest authority in his business, but he can create and allocate authorities in the form of management, Human Resources, supervisors and so on. His creating authorities does NOT refute his own but instead DEMONSTRATES his supreme authority by his power and decision to create and allocate authority.
@@markmeyer4532It does refute ‘cause sola scriptura says that the Bible is the ONLY infallible rules of faith and practice, while Alex demonstrate that it is not true, that there are other sources of authority, that scripture already tells us. By your logic.
Not to mention that scripture was recognized by the Church. So, still, by your logic, one authority appointed to another and vice-versa.
@@markmeyer4532 good analogy bro...but just a small problem . Who appointed or validated the CEO. ? Here it is clear the church (authority) validated the Scripture (CEO). Just think about it 🤗.
Secondly, your comment actually shows you did not get my point. If you say Bible is the CEO and that if the CEO itself does claim that he alone is the supreme. But his very appointment by the authority and the selection of him by the authority from a number of other candidates etc, will show you who calls the short here🤔. In fact your analogy of CEO is a self goal bro.
You’ve totally misunderstood his point. He’s saying he can disprove the doctrine of Sola Scriptura or Scripture Alone by appealing to… only the Scriptures.
Alex is making the point that it's self refuting.
He appeals to the only source of authority that White holds to. If he quotes from popes and councils, White would disregard it.
No he won't! James wont disregard the councils.
You've never heard Mr James before @@thomasglass9491
@@thomasglass9491Of course he would.
Weird, because I don't see anything in the bible that says the "Catholic Church" or "Popes" having authority.
@@teeemm9456 Right Alex said when Jesus breathed on them, they received the Holy Spirit and that's apostolic tradition like we have today. First thing they didn't receive the Holy Spirit there not until Acts 2 with tongues of fire common misunderstanding. Also no where do we see the apostles passing on the ability to do supernatural miracles like they could do. So some things you can't pass on. They take things to unnatural conclusions.
obviously Alex cannot appeal to tradition or the magisterium, since his opponent james white is a protestant. so alex appeals to scripture because (as he said in the clip you played) it's an infallible authority accepted by both alex and white. in other words, it's common ground.
so no, what alex did is not sola scriptura.
You should start your own apologetics’s channel on in UA-cam, you know better than Kelly.
Even though Alex might not accept Sola Scriptura, does not mean that He was not using Sola Scriptura.
💯 I agree.
@@alexanderkaufman3575 if you watched the debate in full you would know he didn’t use it.
Which in turn demonstrates the condition Alex has to place upon himself. He has to appeal to Sola Scriptura to refute Sola Scriptura. His position inevitably traps him. This isn't an issue with White, because Scripture is his battle ground. Alex has to abandon his own weapons and battleground to fight empty handed against James. But you see, this is the same tactics Catholics use: Infallible Authority. Because only the Catholic church is allegedly infallible and can translate the content and context of Scripture; locking out all whom are not of their priesthood. Just as Alex makes an appeal to Sola Scriptura, Protestants would have to also appeal to the magesterium in regards to Papal Infallibility. But, Protestants can really and truly challenge Infallible Authority because they have their own in the form of Gods Word. It becomes their sword. Catholics CANNOT use their church as an authority, without appealing to Scripture first, to demonstrate the infallibility of their church. It's a lose/ lose/ lose situation for the Catholic Church.
Alex is doing what Jesus did with the Sadducees, he’s using the texts that they approve of to dismantle their faulty teaching. (See Matthew 22:23-33).
Kelly, Alex is not referring to the Scripture as the only authority, rather he is appealing to Scripture because it’s the only authority both Protestants and Catholics agree is an authority while at the same time showing multiple examples and references from Scripture that it is not the only authority, but that also the Church and apostolic tradition are authorities as well.
I hope you all have a conversation soon together, I would love to see that. ✝️
@user-rg4ni2hr6r It’s a perfect analogy. Just like Jesus unravels the Sadducees’ faulty logic using the only authority they deem valid, so too Alex did a great job with Dr. White showcasing numerous examples from Scripture that attest to other authorities outside Scripture. I say this as a Protestant. It was a clear W for Alex.
As I have come to investigate the claims of Sola Scriptura, more and more I find real problems with it
Man what? The Bible affirms Sola Scriptura multiple times. And DENIES afterwards stuff (that goes against the Bible).
2 Timothy 3:16 - All Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness.
Please note God says scripture is what should dictate where doctrine should come from... His word! Not the traditions of men or some imaginary magisterium or pope! The Roman Catholic church is so full of herecy that it is more pagan than. Christian
@user-rg4ni2hr6r But Jesus did accept the Jewish Magisterium. He told the people they must listen to them and do what they tell them for they had the chair Moses (which got transferred to Peter).
@@axxel9626 The Bible doesn't affirm Sola Scriptura. It affirms the Authority of Scripture and the Bible also affirms the Authority of the Church and Tradition.
lol he did not refute himself you just don’t know what he is saying….
The Etheopian needs a teacher to explain things to him.
@user-rg4ni2hr6r fake account. delete the video Kelly or do a damage control video because (i hope and pray) you clearly know you didn't get this correct.
By the way only Alex was talking scripture, James was just talking about what he thinks and feels nothing biblical. White would laugh and giggle very disrespectful and childish while Alex in the other hand respectfully listen to White when he was talking. Alex smashed White with scripture and attitude very respectful thank you Alex 🎉 for a good win!!!
Don't complain. It's a bad fruit. Sigh.
Voice of Reason destroyed James Whites faulty theology.
Oh, okay guy...
Keep spamming this copy pasted comment in every video about the debate ik its how you cope with losing
@@international.pineapple6286 the truth hurts SoyBoy
@@international.pineapple6286 Doesn't mean his comment isn't wrong. White lost. 90% agree. Don't get emotional over it.
@JDUB3999 What debate did you saw? Alex performance was one of the worst by catholic in along time. You must be one of he's fanboys to say that.
Of course Alex is appealing to Scripture. He believes the Bible is authoritative.
No one denies that but according vatican 2 traditions is at par with Scripture in which that's heresy.
@thomasglass9491 Scripture is tradition you fool. Saint Paul tells us this very clearly - hold fast to the traditions we have taught you either by word of mouth or by epistle (Scripture). How do you not understand that?!
Alex of Voice of Reason, did a great job of exposing the heresy of Nestorianism and Gnosticism alive in Calvinism today.
💯
What a caricature of calvinism! Stop spreading lies that have been debunked of gnosticism in calvinism.
How
Roman catholicism allowed Augustine in the church who pushed gnosticism 🤦
@@ThePreacherman9 Exactly, anyone can repent and enter into the Fullness of Christ in the Catholic Church, like St Augustine did. We are all sinners and can find forgiveness in Jesus Christ, through the Sacraments.
What a Maroon!!! The name of the debate is "The Bible Teaches Catholic Authority, not Sola Scriptura."
Wow....great job Alex!
Alex wiped the floors with James White.
All the romanizers here saying you missed the point but you brought a greater point to the table which they miss.
2 Thessalonians 2:15 (Hold fast to the traditions you were taught, whether by our spoken word or by our letter.)
- 1 Corinthians 11:2 (I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you.)
The Catholic Church emphasizes the importance of both Scripture and Tradition, seeing them as complementary sources of divine revelation. This perspective is based on:
1. The early Church Fathers' writings (e.g., Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Augustine)
2. The Council of Trent (1546) and Vatican II (1962-1965)
3. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992)
In Catholic teaching, Scripture and Tradition are seen as two interconnected streams of divine revelation, with Scripture being the written word of God and Tradition being the lived faith of the Church, passed down through the centuries.
@@pepitodetijuas8949 exactly. Then add to it:
2 Tim 2:2 “And what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.”
Paul doesn’t say to protect what he wrote to Timothy and he doesn’t instruct Timothy to faithfully copy his letters or have other men who will faithfully copy Paul’s writings.
The intention of Jesus and the Apostle’s was to create a living Church that could preach the gospel to everyone, not just people who know how to read.
Okay, what tradition were they presenting ? The gospel, everything they said is backed up by the bible. You Catholics can't confirm your authority without coming to scripture.
@@murilolinsdacruz4110but it is still NOT Bible alone.
@@murilolinsdacruz4110 we have other ways to confirm Catholic Authority but since you adhere to Sola Scriptura, we try to appeal to an authority that you follow. Don’t you see how Sola Scriptura is self contradictory?
It if you want, here is a historical source. St Irenaeus was Bishop of Lyons. He was the disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of St John the Apostle. Irenaeus wrote many works against the heresies of the Gnostics. One of his arguments to refute the Gnostics was apostolic succession, specifically the line of the papacy. So what does that prove?
Well first, if Irenaeus just made this up (he was writing around 180 ad), then surely the Gnostics or even other Christian’s at that time, would have disputed and fought against Irenaeus, but we have no record of this. So we can conclude this was not a novel argument unless you have an alternative explanation.
But where then did this reasoning come from? The apostles make the most sense because again, if it was invented in 150, or 130, or 110, we should expect to see other Christian’s disputing it. But we don’t. So this was taught to Irenaeus by Polycarp who learned it from St John, who along with the another apostles taught this as part of the deposit of faith. Which is exactly what we see when St Paul tells Timothy to train other men who would be also to teach and train other men. Paul also mentioning the laying on of hands to Timothy, another mark of succession.
Or we could look St Clements letter to the Corinthians. Have you read it because most of the early Christian’s believed it to be inspired and included it in the canon during the 2nd and 3rd centuries.
So obvious, Voice of reason destroyed James white. James white still using the overloading technique but did not work with Alex🤣🤣🤣
When he said "common ground" he meant that he can prove catholicism by using the bible since we both have the bible.
Whoa @3:15 you said Alex was going to show Sola Scriptura is not accurate but Catholic Church authority is by appealing to scripture. You say this as if Alex is contradicting himself.
Sola Scriptura can be false and the scriptures can still be authoritative, there is no contradiction there. So Alex can certainly appeal to scriptures as an authority because both he and James believe they are authoritative. The crux becomes that James believes they are the SOLE authority while as Alex explained Catholic have 3 authorities, the Scripture, tradition and the Church.
Scripture alone and self interpretation have resulted in over 40,000 denominations, saying they are the true church of Christ, only hate and confusion is the fruits of that. Jesus founded one church and prayed for unity not separation but the demon got his way 1600 years after Jesus' crucifixion.
What a caricature of sola scriptura! Scripture alone in the sense that the bible is the only infallible authority but traditions, councils, creeds and fathers are authoritative but under the word of God. Also stop spreadind the lies of "40,000" denominations when the roman catholic church has hundreds of denominations. One final thing the fathers did personal interpretation, also the magisterium does personal intepretation you hypocrity!
@thomasglass9491 Look it up before opening that pie hole, Protestants love lies and hate the truth. In these days and ages, with all the info in the palm of your hand nowadays, protestants shouldn't even exist anymore. Open your eyes before time runs out.
@thomasglass9491 Do the research before saying anything is the Catholic way. You should do the same, my brother. You could be the next UA-camr talking about how you soften your heart and stopped to actually listen, and then converted to the original and first singular church our Lord Jesus founded.
@@thomasglass9491”the Roman Catholic Church has hundreds of denominations” please do show proof or be quiet with your blasphemies.
Kelly, what do we do when we disagree on what the Scriptures say? We both read the same Bible, one of us comes away thinking baptism is necessary for salvation and the other one comes away thinkint baptism is just an outward sign of an inward faith. How do we solve this dispute?
Luckily, we can turn to the Bible for that answer as well: Matthew 18:15-20 Jesus tells us clearly; "Take it to the Church." The Church is there to mediate disputes, according to the Scriptures
Since the church is there to mediate disputes, wouldn't you agree that the Catholic church falls under the same dilemma? Since there are disagreements.
The church is there, it's just not the catholic church, nor the mormon church, nor the jw kingdom hall, it's the body of CHRIST those filled with the HOLY SPIRIT those that depend on GOD'S WORDS ALONE
That doesn’t go against sola scriptura, all sola scriptura says is that the Church can’t create a new dogma that must be followed without getting it from scripture. The Church would settle that dispute using scripture.
Not to be rude but how's your conscience? Does it work? If we are born of God (1 John 3:9) then you can't live in sin deliberately, knowingly, and habitually. That's the test of a true Christian and The early church had the Holy Ghost.
@@TheCabin777yet, God's Word is not limited to the written word, as even Holy Scripture teaches! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!
The irony of Catholicism is appealing to Scripture at all.
If Sola Scriptura is false, then Scripture is not a requirement for a believer. If it is a requirement, then it is a need; and cannot be rejected, neglected or dismissed without inevitable consequences. Matthew 4:4 makes this clear; To reject or neglect nourishment is to lead to starvation and death. Without physical food, we die physically. Without Scripture, we die spiritually.
The fact that Catholics reject the sovereign authority of Scripture, but then also appeal to Scripture, is hypocrisy; and completely disrespectful to Scripture; treating it as arbitrary; a means to an end.
Appealing to Scripture to either justify or refute Sola Scriptura is a trap; but not for Protestants, but for Catholics. To refute Sola Scriptura, a Catholic MUST appeal to Scripture exclusively, that is, Scripture Alone, to expose any alleged inter-scriptural appeals to authorities outside itself. A Catholic MUST betray their own rejection of Sola Scriptura and make an appeal to Sola Scriptura to even attempt to refute Sola Scriptura.
Catholics played themselves.
Now, ANY external authority can say anything about Scripture, but unless the authority is God speaking from His own authority, and establishes an authority that parallels His own, No Catholic can refute or reject Sola Scriptura. God must PERSONALLY refute Sola Scriptura by His own testimony.
A Protestant appealing to Scripture Alone is the opposite of an issue. It is our requirement, pleasure, honor and DUTY to define and defend the faith by Scripture; just as The Apostles gave their blood, sweat, tears and lives to do so, so we carry their mandate.
Catholics don't reject Sola Scriptura because this doctrine allegedly doesn't make sense to them, but because they are conditioned by their church to reject it. That's it.
Catholics are victims of ignorance, desperation and indoctrination, and cannot know better because they are not allowed to know better as the church prohibits knowledge, faith and critical thinking; of which the Catholic church is circling vulture; adding more tenants to the residency of hell through her own personal and preferred interpretation of Scripture.
OF COURSE, ITS IN SCRIPTURE, THAT JESUS GAVE HIS AUTHORITY TO SAINT PETER AND THE APOSTLES. ITS NOT DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND ! ALEX IS NOT WRONG,
Having authority does NOT mean infallibility. The Church IS fallible.
@user-rg4ni2hr6rWhy would he appeal to Church authority when James White does not believe in it? This is why Christians don't appeal to the deuterocanon when speaking with Protestants because Protestants do not read the same canon of Scripture that Christ and all His disciples learned from.
Clearly this guy is just starting out in apologetics, he doesn’t even underage opening statement. Pray for his discernment and wisdom to grow before he leads others astray. Because we know God warns about those who try to teach what they don’t fully understand. He should be more like the Ethiopian and ask someone to guide him so he stops making false interpretations.
@@AnOpinionatedMan Who deleted the Deuterocanon from protestant bibles?
@@dann285Jesus gave the apostles the Holy Spirit. So how would their teachings not be infallible? Those teachings are what the catholic and Orthodox Church’s are based on
Alex from voice of reason destroyed the man made tradition of Scripture alone and exposed the false and unbiblical teachings of James White!! Holy Scripture never teaches Scripture ALONE is infallible, plus, why listen to fallible and unnecessary Protestant Pastors, when we have the infallible Holy Scriptures then as a Protestant must, but never will admit, that can never know with infallible certitude what Jesus Christ meant by "this IS MY BODY ", or who the Woman is in Revelation 12, or who the rock is in Matthew 16, as Scripture ALONE is allegedly infallible, thus making all their interpretations, FALLIBLE! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!
What debate did you saw? Alex performance was one of the worst by catholic in along time. You must be one of he's fanboys to say that. Also man made? Mark 7:1-9 clearly teaches sola scriptura.
@thomasglass9491 Alex from voice of reason, was absolutely brilliant in destroying the man made tradition of Scripture alone! Holy Scripture never teaches the man made tradition of Scripture alone. Plus, why listen to fallible Protestant Pastors like James White, when we have the infallible Holy Scriptures?🤔 6 of the 12 Apostles taught with oral authority and never wrote anything down! Peter the rock and sole key holder, who stood up and put an end to all the debating at the council of Jerusalem Regarding circumcision, since SCRIPTURE ALONE COULD NOT, as Peter authoritatively ruled that circumcision of the Flesh was no longer necessary, even though Holy Scripture said that it was! Protestants must have to admit that they can never know with infallible certitude what Jesus Christ meant by "this IS MY BODY " or who the Woman is in Revelation 12, or who the rock is in Matthew 16, as Scripture ALONE is infallible, thus making all their interpretations, FALLIBLE! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!
@@matthewbroderick6287 I love that you brought the same arguments that I already refuted. Also why are you talking about the eucharist? That's not the topic of debate.
Sola Scriptura is that the Bible is the sole inafllible authority but traditions are authoritative. As we read the fathers is the same thing to listen to our teachers.
When the Bible speaks of oral tradition is the oral teachings that they preached before they wrote somentig down, then they wrote down those oral traditions.
You want to claim apostolic tradition? You need to bring evidence that indeed they're apostolic.
Peter is the little rock, when he's confession is the rock that is the base of the church. The apostles are the key holders not just Peter that's clear in the gospels.
The council of Jerusalem was inspired by the Spirit somenting that the seven ecunemical councils were not.
@thomasglass9491 I love how you provided absolutely no evidence of the man made tradition of Scripture alone! Not one piece of evidence! So, regarding the Eucharist, you admit you can never know with infallible certitude what Jesus Christ meant by "this IS MY BODY ", or who the rock is in Matthew 16, correct? Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!
@thomasglass9491 Jesus Christ renamed Simon as Cephas, which is Aramaic for Rock! Jesus Christ promised Peter alone the keys of the Kingdom. The office of sole key holder is one of succession Biblically! It was indeed Peter the rock and sole key holder, who stood up and put an end to all the debating at the council of Jerusalem Regarding circumcision, since SCRIPTURE ALONE COULD NOT, as Peter authoritatively ruled that circumcision of the Flesh was no longer necessary, even though Holy Scripture said that it was, as the manifold wisdom of God is revealed through the CHURCH! You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
Hey nice to meet you Pope Kelly!
😂😂😂
The comments gave me hope. We are part of inw faith guys and one church and that church was there for thousand year, till someone decided to claim they can interpret the scripture for themselves.
Now as Alex said we have liberal Christians who "interpret " the scripture the way they won't and they have no reason to listen to protestants since this is exactly what they doing.
Kelly my dear Protestant , Alex made it clear that Protestants only have scripture , Catholics have scripture, tradition, and magesterium. He went on to say at 2:14 that both sides agree about scripture being an authority so let’s “turn to it” since both sides agree on this point. That’s why he said let’s turn to the scriptures, not because he’s conceding to James white but because they both agree on this one point. The fact that you’re making this blunder on this very obvious point Alex was making makes me wonder how you would fare against Alex seeing how he went toe to toe with James White and your making obvious mistakes from the get go.
On the contrary Alex asserts in this debate to disprove Sola Scriptura by the Scriptures, thus proving Sola Scriptura. Secondly, Alex in his videos states he can prove all the RCC teachings from the Bible, thus again proving Sola Scriptura. So nice try but no go….
@@BereanPerspectiveApologetics Alex is using ONE of the 3 pillars of the Church ,Scripture tradition and the magisterium. Any one of these can be used in a discussion.
@@Rome33ADThats how protestant interpret their own wong belief. 😂
Scripture alone is not in scripture. End of debate.
Don't go beyond what is written
Turning to scripture as an authority isn’t a purely protestant thing. That’s been in the church since the beginning. He said Catholics affirm scripture AND what the church preached. But When you go to the scriptures, it doesn’t have the concept of sola scriptura in there. Demonstrated by the entire rest of the debate
Right he was just confirming that scripture is used he did not say it’s the only thing used it’s spoken in tradition and written I don’t get why this is do divided there was no New Testament book for years
So you said that he refuted himself. Sola Scriptura is a self refuting argument.
1. Sola Scriptura entails that Scripture is able to give us all the data of revelation that we need.
2. Scripture is necessary
3. If Scripture is necessary, knowing what is Scripture is necessary.
4. Scripture can’t give us the knowledge of what scripture is. Therefore, Sola Scriptura is false.
What Alex said is correct. I don’t know what you’re trying to imply on this video because he says Scripture is still AN ultimate authority. Therefore, you use the Protestant’s own belief to prove the Catholic belief. Just like if I’m trying to disprove Islam, I’ll use their own Quran, not my Bible, because they wouldn’t accept it. It’s a simple tactic. You’re trying to imply that he’s accidentally said he needs to use Sola Scriptura to prove Catholic authority. Quite the contrary, he’s saying he can do it using Scripture, Tradition, or the Church.
The thing is Kelly, this is pretty obvious and even James White knew that, which is why he would never bring up such a point like you did. This video comes off to me like you’re just trying to bait him. But if you decide to go this route and keep it up then that’s your choice.
@user-rg4ni2hr6r Respectfully, that’s not what Sola Scriptura means. Scripture is defined by what is God breathed, the implication being that you need the Scriptures that God helped the early church to discover. This, the early church finally decided upon in the 4th century, and even Protestants over 1000 years later still agreed for the most part. Honestly the only person I’ve ever heard agree with your point is Brother Josh, the pastor with Jidion. I’ve never heard anybody else share your view. Your point implies you can be a Christian without knowing the Gospel, the literal good news that you need the revelation of. Because if you only have Genesis but none of the four Gospel books, then you don’t even have the full context of the Old Covenant, and you have barely any context of the New Covenant. Also, there are books in the Bible that you can’t argue they teach Sola Scriptura. Which if Sola Scriptura is true, the Scripture needs to teach Sola Scriptura.
I would heavily rethink the notion that you could use Sola Scriptura with just Lamentations.. just Revelation.. just Ruth.. just Esther.
@user-rg4ni2hr6r It doesn’t address the canon because the canon is the epistemic origin. Scripture and canon are one and the same. You don’t have the total Scripture without the canon. Jesus may have acknowledged the Scripture of the OT, but he obviously acknowledged there was more revelation to be given, therefore you need the new Scripture provided to us.
@user-rg4ni2hr6r really makes the Catholic position even stronger. A God breathed book in the hands of a dull minded person or persons will only get one so far. A Jew would also make the claim that their book in the hands of a Muslim would be like the Monalisa in a Pizza Hut bathroom.
Jesus didn't tell us, nor does the bible tell us what books/letters are considered God breathed Scripture. So who did? How do we today, know and trust every book in the bible is truly the word of God? Whom did God entrust with the task of discerning, throwing away the false and putting together the true inspired writings and make one glorious book? WHO DID THIS AND WHEN?
@user-rg4ni2hr6r Brother Google the definition of Sola Scriptura. It’s not your definition.
Seriously dude? Are you high?
You must not be aware of what’s going on sir😂
Lol. How is this refuting himself? God gave us the Bible AND tradition. They inform each other. Period. End of debate. Kelly Powers and James White are intellectual lightweights. More and more people are discovering this
What year did God "give us the bible"?
@@JesusChurchBible are you proposing it has always been existent? I'm not following your point.
@JesusChurchBible Through his church Jesus founded came the bible 300 years after, praise be to God !!! And if you go against his Church you go against Jesus himself. The gates of hell will never prevail against my church!!!!
@@snoopy3587 what year and whom was responsible for forming the Holy Bible??
The Bible did not exist until AD 382, so how could any Christian follow Bible Alone until then?
Exactly and God decided to wait until the 1500s to fully define and reveal this doctrine through a rebellious German monk.
This is, quite probably, the single *worst* argument against sola scriptura. Read more church history and the writings of early Christians for yourself. Stop letting your apologists and your church tell you what they want you to believe is there. And, most importantly, read your Bible more. Maybe then you'll see why it fails.
@@PhrenicosmicOntogeny He keeps using that same idiotic claim about the bible.
This comment is literally facepalm.
@PhrenicosmicOntogeny Christianity got along three and a half centuries before the Bible existed.
I'm pretty sure Alex's last name is "Balboa"
Dude, White literally said his interpretation is the right one because "little catholic ladies" said so. And the only other arguement he had was that the pope is liberal. He basically conceded in his closing statement.
yeah even as a ex protestant NOW james white got destroyed here . I’m fully accepting the catholic church now
So many Catholics and Protestants not doing Gods will here. We aren’t fighting for each other. In my OPINION Alex won.
I’m not a Roman Catholic and would say i’m an openminded evangelical. The point Voice of Reason (Alex) made was that there was common ground on scripture so he will apply to scripture to refute it because that i the only common infallible authority that they have in common. You just misrepresented Alex
Sola scriptura is not in the scriptura so it is self retuting
1) argument from silence. Even the word Trinity is not in the Bible tho it's true.
2) the Bible affirms that Scripture is the ultimate authority multiple times
@@axxel9626 it is not the inly authority.
The bibke literally says that the churchbis the pillar of truth and that we should follow teaching by letter and word of mohth
The catholic church believes in only scrioture in a way that it shows that it is the ultimate authrority..but some protestant grouos act as if it is th only authority.
Jesus and his diciples preached the gospel before it was written doen
@@cfG21 bro pls take your time to write well.
Btw, you completely twisted the verse you are referring to. There Paul is saying that we should follow the teachings that THEY (Paul and his gang) left us. Not others. So that verse is refuting your argument. Come again
@@axxel9626 no it does not
"Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught, either by word of mouth or by letter" is a verse from the Bible, 2 Thessalonians 2:15
Sola escritura, in the sense that scripture alone is authoritative without acknowleding that scripture never instructs us to follow the written word only is the biggest mental gymnastics since calvanistic double predestination .
It says to follow their instructiin that is in written format and oral format.
The Bible calls the Church "the pillar and bulwark of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15), but even though you say you belueve in Jesus you do not believe that Jesus left a church (with bishoops, priests, and deacons) to guide the church and help interprit the scriptures.
@@cfG21 True. The point is Catholics have more ground to claim that there is authority outside of scripture with that verse.
That verse contradicts the concept of sola scriptura. But if you are a protestant you will find the way to reconcile this. Just don't tell us that we don't have proof of our concept
Can’t wait for Voice or Reason’s rebuttal to this failed attempt at weakening his argument.
A lot of Catholics are saying you misunderstood Alex-I’m not sure they understand your point: if Alex says he will use scripture to prove that tradition and the church are also authorities…doesn’t that mean he also has to start with scripture as the first infallible authority to even get to tradition and church? I suppose the Catholics wouldn’t say Alex is appealing to Scripture, per se, but the Catholic Church and tradition’s interpretation of Scripture.
I admit, I’m getting tired of the constant antagonism between groups who both claim to be of Christ. Let those who are truly of Christ show it more in gracious dialogue. The mockery and vitriol does not belong amongst believers.
The Apostles were tired of the constant antagonism of all the heretics, Gnostics, etc. As Christians we have to stop false teaching so people aren't led astray. Thats why this matters. As long as its done with love and the hopes that we all get to heaven!
Alex defended his faith very well and I'm an Anglican.
thx for sharing. How would you say Alex defended his faith well?
Watch Q&A of the debate and listen it closely. You world may crumble as a protestant and hopefully end up in church recieving eucharist after repentance.
amen
This was one of the most pointless videos I’ve ever seen.
Wow same thing with sam shamoun. You twist the thier argument and edit things out of context. I hope you think about the excuse in the future when you face God.
Yes, what he said makes sense since scripture is what they both have in common. Let's start there.
The gospels and teachings of the early apostles already existed. Early believers learned these by hearing. They were able to go back to these and compare to later teachings, including heresies.
Even before being written out, the message was already there😊😊😊
A damage control video eh?
After Kelly reads all these comments later today he'll either make a damage control video or he will delete this video from existence!
Alex destroyed james white
He said wrote and preach. He said turn to scripture because we agree. What part do you not get?
List of POPES (33 A.D. - 2013)
1. St. Peter (33-67)
2. St. Linus (67-76)
3. St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
4. St. Clement I (88-97)
5. St. Evaristus (97-105)
6. St. Alexander I (105-115)
7. St. Sixtus I (115-125)
8. St. Telesphorus (125-136)
9. St. Hyginus (136-140)
10. St. Pius I (140-155)
11. St. Anicetus (155-166)
12. St. Soter (166-175)
13. St. Eleutherius (175-189)
14. St. Victor I (189-199)
15. St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
16. St. Callistus I (217-222)
Callistus and the following three popes were opposed by St. Hippolytus, antipope (217-236)
17. St. Urban I (222-230)
18. St. Pontain (230-235)
19. St. Anterus (235-236)
20. St. Fabian (236-250)
21. St. Cornelius (251-253)
Opposed by Novatian, antipope (251)
22. St. Lucius I (253-254)
23. St. Stephen I (254-257)
24. St. Sixtus II (257-258)
25. St. Dionysius (260-268)
26. St. Felix I (269-274)
27. St. Eutychian (275-283)
28. St. Caius (283-296)
29. St. Marcellinus (296-304)
30. St. Marcellus I (308-309)
31. St. Eusebius (309-310)
32. St. Miltiades (311-314)
33. St. Sylvester I (314-335)
34. St. Marcus (336)
35. St. Julius I (337-352)
36. Liberius (352-366)
Opposed by Felix II, antipope (355-365)
37. St. Damasus I (366-84)
Opposed by Ursicinus, antipope (366-367)
38. St. Siricius (384-399)
39. St. Anastasius I (399-401)
40. St. Innocent I (401-417)
41. St. Zosimus (417-418)
42. St. Boniface I (418-422)
Opposed by Eulalius, antipope (418-419)
43. St. Celestine I (422-432)
44. St. Sixtus III (432-440)
45. St. Leo I (the Great) (440-461)
46. St. Hilarius (461-468)
47. St. Simplicius (468-483)
48. St. Felix III (II) (483-492)
49. St. Gelasius I (492-496)
50. Anastasius II (496-498)
51. St. Symmachus (498-514)
Opposed by Laurentius, antipope (498-501)
52. St. Hormisdas (514-523)
53. St. John I (523-526)
54. St. Felix IV (III) (526-530)
55. Boniface II (530-532)
Opposed by Dioscorus, antipope (530)
56. John II (533-535)
57. St. Agapetus I (535-536)
58. St. Silverius (536-537)
59. Vigilius (537-555)
60. Pelagius I (556-561)
61. John III (561-574)
62. Benedict I (575-579)
63. Pelagius II (579-590)
64. St. Gregory I (the Great) (590-604)
65. Sabinian (604-606)
66. Boniface III (607)
67. St. Boniface IV (608-615)
68. St. Deusdedit (Adeodatus I) (615-618)
69. Boniface V (619-625)
70. Honorius I (625-638)
71. Severinus (640)
72. John IV (640-642)
73. Theodore I (642-649)
74. St. Martin I (649-655)
75. St. Eugene I (655-657)
76. St. Vitalian (657-672)
77. Adeodatus II (672-676)
78. Donus (676-678)
79. St. Agatho (678-681)
80. St. Leo II (682-683)
81. St. Benedict II (684-685)
82. John V (685-686)
83. Conon (686-687)
84. St. Sergius I (687-701)
Opposed by Theodore and Paschal, antipopes (687)
85. John VI (701-705)
86. John VII (705-707)
87. Sisinnius (708)
88. Constantine (708-715)
89. St. Gregory II (715-731)
90. St. Gregory III (731-741)
91. St. Zachary (741-752)
Stephen II followed Zachary, but because he died before being consecrated, modern lists omit him
92. Stephen II (III) (752-757)
93. St. Paul I (757-767)
94. Stephen III (IV) (767-772)
Opposed by Constantine II (767) and Philip (768), antipopes (767)
95. Adrian I (772-795)
96. St. Leo III (795-816)
97. Stephen IV (V) (816-817)
98. St. Paschal I (817-824)
99. Eugene II (824-827)
100. Valentine (827)
101. Gregory IV (827-844)
102. Sergius II (844-847)
Opposed by John, antipope
103. St. Leo IV (847-855)
104. Benedict III (855-858)
Opposed by Anastasius, antipope (855)
105. St. Nicholas I (the Great) (858-867)
106. Adrian II (867-872)
107. John VIII (872-882)
108. Marinus I (882-884)
109. St. Adrian III (884-885)
110. Stephen V (VI) (885-891)
111. Formosus (891-896)
112. Boniface VI (896)
113. Stephen VI (VII) (896-897)
114. Romanus (897)
115. Theodore II (897)
116. John IX (898-900)
117. Benedict IV (900-903)
118. Leo V (903)
Opposed by Christopher, antipope (903-904)
119. Sergius III (904-911)
120. Anastasius III (911-913)
121. Lando (913-914)
122. John X (914-928)
123. Leo VI (928)
124. Stephen VIII (929-931)
125. John XI (931-935)
126. Leo VII (936-939)
127. Stephen IX (939-942)
128. Marinus II (942-946)
129. Agapetus II (946-955)
130. John XII (955-963)
131. Leo VIII (963-964)
132. Benedict V (964)
133. John XIII (965-972)
134. Benedict VI (973-974)
135. Benedict VII (974-983)
Benedict VII and John XIV were opposed by Boniface VII, antipope (974; 984-985)
136. John XIV (983-984)
137. John XV (985-996)
138. Gregory V (996-999)
Opposed by John XVI, antipope (997-998)
139. Sylvester II (999-1003)
140. John XVII (1003)
141. John XVIII (1003-1009)
142. Sergius IV (1009-1012)
143. Benedict VIII (1012-1024)
Opposed by Gregory, antipope (1012)
144. John XIX (1024-1032)
145. Benedict IX (1032-1045)
He appears on this list three separate times, because he was twice deposed and restored
146. Sylvester III (1045)
Considered by some to be an antipope
147. Benedict IX (1045)
148. Gregory VI (1045-1046)
149. Clement II (1046-1047)
150. Benedict IX (1047-1048)
151. Damasus II (1048)
152. St. Leo IX (1049-1054)
153. Victor II (1055-1057)
154. Stephen X (1057-1058)
155. Nicholas II (1058-61)
Opposed by Benedict X, antipope (1058)
156. Alexander II (1061-73)
Opposed by Honorius II, antipope (1061-1072)
157. St. Gregory VII (1073-85)
Gregory and the following three popes were opposed by Guibert ("Clement III"), antipope (1080-1100)
158. Blessed Victor III (1086-1087)
159. Blessed Urban II (1088-1099)
160. Paschal II (1099-1118)
Opposed by Theodoric (1100), Aleric (1102) and Maginulf ("Sylvester IV", 1105-1111), antipopes
161. Gelasius II (1118-1119)
Opposed by Burdin ("Gregory VIII"), antipope (1118)
162. Callistus II (1119-1124)
163. Honorius II (1124-1130)
Opposed by Celestine II, antipope (1124)
164. Innocent II (1130-1143)
Opposed by Anacletus II (1130-1138) and Gregory Conti ("Victor IV") (1138), antipopes (1138)
165. Celestine II (1143-1144)
166. Lucius II (1144-1145)
167. Blessed Eugene III (1145-1153)
168. Anastasius IV (1153-1154)
169. Adrian IV (1154-1159)
170. Alexander III (1159-81)
Opposed by Octavius ("Victor IV") (1159-1164), Pascal III (1165-1168), Callistus III (1168-1177) and Innocent III (1178-1180), antipopes
171. Lucius III (1181-1185)
172. Urban III (1185-1187)
173. Gregory VIII (1187)
174. Clement III (1187-1191)
175. Celestine III (1191-1198)
176. Innocent III (1198-1216)
177. Honorius III (1216-1227)
178. Gregory IX (1227-1241)
179. Celestine IV (1241)
180. Innocent IV (1243-1254)
181. Alexander IV (1254-1261)
182. Urban IV (1261-1264)
183. Clement IV (1265-1268)
184. Blessed Gregory X (1271-1276)
185. Blessed Innocent V (1276)
186. Adrian V (1276)
187. John XXI (1276-1277)
188. Nicholas III (1277-1280)
189. Martin IV (1281-1285)
190. Honorius IV (1285-1287)
191. Nicholas IV (1288-1292)
192. St. Celestine V (1294)
193. Boniface VIII (1294-1303)
194. Blessed Benedict XI (1303-1304)
195. Clement V (1305-1314)
196. John XXII (1316-1334)
Opposed by Nicholas V, antipope (1328-1330)
197. Benedict XII (1334-1342)
198. Clement VI (1342-1352)
199. Innocent VI (1352-1362)
200. Blessed Urban V (1362-1370)
201. Gregory XI (1370-1378)
202. Urban VI (1378-1389)
Opposed by Robert of Geneva ("Clement VII"), antipope (1378-1394)
203. Boniface IX (1389-1404)
Opposed by Robert of Geneva ("Clement VII") (1378-1394), Pedro de Luna ("Benedict XIII") (1394-1417) and Baldassare Cossa ("John XXIII") (1400-1415), antipopes
204. Innocent VII (1404-1406)
Opposed by Pedro de Luna ("Benedict XIII")
(1394-1417) and Baldassare Cossa ("John XXIII") (1400-1415), antipopes
205. Gregory XII (1406-1415) Opposed by Pedro de Luna ("Benedict XIII") (1394-1417), Baldassare Cossa ("John XXIII") (1400-1415), and Pietro Philarghi ("Alexander V") (1409-1410), antipopes
206. Martin V (1417-1431)
207. Eugene IV (1431-1447)
Opposed by Amadeus of Savoy ("Felix V"), antipope (1439-1449)
208. Nicholas V (1447-1455)
209. Callistus III (1455-1458)
210. Pius II (1458-1464)
211. Paul II (1464-1471)
212. Sixtus IV (1471-1484)
213. Innocent VIII (1484-1492)
214. Alexander VI (1492-1503)
215. Pius III (1503)
216. Julius II (1503-1513)
217. Leo X (1513-1521)
218. Adrian VI (1522-1523)
219. Clement VII (1523-1534)
220. Paul III (1534-1549)
221. Julius III (1550-1555)
222. Marcellus II (1555)
223. Paul IV (1555-1559)
224. Pius IV (1559-1565)
225. St. Pius V (1566-1572)
226. Gregory XIII (1572-1585)
227. Sixtus V (1585-1590)
228. Urban VII (1590)
229. Gregory XIV (1590-1591)
230. Innocent IX (1591)
231. Clement VIII (1592-1605)
232. Leo XI (1605)
233. Paul V (1605-1621)
234. Gregory XV (1621-1623)
235. Urban VIII (1623-1644)
236. Innocent X (1644-1655)
237. Alexander VII (1655-1667)
238. Clement IX (1667-1669)
239. Clement X (1670-1676)
240. Blessed Innocent XI (1676-1689)
241. Alexander VIII (1689-1691)
242. Innocent XII (1691-1700)
243. Clement XI (1700-1721)
244. Innocent XIII (1721-1724)
245. Benedict XIII (1724-1730)
246. Clement XII (1730-1740)
247. Benedict XIV (1740-1758)
248. Clement XIII (1758-1769)
249. Clement XIV (1769-1774)
250. Pius VI (1775-1799)
251. Pius VII (1800-1823)
252. Leo XII (1823-1829)
253. Pius VIII (1829-1830)
254. Gregory XVI (1831-1846)
255. Blessed Pius IX (1846-1878)
256. Leo XIII (1878-1903)
257. St. Pius X (1903-1914)
258. Benedict XV (1914-1922)
259. Pius XI (1922-1939)
260. Pius XII (1939-1958)
261. St. John XXIII (1958-1963)
262. Paul VI (1963-1978)
263. John Paul I (1978)
264 St. John Paul II (1978-2005)
265. Benedict XVI (2005-2013)
266. Francis (2013 - )
Is it worth sharing😀?
God Bless you , Kelly. My brother in Christ, I pray that the Spirit continues to guide you during your apologetics missions. You are truly a weapon for God. All honour and glory to Him alone. Gby brother
@user-rg4ni2hr6r It's ok, brother/sister in Christ. Pray for them. Show love and compassion as Christ did. God shall NOT be mocked...but judgement ultimately is His alone. GOD BLESS YOU ABUNDANTLY
The book of Acts is clear that the Church existed before any of the Apostles started writing down the Bible. The writings that would later be compiled into the New Testament. The Church comes before the Bible. We had Hebrews Scriptures during the time of the Apostles but they did not have a closed Cannon of the Hebrews Scriptures so the Jews did not have a closed Cannon of the Hebrew Scriptures during the time of Jesus and the Apostles. It was not until much later in the 4th century when the Church actually canonized all of the writings that make up the entire Bible. They canonized the Old and the New testaments. The historical records does not show this but it actually does because in the 4th century there were three separate councils that actually canonized the Bible. The first council was the Council of Rome in the year 382 AD that was when (Pope Damasus 1st ) in 382 ad commissioned this Council so that they could draw up a list of all of the writings that are inspired scripture and canonized the Bible. And in the year 393 AD the Council of Hippo affirmed this list and then in 397 AD the Council of Carthage reaffirmed the canons of Hippo from 393, and issued its own. And it was reaffirmed multiple times in the 5th century all the way into when it was dogmatically defined by the extraordinary and universal magisterium at the Council of Trent in the 16th century. The Council of Trent met to define the doctrines of the Catholic Church. The idea was to lessen corruption of clergy members and abuses of power and finances. The council determined that the Church's interpretation of the Bible was the final word but that the Bible had equal authority with the Church. So history shows us that the church canonized and gave us the Bible. The bible shows us that the Church came first because the church began or started at Pentecost on the 5th day after Jesus Christ rose from the dead. The Pentecost is when the Church was bored and it was not until atleast 17 years after that when the first book of the New Testament was written which would have been St. Paul first letter to the Thessolonians and it was not until around the year 70 AD when the entirety of the New Testament was inscripturated. So what happened between the year 33 and the year 50 because there was no New Testament at that time the apostles had not written anything down during the whole 17-year period. What happened was there no Church because there was no Bible. What happened from the year 33 to the year 382? What happened between Pentecost and the Council of Rome? Was there no Church because there was no Bible? , not in the form that we have it today. So, Yes, the Church came first and the Church gave us the Bible. And what are the Scriptures that Paul referring to? Remember the 1Corinthians 15 is actually one of the earlier writings of St. Paul that he wrote in the early 50s as well. So 1Corinthians is only the second or third epistle that St. Paul the Apostle wrote. So the scriptures that St. Paul referring to are the Old Testaments Scriptures and during the time of Christ and the Apostles there was not a closed Cannon of Scripture. And in the Old Testament does not say anything about the New Covenant Church . It was Jesus that gave birth to His Church and it was the Holy Spirit that breathed life into His Church at Pentecost. So the church does not come from scriptures, the Church came from God. God established the Church and God inspired certain men within that Church to write what is considered Holy Scripture. The most important part in between the Old and New Testaments is Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit descending onto the Church thus giving birth to the Church before the New Testament was written. So the Church and Scriptures are come from the same source, they come from God.
The Bible is authoritative list lof authoritative books. If it is fallible list of infallible books that actually does not work because of the list itself is fallible because that list is something either missing or something in that list should not have be there or both. We could be missing inspired writtings or we could have writings in a list that are not inspired at all. So you need the list itself to be authoritative and that authoritative list was given by authority which is the Church because we know that the Church itself has Authority like St Paul the apostle says in 1Timothy 3:15 that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. And in Ephesians 3:10 that God's wisdom is made known through the Church, So its true that the Church gave us the Bible because the Church canonized the writinga of Scriptures and because God inspired men within the Church to write Scripture and The Holy Spirit guided men later on to put all of these writings together so history is on the Catholic side not on the other Chritian denominations like protestant.
I’m catholic who studied Christian theology and church history, and I just wanna say that voice of reason did an amazing job.
Solo scriptura is biblical, the Catholic teachings are unbiblical
@@Jesusfollower-x1j Before the schism, the Catholic and Orthodox Church was the one true apostolic church. Sola scriptural wasn’t part of any early church teachings nor from any early church fathers. Protestantism leads to endless schism (which is why there’s so many Protestant denominations) because there’s no magisterium and unity due to a lack of binding authority.
The concept of *sola scriptura*, meaning "Scripture alone," is a principle of Protestant Reformation theology that asserts the Bible as the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice. Critics argue that *sola scriptura* is not biblical for several reasons:
1. **Tradition and Authority in Early Christianity**: The Bible itself does not explicitly teach *sola scriptura*. In early Christianity, the oral teachings of the apostles and the traditions of the Church were highly valued. For instance, 2 Thessalonians 2:15 says, "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter." This suggests that oral tradition was considered authoritative alongside written scripture.
2. **The Role of the Church**: The New Testament describes the Church as the "pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15). This suggests that the Church plays a critical role in preserving and interpreting Christian doctrine, not solely the Bible.
3. **The Canon of Scripture**: The Bible as we know it did not exist as a complete and universally recognized collection until several centuries after Christ. The Church played a significant role in determining the canon, which implies that the authority of the Church was recognized alongside the scriptures.
4. **Interpretation Issues**: *Sola scriptura* can lead to various interpretations of the Bible, resulting in denominational splits and theological disagreements. The absence of a central interpretative authority can lead to confusion over the true meaning of biblical texts.
5. **Biblical Writings**: The Bible includes letters and writings that were addressed to specific communities or individuals, suggesting the presence of context and situations not fully explained within the text. This indicates that understanding these writings often requires more than just the text itself-it requires knowledge of the traditions and teachings of the time.
These points highlight the argument that *sola scriptura* may not be a doctrine explicitly taught by the Bible itself and that the early Christian community placed significant importance on tradition and the Church's authority.
@@CF_Texasnope, you are deceived by false indoctrination (catholic tradition). Please watch the videos of Kelly on this topic.
Protestant will say that Jesu's words are the only foundation that will last then why we should we care about Saint Paul's, Peter, Saint John words or the words of whoever wrote the letter to the Hebrews.
If protestants focused solely on the words of Jesus and His teachings, Protestant would see that in order to be saved we must be born of water and spirit or be baptized, we must eat Jesus's flesh which is food and true drink and we must remain united to Christ the vine become dead branches that are gathered up and burned or lose our salvation. So some protestants only focus on Jesus when they want to undermine the church's on going Apostolic Authority. But then they forget about Jesus and go straight to Paul when they want to defend doctrines like justification by faith alone. Instead the Bible clear that the authority we should submit ourselves to is the one church that Jesus Christ established. We should submit to our elders who have authority over us and know that the church ofvthe living God as Saint Paul said is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth. Paul even admonished Christians who claim to follow a single person rather than the church including those who said they only wanted to follow Jesus. He writes in 1 Corinthians 1:12-13 Each one of you says, "I belong to Paul," or "I belong to Apol'los," or "I belong to Cephas," or "I belong to Christ." Is Christ divided? Was
Paul crucified for you?. Paul makes clear in his writings all christians belong to one body and this body is not divided by the things of this word like countries or geography or incompatible theologies. And its divided by the things
of thd next world either like death because Christ has conquered death. But what provides this unity in woship and doctrine across time and space is a sacred order.
The greek is for this hierarchy a scared order that Christ instituted in His church starting with the apostles and continuing into their successors in the present.
The Word > Tradition
Catholics want to be the only ones to handle Sola Scriptura but not be corrected by it. That is why they took their time in compiling the bible and making few of them. They took the artistic approach to delay the truth for many. If we are all given the Holy Spirit through baptism, then we can read the scriptures for ourselves and be led by the holy spirit.. The RCC wants to control and put on their yoke and not Jesus's.
Protestant will say that Jesu's words are the only foundation that will last then why we should we care about Saint Paul's, Peter, Saint John words or the words of whoever wrote the letter to the Hebrews.
If protestants focused solely on the words of Jesus and His teachings, Protestant would see that in order to be saved we must be born of water and spirit or be baptized, we must eat Jesus's flesh which is food and true drink and we must remain united to Christ the vine become dead branches that are gathered up and burned or lose our salvation. So some protestants only focus on Jesus when they want to undermine the church's on going Apostolic Authority. But then they forget about Jesus and go straight to Paul when they want to defend doctrines like justification by faith alone. Instead the Bible clear that the authority we should submit ourselves to is the one church that Jesus Christ established. We should submit to our elders who have authority over us and know that the church ofvthe living God as Saint Paul said is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth. Paul even admonished Christians who claim to follow a single person rather than the church including those who said they only wanted to follow Jesus. He writes in 1 Corinthians 1:12-13 Each one of you says, "I belong to Paul," or "I belong to Apol'los," or "I belong to Cephas," or "I belong to Christ." Is Christ divided? Was
Paul crucified for you?. Paul makes clear in his writings all christians belong to one body and this body is not divided by the things of this word like countries or geography or incompatible theologies. And its divided by the things
of thd next world either like death because Christ has conquered death. But what provides this unity in woship and doctrine across time and space is a sacred order.
The greek is for this hierarchy a scared order that Christ instituted in His church starting with the apostles and continuing into their successors in the present.
@@theflash5553 First, let's clarify that the apostles' words were not their own but were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Secondly, their preaching always pointed to Jesus and the faith that He Himself established. Thirdly, it’s important to recognize that even the apostles could not come to faith apart from Jesus; their belief was rooted in Him alone. While the apostles played a vital role in spreading the gospel, they did not die for our salvation. Rather, they participated in the mission established by Jesus, whose redemptive work is the foundation and power of the gospel.
No, we cannot lose what God has promised. Our faith is not rooted in our own works but in the works of God, and He is faithful to see it through to the end. Scripture affirms that we are saved by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9). Both grace and faith are gifts from God, and nothing is more powerful than His saving grace. To suggest that we can lose salvation is to imply that something is stronger than God's grace and faithfulness, which is not possible.
Baptism, while an important act of obedience, does not itself save us; it is a public declaration that reflects the inward reality of salvation, which naturally produces good works. These works are not the basis of our salvation but the evidence of genuine faith in Jesus' redemptive work. Consider the example of the criminal on the cross (Luke 23:39-43): he was never baptized with water, nor did he partake in the bread and wine, yet Jesus promised him eternal life. This demonstrates that salvation is by faith alone, a spiritual transformation that cannot be measured by outward rituals but by a true belief in Christ.
Jesus never commanded us to make apostles; rather, He instructed us to make disciples. This is a critical distinction that aligns with the teaching found in Matthew 23:8-12, where Jesus emphasizes that no one should exalt themselves above others. The spiritual principle here is that no one should lord over another because we are all equal in Christ. The Old Testament repeatedly shows the failures of man ruling over man, highlighting the dangers of hierarchy and domination. Claiming unity while seeking to be above others is disingenuous.
Protestantism does not claim to be "The One Church" because there is only one true Church: the spiritual body of believers that Jesus Himself founded. This Church is not a physical institution created by human hands but a spiritual community united by faith in Christ. As Ephesians 4:12 teaches, the goal is for everyone to work together for God's Kingdom, with no one elevated above another. The story of the Tower of Babel serves as a cautionary tale: instead of spreading out as God commanded, people tried to build a name for themselves, seeking status and power beyond what was ordained.
Scripture clearly defines the Church as those who believe in Jesus and embrace the faith revealed to us-not based on denominations or religious labels. The example of the criminal on the cross should humble us all; his faith was simple yet profound, reminding us that salvation is a matter of grace. His story exemplifies that God's grace is not tied to rituals or religious affiliations but is available to all who truly believe.
As a side note, consider what true worship really means. I encourage you to reflect on Romans 12:1-8, which calls us to offer our bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God. This is our true and proper worship and being humble in serving in the Body of Christ.
1 Corinthians 1:12-13 can reflect how denominations and churches view themselves. All denominations point to someone who reflects their level of understanding and maturity in faith.
Scripture states the Church is the pillar and Bulwark of the truth,not Sola scriptura.
The end of the day a protestant going to Scripture creates new Denominations.
This debate opened just Proves That Truth beats anyone with multiple degree, doctorates, published books etc…
2 Timothy 3:16 KJV All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2 Timothy 3:17 KJV That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Yes we have all read this. All scripture is "profitable". Do you know what this means exactly? It means useful or beneficial. It does not mean Solo, Sola, Only, Bible Alone, etc. Also, do you know that this letter to timothy was written by Paul in 67 AD? They didn't have a Bible yet and the New Testament wasn't all written yet. So Paul was talking about the scriptures he and his fellow apostles all learned studied and memorized, the Old Testament. The Apostles and Paul didn't consider the letters they wrote to different people or churches (Philippians, timothy, romans, etc.) as "scripture". It wasn't until later, after most had died that they started to become known and referred to as scripture. This is why when one learns the history of Christianity most cease to stay protestant.
@@JesusChurchBible
CCC 841- Muslim God is Satan not the same as Christianity.
We need the Bible.
@@ravinderchahal2391 The god Muslims is not the same God as Christianity, absolutely true. Not sure why you're saying this, because it doesn't answer anything i said in my comment.
@@JesusChurchBible
CCC 841, quoting the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium 16, from Vatican II, declared:
The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.
They don't hold the faith of Abraham.
@@JesusChurchBible
Ephesians_2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
That is why we should get rid of CCC841.
Scripture is clear, there is no protestant denomination that can interpret scripture infallible. Yet we do see their opinions of Scripture they claim is God Breathed.
You can twist it all you can but the truth is against you. Your bias is so obvious. GOD bless your soul….
You think you have a gotcha, but you don't. The Cathoic Church affirms the Authority of Scriptures and has always used Scriptures to teach our doctrines.
The Bereans searched the OT to see if what Paul said about Jesus is True. They then would have to reject Scriptures in order to follow Paul and to follow Paul, they'd be following the Catholic Church since Jesus started the Catholic Church and therefore the Apostles were Catholic. A fallible Church cannot write infallible Scripture, and that is what you believe.
Whoa, whoa, whoa...you're making a lot of assumptions. Why would they have to reject scripture to follow Paul? And why does following Paul means following the Catholic church? Paul wasn't a Catholic and neither was the Lord Jesus.
@@StandupGuy55circumcision is clearly required in the OT. But Paul clearly and obviously teaches circumcision is not required.
The very fact that the Council of Jerusalem decides that circumcision is no longer required testifies to the different manner in which the apostles understand the authority of scripture vs modern day Protestants.
@@vinciblegaming6817 Council of Jerusalem shows they consulted w scripture to make their decision ~ Acts 15:15 -18. IMO, Acts 15 doesn't show a strong case against solo scriptura and also Peter's supposed "papal authority" which an extra thing to note in v13,19.
@@StandupGuy55 so you tell me - how is it that they came to the conclusion that circumcision is no longer necessary based on principles of sola scriptura?
And then explain to me how studying the OT scriptures would allow them to take Paul’s view of circumcision as NOT a contradiction.
@@StandupGuy55 Is it because Catholics prefer to rationalize to support their claims about the authority of the Church?
You cant answer how the books of the bible are cannnon using only the bible, show me the list of books where they cannonise themself, no exactly the church canonised through orthodoxy not Catholicism
Brother you don't have a clear idea of Sola Scriptura?
Also brother read 1 Tim 3:14-15?
What does it mean to you? Berean bro.
Masterclass by Dr. White! Alex was disaster in this debate. One of the worst debates by a roman catholic in a long time.
@hisservant7200 I don't think so. Alex was the worst of the three. I think Jimmy was the best.
Great point. This also works with free grace apologists who go around telling people who don't believe in free grace to repent, lol.
Alex won that debate
James White definitely lost this debate.
OMG I just finished listening to your video. I am sorry mate this is the dumbest take I heard. I know you mean well. But here is how you sound:
Let's say I wrote a book and left some unknown references there, and in that very book I left my email with quote "if you didn't understand the references write to my email"
Does it mean that my book is enough to understand references?
If Alex said let's go to Church for the answer, what would James White say?
Rewatch your own video sir.
@user-rg4ni2hr6r The first century church was an institution. Hence why the Church (Pillars/Columns, Apostles/Elders) held a Council. The Council of Jerusalem in 49-50 AD. They discussed what the various leaders of the Christian church were teaching (gentile circumcision...). Jesus started a church, that church was an institution led by the leaders Jesus put in place. The Prince of the Apostles was Peter, who was given the Keys to the Kingdom and was told by Jesus himself (no others were told this by Jesus), to "Feed my sheep/lamb and take care of his flock. Jesus also told Peter to imitate him in life and death and that Peter would be crucified when he is older. Joh 13:36; 21:19. And Peter was also the first Bishop of Antioch and first Bishop/Pope of Rome, which became the center for the Church and also where Peter and Paul were both killed under Nero. Nero is the emperor whom John describes as 666 (originally 616) in Revelation. Also, the inspired men who put pen to paper were part of the Church. Jesus established his church and his pillars of the church decades later wrote the Letters, whilst being members of the Church. Your argument that God is the author is the same as God being the builder of an apartment complex, although ultimately he is the source, the men who nailed the wood together we the workers who did the physical work.
The voice of that dude sounds kind of like hes purposely making his voice sound heavier and its annoying.
Alex>Dr.White
Scripture ALONE doesn’t mean no scripture at all. How do you not understand that?
I did a response to this video. I also tagged Alex
@@catholicismwow5406 that’s nice. Go to my full video part 1 responding to Voice of Reason opening demonstrating Alex and Catholicism is unbiblical! Catholics attempting to use the Bible to refute Sola Scriptura is great because that proves Sola Scriptura! Good job! 👍
@BereanPerspectiveApologetics and I explain in my video why Catholics using the Bible to refute Sola Scriptura doesn't prove Sola Scriptura at all. That's a lazy argument. We don't deny the Bible has authority, we're just meeting you where you are and using the only authority you accept. Also, I do have responses on deck from your full debate review. I watched that earlier today
@catholicismwow5406 good luck using the Bible to attempt to refute Sola Scriptura once again proving Sola Scriptura 👍
@@BereanPerspectiveApologetics I do that in the second half of my video. It isn't hard, since Sola Scriptura is literally contradicted by the Bible
@@catholicismwow5406 this Tuesday I have open stream challenge for Catholics to come refute me on Sola Scriptura come on over! Let’s see how you do in a live discussion.
Protestants can not solve their differences by scripture. Christ left an authority in the Church to teach correctly.
Sola scriptura is opnion
Voice of reason was much better than White. That’s easy to do when Sola Scriptura is irrational.
This is insanely dumb. It’s not like I’m gonna cite the Council of Trent to a Protestant or cite Aquinas to an EO. Why? Because YOU don’t accept them as authorities.
You need to listen to all the whole debate
Duh...he's saying he can turn to scripture as both their common position. What they are debating is about scripture alone and no other, which is White's position. Alex is scripture in light of the Magisterium. Please unconfuse the confusion.
You missed the entire point Alex is going to make. Sola Scriptura is self refuting and Alex is going to use the Scriptures to demonstrate that.
Or to put it another way. Where in the scripture does it say to only use the scripture as your sole authority? Please, chapter and verse and then you win. You can even provide several that together make this claim.
I think you missed the point. This is also a problem with Sola Scriptura. Anyone can misinterpret and miss the point of scripture and create more denominations
Voice of reason going to the scriptures isnt invalid reasoning. Protesants often use tradition to get to their canon. It doesnt mean they believe tradition is the only authority. This is so silly.
Protestants didn't get there canon from tradition, they got it from a bible printing and distribution company in the 1820's. British Foreign Bible Society. They wanted to save money by printing books with less pages in it and some of there board members hated the fact that the protestants who read the deuterocanonical books found out Catholicism was true regarding almsgiving, the teaching of purgatory, etc. so in an attempt to stop protos from converting they stopped putting them in the bible they printed.
James 3:1
Alex Won
Pure copium! 😂
Hold the L, be grateful!
Watch your own video maybe 2x more and it'll refute yourself. Alex point is in the debate he'll limit himself to the scripture and not use the Catholic Sacred Tradition.
Use scripture to disprove sola scripture 😂😂😂ok
I don't believe you understand the Catholic argument. Alex is stating that both Protestants and Catholics would agree that scripture is infallible. The difference is that Catholics recognize there needs to be an infallible interpreter, as well. Because what is the point in having an infallible book if it's just going to be fallibly interpreted?
Let's build a scenario to help you better understand the illogical and self-defeating nature of sola scriptura.
What happens when two non-Catholic Christians disagree on the interpretation of scripture? How do they reconcile who has the correct interpretation? What authority do they appeal to? It can't be scripture because that's what is being questioned. Now, you might say you could use secondary and tertiary passages of scripture to reconcile the primary disagreement, but there might be disagreement with those as well. This has actually made the problem worse, not better.
Your only other option is to appeal to an extra-scriptural authority like a pastor, church elder, or council. However, based on the Protestant doctrine that scripture is the "sole" infallible rule of faith, any conclusion a pastor, elder, or council comes to, would be considered fallible, and we are no closer to a resolution on how to properly interpret the scripture. Now, you could argue that the pastor, elder, or council is being infalliblly led by the Holy Spirit to reach their conclusion, and that is why we can faith that their interpretation is correct, but that argument would negate scripture as being the "sole" infallible rule of faith. Either way you slice it, scripture cannot be the sole infallible rule of faith. Hope this cleared things up for you.
Kelly! I hope you can look into dr. Gavin Ortlund and Mike Gendron (ex catholic who has call to reach catholics). They make great arguments for protestant faith. Might not be a bad idea to check them out😊
😂🤣
@user-rg4ni2hr6r Ortlund is a more eloquent humble version of White. Both have been successfully refuted and debunked by many scholars. Ortland was the great white hope for the past couple years but he's been proven wrong enough times now people who do enough research have moved him into the refuted category completely now. Just because he make a good argument doesn't mean he is correct.
@user-rg4ni2hr6rDr gavin ortlund is awesome😊
@@JesusChurchBiblegavin gives great arguments. Love how he debunks his opponents😮😊
@@roses993 You haven't watched all the debates and debunked videos then. He's been refuted numerous times. Trent Horn, Jimmy Akin, Scott Hahn, Steve Ray, Fulton Sheen, Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, these men you need to learn. They are on much higher level than gavin.
How many dislikes did this video get? I bet it is far more than the likes.
I don’t see where his refutation of himself is being shown.
Appealing to scripture is not sola scriptura lol
True sola scriptura is that scripture is the only infallible rule. You didn’t even define the sola correctly.
Settling something with only scripture again is not assuming sola scriptura.
What makes sola scriptura what it is is that it is the only infallible rule for the church. Which opens the door to allow all sorts of heresies to reemerge as we saw in the reformation. William lane Craig is a good example, he denies that Jesus has two wills. This was settled already.
Alex says Scripture is sufficient, then says we need the church to supplement Scripture. This makes no sense. Either Scripture is sufficient (in which case we don't need any additional source) or it isn't sufficient. This is doublespeak on Alex's part. Alex says we need to follow those who have been validly ordained in apostolic succession because "that's how we can know which leaders to follow and obey." Yet there are, and have been, plenty of bishops and cardinals in the RCC who were not truly godly men. History reveals a time when bishoprics and other clergy offices were bought and sold for money! Even the papacy was for sale at one time. With the current pope Francis in office, it's not hard to visualize the fact that successive ordination has been no guarantee of orthodoxy. Therefore, valid ordination in apostolic succession does not assure infallibility in the teaching office. The historical record indicates that the early church never viewed Peter's successors as holding an office of primacy over the entire church. The current RCC interpretation of Matt. 16:18-19 was not shared by the Christians of the first few centuries of the church age. Certainly we see no evidence of that interpretation in the Apostolic writings (the Bible); rather, we see Peter making mistakes and being corrected by Paul! Alex asserts that since the Scriptures don't say they are the sole source of infallible authority they cannot be the sole source. This is a fallacy. All we have to do is demonstrate that the other alleged sources fall short of infallibility, and that has been done many times over. As Alex admitted, there cannot be any new major doctrines because any essential truth would have been heard and attested to by many witnesses in the early church. Yet we have no early church attestation to the claim that one must be in the bosom and unity of the Catholic denomination to be saved, that one must be submissive to the Roman pope to be saved, or that one must believe in Mary's "immaculate conception" or bodily assumption to be saved; all of these are dogmas which were unknown to the early church and were added during the recent millennium... some as recently as the 19th and 20th Centuries! Clearly, these dogmas fail the test which Alex voluntarily introduced. He lost this debate before White even stood up to speak.
One problem with the concept of the Catholic Church being an infallible source is that it gives the Catholic Church "carte blanche" to say whatever it wishes and claim that we must believe it. There are no controls, no verification tests or methods, to ensure that the RCC does not abuse its alleged authority. This is why we see that RC salvific doctrine has evolved over time to include such things as the Marian dogmas as beliefs required for salvation.
First of all Alex never said Scripture was sufficient for all the teachings, what he said is that the church and all traditions can be proven with the bible. The bible itself never mentions bible alone, many new apostles came in the bible like Paul, Barnabas, Adronikus and Junias and all of these has been passed down till today, which is the catholic church.
Secondly, it's not true that Paul corrected Peter's statement about the doctrine. What the Pope's infallibility means is that whenever the pope establishes a doctrine to the church with official statements then the Pope is infallible. It does not mean that he is the pure leading example like Jesus was and that was what was mentioned in Galatians 2.
Thirdly it never says that Marian dogmas is neccesary for salvation, only a thing catholics are expected to follow. The only things needed for salvation according to them is to die in a state of grace, which means to become baptized and don't have any sins in guilt, with exceptions for example aborted babies and so on. But we don't know who's going to be saved and not because it's up to God. We only know that he can make exceptions.
New dogmas which were introduced are just dogmas and not requirements for salvation. The only requirements are like I said, to die in a state of grace. Since we always study the scripture and see new things to learn, the catholic church can make a clearer statement of that, like Jesus clarified Moses' teachings in the bible. These dogmas are not just inspired by the holy spirit or the church opinion. It has a lot of backup from scripture and tradition, which means what we have outside of scripture during Jesus' time. Dogmas are clarification of scripture, not adding words of God.
@@bishopspitfire4399 You claim that the church of Rome has not declared the Marian dogmas necessary for a Catholic's salvation. Here is proof that you are mistaken. The Marian dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption are official dogmas of the RCC. The CCC says in #88 that a Catholic is required (irrevocably obliged) to adhere to the official dogmas of the church.
Pius IX solemnly proclaimed the dogma of the Immaculate Conception: "... We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which asserts that the Blessed Virgin Mary, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God, and in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, was preserved free from every stain of original sin is a doctrine revealed by God and, for this reason, *_must be_** firmly and constantly believed **_by all_** the faithful"* (DS 2803).
When Pius XII declared the dogma of the Assumption, he included this warning as a part of the decree: “Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith....let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”
The 'chair of Peter' calls down the wrath of God upon any Catholic who does not believe the Assumption dogma; God's wrath is tantamount to damnation. The 'chair of Peter' says that every Catholic _must believe_ the Immaculate Conception dogma. If you believe that your popes hold the keys of binding and loosing, then any Catholic who does not believe either of these dogmas is in deep doo-doo, right?
Your popes presume to extend their authority to all people, whether Catholic or not. _Unam Sanctum,_ issued in 1302, decreed damnation for any who do not follow the pope: *“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”*
The Council of Florence (15th Century) doubled down on the above when it decreed _Cantate Domino_ in Session 11: “The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives...The unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church’s sacraments contribute to salvation.”
Do you still want to claim that Catholic dogmas "are just dogmas and are not requirements for salvation"??
@@rexlion4510
First you mention ccc #88 which never mention that it is a requirement for salvation, what it says is that we as christians are called to follow and in order to be in fully communion with God. However, in ccc #1257 it says that it is an OFFICIAL REQUIREMENT to be baptized for salvation excluding God’s exception with not enough time for baptism and martyrdom ( ccc #1258 and ccc #1261).
What it makes is that we will be in full communion with the church, which means that we can take part of the sacraments and access to spiritual support and guidance.
However, the church is indeed the ideal way of salvation.
In the document “ineffabilis deus” it mentions indeed that it must be “firmly and constantly believes by all the faithful”. What makes it irrelevant is that it never established a new requirement for salvation. And the word “faithful” here is directed to everyone who is in full communion with the church, so he’s saying with other words that if you want to still be in a full communion then you need to follow this new dogma.
The thing you mentioned later by God’s wrath comes two paragraphs later and is pointed to those who try to change the dogma. The reason why he wrote this is because many people throughout history has tried to change the entire doctrine of the Catholic Church to fit in the modern society. For example Alfred Loisy who opposed the church so much that they had to excommunicate him, after 25 years of constant criticism and pressure to the Catholic Church to change their doctrine. We don’t forget Louis Duchesne who also was a critic who pressured the church to change their doctrine for modernism.
To make it clear, it is not nice to God to oppose what was founded by his son, and all of these opponents have misunderstood that all these doctrines come from infallible statements by the Pope, which is not everything it says, it is needed to be supported by scripture, theology and tradition.
When it comes to Unam Sanctam it is written in Latin and English translation is not accurate.
The word ”salutis” is in genetive case, which means that it is the absolutely necessary of salvation, which points at a noun, the pope.
Secondly the word necessary means in this case “altogether” and not “absolutely”, omnino comes from the word omnia, meaning all.
”Necessitate” here is in the ablative case, which means that the word “necessary” here is a cause from something else, in this context the salvation, not that the salvation is the cause of the necessity, which is your interpretation by a translation.
So when we read it correctly:
“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is altogether necessary(The document is necessary because of salvation) for the salvation (which comes from the Pope)”
We see that it just means is that the gift of salvation is coming through the Pope, meaning that he is an ideal and to follow him will lead you to salvation.
What all the other people are saying is just that the other denominations are not ideal and that the pope gives us the biggest chance of being saved and that his doctrine is the best example.
So to answer your question, yes, I still believe that the only necessary part of salvation is to die in a state of grace and be baptized and also exception with martyrdom and not enough time to baptize. No Pope has and will never make an official statement that everyone outside of the Catholic Church will go to hell.
In fact, the church says the completely opposite, that people outside the church can be saved, however, it’s not something you should do (ccc 847).
However, what I believe and what all of these documents have mentioned all the time is that the Catholic Church has the ideal doctrine for salvation.
Acts 11:26. and when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass that for a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught many people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
Where, OH WHERE, does it say "Catholic?"
The first pope is in the Bible though:
Satan is the Catholic Pope.
What denomination would you classify ur self as?
Then one possessed with a demon was brought to Him, blind and mute, and He healed him, so that the blind and mute man both spoke and saw. 23 All the people were amazed and said, “Is He not the Son of David?”
24 But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, “This Man does not cast out demons, except by Beelzebub the ruler of the demons.”
25 Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation. And every city or house divided against itself will not stand. 26 If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. Then how will his kingdom stand? 27 And if I cast out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore, they shall be your judges. 28 But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.
Mathew 12:22-28
The word Catholic doesn't have to be in the bible. Protestant isn't in the bible, is it? "Trinity" isn't in the bible, is it? Catholic means universal, meaning all. Jesus started One Church and it was to be united in its teaching for all time. the Catholic church teaches the same thing universally worldwide. Thats why they had so many councils, to make sure EVERY church on the planet was teaching the same thing, from India to Brazil. Just google early church fathers and catholic. They used the term catholic over and over. They were mostly bishops, deacons and priests of various churches, and they all stated they were a part of the universal Christian church, called "Catholic". You can literally search the origins of the Catholic name and meaning and learn for yourself. Why don't you do that instead of repeating nonsense you haven't even bothered to look up yourself?
Alex assumes the church is the rcc and has authority. He never proves it nor can he.
Bro did not watch the debate 😭
@@Duxy_ why didn't u watch it?
Exactly
@user-rg4ni2hr6r That is just an assertion.
No, SOLA SCRIPURA maintains Faith alone, Denies Purgatory, Holy EUCHARIST and much more, don't try TWISTING it now !!
Quite literally the opposite
James White schooled Alex !!!
You got jokes!
You’re Funny, james white got destroyed