Sola Scriptura: why I believe it and how it works
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 вер 2024
- Sola Scriptura is the idea that the Bible is the final authority on what Christians believe and how we live. In this video I’ll explain it simply, give some biblical reasons to support Sola Scriptura and deal with some Catholic rebuttals to it. I’m hoping this is a charitable and gracious experience for everyone even though I know it will be hard stuff for some people to hear. I am convinced this is a huge issue because so many of the teachings of Roman Catholicism are not found in Scripture but in selected traditions.
Some points from the video are.
1- Sola Scriptura is a natural understanding of what it means to have inspired Scripture.
2- In Old Testament times they were to test future teachers and teachings by the Scripture they had received.
3- in the New Testament the gospel, once communicated, was to be held to no matter who came to teach otherwise. This absolutely requires individual understanding of the gospel (which is in the New Testament) and the ability to tell any potential “authority” to take a hike.
4- challenges about denominations or the origin of the canon are not defectors for Sola Scriptura.
5- Striking Parallels between Catholicism and Pharisaism seem to demonstrate precedence for how to deal with supposed church authority when it ads tradition to the commands of God.
If you want to support this ministry please click here biblethinker.o...
I search up a topic and there's always Pastor Winger who explains it with grace.
When he speaks about Catholicism he is almost always wrong. Not so much grace there.
@@bridgefingive an example of something he is wrong about on catholicism, reference a video so I can look into it
@@eleazarfernandez9369You’re going to be waiting a loooong time. They love to make claims but never cite evidence.
@@bridgefin An example being?
@@ladosdominik1506
At 7:20 he says that he knows of no other authority that is equal to Scripture. He fails to mention that Jesus, who is not scripture, but who is God also had authority. So he is not explaining SS with grace but with his own errors.
Around 35 30 he tries to build a canon without the church. He falsely says that ALL of Paul's writings were Scripture. We know that not all of his letters are included.
When I made my point about Mike and Catholicism I was refuting the poster's claim that Mike was always right. He always gets Catholicism wrong and I gave some links to show how,. He has a series of talks where he attacks Catholic doctrine and where is ignorance is front and center....not so much here.
I’ve been going down a bit of a sola scriptura rabbit hole this week, and I’m really appreciating this. Thanks brother.
I am in the rabbit hole. Where did you land if I may ask?
My opinion: The Catholic arguments I’ve heard miss the point of what the Protestants are talking about and undermine their own position. I see a lot of posturing to come off superior instead of making clear arguments, too. I’m definitely biased to favor sola scriptura, but a lot of issues seem to boil down too man centered thinking vs God centered thinking, whether or not those arguing realize it.
@@trialbyicecream yup, that rabbit hole is very deep with many chambers. The most asked question is, where in the Bible does it say the Bible alone? Would love a concrete response to this. Any suggestions?
@@Notevenone I think if we look at the record of Jesus’s ministry we can see his heart on this matter. He repeatedly references scripture as the ultimate authority. “Have you not read…” is how he starts a lot of his teaching. Then he’ll pull the “you’ve heard it said,” then pull a “…but I tell you…” etc.
@@trialbyicecream this is true but those that oppose sola scriptura will disagree with this completely. He does have a way with words doesn’t He?
Irenaeus would have gotten it from Polycarp, and Polycarp would have gotten it from the Apostle John, who apparently never said that Mary was bodily assumed to Heaven. And since John cared for Mary in his own house, this would have been so notable an event, that surely he would have mentioned it if it had really happened. So, obviously, this is a spurious teaching of the Papacy, and not a valid interpretation based on Scripture.
There is also the additional belief that Mary dropped her sash down as she was being taken up to heaven, and it fell in the hands of Thomas the apostle. I am not sure if he brought it with him when he came to India, but apparently he got the sash when the Theotokos was taken up to heaven (if ever such a thing happened).
The whole story of the Assumption, along with the idea that Mary was a “spiritual participant” in the sufferings of Jesus, seems to be based on the attachment humans have to their mothers. I am sure Jesus and His mother were very close, perhaps in a way most of us could envy, but as far as Jesus was concerned, His family goes far beyond mere blood relations.
People never want to look at the logic behind sola scriptura, bc when we go in depth with scripture there is no inspired index of the cannon.
We see in history there were other books being read in the church, then we have all the gnostic forgeries.
If sola scriptura is biblical then how do u kno what books go in the bible, since theres no inspired index of the canon? Who to tells us what books go in the bible alone.
And then we got the fact that the bible wasn't canonized until the late 4th century after 380AD
So if everything is coming down from polycarp, to Ignatius written down on what are the exact books of the Bible
Then where's your evidence @? you're just going to make an argument from silence and create a fallacy, to say oh it must have been passed down orally with no historical evidence to back it up.
Its called Apostolic succession my friends. And the catholic church was thee only church in 382AD when the bible was being canonized during the late 4th century.
So Protestants trust the Catholic Church to kno the true inspired books of the Bible, but dnt trust the church for any else. And then use that same book
that was given by the Catholic Church to refute that their of False Church🤔 and they do that by removing 7 books out the canon.
Wow thats the exact logic in protestantism💯
This is a good point
You don't even realize with that argument, you just confirmed Apostolic succession that the Catholic church teaches,
which protestantism denies.
Bc scripture was entrusted to certain faithful men, who are entrusted to the church, the same men who copied and preserved the books the Bible, & protected them with their lives, the Church Fathers were the very same faithful men who passed them down. Which = 2 Timothy 2:2; & 2 Thessalonians 2:15.
Bc it is the church that is the pillar & ground of all truth 1 Timothy 3:15.
So this is correct that it was passed down.
But the problem is there were other books that were being read also, that did not make it into the canon. So the problem is prots don't even ask is who were these men, what were their names, & what was their theology.
So prots fail to realize what did St. Polycarp, & St. Ignatius teach...
Bc I could give u a hint they did not teach protestantism theology. Especially St. Ignatius & St. Irenaeus,
Who taught the Eucharist was the true presence of Christ, confession ur sins to priest's, Bishop's, baptismal regeneration and infant baptism...
Just go read them for yourself, bc that's the problem with Protestants today, they don't want to actually read the early Apostolic church fathers for themselves. They just want to parrot arguments they hear from their pastor's .
Please follow Proverbs 18:13-17; bc there's always two sides of the story. Not just the stories prot Pastors tell.
@@onlylove556can you share what St Ignatius and St Policarp said about blessed Mary's perpetual virginity without quoting Jerome??
It's insane how many people in the comments didn't watch the full video to comment something that Mike addresses later on. Learn to listen y'all!
It's the human condition, we all suck 😂 and we *all* need Jesus
@@kirjian we all should develop the art of listening
Wish I got to see this one live!!! q.q
I came to faith straight through the scripture, and it's truly been what has kept me centered on Jesus and kept me from floating off into the many traditions and "christianisms" that pop up.
Rad work Mike, keep that clear and clean focus brother!
Does this mean that you accept Ephesians 2:8-9 AND 10 James 2:22-26 That Salvation is by Faith AND Works TOGETHER & NOT by Faith alone AND that you accept John 6:52-60 That the Eucharist is not symbolic but the true presence?
@@Archangelatis Nice question. I appreciate your intelligence. You see the folly of Sola Scriptura as a hopeless doctrine.
@@Archangelatis : I'm waiting to see how he will answer you.😊
@@alhilford2345 He's probably gone to his Pastor to try get an answer and if their faith is greater than their pride, they'll see the Truth by the grace of God.
@Asaph Vapor Sola Scriptura not being a Roman Catholic doctrine or teaching, where is the question of defining it by me or the Catholic Church? It is the doctrine of Protestants who should define it. The role of the Catholic Church and every Catholic is to show how false and hopeless this doctrine is.
Why Sola Scriptura is hopeless? Hope is built on truth and not falsehood. Here are three reasons why this doctrine is false:
1. The Bible did not fall directly from heaven into your hand or lap. If it did, you can believe in Sola Scriptura. You don’t need anything else but the Bible alone.
2. Neither the term nor the concept of Sola Scriptura is found in the Bible.
3. Neither Jesus nor the Apostles taught or believed in Sola Scriptura.
Mike you don't have to apologize for explaining your view. As a Catholic I come here to see different views so don't worry about offending me, that's your job.
Cornac, glad to see your amiable comment. Most Catholics cannot contain their animus towards the Reformation.
Debunking catholicism
I'm more blessed than mary
Proof = Luke 11:27-28
27 And it happened, as He spoke these things, that a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed You!”
28 But He said, “More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”
In Luke 11:27 that random woman LITERALLY said Jesus your mother is Blessed, but are Lord Jesus LITERALLY said Believers are more Blessed than mary. Amen and Amen
_________________________
CHRIST alone
John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
Hebrew 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
Acts 4:12 Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus
_________________________
Work of God =
John 6:28 Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?”
29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”
_________________________
1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach
Paul allows bishops to get marry, but catholic church goes against paul.
Now these catholic will give a Verses from 1 Corinthians7 to say that paul gave the advice to stay unmarried. But they will not tell you that the same chapter they quote says 1 Corinthians 7:28 "even if you do marry, you have not SINNED". The passage literally says "young women, young men" and a bishop is supposed to be a Church ELDER. Mic drop
_________________________
Jesus said Matthew 23:9
9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.
And also said Holy Father to Heavenly Father= John 17:11
11 Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are.
Jesus said call no one Father but still catholics call *pope holy father.
Sad
_________________________
Whenever a catholic argue about mary being the mother of God
Use this to defeat the argument.
Luke 8:21 But He answered and said to them, “My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.”
Matthew 12:46-50
46 While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. 47 Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.”
48 But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49 And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”.
Mark 3:35 For whoever does the will of God is My brother and My sister and mother.”
John 19:26-27
26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” 27 Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home. ( Jesus basically said John is the son of mary, and mary is the mother of John from that time onwards).
By the way sarah is the mother of all proof=Galatians 4:21-26.
_________________________
We should not pray to apostles
Romans 1:25
25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
Acts 10:25-26
25 As Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. 26 But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I myself am also a man.”
Acts 14:15
15 and saying, “Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you, and preach to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them,
Revelation 19:10
10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, “See that you do not do that! I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren who have the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”
Revelation 22:8-9
8 Now I, John, saw and heard these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel who showed me these things.
9 Then he said to me, “See that you do not do that. For I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren the prophets, and of those who keep the words of this book. Worship God."
Colossians 2:18
18 Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
You cannot go to Father through saints nor mary, you can only go to the Father through Lord Jesus Christ= John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
Ephesians 2:18 For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father.
Holy Spirit intercedes for us=Romans 8:26
26 Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
And CHRIST as well=Romans 8:34
34 Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us.
Hebrews 7:25
25 Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.
It's Christ and Holy Spirit who intercedes for us not apostles
_________________________
There is only one Mediator between God and men LORD Jesus Christ= 1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus.
Hebrew 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
Hebrew 12:24 to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.
Hebrew 8:6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.
_________________________
Apostles are allowed to marry,
1 Corinthians 9:1-5
1 Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? 2 If I am not an apostle to others, yet doubtless I am to you. For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.
3 My defense to those who examine me is this: 4 Do we have no right to eat and drink? 5 Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?
If Peter (peter is cephas read John 1:42) the so called "first pope" was married, why does the catholic church doesn't allow "pope" to marry?
_________________________
The so called vicar of christ/ pope/holy father Peter called himself a fellow elder in 1 Peter 5:1, and as per the qualifications of elder in Titus 1:5-9 the elder is allowed to get married; then why does the "pope" is required to be celibate and catholic? ( when Peter was neither celibate nor catholic).
1)Peter was not perfect human nor was he a perfect disciple
2)He sank down while walking on water
3)Our Lord said to peter get behind me satan
4)Peter reject our Lord 3 times
5)Our Lord rebuked Peter for calling fire from heaven
6)Our Lord rebuked Peter when he cut of the soilders ear
7)Paul rebuked Peter for being hypocrite because he was acting different in front of Jews and different in front of gentiles.
8) Moses messed up, and he was a important part of Bible ( that's why he never entered the promised land),
9)David messed up ( and he has the Holy Spirit),
10)King Soloman messed up,
11) Saul messed up and God regretted the decision (1 Samuel 15:10-11).
Hatrick (Saul then David then Soloman back to back messed up)
12)The apostles run away a day before Lord Jesus got locked up.
13)The early church messed up Rev 2:18-20
14) Apostle John when receiving Revelation worshiped an angel and the angel said "see you do not do that. Worship GOD" Revelation 22:8-9
If these great people could mess up, why do you think the catholic church wouldn't mess up.
_
Galatians 4:21-26
21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar- 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children- 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.
Sarah is mother of all, Not mary
Also the Church has many name like Christians, Evangelists, Children of God, Believers, servents of God, bride of Christ, but not once the Church is called catholics
Changed the 10 commandments by deleting 2nd commandment, and dividing the 10th into 2 commandments. Also changing the real Saturday Sabbath to fake sunday sabbath.
@@mynameis......23 this is great love all this information. Thanks
@@mynameis......23 Whew, wow 👏 Good job! This is wonderful. Thank you for this and God bless 🙏
The truth always offends.Jesus offended many.god bless.
In Catholicism you aren't allowed to disagree with them.
*That's why it's false.*
Jesus started Catholic church and that is why it is true and JeDiv is wrong!
Catholicism is true. Read books Pope Peter and The Early Church Was Catholic by Heschmeyer.
Thats why sola scriptura is a recipe for chaos with 1000s of denominations that conflict.
no one is allowed to disagree with the truth!!
@Rahkvyo *You are so wrong. Sola Scriptura totally does not say Scriptures is the only authority; since there are many authorities (like God, Jesus, Church, leaders, Apostles ...). It merely says Scriptures is the only authority all other authorities go back to in regards to doctrines.*
*Sola Scriptura does not say Scripture is the only truth or only authority. There are many authorities such as Jesus/God, Apostles, Church, Leaders .. but even authorities like Jesus, Apostles and NT Church appealed to Scriptures Only for doctrines. Not once they appealed to traditions.*
you said
I just find it weird that Protestants try to teach the Bible as though it is the Quran when it’s not. It wouldn’t even make sense to look at the Bible written by so many people including the Old Testament and say this is the only authority.
The appeal of Catholicism is how easy it is. Sure, you'd think it was difficult with all the stuff you have to do, but in terms of the way man works in the greater schemes of the "seeking of purpose", it's SO easy. You follow these specific laws, you rectify any point in which you violated those laws, you do specific things, and otherwise live your life as you wish or pursue a lifestyle rising to a position within the church. It is a simple solution to purpose beyond having to listen to God, which requires true effort in getting closer with and understanding Him because He is unseen (for the most part). With Catholicism, and any similar religious structure, you can see a living man as or in the place/authority of God. Because you can see this man, it is easier. Because this man interprets that specific works must be done for what God has promised, it can be approached with less thinking and more doing and *mostly* feeling.
In a job, you must climb the corporate ladder, and impress the authority. With God, you are not climbing the salvation ladder, and He has already found you worthy. There is just Salvation, by just Faith, by just Jesus, who's doctrines are presented by just Scripture. So let me be anathema, I suppose.
I'm anathema as well. 👍
I just want to say you stated the case clearly and truthfully.
Blessings 🙏
Jesus started Catholic church.
@@RandomTChance right here anathematized by Roman Catholicism alongside you.
It's awesome that Jesus said, "Don't fear the one who can kill the body, but fear the one who can kill both body and spirit." The Roman Catholic use of anathema is "damned to hell." It's the sin of pride that the RCC equates itself to God in having the power to destroy my spirit through condemnation - simply because I publicly disagree with their teachings.
@@francisgoin3112 🕊️🙏🕊️🙏🕊️
@@ResonantTonalityMusic agreed. Very well put and applies to pretty much all other religious structures, even Buddhism and the like.
Soooo glad I left the papacy - thank God for His Grace and the SIMPLICITY that is in Christ.
Well done, you.
Just because Protestantism is simpler than Catholicism doesn't make it true.
@@GeorgePenton-np9rh who said anything about protestantism?
@@johnsmallberries3476 lol you’re not Protestant? And please don’t give me this I’m a follower of Christ cop out
@@kang7348Saying you only follow the Bible is a cop out? You have quite a bit to repent from.
As a suggestion on Church history, I'd endorse Nick Needham's four-volume set entitled "2000 Years of Christ's Power." It's written for lay adults, so might be a bit advanced for middle-school, but a diligent high-schooler should be fine. It's clear, thorough, and very readable.
Rubicks cube complex… Protestantism is historically plagued by constantly new interpretations but “we don’t need the Roman Magisterium” LOL
Who closed the canon of the New Testament? The CHURCH, but we don’t need those guys LOL
Sola Scriptura makes me happy, it's so great to go to the Bible knowing that it contains God's authoritative and perfect word for the ages as it is for daily life. Thank you God!
But sola scriptura is contradicted by 2 Thessalonians 2:15.
@CALEB ALVAREZ what about other non canon books like enoch and stuff
@CALEB ALVAREZ but they kinda make sense tho
How do you know which books belong in the bible relying on sola scriptura since the bible contains no list of the books which should be in it?
@@veritasmuy2407 No. There is nothing to indicate that once the canon was finished it was to have sole authority in the church.
Because there is no listing of which books belong in the Bible and which do not, sola scriptura is an impossibility. If there is an authority outside scripture which tells us which books belong inside scripture and which do not, scripture is not the only infallible authority for Christians. You can no longer have sola. But if the authority which assembled the cannon is not infallible, you can no longer be sure that the books in it are inspired or that excluded books are not. You then no longer have scriptura.
By the time the canon of scripture was assembled by the church, you have already had the three-fold ministry of bishop, priest and deacon for centuries. The liturgy had already taken shape. Indeed, if the liturgy bearing St. Basil's name was written or used by him, that liturgy predates the canon. The church which gave the world the New Testament canon was nothing like any church which teaches sola scriptura today.
I'm a Trinitarian Pentecostal and I totally agree with what you said about "God in a box" and how sometimes I'm like "true" and other times it's like "you're just trying to bring in heresy". I also totally agree that if you have what you feel is a revelation or a supernatural experience or a dream test it with scripture. Just because it's supernatural doesn't mean it's from God
fighterxaos Exactly! Paul mentioned how we must test spirits to see if they are of God.
Believe 316 Lol my mistake, thanks for correcting me 🙏🏽
@Dominus Vobiscum Yes, and even if it wasn't so what, so long as the scriptures back a doctrine it's fine.
@Dominus Vobiscum I see you're using the Muslims strategy, and yeah the Bible makes it clear that the spirit is a device person, I wouldn't believe in the trinity if it wasn't at least slightly backed in the Bible.
Joseph Smith could have took few a lessons from you lol
Thank you for such a clear teaching!
@user-mv7kd7og5w *So many early writers mentioned Scripture Alone and Salvation Not by Works doctrine; ROman pagans totally discarded them. Sounds dubious.*
you said
In the writings of the Church Fathers every time they spoke about heresy and heretics, they were describing Protestantism. Protestantism is all over the place on the different positions.
This my favorite Pastor,💯
He pretty much is my pastor at this point. In effect anyways.
He's my second favorite...only my home church wins out. He's awesome!
@@contendforthefaith1178 Understandable💯💯💯
@@contendforthefaith1178 understandable. But I'm congregationally homeless right now so... This will have to do till I find a church.
@@DESTRUCTIONKATCHUP He's an awesome pastor! I'll be praying you find a home church soon, though. There's nothing like that family and worship together. I can't get enough of mine.
If sola scriptura were true every individual Protestant would read the Bible independently from one another and come to the exact same conclusions.
Good point, but the fruits of Protestantism prove that it is heretical
_"If sola scriptura were true every individual Protestant would read the Bible independently from one another and come to the exact same conclusions."_
No. It wouldn't. All this means is you don't know what Sola Scriptura means.
@@Mic1904You are incorrect.
@@auxiliarylens3876 Now, would that be your individual personal interpretation of the matter?
No. Because everyone still has their own bias.
Mr. Mike Winger you are one of my top 4 favorite pastors and I listen to a lot of sermons! I am developing my spiritual discernment, and you speak my same scriptural language. Thank you for your content.
I do have one request...a lot of people nowadays are speaking of the “dark night of the soul.” I haven’t really seen any of my favorite pastors talking about it. Do you think you will do a video on it or do you have someone’s video you recommend?
One of the reasons I am asking is because my church recently discussed it and I have recently been reevaluating the teachings in my church. Even though the way that it was discussed in my church wasn’t approached in a new age way, I feel like a lot of people that speak on that topic are new age. Sorry, I am probably not making any sense.
John Smith I have watched so many, but recently been catching up on all of Mike Winger’s, Justin Peters, (2 other favorites not on UTUBe), I also like Ron Carpenter, apologia studios. It’s funny the more I learn, the more my sermon palate changes. When I first started watching sermons, I listened to a lot of those prosperity preachers. But, quickly enough the Holy Spirit started revealing all the holes in their preaching. I guess I am trying to find my perfect niche... I really love my church, but I am really afraid to outgrow it. I really wish they had mid-week services. I am in their discipleship class, but I feel I am learning more from people like Mike. I wish I had a good spiritual mentor, praying I’ll find one.
John Smith You are welcome, I hope you like them.
John Smith Thanks for letting me know. It is so amazing how the Holy Spirit slowly reveals these things to us. The jury is still out on Jenzten Franklin, I was listening a lot to him, but I started to see hints of prosperity gospel in him.
If like the preachers I suggested, I can send you links to some churches not on UTUBe that so far have shown solid teaching.
Jerry Thank you Jerry for your feedback, I grew up Catholic and transitioned out fully about 1.5 years ago. Leaving the Catholic Church was actually the best decision I have ever made in my life, I have never been closer to God than I am now.
As a Catholic, I never saw a bible read except for a small excerpt the priest would read in mass. I felt a lack of community in the Catholic Church. Mass never filled me and didn’t leave me with a thirst for more knowledge. Regurgitating prayers is not as powerful as talking intimately to God, Jesus, or Holy Spirit directly. Also, I feel that I should be able to repent and pick up my cross daily vs waiting for a priest to hear my sins.
Another pro, I had never felt like I had been filled by the Holy Spirit until I left the Catholic Church.
I also disagree with the purgatory, I have never seen it in the Bible.
Also, being in a Christian non-denominational bible based church creates disciples and empowers them in their daily lives to bring others to Christ and save them from an eternity in hell.
My parents, especially my dad was really disgruntled when I told him of the decision I had made to no longer be Catholic. When they came to visit, I convinced to go to church with me and my dad really ended up liking it.
Speaking from my own experience coming from the rigid Catholic Church that I had to search many churches because I did not want one of those circus churches.
You should do a little research and then go visit a Christian church with good sound doctrine, and see if it changes your perspective.
Again thank you for your feedback, I really appreciate it. Hopefully nothing I said sounded harsh, and if I did my apologies.
God bless!
Jerry Thank you Jerry. Yes, I was confirmed. Unfortunately the Parrish I attended, was huge and they only put people 50 and above in the very competitive positions of reading. I did one summer that I spent at a convent in New York. In my Catholic Church small groups did not exist. There was ccd for kids. Every once in a while they would do a fish fry or something. Yes, unfortunately I did not find a niche in my Catholic Church, as most of the other Catholics that I know that go to mass and leave.
In the Catholic Church, I did not feel like the men were the spiritual head of the household either. That is one of the main traits that I’ll be looking for in a future husband, since I am trying to catch up on so much and I’ll expect God to be in the center of my marriage.
I say this with all the respect in the world, someone could try to pay me $300K a year for giving up my non-denominational Christian Church to go back to Catholicism, and I would say “no thank you!” There is no price for the relationship that I have developed with God after leaving the Catholic Church. God has slowly been revealing to me, how he shaped me for his purpose and I am excited to have many opportunities to glorify him.
Also, I disagree with the direction that Pope Francis has taken on homosexuality. It is ok to love people, but hate the sin. God has not changed his views on immorality, and never will. This is a corrupt world, so we need people to be BOLD and speak the truth in love. His job is to save people from going to Hell, so by being soft he is not going to accomplish that. In my discipleship class, we have bigger testimonies...a guy in my class gave up homosexuality, people give up drug addictions...I am seeing so many people being freed by sound doctrine, and community.
I am blessed beyond measure, all glory to God!
Amen
Maybe, my experience as a Catholic was not a good one because it was not the journey that God had picked out for me.
Again thank you for your time Jerry, I am glad that you have had a positive experience in your Parrish. May God continue to bless you!
*Sola Scriptura*
*180 plus verses say Jesus, Apostles and NT Church appealed to Scriptures Only for doctrines. Not once they took doctrines from other sources such traditions of Moses or Pharisees. This is already Sola Scriptura.*
*Roman ct members love defying God and His Words.*
*31 Verses Found, 31 Matches on the word “Scripture”*
Mar 12:10 Have you not even read this *Scripture:* 'THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED HAS BECOME THE CHIEF CORNERSTONE.
Mar 15:28 So the *Scripture* was fulfilled which says, "AND HE WAS NUMBERED WITH THE TRANSGRESSORS."
Luk 4:21 And He began to say to them, "Today this *Scripture* is fulfilled in your hearing."
Joh 2:22 Therefore, when He had risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this to them; and they believed the *Scripture* and the word which Jesus had said.
Joh 7:38 He who believes in Me, as the *Scripture* has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water."
Joh 7:42 Has not the *Scripture* said that the Christ comes from the seed of David and from the town of Bethlehem, where David was?"
Joh 10:35 If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the *Scripture* cannot be broken),
Joh 13:18 "I do not speak concerning all of you. I know whom I have chosen; but that the *Scripture* may be fulfilled, 'HE WHO EATS BREAD WITH ME HAS LIFTED UP HIS HEEL AGAINST ME.'
Joh 17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the *Scripture* might be fulfilled.
Joh 19:24 They said therefore among themselves, "Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be," that the *Scripture* might be fulfilled which says: "THEY DIVIDED MY GARMENTS AMONG THEM, AND FOR MY CLOTHING THEY CAST LOTS." Therefore the soldiers did these things.
Joh 19:28 After this, Jesus, knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the *Scripture* might be fulfilled, said, "I thirst!"
Joh 19:36 For these things were done that the *Scripture* should be fulfilled, "NOT ONE OF HIS BONES SHALL BE BROKEN."
Joh 19:37 And again another *Scripture* says, "THEY SHALL LOOK ON HIM WHOM THEY PIERCED."
*21 Verses Found, 21 Matches on the word “Scriptures”.*
Mat 21:42 Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the *Scriptures:* 'THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED HAS BECOME THE CHIEF CORNERSTONE. THIS WAS THE LORD'S DOING, AND IT IS MARVELOUS IN OUR EYES' ?
Mat 22:29 Jesus answered and said to them, "You are mistaken, not knowing the *Scriptures* nor the power of God.
Mat 26:54 How then could the *Scriptures* be fulfilled, that it must happen thus?"
Mat 26:56 But all this was done that the *Scriptures* of the prophets might be fulfilled." Then all the disciples forsook Him and fled.
Mar 12:24 Jesus answered and said to them, "Are you not therefore mistaken, because you do not know the *Scriptures* nor the power of God?
Mar 14:49 I was daily with you in the temple teaching, and you did not seize Me. But the *Scriptures* must be fulfilled."
*127 Verses Found, 132 Matches on the words “it is written” referring to Written Word/Scriptures.*
Mat 2:5 So they said to him, "In Bethlehem of Judea, for thus *it is written* by the prophet:
Mat 4:4 But He answered and said, " *It is written,* 'MAN SHALL NOT LIVE BY BREAD ALONE, BUT BY EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS FROM THE MOUTH OF GOD.' "
Mat 4:6 and said to Him, "If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down. For *it is written:* 'HE SHALL GIVE HIS ANGELS CHARGE OVER YOU,' and, IN THEIR HANDS THEY SHALL BEAR YOU UP, LEST YOU DASH YOUR FOOT AGAINST A STONE.' "
Mat 4:7 Jesus said to him, *"It is written* again, 'YOU SHALL NOT TEMPT THE LORD YOUR GOD.' "
Mat 4:10 Then Jesus said to him, "Away with you, Satan! For *it is written,* 'YOU SHALL WORSHIP THE LORD YOUR GOD, AND HIM ONLY YOU SHALL SERVE.' "
Mat 11:10 For this is he of whom *it is written:* 'BEHOLD, I SEND MY MESSENGER BEFORE YOUR FACE, WHO WILL PREPARE YOUR WAY BEFORE YOU.'
Mat 21:13 And He said to them, *"It is written,* 'MY HOUSE SHALL BE CALLED A HOUSE OF PRAYER,' but you have made it a 'DEN OF THIEVES.'"
Mat 26:24 The Son of Man indeed goes just as *it is written* of Him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born."
Mat 26:31 Then Jesus said to them, "All of you will be made to stumble because of Me this night, for *it is written:* 'I WILL STRIKE THE SHEPHERD, AND THE SHEEP OF THE FLOCK WILL BE SCATTERED.'
Mat 27:37 And they put up over His head the accusation *written* against Him: THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
Mar 1:2 As *it is written* in the Prophets: "BEHOLD, I SEND MY MESSENGER BEFORE YOUR FACE, WHO WILL PREPARE YOUR WAY BEFORE YOU."
Mar 7:6 He answered and said to them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as *it is written:* 'THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR FROM ME.
Mar 9:12 Then He answered and told them, "Indeed, Elijah is coming first and restores all things. And how is it *written* concerning the Son of Man, that He must suffer many things and be treated with contempt?
Mar 9:13 But I say to you that Elijah has also come, and they did to him whatever they wished, as *it is written* of him."
Mar 11:17 Then He taught, saying to them, *"Is it not written,* 'MY HOUSE SHALL BE CALLED A HOUSE OF PRAYER FOR ALL NATIONS' ? But you have made it a 'DEN OF THIEVES.'"
Mar 14:21 The Son of Man indeed goes just as *it is written* of Him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had never been born."
Mar 14:27 Then Jesus said to them, "All of you will be made to stumble because of Me this night, for *it is written:* 'I WILL STRIKE THE SHEPHERD, AND THE SHEEP WILL BE SCATTERED.'
a. The reference to “He shall be called a Nazarene” cannot be found in the Old Testament, yet it was “spoken by the prophets” (Matt. 2:23). Therefore, this prophecy, which is considered to be “God’s word,” was passed down orally rather than through Scripture.
b. In Matthew 23:2-3, Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have a legitimate, binding authority based “on Moses’ seat,” but this phrase or idea cannot be found anywhere in the Old Testament. It is found in the (originally oral) Mishnah, which teaches a sort of “teaching succession” from Moses on down.
c. In 1 Corinthians 10:4, Paul refers to a rock that “followed” the Jews through the Sinai wilderness. The Old Testament says nothing about such miraculous movement. But rabbinic tradition does.
d. “As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses” (2 Tim. 3:8). These two men cannot be found in the related Old Testament passage (Ex. 7:8ff.) or anywhere else in the Old Testament.
A, B and D: Jesus referred to himself as a door, which isn't found in the OT. So what's your point?
C: The passage says clearly that the Rock is a spiritual Rock and the Rock was Christ. (For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.) Jesus is God. God/Jesus was the cloud, was the rock that Moses split, was the water from the rock, was the pillar of fire and so on.
@@MrHPT3 I think what Jesse is saying is THE INSPIRED New Testament writers are all referring to TRADITION; something pastor Mike does not acknowledge as a source of truth.
@@mikelopez8564 In the very same breath, Jesus condemns traditions. Traditions are fallible ad malleable:
Jesus answered them, “Isaiah prophesied correctly about you hypocrites, as it is written:
‘These people honor Me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from Me.
They worship Me in vain;
they teach as doctrine the precepts of men.’c
You have disregarded the commandment of God to keep the tradition of men. - Mark 7:6-8
------
so since Catholics are analogous to Jewish according toyou, and Jesus condemns them, then Catholics would be in the wrong and worthy of condmenation
@@duckymomo7935 Where in the bible does Jesus condemn the Jews? Jesus was a Jew. Does he condemn himself?
Jesus was an Israelite, of the tribe of Judah, living in Galilee.
Do you know what a Jew is?
as a new Christian, I would never have thought to go to catholic or some other authority.. that is just so outside the realm of what I would expect to do since the Bible mentions no such thing... thank God !
Jesus guarantees that the Church’s definitive decisions would be backed up by the authority of heaven itself. So radical is this authority that he would also say of his Church, “If they receive you they receive me; if they reject you, they reject me” (Matt. 10:40; cf. Luke 10:16; 1 Tim. 3:15; Eph. 3:10; 4:11-15, etc.). This does not mean just some kind of authority, but an infallible authority, i.e., the authority of Christ himself.
The blessings of this infallible Church are manifold. But one very important reason for its establishment concerns the nature of faith itself. Without an infallible spokesman for Christ, the follower of Christ cannot have faith in the sense that God wills for him, because without that infallible spokesman he is forced to trust in some man’s private and fallible interpretation of the word of God rather than the word of God itself. Whether he places his faith in his own interpretation or in another fallible person’s really doesn’t matter. He is trusting in a fallible source rather than in that of God’s spokesman who speaks infallibly.
In 1 Thessalonians 2:13, St. Paul explains this principle succinctly:
And we thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God.
Perhaps the plainest example of Our Lord’s teaching on the establishment of an authoritative and infallible authority on Earth-namely, the Church-can be found in Matthew 18:15-18. Here, Jesus gives definitive instruction as to how matters of dispute would be settled among the people of God for all time:
If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the Church; and if he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
The Protestant idea that Jesus did not give us an infallible Church-that, instead, we are to get our Bibles out and argue verses and then start our own churches if we cannot agree-as has been the practice of Protestantism for 500 years with no end in sight, or indeed possible. It is also completely alien to the New Testament, which condemns the practice of private interpretation of Scripture:
First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God (2 Pet. 1:20-21).
Protestants will claim that this text does not condemn private interpretation at all. It is, they will say, only speaking of the inspiration and authority of Scripture- that the text of Scripture itself is not a matter of “private interpretation.” It has nothing to do with the man interpreting Scripture.
But this is manifestly false. The next verse (2 Peter 2:1) informs us that Peter was concerned with more than just the actual text of Scripture. He warned of “false teachers” who would teach “heresies,” not just false teachers who would write apocryphal works and claim them to be Scripture:
But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies.
In 2:10 he describes these false teachers as “despising authority,” and then, in 3:16, he tells us they “twist the scriptures to their own destruction.” The context of Peter’s letter leaves no room to doubt that our first pope was condemning the private interpretation of Scripture, the foundation of the Protestant movement.
@@Guzmudgeon That's a lot of words. We can conclude: When God speaks it's inherently authoritative, because God is authoritative. I think we can agree on that. As 2 Tim 3:16 says "all Scripture is God-breathed", which means it carries this authority.
I know of no other authority that is equal to Scripture, and Scripture itself doesn't mention one. The Bible affirms its own authority but does not give us affirmations about the authority of anyone else, let alone some pope. In fact the entire concept of a pope does not exist in Scripture, neither Old nor New Testament.
@@Guzmudgeon it's funny that you used a scripture that shows Jesus giving the binding and loosing power to all his disciples and those who they disciple would receive the same all the way to today
@@lucianbane2170 Yes it is interesting because it indicates not a one time authority that only the apostles were given,but an unending line of succession. The powers to bind and loose were not simply dispensed to every believer though. The apostles were the closest of Jesus's followers. He had thousands of followers in his time. They were not all given the same authority. If that were so there would have been no need for the elders of the church to exist as we read about in James for example:14 Are any among you sick? They should call for the elders of the church and have them pray over them, anointing them with oil in the name of the Lord. 15 The prayer of faith will save the sick,
We read to have elders of the church anoint and pray over the sick. These same elders received the authority to bind and loose, and to also dispense of that authority to those who reasonably met certain criteria as outlined in scripture.
@@friedrichrubinstein Matthew 18:15 “If another member of the church[d] sins against you,[e] go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one.[f] 16 But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
Here scripture tells us how to handle a situation in which the church is the final authority. Ultimately we need the bible for reference but the institution of the church must be recognized as an authority. Not the bible alone.
As a Catholic, eventhough I disagree with your views, I appreciate the respect and openess towards the catholic church.
@@veritasmuy2407 I assume that you're talking about the Catholic church. What you're saying about Redemption/Salvation also being through Mary is false. The title of co-redeemer is based on the fact that by Mary's fully submission to God's will, she participated (co-operated) in God's mission to redeem humanity through Jesus Christ. I've been a Catholic my whole life and was never taught this and never heard this even preached.
@@veritasmuy2407 Jesus' descendance is not from Mary's side, but from Joseph's (see both Matthew and Luke's genealogy). Point is that Mary said yes and there the coöperation started. If you read the annunciation by the angel to Mary, he states in Luke 1:28; "Hail, full of grace. The Lord is with you. Blessed are you among women." The angel said "Hail", not hello... Hail is a royal title. "Full of grace" states that Mary was already in a state of grace and this is later confirmed in verse 30 where the angel says; "Don't be afraid, Mary, for you have found grace with God". That sounds as a solid and divine plan before Mary was born. So Mary's yes was just a formality. Mary was not just anyone, but the sinless one and here I refer to the Gen. 3:15: I will put emnities between and the woman, between your offspring and her offspring." As you know, Jesus quoted the old testament to hint who He was, but not only Him, but also His mother. At the wedding of Cana Jesus called his mother "Woman", and there He was linking Mary to the woman (before the fall) mentioned in genesis 3:15. Note that after the fall the woman was named Eve in verse 20. This is one of the reasons why we as Catholics hold the doctrine of Mary conceived without sin and was therefore prepared to be the mother of God, Theotokos: God bearer. (Council of Ephesus 431AD) Why mother of God? Because Jesus was 100% human and 100% God (Council of Nicea 325AD).
@@veritasmuy2407 Again, Mary is not a direct descendant of King David. Joseph was! All the people you mentioned certainly had their own role in salvation history, but the role of Mary was to be the mother of God. Mary's role was active as the bearer, the care taker, the initiator of Jesus' mission and the sufferer. No one suffers like the mother at a childs death. This is totally a different role than an ancestor like David or Abraham. I can elaborate more on the virgin Mary, but I'll leave it here...
@@veritasmuy2407 Thanks for bringing that awareness, makes me appreciate Mary more. However, if there were no roman empire at that time, most probably Joseph would have had the kingship instead of Herod (as Herod was a puppet)... Thanks again for bringing that information...
@@veritasmuy2407 The basic question is this: Who is Jesus? 50% God 50% man? 100% man? What do you say? YOU quoted: GOD is a Righteous HOLY Spirit (John 4:24) and can not be a physical Man born under the Sin/Curse of Adam (Hosea 11:9, Romans 5:12). I say: Exactly, that's why we as cathoics believe in the immaculate conception of Mary. Early on I mentioned the connection of the identity of Mary as the "Woman" in genesis before the fall. Don't get me nor the Catholic church wrong. Mary is NOT divine and NOT worthy of worship. The catholic church NEVER teaches that! But we love and honor her in a very special way (veneration), as the mother of Christ (the rest I will explain as soon as I get your answers). OK, then we come to the very theme of this video, "Sola Scriptura". Where is "Sola scriptura" or "bible alone" mentioned in the bible? Above all, did the church cease to exist after the book of revelation? Was there silence between the prophets and the NT? Did Jesus give us the Bible or did He give us the Church? I ask these questions to see where we're on the same page and where we differ. Roman traditions? What do you mean by Roman traditions? Never heard of that... There is a Roman Catholic church that represents the western catholic church and the eastern catholics. But they all fall under the vatican where the Catholic church is located. By God's grace emperor Constantine converted to Christianity and made christianity the main religion of the roman empire in order for it to be practiced freely and continue to spread through out the world. But I'll wait for your answers...
⭐Was Bible a Roman Catholic Book? ⭐
The answer is No.
Scriptures was written by Jewish Prophets and Jewish Christian APostles. Not Roman Catholics. By ad100s, all Scriptures of modern day Bibles were already in all churches. Jesus and APostles already called Scriptures "Scriptures" in their days. Believers did not have to wait 300 years for Scriptures to be "made inspired" or "called Scriptures" by Roman ct.
⭐Did Roman Church come up with a Universal Canon?⭐
The answer is No.
Roman ct merely compiled what was already there. Council of Rome was merely a local council. Council of Rome merely compiled it's own local canon. Not a Universal Canon. Roman ct's NT canon was only one of many local canons in those days. Roman Church did not fix any Universal Canon. That requires an Ecumenical Council with bishops of all churches. Nothing of such happened.
⭐Were there other canons after ad382? ⭐
The answer is yes.
There were still other canons in ad592 and 1442. If a Universal Canon was really fixed in ad382 like what Roman Catholics claimed, why were there still other canons after ad382? Why are there still other canons till this day - 66, 73, 81 books canons?*
⭐Does Christian Bible come from Roman Catholic Bible?⭐
The answer is No.
Roman ct Bibles came from a Greek translation called LXX. Christian Bibles came from Hebrew OT. So why would Christian Bible be from Roman Catholics?
⭐Did Christians remove 7 books or did Roman Catholics added 7 books? ⭐
Bible says Scriptures is of Jewish Origins. Romans 3:1-2. Not Roman Catholic origins. Jews till this day holds OT 39 books. Not Roman ct’s OT 46 books. Scriptures is always correct. So clearly pointing to Roman ct adding 7 books.
Love Galatians 1: 6-9. Shows that the “angel Moroni” didn’t bring another testament of Christ but truly brought another gospel.
Michelle Timbrook That was Paul talking to the Galatians. It has nothing to do with an angel called MoronI. Moroni not in the Scriptures anywhere. That is a Mormon only belief.
Michelle Timbrook You did realize that your point is moot right? Bringing another Gospel is still wrong and false, be it a another Gospel or Testament, if it goes against the Bible (I mean the real Bible not Mormon or JW Bibles) hen it is false.
Btw Moroni doesn’t exist and isn’t mention in the Bible, as mentioned by @aerodave1 this is a false made up teaching of the Mormon Church, and not to mention Paul was telling the Galatians to rebuke anyone bringing a new Gospel, or to take the principle of his message, anyone telling you something contrary to the 4 Gospels rebuke them.
aerodave1 Good looking out! To be honest I never heard of Moroni 😂 I can’t believe this heretic got any likes.
Mike, how do you k do ow what writings belong in the bible?
From passages you give we can say that Bible is authoritative but you didn't give any sound argument that only Bible is authoritative. When you say that tradition brings us back to scripture it is much more natural to say that oral tradition creates a scripture. What do you think about John 16 12-13 : "I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come." ? When you say that you just want to look for truth, is it true? I think that you believed in sola scriptura before you started defending it or thinking about it.
@PETER JOHN BRANDAL *James 2 proves Faith Alone doctrine is true. Roman ctists love to ignore the whole doctrine of Faith Alone. It comes in 2 parts:*
- Salvation is Not by Works (By Faith Alone) - Eph 2:8-9
- Saved to do Good Works (NOt By Faith Alone) - Eph 2:10, James 2
As a former Catholic, good stuff. Unlike many protestants, you criticize truly Catholic doctrine. There are a whole lot of strawman attacks against Catholicism; but you are one of the best about making sure that what you disprove is what the RCC actually teaches.
On the other hand, what you never really address with this is the Orthodox churches (both EO and OO). These share the Catholic claim of keeping not only the Scriptures, but the traditions of the apostles. Here is the important point: They criticize the RCC for its many "innovations" that have been added to RCC dogma long after the apostolic age - like as you mentioned, the sinless birth and assumption of the body of Mary. Yet, like with the RCC, many EO and OO teachings do not square with Scripture.
I think that this speaks to the claims, by both groups, that they have authoritative truth via tradition. The disagreements between these confirm that tradition is not an infallible conduit of truth.
Jesus started Catholic church. Retake RCIA. You should come back!!!
Agreed. I’ve heard Mike say he just hasn’t had the time yet to do into EO, so he doesn’t say too much about them. I would definitely like more on that subject as well. It seems like once someone believes that “we are the true church & anything we say goes because it’s our tradition,” then it’s very hard to reason with them from the Scriptures.
Hey Mike,
Although I disagree with you, I do appreciate the good will you've approached the subject with. That said, a critique I would have of the defenses of Sola Scriptura is the lack of historical context. To say "if you just started with the Bible..." is to expose this point well. New Christians "starting with the Bible to learn their faith" is a luxury afforded by the printing press. It's not always something that could be done. It has also incorrectly colored the Protestant conception of what the Bible was originally used for, which was as a liturgical tool. One of the major ways the canon was actually determined was looking at what books Churches used in the liturgy. While it is a great blessing that we can all possess Bible's of our own, this is not something that was historically feasible, and to assume the presupposition that Christianity always operated in this way is totally anachronistic. Piggybacking on that, the idea that even if Rome was right (and I agree they're not, but for different reasons) but we'd still need to hold them accountable solely by the Scriptures is an impossibility for most of Christians throughout history. Essentially, Christianity did not operate in the way modern Evangelicalism does today, it simply couldn't have with the lack of printing press. So what we need to ask is how the Christians of antiquity did practice.
I kind of see what you mean but I don't think I necessarily understand it well enough. Maybe you can explain because I truly am interested. The claim that because throughout Christian history not everyone had a Bible of their own seems somewhat irrelevant to me with this topic. I mean wouldn't the past absence of scripture just affirm Sola Scriptura?
@@JusticeDivineAllah Yes sir!! The Roman Catholic Church has always wanted control. Listening to the way they speak about Christians. They like to use the word authority too much. That is why I believe the Rcc is the woman on the scarlet beast mentioned in revelation.
@@JusticeDivineAllah they preach another gospel!! They comprise the scriptures with man made traditions.
@Dominus Vobiscum re read what I put.
liturgical tool is not a common criterion
the order is: apostolic authority, inspiration, apostolic content (rule of faith) and used in wide circulation/universal acceptance. Liturgical use is secondary criteria.
Thanks Mike, really blessed by your ministry. God has used lots of your videos to help grow my confidence in His character and word. Last year I was having very big doubts for the first time in my life and it really sent me down a terrible mental path but through your ministry and other local ones I've been apart of I can now say with all my heart God is so good and worth telling people about. Your content has been the discussion point with some of my athiest and agnostic workmates and it's the first time I've ever had the confidence to share Christ proudly and confidently. Won't it be wonderful when all of us from around the world come together in heaven to worship our God and Saviour!!
@PETER JOHN BRANDAL *Roman Ctists love to misquote Gal 5 and 1 Cor 6. The phrase "in time past" refers to times when they were still unbelievers. Of course unbelievers will not inherit the kingdom of God.*
*But Vs 22 onwards say, believers have the fruit of the Spirit. Against such there is no law.*
*1 Cor 6 says something similar. 1 Cor 6:11 says believers were already "washed, sanctified, justified" in the name of Jesus - saved.*
Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness,
Gal 5:20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies,
Gal 5:21 envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you *in time past,* that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
Gal 5:23 gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law.
1Co 6:11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.
you said
Galatians 5:19-21
I love your guitar almost as much as I love this stream!
Your heart and your mind are in the right place, but there are heavy spiritual things happening too, the church has lost its spirit.
The Catholic Church can never lose its spirit because its spirit is the Holy Spirit, and Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would be with the Church until "the consummation of the age" (the return of Jesus).
So Pastor Mike, here are my next two questions:
1. Which sect/denomination/branch/expression of Christianity do you think is the truest?
2. Granting you that Sola Scriptura is true. Who has the authority to properly interpret Scripture? Those given the Teaching office? The individual Christian in light of his own conscience? The individual Christian, informed by the indwelling Holy Spirit (cf. 1 John 2:27)? Some Church institution? The Church as a whole? Only those Christians trained in hermeneutics and exegesis?
Th indwelling of the Holy Spirit has the authority, which lives in you. 1st Corinthians 2:10-12 "but God has revealed it to us by His Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thought of God except the Spirit of God. We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. "
@@jeremiahunderwood6536 Many people have different, exclusive views. How can you know who’s right and who’s wrong?
@@michaelhoelscher5079 When it comes down to it those who are filled with the Holy Spirit agree on everything. Those who don't you can find that they have beliefs against scripture. When Gods spirit leads the truth is revealed. When the teachings all align with no contradiction or confusion then you know its truth
It is not a subjective determination. It’s linguistics and internal consistency within the whole of Scripture. The analysis by those living or passed who have dedicated their lives to study can be very helpful too.
Jesus started Catholic church….so the Catholic church is the one true church of Jesus.
@Dzik Dziki *According to you, JEsus, APostles and NT Church must be real losers; since they all adhered to Sola Scriptura.*
*150+ verses say Jesus, APostles and NT Church appealed to Scriptures Only for doctrines. Not once they took doctrines from traditions of Moses or Pharisees. Not once. This already proves Sola Scriptura. Roman ctists like you say otherwise.*
you said
but Sola Scriptura seems to me like a self defeating argument.
I know this may get overlooked, but on the subject of who has the authority to interpret scripture, what are some passages speaking of the Spirit of God as that interpreter who is there to help teach scripture, and is living inside of all believers who are born again. (I know this is a double question) Do you have any videos or comments on reliance on the Spirit, which is the power of God given to those who ask, and not just the clergy to interpret?
Pastor Mike on Hyper-charismatics: "I would say they're playing with fire." 😂😂😂
Love the pre stream cat cam.
@PETER JOHN BRANDAL *Bible says otherwise. 150+ verses say Jesus, APostles and NT Church appealed to Scriptures Only for doctrines. Not once they took doctrines from traditions of Moses/Pharisees. Sola Scriptura stands unchallenged.*
you said
sola scriptura is a logical fallacy
Spot on. Years ago a good friend of mine stated it well. The Catholic Church with its Papacy and Priesthood is attempting to overlay the Old Covenant regime as held by the religious authorities in Jesus’ day onto the New.
If by religious authorities, you mean the Apostles, then yes.
@@SoundEngraver there just isn't anything in the Bible about the apostles establishing the catholic church?
@@da2hampton Christ established Peter as the apostle to found His Church, after He renamed him, when Peter recognized Jesus as his Christ.
@@da2hampton of course not. Jesus established the Catholic Church
@vaMukanya Gudoguru yeah...about that. Can't find anything even close to resembling the complex over-bloated exhaustive teachings of the Catholic religion in the Bible. Nor to your statement that Jesus established it. You have to go outside of the Bible. I will stay in just the Bible. If it proves the Catholic church as the true authority then I will follow it.
In Ephesians 2:20 it states "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone." Therefore, the Church is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets with Jesus as the cornerstone. The apostles and the successors were the authority within the early Church just as they today. The Bible was not brought together into one book until 393 A.D. Apostolic succession was the primary authority prior to this time. Oral tradition was heavily relied upon, since many letters and gospels were still being written. No one knew which were truly inspired until 393 A.D.
The first Christians didn't learn their faith from the Bible because none of the books of the New Testament had been written yet. This is evident in Paul thanking the Corinthians for "maintaining the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2), and instructing his disciple Timothy, "what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2).
The books of the Bible were completely written down and circled around among the churches before the last apostle died. So no, the main authority zntil the 4th century was not the oral tradition and succession of the apostles. It was the gospels and letters written down in the 1st century.
The last book of the New Testament was written by end of first century.
The early Christians used the circulation of the New Testament documents
That is absolutely cap. Full Bibles were in circulation long before the 4th century, the Codex Sinaticus or anything else. Many early church fathers makes comphrehensive lists very similar to the 27 books we have today, and the Muratorian fragment dating to as early as 170 AD lists a New Testament astonishingly similar to what we have today. The early church wasn't blind or stupid, more often that not, they got the right Gospels and the right Epistles from the right people.
If Scripture is your sole authority you have a problem. Your sole authority does not state that it is your sole authority. That makes YOU your sole authority. And you cannot avoid the fact that there is no canon, there is no bible without a non-biblical authority proclaiming the canon, the Catholic Church.
Your sole authority claims that there is a pillar and foundation of truth and that is said to be the church and not scripture. And Jesus gave Peter the authority to bind Heaven and Earth. That is real authority.
what does a pillar do? it upholds the truth. Can a pillar uphold itself? no, the word of God is truth, and it is upheld by the church
@@Hypnotoad206 who said this and this and this book is word of God and this and this and ... this book is not word of God?
@@Hypnotoad206 Sorry Nathan, but Scripture says that the church is the pillar and foundation of truth. If you say that the scriptures are the pillar of truth then can that pillar uphold itself?
So, let's see which one stands own its own. The Church WAS established by the word of God. Scripture is not Scripture until someone declares it inspired. So the Church stands on the Word of God and Scripture stands on the Church.
Bridgefin I never said the scriptures are the pillar of the church. Read my friend, the church is the pillar, and a pillar upholds the word of God. If there is no scripture, then there’s no need for a church
Bridgefin the word of God and scripture are interchangeable... where does that authority come from to say otherwise? What words were said by God that held the church accountable on such an idea?
@Mario Galiardi *Everytime Roman ctists ask this question, they demonstrated their lack of knowledge. Bible says Church refers to believers. Not "which Church". Believers are already the Church.*
⭐ Biblical definition of Church and Churches in the Bible. ⭐
R Catholics do not know what is the biblical meaning of Church and Churches in the Bible.
- Church in the Bible refers to "all local churches + all believers".
- Churches in the Bible refers to "local churches or believers.
*So effectively any group of believers = a Church. So R Catholics’ questions are irrelevant. Bible does not say Church need to be in certain period of time to be a Church; since Church = any group of believers.*
1 *Bible mentions Church in general referring to all churches as a whole.*
1Co 11:22 What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I do not praise you.
1Co 12:28 And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues.
1Co 14:4 He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church.
2 *Bible mentions churches = local churches*
Act 9:31 Then the churches throughout all Judea, Galilee, and Samaria had peace and were edified. And walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, they were multiplied.
Act 15:41 And he went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches.
Act 16:5 So the churches were strengthened in the faith, and increased in number daily.
Rom 16:4 who risked their own necks for my life, to whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles.
Rom 16:16 Greet one another with a holy kiss. The churches of Christ greet you.
1Co 7:17 But as God has distributed to each one, as the Lord has called each one, so let him walk. And so I ordain in all the churches.
1Co 11:16 But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.
3 *Bible mentions "church = believers".*
Rom 16:5 Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Greet my beloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia to Christ.
1Co 16:19 The churches of Asia greet you. Aquila and Priscilla greet you heartily in the Lord, with the church that is in their house.
Col 4:15 Greet the brethren who are in Laodicea, and Nymphas and the church that is in his house.
4 *R Catholics have the wrong definition of Church. To R Catholics, Church meant R Catholic Church which Bible says its Not!*
you said
I have a question about the Church, if it's written: "Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matthew16: 18)
Which Church was Son of God was talking about? Was it a catholic or protestant, or a evangelical, or Lutheran, or, perhaps a Baptist church? Or Iehova's witnesses?
44:16 Dr. Ryan Reves of Gordon Conwell has an excellent series of lectures giving an overview of Church history.
Free?😊
I have watched Dr. Reeves also. I bought his book about the Bible. Small excellent book
Ryan Reeves is an excellent source for church history.
I bought his book about the Bible It’s very good
the recipe for the "isms" is the same across all isms:
1. hold men in admiration and 2. use the admired men's _writings_ as the lens through which you understand Scripture.
Bible + Vatican= Catholicism
Bible + Ellen G White= 7th Day Adventism
Bible + Watch Tower Tract Society= Jehovah Witnesses
Bible + Joseph Smith= Mormonism
Bible + Luther= Lutheranism
Bible + Calvin= Calvinism
Bible + Rabbis= Judaism
take away the monkey in the middle and you end up TRUTH. (John 17:17)
the recipe for _growing and maintaining_ the "isms" is also the same across all isms:
1. appeal to man's vanity that they possess some unique quality before God and 2. establish a hierarchy of men to enforce the unique rules that apply to the ism (Gal 1:10):
Catholics= imagine they are uniquely qualified b4 God as His "one true church"
SDAs= imagine they are uniquely qualified b4 God for keeping the Sabbath (law)
JW= imagine they are uniquely qualified for knowing God's _name_
Lutherans= imagine they are uniquely qualified b4 God as His _reformed_ "one true church"
Calvinists & Jews= imagine they are uniquely _elect_ by God before the beginning of the world
BUT, the bible teaches that the ONLY thing that qualifies us for God's salvation is HIS LOVE and Mercy and *_our condition as SINNERS before HIM_* Jesus came to save sinners (Matt 1:21, Matt 9:13, Mark 2:17, Rom 5:8, 19, 1Tim1:15 etc)
the ONLY obligation we have to be saved is _to believe: (acts __16:30__-31, John __3:15__-21, John __5:24__ etc)_
So when Jesus said to St Peter in Matthew 16:18-19 "You are Peter and on this rock I shall build by Church and the gates of Hell shall not overcome it, I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." Tell me how that is NOT establishing the one true Church on the Authority of Christ himself bestowed on Peter.
@@sethapex9670 it is so easy to make a doctrine out of one verse
Jesus is pointing to Himself and it is not weird to believe that because He did that before
John 2:18-21
18 Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?
19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
21 But he spake of the temple of his body.
Now, how do you know the same thing happened at Matthew 16? Because Peter himself said it;
1 Peter 2:5-8
5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by *Jesus* *Christ.*
6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
Paul said
1 Corinthians 10:4
4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
both of them says "hey Catholics with Phd's and doctorate, Jesus is the Rock not Peter!"
@Asaph Vapor Catholics don't believe scripture is inspired after compilation that is you protestants lying about us. We believe The Spirit of Truth inspires people continuously until the end of time. When the bible was compiled many already inspired writings were looked at and put in the 73 book bible by the church. So you have to realise that If many more had been put in the bible you hold today would be too big. Compilation is just that compilation stop assuming things that are not true about Catholics please.
@Asaph Vapor 1.those 7 books are inspired. Are you really interested in knowing why they are or are you just so convinced? If you are interested I can point you in a direction.
2. OK simple test show me *from the bible* where God says "write down a bible and put only 66 books in it"
@Asaph Vapor you Assumed Catholics believe that scripture is inspired by compilation. You were wrong about that just swallow your pride and admit it.
@Mario Galiardi *Yes not everything is in the Bible. Is your momma in the Bible? But .. Bible says Scriptures is sufficient for all doctrines of the faith.*
*Roman ctists pretend "not everything is in the Bible" means "everything not inside the Bible are doctrines". It's now.*
you said
"Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written." (John21:25), how were these words interpreted in a contrary way, that there's no other Holy Book, but the only Gospel?
Re-listening to this after a couple of years...love the part at 32:00, "Pope? Nope. Scripture? Yes."
I have always been a sola scriptura kinda guy.
larry sergent amen
Juan Parra yeah mike says near the end “ after discernment, wait for wisdom..”. Love that. God never contradicts himself...
Juan Parra I thot of your question. How did you know my interpretation to say it’s wrong? When did I give you my interpretation? I was a missionary in Rome for 2 years as an evangelical. I understand how entrenched Catholic beliefs are...
Dominus Vobiscum don’t know but there are Scriptures in how to interpret..
Dominus Vobiscum are you talking between catholic or other??
No words can describe the love we christians have to the Lord Jesus Christ, and to his Word. Or the love we christians have to each other. We might in this world have different opininons, but when we meet in glory, oh man... It will be; grace alone, by faith alone in Christ alone. To the Glory of God!
Type on your computer how many verses say "saved by grace not by works". You will get over 50 hits. For you to be correct you will have to harmonize all of them. Scripture can not contradict itself.
@user-mv7kd7og5w *Yes except these are mostly fairy tales of ROman religion. Scholars and historians say, all if not most of, Ignatians writings were spurious. RCs simply cannot find your doctrines from Scriptures. Always resorting to extra biblical claims as proofs.*
you said
From a podcast by Joshua Charles: St. Ignatius of Antioch - a disciple of the apostles - an extremely early witness to Peter and Paul being in Rome, talks about the structure of the church with bishops and priests and deacons, which is still the Catholic Church to this day. He talks about them succeeding directly from the apostles. He talks about the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, in an extremely real way, for lack of a better term, just very physical even. He’s saying that the heretics of those days were denying the real presence of Christ. In his letter to the Church of Rome, it was very different from the other letters. He’d said some wonderful things to all the churches that are very highfalutin language. But in the letter to the Church of Rome, it was the only church he spoke of commanding other churches. He said, “I don’t issue orders to you because I’m not Peter and Paul.” He was also an extremely early witness to Peter and Paul being in Rome, which some Protestants, to this day, will try to cast doubt on. Every Protestant sect denies the apostolic succession, real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the sacrifice of the Eucharist.
Love and pray for you brother. Great lesson.
2 Thess 2: 15: Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.
Volleyball Videos if you watch the video you will see where I address this verse and how it’s anachronistic and equivocating to say it refers to Catholic Tradition.
@@MikeWinger I was late and didn't catch the whole thing, I'll go back and watch it. I just wanted to point out that scripture refers to something beyond itself that we are supposed to stand firm and hold fast to. Thank you and God Bless.
Consider that 2 Thes. was not the last thing written in the NT, so you could reasonably expect that many (maybe even most) of those "oral statements" would have been reduced to writing before the canon was closed. Consider also that it refers to the traditions they "were taught"--past tense.
The apostles--the Twelve plus Paul--simply did not teach the immaculate conception, the perpetual virginity, or the bodily assumption, of Mary. Rome knows this and doesn't dispute it. Neither did any of them believe (or teach) that there was personal succession of apostles, nor that the Bishop of Rome was in any way the head of the church catholic. None of these beliefs can be shown to have been believed by anyone for hundreds of years (demonstrating that they were not part of the traditions that the Thessalonians had been taught).
@@danbrown586 Good points. I guess my short answer, since youtube is not the best place for long answers, is that Catholics believe everything was revealed with Christ, but over time the church has come to greater understandings of the truths of revelation. The church also has the function to apply the truths of revelation to the current times, so its expected that teachings/doctrines will develop over time; I believe this is why Jesus founded a church with a teaching authority, rather than just dropping a Bible from the sky and letting us try to interpret scripture correctly on our own without making errors. I would disagree that these teachings you referred to were not believed by anyone for hundreds of years though. There were councils to define church doctrines, but that doesn't mean no one believed them before the councils. As for the Thessalonians, you may be right that these specific teachings about Mary were not part of the oral traditions, but I don't think we can be sure either way. In general, I just think scripture is teaching us here that there are oral traditions and they are important.
@Volleyball Videos Scripture quoted out of context is good for nothing IMO.
Mike, I have a question. What is the difference between Prima Scriptura and Sola Scriptura? As far as I understand, the Methodists and a few others adhere to Prima Scriptura. While the Roman Church condemns Sola Scriptura as heresy, but it apparently does not condemn Prima. I have not been able to discern the difference between the two and so I can not figure out why one is called heresy and the other is simply an alternative. Thoughts?
Prima simply means “first”. Sola mean “alone”. You won’t find the Catholic or Orthodox condemning “Prima scriptura” because both of these ancient churches know it’s a valid and necessary doctrine. Catholics and Orthodox hold to what is known as the material sufficiency of scripture. This means that every doctrine of the church can be found either implicitly or explicitly in scripture, however not every doctrine is plainly stated and solid exegesis needs to tease out the doctrine from it. Formal sufficiency is the idea that all doctrine is found scripture explicitly and is made clear and apparent on a surface reading of the text. Formal sufficiency along with sola scriptura are both new and novel in the church. The view of material sufficiency is the historic and consistent view of scripture, especially when coupled with tradition. In fact, scripture literally comes from tradition. Every adherent of sola scriptura automatically negates that doctrine when they read the Bible and assume it contains all the inspired texts that God intended us to have. If it weren’t for tradition, we wouldn’t even have the canon of scripture.
@@IAMFISH92 Thank you for your reply. I do appreciate it. That does help, though the way these are taught seem to be a distinction with out a difference. Thank you for again, kind regards. john.
My understanding is that those who subscribe to Prima Scriptura allow for many methods of teaching the faith: scripture, oral traditions, church documents, experiences, and reason, but that scripture is primary -everything must sync with scripture to be considered truth. Catholics don't have a problem with this. Those who subscribe to Sola Scriptura, say that we can't trust or use anything but scripture to determine truths of the faith. The thing I am trying to wrap my brain around, though, is as soon as a pastor is teaching the Bible, isn't he or she now stepping outside of sola scripture, since he or she is now trying to pass on historical interpretations of scripture? In my mind, the doctrine of sola scriptura contradicts itself.
@kevincrandall2751 *And yes the usual Ls of RCs that do not corroborate with Scriptures. Scriptures say "believers searched the Word of GOd to see if Apostles taught according to what Scriptures say". Even if believers could not read, they could listen. So whatns are RCs spouting?*
Act 17:11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.
you said
People were mostly illiterate from the time of the early Catholic Church and couldn’t read the Bible even if they wanted to. Every copy of the Bible had to be hand copied which took 3 years and each Bible cost three years wages. It took 1000 sheep to produce enough vellum to make a single Bible. Each Bible was hand copied by Catholic monks until the advent of the printing press which coincided with the Protestant revolt started by a heretic Augustinian priest named Martin Luther.
“Scripture alone is the final authority on faith and practice.”
This is probably the best alternative definition I've heard. I'm adding it to my notes.
The other best definition I've heard is this:
“With respect to special revelation, scripture alone is the only infallible rule of faith and practice.”
What you do not want to do is rule out natural revelation as the support structure by which you come to know what special revelation is.
Hezekiah Domowski
The Bible says the Church is the final authority. Specifically the Bishops of the Church.
Matthew 18:17
If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the Church; and if he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
1 Timothy 3:15
if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.
Matthew 28:18
And Jesus came and said to them, " All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
John 20:21-23
21 Jesus said to them again, " Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you."
22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit.
23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."
Edward Russell
So then let’s play this out,...
I’ll say “you are misunderstanding scripture” and you say something to the effect of “I assure you that you are”. Then I say by what authority do you interpret scripture and you say “the Holy Spirit” and I say “but I am guided by the Holy Spirit(although I wouldn’t claim this, but for the sake of the discussion). And now here we are two modern people 2000 years removed from the authors of the Bible both claiming to interpret the Bible by the direction of the Holy Spirit. Who then is right? Well you say you are, then I say I am. But what is actually happening is it is not the Holy Spirit but ourselves (our interpretations) we claim as authority. This is not biblical. The apostles (first bishops) spoke and wrote with authority over the Church, they anointed others to succeed them in authority. This is biblical and historical.
Where do you find in the bible that everything should have to be in the bible?...Bible alone is so wrong and unbiblical.. It created 50K plus and increasing denominations with conflict, different beliefs and translation. It created division. Early christians does not have the bible or written tradition for centuries until catholics church compiled the Bible from different books.
@@benjamin3631 Fact, weak catholics become protestant, and good protestant become Catholics. There were lots of senior pastors that became catholics after they deeply studied catholism and the history of the church. SOLA SCRIPTURA IS VERY UNBIBLICAL.
@@benjamin3631 Jesus' conferral of special authority on the hierarchy of the Church fit the Catholic model perfectly, not the Protestant one.
Since we do not have a list of the epistles that Paul supposedly wrote, please don't use Peter's message about Paul's writings being scripture, as an all encompassing confirmation of all the
epistles claimed to be written by Paul today. Scholars have cited about 7 epistles traditionally ascribed to Paul as "nonPauline".
@Mike Winger just wanted to thank you for sharing your videos! I just want to say goodbye. 😘🤗
@Dzik Dziki *Pure ns too. Secular religions all have miracles and apparitions. How does all these prove its truth? Bible says God's Word is truth. Jn **17:17**. Not "miracles is truth".*
you said
We know that the churches doctrines are correct because of miracles that happen in the church. Marian miracles . Eucharist miracles. Saints.
"Some say there are too many Christian denominations, which is the result of 'Sola Scriptura.' Those in my camp would argue the opposite is true. That denominations happen because people add traditions onto the text of scripture or they just depart from scripture altogether and that creates more and more separate groups."
This has been a burning question of mine for a while and web searches haven't sufficed. You are always blessing me and my family, Pastor Mike! Thank you!!
I would agree. Sola Scripura is not really possible, because Pastors always have to "interpret" the scripture. They end up interpreting scripture differently from one another and disagreeing with each other. And since there is no authority on scripture in Protestantism, they end up breaking off and starting new churches.
@@volleyballvideos6426 I think what Mike was saying was that perhaps placing salvation-related importance on certain traditions and/or extra-Biblical beliefs is the cause for all the various denominations. Sola Scriptura IS possible for two reasons: 1) the Holy Spirit is our helper on interpretation, and 2) you can claim that scripture is the authority on all matters, no matter what denomination you are.
The point here I think is that Catholics don't make that claim, which is a (pretty serious) problem.
That said, I would love to find a comprehensive list of how many denominations were created through extra-Biblical beliefs, extra-Biblical traditions, and differing interpretations of passages, etc!
@4u soul so true about all the unbiblical things Catholics believe. Hopefully someone will listen, read the bible, and research it for themselves. Keep planting those seeds brother/sister in Christ. : )
The majority a Christian. They are those who are not, but that being said, the majority of Christian denominations agree of the foundation , there are small doctrinal differences, but the foundation tenets of Christianity are the same
Sola Scriptura is never once taught explicitly in scripture.
I can think of a lots of verses that support scripture as the rule for the way we are to live our lives. How many times does Christ say " Don't you remember it is written" ?
Scripture is very important; but while Jesus cited Scripture as binding, he also gave direct authority to the Church in matters on Christian faith. Also verses that point out Scripture as an authority does not prove that it is explicitly mentioned as the ONLY authority
@@Jerry-er6lq When did the old testament become nullified? Remember what Paul said,"All scripture is inspired". There is no old and new words of God, for they are all His words. It is obvious that you are well entrenched in your Catholic belief, so good luck with that. Peace be with you.
@@justinpalmer3948 Can you please give me the verse where Christ gives authority to the church? And please dont quote Mat 16:19, for that has nothing to do with the church. And did you reread your last statement, "Scripture as an authority does not prove that it is explicitly mentioned as the ONLY authority" and by who's authority changes the word of God? Your catholic religion is obviously coming out in your words and thought,so good luck with that. Peace be with you.
@@Jerry-er6lq How have I sinned against you?
Matthew 16: 17-19 Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. l I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
By keys to the Kingdom, Jesus meant that Peter proclaimed the Gospel to the Jews, the Samaritans, and then to the Gentiles. He was present for the first preaching in each of these areas, thus opening the Kingdom to not just the Jews but to all people.
Yep, and that authority died with him. It didn’t extend to others who came after him.
@@AChampagneGlass Thank you. What stands out for me here, is this "binding power" that Jesus gave to Peter, and the Apostles.
the common roman catholic argument that justify their church being led by the apostle peter appointed by Jesus Christ. why would Jesus do that? He even saw and called "satan" in peter if one will read on the following verses of the gospel.
@@whyistheskyblue5515 I would kindly disagree. Jesus said "the gates of the netherworld will not prevail", to me that means Jesus is saying the authority will be protected -it won't be rooted out by the devil.
@Patrick Steil *You say this because of your lack of knowledge. Roman ctists love to change the definition of Church then make silly statements.*
*Church in the Bible refers to believers. Believers of Christ are the Church. So there is no such thing as Church of Luther. Your lack of knowledge is hilarious.*
*Bible does not say Church = Roman ct. Roman ctists love to make silly claims.*
you said
I will not follow the church of Luther, Calvin, Smith or any other Man.
Haha ask a Lutheran if they agree with mike’s definition of solae scripture.
@Faith Jesus SC?
Church history book that I’m find good so far is Bruce Shellys 4th edition of church history (part of the QA at the end when asked for possible books)
Regarding the assumption of Mary, my very dear Catholic friend said to me once: "If Mary wasn't assumed into heaven, then where are her bones....you won't be able to find them." She was so proud after she said that. I felt so sorry for my friend because of how completely deceived she is. I responded "it's not Biblical" as I always do with so many teachings Catholics believe in. It breaks my heart every day. We need to pray for our Catholic family and friends that their eyes will be opened. I thank the Lord every day that mine were and continue to be.
I appreciate your longing for your Catholic friend to be saved, but ultimately, there are giant misunderstandings on the part of many Protestants when it comes to Catholic theology. We can certainly have a conversation about what the Bible does or doesn't say, which is what most Catholic vs. Protestant discussions come down to, and I believe there's a rational Biblical explanation for Catholic doctrine such as the Marian dogmas, Purgatory, or the Eucharist, but ultimately that isn't the key issue. Protestants have an equally, and much greater burden of proof when it comes to the canon of Scripture. The problem with Sola Scriptura is that it rejects tradition as fallible, yet it was only through tradition that the canon of the NT was formed, so Sola Scriptura is self-refuting. If you reject the Catholic teaching on Mary, the Pope, Eucharist, etc, but say the Catholic tradition's judgments on what goes into the Bible are correct, then you have a fatal double standard. The early Christians didn't have a Bible yet, they held the Church established by Christ himself as their authority. It's only a matter of time after realizing this that people convert. I was a Protestant up until this past Easter when I was baptized and confirmed into the Catholic Church, and it has been the best decision I've ever made. I feel closer to God than I've ever felt, especially since I get to partake of him in the Holy Eucharist every Sunday.
God established a Church to which He gave authority, and He only established one Church not 40,000 churches, and that Church is the Catholic Church. Saint Ignatius of Antioch who was a direct disciple of John the Apostle called it the Catholic Church in 107 Ad on his way to be eaten by lions in Rome. Since he was a direct disciple of John he knew what he was talking about when he called it the Catholic Church. Jesus gave authority to the Catholic Church which was the only Church He founded and said it would be guided by the Holy Spirit until the end of time. So it can make pronouncements about dogma like it did about the assumption of Mary. If you say it isn’t found in the Bible, who says it has to be found in the Bible, the Bible makes no such claim that anything has to be found in the Bible, that is the claim of those who subscribe to Sola Scriptura which is itself unscriptural. Protestants hang their hat on 2nd Timothy 3:16 “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” It in no way implies that Sacred Scripture is the soul authority for Christians. It just says it is helpful or profitable for these things. The word of God is Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition which is equal to Sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium. Paul says in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, NIV: "So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter." He didn’t say only Sacred Scripture he also said by “word of Mouth” besides there was only the Old Testament to go by since the New Testament hadn’t been written yet. There was nothing to go by but oral tradition until the Catholic Church set the canon of Scripture in the late 4th century. There is no inspired table of contents. So you can’t say which books even belong in the Bible. There were over 80 gospels floating around when the Holy Spirit guided His Church on which writings to include. It determined 27 books were inspired by God. You accept the authority of the Catholic Church on the canon of Scripture but for some bizarre reason you reject it on everything else.
People were mostly illiterate from the time of the early Catholic Church and couldn’t read the Bible even if they wanted to. Every copy of the Bible had to be hand copied which took 3 years and each Bible cost three years wages. It took 1000 sheep to produce enough vellum to make a single Bible. Each Bible was hand copied by Catholic monks until the advent of the printing press which coincided with the Protestant revolt started by a heretic Augustinian priest named Martin Luther. That began the heresy of the Bible alone and the splintering of Protestant Churches into 40,000 and none of them agree with each other except about the unscriptural doctrines of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. 2nd Peter 1:20 “Above all, you must realize that no prophecy in Scripture ever came from the prophet’s own understanding,” This is why Protestants get so much wrong because they reject the authority of Jesus which He gave to the Catholic Church. Each Protestant is their own Pope and lives by their own rules. Jesus was obedient to the Father unto death, and He expects the same obedience to Him from us. By being outside of the Church He established you are disobedient. You have so many unscriptural man made traditions like thinking that you are saved by saying the sinners prayer “Lord Jesus I invite you into my heart as my personal lord and savior”. Thats not in the Bible. To be saved the Bible way is to be Baptized by water and Spirit as Jesus told Nicodemus. Peter said “Baptism now saves us.” You have alter calls which never happened in the early Church. That is a very recent Protestant invention. You believe in Sola Fide and the Bible only uses the words “faith alone” in James 2:26 ”For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.” That’s why Martin Luther attempted to remove the book of James from the Bible along with the book of Revelation, Hebrews, and Jude. He also removed the Deuterocanonical’s so Protestants have incomplete Bibles. Protestants accuse Catholics of having man made traditions but you yourselves have seemingly nothing but man made traditions a few of which I pointed out. I have no idea why you think you have things right when you follow 40000 different churches started 1500 years after the time of Christ. You have even departed from Luther and Calvin in many things over the last century. They didn’t even believe half of the things you have recently invented. You have services with rock bands, drink coffee during your services which would never be allowed in Jesus Catholic Church because it’s too irreverent. You don’t have alters like the Jews and Catholics. The main thing above everything else is you don’t have the Eucharist. Without that you have nothing. I pray you find your way to the Catholic Church before you die.
@@veritasmuy2407 God's church is not just spiritual but physical. Proof of this is Matthew 18 where Jesus says the final straw for unrepentant sinners is the church. If they refuse to repent when the church tells them to, they are excommunicated from the body of christ. What Jesus describes there is a visible church that has the ability to speak in one voice on what's right and wrong. Therefore, the church is not made up of all 30-40,000 denominations that may hold to different doctrines on essential things like baptism, freewill, Eucharist, Trinity, contraception, abortion, etc.
Saying “But that isn’t biblical.” isn’t a good argument seeing as Catholics don’t believe in sola scriptura. Kinda like a when a Catholic says to a Protestant “But the church teaches…” and the Protestant stops listening bc Protestants don’t believe in the teaching authority of the church.
I tried to convert my aunt, but I think she and her husband are just too proud of the Catholic label to be anything but. *Sigh.* Well, Lord knows, I tried.
Nice cat cam! 😻
Sola scriptura is not biblical. The Bible teaches to follow Apostolic Tradition.
Exactly an example is clearly in Acts 15:1-11 where Peter has council with elders and apostles.
Excellent info here that can be applied to any cult or religion based on extra biblical writings. I loved "discernment without wisdom is destructive". Very helpful.
Does this mean that you accept Ephesians 2:8-9 AND 10 James 2:22-26 That Salvation is by Faith AND Works TOGETHER & NOT by Faith alone AND that you accept John 6:52-60 That the Eucharist is not symbolic but the true presence?
@@Archangelatis
What I love about youtube is you can reply to people who wrote something years ago.
Here's a breakdown of James 2:
14: What use to is my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?"
"Says he has faith." The question is of the faith. James is not arguing if faith saves, we know it does. James is questioning if this person actually has faith. The difference between real belief and intellectual belief. And/or, The difference between real faith and fake faith.
The people James is writing to are probably similar to the people talked about in Jude 1:4...pertaining to the former part of the verse. These people in James are not denying Jesus as savior, but are in fact perverting the gospel as a license to sin.
15-17 is an example and then a statement that faith without works is dead faith
18: "But someone may well say, 'you have faith and I have works, show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works."
Clearly states that faith is shown by works. This is where you get the common saying that works is a result of faith. This is because works show faith to be genuine
19-20:You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe and shudder. But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless?"
"They shudder"...in fear of judgment (Matthew 8:29). The demons know their wrath is coming, but they have no repentance (inner turning from evil) or outward works to show that they have repentance.
A simple acknowledgment of who God is is not the same as faith. Such is said of the belief that the demons have. Faith and intellectual belief are not the same. A heart transformation needs to take place. This. is why Jesus says to "repent and believe" and not just believe. This is also a reason John came preparing the way for Jesus through repentance.
True belief and repentance are either the same thing, or they are so close together that you cannot have one without the other. Note that the definition of repentance is an inner turning away from sin and towards God. It is not an outward action, by definition.
Faith=Salvation by the blood of Christ
Belief+ repentance=Salvation by the blood of Christ.
Therefore,
Belief+repentance= Faith
21: "Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar."
Justified can mean the theological sense of being made righteous. However, in this context, it means to prove true. That is, proving Abrahams's faith to be true. Since in verse 14, the question is if this person actually has faith, or saving faith.
We know that Justified in this verse cannot mean justified to be righteousness before God by because of Ephesians 2:8-9 and Romans 11:6. Indeed, Romans 11:6 clearly show that faith and works are mutually exclusive.
Instead, his faith was what was justified. You read this in the next verse.
22: "You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of works, faith was perfected."
Perfected here means in some sense to be proven true. It cannot mean that his works did something that his faith could not do. Contrarily, we see that faith accomplishes what works cannot do (Romans 8:3, which says "For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh")
23: "And the scripture was fulfilled which says, 'And Abraham Believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,' and he was called the friend of God."
Fulfilled:
1. The fulfillment was of his belief, not his righteousness. Again I say: his belief in God is being fulfilled, not his reckoning to God.
His reckoning to God is clearly shown to be a result of his belief. "Abraham believed God, and it [his belief] was reckoned to him as righteousness."
2. We see in this example that his faith is proven to be true by his works, as in verse 18
3. Abraham did not have to perfectly live out his life. He failed many times to believe in God's promise, such as when he lied about his wife being his sister, in fear that she would be killed. He doubted God's promise
4. "Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness" all the way back in Genesis 15. This fulfillment is in Genesis 22, long after he was saved.
-Note that each time we do a work that is in compliance with God, it fulfills our belief in God and shows it to be true. It's not one event. It's simply the evidence of our faith lived out in our lives.
24: "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone."
This verse by itself separated from the rest of the context of scripture would say that you are saved by works and faith. But if you simply read in the context of the whole chapter, James is not arguing this at all.
Romans 11:6 makes it clear that faith and works are mutually exclusive.
If you think that you can be justified by works. James himself says in James 2:11-12 "For he who said, 'Do not commit adultery,' also said 'do not commit murder.' But if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty."
-James shows you cannot be justified by the law because you have broken the whole law already by being a sinner.
(1 John 1:8, Romans 3:23, 6:23)
-The law of liberty is not the law of Moses, but the law of grace. It cannot mean anything else. (Romans 6:14)
If it were the law of Moses, you will be condemned in your sins, for God will judge the world by their works, and you're a sinner (Read Romans chapters 1-3)
If you still think that you can be justified by works, you come into direct opposition to Ephesians 2:8-9 and Romans 11:6
Verse 25: Rahab demonstrates her works just as Abraham did. Her faith is counted to her as righteousness, not her works.
James is laboring to show that works must accompany faith to prove it genuine.
26: This hits the nail in the coffin for anyone who seeks faith without anything to show for it.
Compare this verse to Jude 1:4
In conclusion, James is writing to people who are falling into the idea that faith means believing with not repentance (inner turning from sin, not outer works)
If you believe you must have worked for salvation in addition to your faith, a special letter was written just for you. It's called Galatians.
@@JosephLachh 'James is laboring to show that works must accompany faith to prove it genuine.' Exactly!!! You got it! That's all you need. 'You see that his faith and his actions were working TOGETHER and his faith was made complete by what he did. ... And the scripture was fulfilled that says......'considered righteous by what they do and NOT by faith alone'. When I started debating Protestants when YT first got started, they didn't know James 2:22-26 was in the bible. Now they try to juggle square verses to fit round man made teachings of Sola Scriptura' (That's why Martin Luther tried to remove the book of James) when the truth is self evident. Don't over complicate it, just focus on TOGETHER.
And scripture was fulfilled that said what? Abraham believed God. How do we see that we believed him? His works. Did his works account to him righteousness? No. It says that be Believed God and his belief was accounted to him as righteousness, not his works.
@@JosephLachh Abraham believed God but his faith was not enough . . . . 'You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and NOT by faith alone. . . . . . ' As As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith WITHOUT Works is dead'. His Faith AND his Works TOGETHER. Ephesians, Romans & Hebrews and James is right by the grace of God. Sola Fida is a man made contradiction.
@paulmurray3671 *All true believers are called to expose false churches, false teachings and false teachers - like Roman religion.*
you said
Mike, why don't you stick to preaching to your congregation and stop worrying about us Catholics.
Thanks a lot for the video and great work Pastor. Please, can you or anyone share thoughts on the 'OOO' or brotherhood of the cross and star sect which originated in Nigeria? What can you say to someone who believes Olumba Olumber Obu is the personified second coming of Christ? They literarily sing about OOO as their redeemer and saviour; so sad! We know that false prophets will come and claim to be Jesus, but this one is so clear (OOO was born by parents, sinned, got married, has two children and currently dead.; even if the members claim he is still alive and appears to only his believers). Yet, these people use the bible (argue for sola scriptura) as their bases for claiming that OOO is 'God'. They have twisted the interpretations -eisegesis- of course. Thank you.
So if you know already that they are false, what do you want Mike to say?🤔
I think you've answered your own question..
I live in South Carolina. In my county there are over 200 different protestant denominations and none of them agree with each other. They all teach something different. The only thing the do agree with is taking money form old people.
Your comparison of catholicism in Mark 7 makes no sense outside how you are interpreting those few verses. Which is disappointing, since you criticise catholicism of this when it comes to church fathers.
Why is your bible missing books?
FYI, Martin Luther, wanted to delete the books of James, Hebrews, 2 Peter, and Revelation, since he believed they were added in error. If it had not been for the persuasion of his contemporaries, these books may well have been deleted from Protestant bibles.
In holding to the "fallible canon" theory, Protestants cannot be infallibly certain that the Bible they hold in their hands is in fact the Bible. The issue of the canon is an unsolvable epistemological problem for Protestants. For if one cannot be certain which books belong in the Bible, how can one presume to use it "alone" as a reliable guide to saving faith in God? The irony is that while Protestants use the theory of Sola Scriptura to advance their attacks on the Catholic Church, they have no infallible way of knowing that comprises Scripture in the first place. Furthermore, if the canon is indeed fallible, there is no reason why future generations of Protestants could not remove certain books now in the Protestants canon or add new ones. This is not as far-fetched as it may seem, since many liberal Protestant theologians and Scripture scholars have already recommended the removal of several New Testaments book (some have gone so far as to call into question the entire canon). Nor could one be absolutely sure that the very words of Scripture are inspired.
I don't think these books would matter in regards to the Gospel. Where the real authority comes from, is the actual message and in this case, it is the Gospel. What is the Gospel? That we are saved through faith in Jesus Christ. Therefore, this message is written all over the New Testament hence we do not need every single book in the bible. If the theology does not line up with the actual message, it is something that we should be careful of and reject if necessary.
Sam boy, I can attest to what you are saying. I knew a guy on another chat room who did not like St. Paul, and consequently did not accept his epistles. It was pointed out to him that Paul and Luke were close friends, so soon he did not believe in Acts or the Gospel of Luke. After awhile he decided he didn't believe in any of the New Testament. Protestants are on a slippery slope when they reject the authority of the Catholic Church. Without that authority there is no Bible because it is only the teaching authority of the Church that backs up the Bible.
An analogy I like to use is, believing in the Bible without believing in the Catholic Church is like believing in the Boy Scout Handbook without believing in the Boy Scouts.
George Penton Peter literally appointed Paul as an apostle
@@DylanSchafer935 You're sliding down a slippery slope, Dylan. Soon you might be saying you don't believe in the gospels any more. I've seen it happen.
Why don't you convert to Catholicism and accept all 73 books of the Bible?
George Penton no thanks. I have already accepted the gift that God gave me of free salvation through the work of Jesus Christ. Only through Him I can be saved
Can you put what translation you use in the description? I'm from a KJV only background and was thinking to get a newer bible to help deepen my faith. I was considering the Evidence bible from Ray comfort or the MacArthur study bible. Any suggestions?
@Lena he has a really good and thorough video on the different translations of the bible. I have a mcarthur study bible that I truly enjoy , but I've been incorporating ESV as well to strengthen my understanding. Hope that helps.
I love the KJV. After the grace of reading Greek for 26 years, I bear my testimony, the English Standard Version & New American Standard Bible say in English what the original Greek says as far as the New Testament.
@@christophiluslovingchristb5441 how awesome that you know Greek!
He is presently using the ESV
Have a good night mike.
DedClicks “Have a good Mike night Mike.” Mikes mike (microphone) is hidden ..a😀😄😀
@@billhildebrand5053 ?
DedClicks it’s a play on words..😀
@jvlp2046 *Bible and real history did not say "Roman religion = one true church or Church Christ founded or the Universal Church". 7 Churches were all in Turkey. Not Rome. You are just disproving your case.*
you said
These NEW CHURCHES with Distinctive NAMES are apart from the ONE TRUE CHURCH with given Authority by God the KEYS to "BIND and LOOSE" on Earth and in Heaven, built by God upon the ROCK (Christ Jesus), that started from the 7 Churches of God in Asia Minor (presently Turkey) in the 1st Cent. A.D. mentioned in the Book of Revelation...
Like every Christian on planet earth, you are correct on SOME doctrines and incorrect on others (myself included), you here do a good job-God bless.
4u soul I disagree very very strongly with brother Winger’s view on the ATONEMENT ie THE PENAL THEORY. My view is THE SUBSTITUTIONARY ATONEMENT model ie Sacrifice/blood.
Robert Rodrigues those are the same thing
Adam Johnson Exactly
I'm not sure if anyone else has noticed but Catholics remind me of Islam. Very rules based and tons of tradition with good deeds being the main focus on how to get to the pearly gates.
That what Jesus taught and that's what Catholics follow. Some people follow sinners instead of Jesus because it's easier until they get to judgment.
@@bridgefin *Where in the Bible teaches all these ns of Roman religion? You claimed Jesus taught them? THink again.*
- submit to Roman pope to be saved
- devote to Roman Mary to be saved
- be in Roman Church to be saved
- partake Roman sacraments to be saved
- baptise in Roman baptism to be saved
- do lots of works to be saved
you said
That what Jesus taught and that's what Catholics follow
@@bridgefin *95% of RC doctrines and 95% of RC clergies were not from Scriptures. Clearly we know who are the sinners we Christians SHOULD NOT FOLLOW. Lol*
you said
Some people follow sinners instead of Jesus because it's easier until they get to judgment.
I have heard to many teachers..you are one of the best among them...God bless you
@truthsayer6414 *RCs cannot defy God and His Words and win. Jesus and APostles all took doctrines from Scriptures only and not from any other source. 180 plus verses as proof.*
31 Verses Found, 31 Matches on the word “Scripture”
21 Verses Found, 21 Matches on the word “Scriptures
127 Verses Found, 132 Matches on the words “it is written” referring to Written Word/Scriptures.
you said
Can I humbly suggest there are more than 50 fatal flaws relating to the 16th century doctrine of sola Scriptura (s.S)
Many great points, nice job! Thank you for giving responses to common catholic claims. March on......
Actually Mike it is what mike teaches. If your source of authority is scripture then why are there so many different Protestant denominations all claiming the bible as authority? If they all have the same authority in scripture then all their teachings must be true? Or if they are wrong how do we trust that you have the correct interpretation?
They say scripture alone yet they made their own private interpretations that is out of passed-down knowledge of Christian elders, and then made themselves their own authority. Shocking, it resulted a multitude of false teachers establishing their own religions. Try one those pastor Bob's Church-of-fun, they're strictly biblical.
@@malvindeleon4948 like the selling of indulgences wasn’t a form of a prosperity gospel. Hey your mother you love is burning in purgatory pay us some money and we can knock some years off her time.
@@mw-ys1qq Yes
@@malvindeleon4948 then what is the difference?
@@mw-ys1qq I believe in a process of purgatory, which happens from the day someone is converted, until the day they hopefully pass away still in the faith. I don't believe in a fiery place of torturous purgatory post mortem. I know that many Catholics believe the same, so please don't act like all Catholics believe that stuff. I am also fairly certain that those guys who went from town to town saying "when a coin in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs" were misrepresenting the official teaching of the Catholic church.
Here are a few problems with Sola Scriptura.
1. Nowhere in the bible is the phrase "Sola Scriptura" to be found.
2. Sola Scriptura is a doctrine inventend by Martin Luther. Why do you follow this manmade tradition rather than the tradition originally received by the early believers within apostolic churches?
3. Since there is no list in the Bible about which books are canonical, how do you determine what is and is not Scripture? Why did Martin Luther want to remove certain books from the Bible if Scripture is infallible? You must already presuppose the truth of the manmade doctrine of which books are divinely inspired and which are not, thus refuting Sola Scriptura.
4. Why do you place your own interpretation of Scripture over anyone else's interpretation of Scripture? If we both read the same verse and come to different conclusions, how can you determine which interpretation is true and which is false? Doesn't this also disprove the idea that Scripture alone is sufficient and clear for learning the faith?
4.) Ans. we don't and we shouldn't (by "we" it does not mean we are Protestants. not all non-Catholics are Protestants), we read the Bible and understand *OBJECTIVELY* *exactly* *as* *what* *it* *says* in harmony with some other Scriptures (Scriptures with Scriptures)
1.) Ans. So is Trinity but that doesn't mean it's invalid
2.) Ans Sola Scriptura is not invented by Luther it is probably popularized by him but is taught throughout the Bible in fact it is so important that we should meditate on it day on night (Joshua 1:8) and in Proverbs 3:3-4 Let not mercy and truth forsake thee: bind them about thy neck; WRITE them upon the table of thine heart:" "So shalt thou find favor and good understanding in the sight of God and man. This too is our generation.
Psalms 119:11 - Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.
2 Timothy 2:15 - Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
1 Peter 3:15 - But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and [be] ready always to [give] an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
asking for God's guidance in reading it ; Psalms 119:18 - Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law.
Proverbs 3:1-2
1 My son, forget not my law; but let thine heart keep my commandments:
2 For length of days, and long life, and peace, shall they add to thee.
It is the twoedged sword of God and God only holds one sword but is has two edges!; Hebrews 4:12 - For the word of God [is] quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
@keithjohnson6722 *Bible and real history did not say "Roman religion = the original Church of Christ or the Universal Church". Please prove this self claim before making more self claims based on this.*
*Anything contrary to God's Words should be "bashed". What do you think?*
you said
The Reformation did not reform the Catholic Church. The Reformers left the original Church of Christ and began another church. Yes, you are a Catholic basher, and you do not speak the truth.
John 21: 25 There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.
Volleyball Videos He evidently didn’t think everything had to be included in His Word, but what He gave us is sufficient.
@@bellalugosi5853 I agree that not all things need to be written. My reason for posting this is to show there were more things to understand about Jesus and salvation than what's in the Bible. Luckily, Jesus also also gave us a church, which later determined which scriptures were inspired and which were not. Heard of the Gnostic gospels? How would anyone know they were not the inspired word of God without the authority of the church?
Catholics use that verse to refute that verse which is honestly hilarious to use
if you would encounter one give them Deuteronomy 29:29
@@jehielmutia1744 You are referring to this verse? "The hidden things belong to the LORD our God, but the revealed things are for us and for our children forever, to observe all the words of this law." Can you explain the connection?
@@volleyballvideos6426 well, John 21:25 says not all things about Jesus' biography are recorded because it can't because again no library can't contain it (you see, Jesus teenage life is not written up to age 30) and not just Jesus' life and works anything that God did not record according to Deut. 29:29 says those things belong to Him so we gotta stick to what's revealed
Mike, thank u so much for this teaching. You sure are a bright spot in the face of so much error being taught in these days. God bless.
Does this mean that you accept Ephesians 2:8-9 AND 10 James 2:22-26 That Salvation is by Faith AND Works TOGETHER & NOT by Faith alone AND that you accept John 6:52-60 That the Eucharist is not symbolic but the true presence?
@@Archangelatis
John 6:47-48
47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that *believeth* on me hath everlasting life.
48 I am that bread of life.
in verse 63,
It is the *spirit* that quickeneth; the flesh *profiteth* *nothing:* (only ends up in the toilet) the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
@@jehielmutia1744 John 6:52-60
Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
(Martin Luther believed in the true presence in the Eucharist, then why don't you?)
Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum. Martin Luther believed in the true presence in the Eucharist, then why don't you?
@@Archangelatis
True presence is not the issue the issue is whether it is literal or spiritual/symbolic that Jesus is talking about.
John 6:47-48
47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that *believeth* on me (bread) hath everlasting life.
48 I am that bread of life.
Matthew 4:4
4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
John 6:63
63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
John 6:47
47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath EVERLASTING LIFE.
that verse and verse 35 explains it isn't literal;
John 6:35
35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall NEVER THIRST
Matthew 4:4
4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every *word* that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
John 1:1 In the beginning was the *Word,* and the *Word* was with God, and the *Word* was God.
Conclusion: Jesus was basically saying that if you believe in Him for Salvation that is "eating Him" as the Bread of Life
and "drinking" His blood.
Now, John 6:60 says
Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
--> because normally a human would conclude the claim in John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eats of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. And in John 6:35 "And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst." to be literal right? That's why after murmuring, Jesus immediately
explains clearly what He meant by those claim in v63
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
so common sense would tell you it is spiritual "eating" Him for Salvation because if you interpret that literally, you'll see in 1 Corinthians 10:17 "For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread." that we will be eating each other and if you still insist literally you'll gonna violate the command in all dispensations in the Bible;
Before the law: Genesis 9:4 "But flesh with the life thereof, which is the *blood* thereof, shall ye *not* *eat."
*
During the law: Leviticus 17:11-14 "Leviticus 17:11-14
11 For the life of the flesh is in the *blood:* and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the *blood* that maketh an atonement for the soul.
12 Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, *No* *soul* of you shall *eat* *blood,* *neither* shall any stranger that sojourneth among you *eat* *blood.
*
13 And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, which hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust.
14 For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off."
After the law: Acts 15:20
"20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood."
And look at Hebrews 10:10-12,14,18
10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin."(which confirms the Lord's supper is only symbolic)
...and the heck I care about Martin Luther. He isn't the Messiah and we Baptists did not come from him the Protestants. We weren't Reformers FYI. *Not* *all* *non-Catholic* *Christian* *denominations* *are* *Protestants*
@@jehielmutia1744 John 6:30 begins a colloquy that took place in the synagogue at Capernaum. The Jews asked Jesus what sign he could perform so that they might believe in him. As a challenge, they noted that “our ancestors ate manna in the desert.” Could Jesus top that? He told them the real bread from heaven comes from the Father. “Give us this bread always,” they said. Jesus replied, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst.” At this point the Jews understood him to be speaking metaphorically.
Again and Again
Jesus first repeated what he said, then summarized: “‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’” (John 6:51-52).
His listeners were stupefied because now they understood Jesus literally-and correctly. He again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis, and introduced the statement about drinking his blood: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him” (John 6:53-56).
No Corrections
Notice that Jesus made no attempt to soften what he said, no attempt to correct “misunderstandings,” for there were none. Our Lord’s listeners understood him perfectly well. They no longer thought he was speaking metaphorically.
In John 6:60 we read: “Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’” (It is here, in the rejection of the Eucharist, that Judas fell away; look at John 6:64.) “After this, many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him” (John 6:66).
This is the only record we have of any of Christ’s followers forsaking him for purely doctrinal reasons. If they erred in taking a metaphor in a literal sense, why didn’t he call them back and straighten things out? Both the Jews, who were suspicious of him, and his disciples, who had accepted everything up to this point, would have remained with him had he said he was speaking only symbolically.
But he did not correct these protesters. Twelve times he said he was the bread that came down from heaven; four times he said they would have “to eat my flesh and drink my blood.” John 6 was an extended promise of what would be instituted at the Last Supper-and it was a promise that could not be more explicit. Or so it would seem to a Catholic. But what do Fundamentalists say?
Merely Figurative?
They say that in John 6 Jesus was not talking about physical food and drink, but about spiritual food and drink. They quote John 6:35: “Jesus said to them, ‘I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.’” They claim that coming to him is bread, having faith in him is drink. Thus, eating his flesh and blood merely means believing in Christ.
But there is a problem with that interpretation. As Fr. John A. O’Brien explains, “The phrase ‘to eat the flesh and drink the blood,’ when used figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon a person some serious injury, especially by calumny or by false accusation. To interpret the phrase figuratively then would be to make our Lord promise life everlasting to the culprit for slandering and hating him, which would reduce the whole passage to utter nonsense” (O’Brien, The Faith of Millions, 215). For an example of this use, see Micah 3:3.
Fundamentalist writers who comment on John 6 also assert that one can show Christ was speaking only metaphorically by comparing verses like John 10:9 (“I am the door”) and John 15:1 (“I am the true vine”). The problem is that there is not a connection to John 6:35, “I am the bread of life.” “I am the door” and “I am the vine” make sense as metaphors because Christ is like a door-we go to heaven through him-and he is also like a vine-we get our spiritual sap through him. But Christ takes John 6:35 far beyond symbolism by saying, “For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed” (John 6:55).
He continues: “As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me” (John 6:57). The Greek word used for “eats” (trogon) is very blunt and has the sense of “chewing” or “gnawing.” This is not the language of metaphor.
Their Main Argument
For Fundamentalist writers, the scriptural argument is capped by an appeal to John 6:63: “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” They say this means that eating real flesh is a waste. But does this make sense?
Are we to understand that Christ had just commanded his disciples to eat his flesh, then said their doing so would be pointless? Is that what “the flesh is of no avail” means? “Eat my flesh, but you’ll find it’s a waste of time”-is that what he was saying? Hardly.
The fact is that Christ’s flesh avails much! If it profits us nothing, so that the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ are of no avail, then “your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished” (1 Cor. 15:17b-18).
In John 6:63 “flesh profits nothing” refers to mankind’s inclination to think using only what their natural human reason would tell them rather than what God would tell them. Thus in John 8:15-16 Jesus tells his opponents: “You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone that judge, but I and he who sent me.” So natural human judgment, unaided by God’s grace, is unreliable; but God’s judgment is always true.
Also in John 6:63, “The words I have spoken to you are spirit” does not mean “What I have just said is symbolic.” The word “spirit” is never used that way in the Bible. The line means that what Christ has said will be understood only through faith; only by the power of the Spirit and the drawing of the Father (cf. John 6:37, 44-45, 65).
Paul Confirms This
Paul wrote to the Corinthians: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” (1 Cor. 10:16). So when we receive Communion, we actually participate in the body and blood of Christ, not just eat symbols of them. Paul also said, “Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). “To answer for the body and blood” of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine “unworthily” be so serious? Paul’s comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ.
What Did the First Christians Say?
Anti-Catholics also claim the early Church took this chapter symbolically. Is that so? Let’s see what some early Christians thought, keeping in mind that we can learn much about how Scripture should be interpreted by examining the writings of early Christians.
Ignatius of Antioch, who had been a disciple of the apostle John and who wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans about A.D. 110, said, referring to “those who hold heterodox opinions,” that “they abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again” (6:2, 7:1).
Forty years later, Justin Martyr, wrote, “Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, . . . is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66:1-20).
Unanimous Testimony
Whatever else might be said, the early Church took John 6 literally. In fact, there is no record from the early centuries in which the literal interpretation is opposed and only the metaphorical accepted.
I'm a Protestant who is considering converting to Catholicism because Sola Scriptura doesn't make sense to me anymore. Protestants don't have answers to a lot of questions. Everyone is supposedly going by the Bible but then everyone ends up getting a different interpretation. So it's all just based off of everyone's opinion and their own interpretation of scripture but why should I listen to your interpretation of scripture when I can go look at how the early church fathers interpreted scripture to be. Why would any one of us think we somehow have a better knowledge or interpretation of scripture than the men who were either disciples of the apostles or disciples of disciples of the apostles? What about new developments and things that are not specifically mentioned in the Bible like euthanasia, human cloning, birth control, oral sex, IVF, artificial intelligence ect? Protestants just keep quiet about these things or if they try to answer their answers aren't any good and just opinion based. Only the Catholic church was able to provide me with any good theological sound arguments for these type of questions.
By Protestant do you mean those who have confessions, cathecisms, and creeds of faith?
I would probably be Catholic, if they didn't change the original creed. Look at John 15:26 “But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me."
They stated the Holy Spirit comes from the Father and Son, therefore reducing the importance of the Holy Spirit, which is God Himself.
The great schism of 1054...
@@mariogagliardi8491you just don't know the real Gospel because if you did you would never stoop to being a Catholic..... EVER
But the Catholic dogmas are also based on everyone's interpretation too, but everyone in this case are the selected ones.
Converting in a Catholic just means subjecting yourself to others opinions.
I am not saying Catholicism is wrong because of it though, since I have common sense reasons to reject it.
Go Catholic because Jesus started the Catholic church.
@Patrick Steil *This is of course contrary to truth. 95% of Roman ct doctirnes did not come from Jesus, APostles or Scriptures. So it is 95% errors. Not protecting from errors. But full of errors.*
you said
Roman Catholic Church is at least honest about this and has done so much to help protect us from error and changing our doctrines from one generation to the next.
Some problems with Sola Scriptura (SS) Arguments.
Mike wants to tell us what the body of Christ is, and yet Mike doesn't have any authority to bind anyone to his private understanding of what the church is. Mike doesn't believe in the Papacy or the bishops of the catholic church, which have an immense amount of historical evidence. So Mikes only reference point is his understanding private understanding of some texts.
Mike assumes when God speaks the words spoken have authority as found in the scriptures. And yet the scriptures cannot be known as authored by God from the text alone. Such a truth can only be determined through reference t tradition and the authority of the church to decide. Mike cannot build a water tight case for the canon of scripture.
Mike doesn't know of any equal authority in the scriptures and yet the church has the authority to bind and loose as exercised at the Jerusalem council (Acts 15).
Jesus affirms the authority of Moses seat in Matt 23:1-3, contrary to Mikes claim of Jesus not referring to any tradition not in the OT.
Mike refers to preaching having authority, which contradicts his prior claim of Jesus using no other authority other than the OT.
Mike refers to Jude 3 to make a case for sola scriptora, and yet at the time of writing Jude 3, the gospel was preached orally along with some NT texts, for the canon had not been formed until the 4th C. Mikes argument must exclude the value of oral preaching and the authority of the church to act without a canon.
Mike claims Gal 1 can be used to remove any reference to authorities other than scripture. But Gal 1 itself refers to preaching as an oral tradition and St Paul as an apostle of the church which have authority regarding the gospel. Mikes argument is very truncated to avoid the implied authority in Gal 1. Mike tries to make a wedge between the gospel and the authority of the apostles and the successors to the apostles. But St Paul is not arguing against the authority of the apostles, nor making a reference to any successors in Gal 1. Mike must project his own faulty reasoning into the text of Gal 1 to make a false cause against any authority outside the text of scripture which did not exist at the time Paul wrote any of his letters.
Bodily Assumption of Mary is probably not directly in the text of the NT simply because Mary had not yet been assumed into heaven. Alternatively typology may be used along with the church's authority to ind and loose to define the dogma of the bodily assumption.
Mike rejects the chair of Peter because he finds a parallel with the chair of Moses and Jesus rejection of oral traditions. But Mike fails to acknowledge the chair of Moses had real authority and the gospel is itself an oral tradition. Mike must reject both to subscribe to SS. Mikes parallel also fails because Mike must understand Jesus condemnations of tradition as condemning all oral traditions of the scribes and Pharisees, when in fact Jesus does not do so.
Pastor Mike you are the best 👌in teaching the Bible📖thank🙏 God ✝️for the wisdom He gave you, it's a great blessing to the body of Christ 🫂and to people at large people👨👩👧👦🙏🙏
Sola scriptora (SS) is not in the bible, so SS is not from God.
Infant baptism is not clear in scripture yet Mike takes a position on it contrary to his advice to ot take a position.
Faith in Christ as an instrument is a Reformed tradition without any merit in scripture.
What is not inspired and what is inspired? Good question. Mike doesn't have a compelling answer.
Tradition before scripture - why aren't those traditions written down? Answer - because there are oral traditions not written down. SS was unknown in OT Israel and the NT church until the reformers invented the doctrine.
Mike opposes Catholic traditions which developed over centuries, but also holds to penal substitution which is a theory developed over time from the 16th century. Mike ignores one tradition and embraces another tradition.
@truthsayer6414 *Contrary to the propaganda of Roman religion, Christian Churches actually share the same 90% Core Doctrines. Not different as you claimed. Two or more Scriptures saying the same teachings proves a doctrine. Not "according to own theology". Scriptures is the final authority. Not you. Not Roman religion.*
you said
you finished up with 20,000 competing denominations with all and sundry trying to interpret it according to their own theology.
Awesome video 👌 and great and scary point in the end...the Bible is the authority and it is our responsibility!
@Dominus Vobiscum :
Catholic theologians, in the fourth century.
The Bible isn’t the authority, the Catholic Church is. Where in the Bible does it say the Bible is the authority?
I used to be Roman Catholic and now that I am out I see the church as being in place of Jesus. The Pope is called the vicar of Christ within the church. Even when I was a Catholic, I didn't believe in the Marian Dogmas nor prayed to the saints, I only went to confession twice and one was forced by catechism class. The only thing I liked about being a Catholic was the charismatic movement which catapulted me out of the church. I don't think that all Roman Cathoiics are blinded by the traditions of the church, I've seen those who are not and they are usually those who are in the charismatic part. I think they don't leave because of their love for Mary. I'm getting my parents out of the church, I've got my mom but my dad is stubborn. When I left the RCC I felt like I stepped into freedom and outside of fear and control. The fear about sin, venial and mortal, the confession, the fear about being judged for not praying the Hail Mary/rosary, praying in front of statues (not to the statues), having unanswerable questions and being labeled as an unbeliever and the like. I shed all that and more when I came into Christianity; and the funny thing, not really funny, is that when I was an RC, I considered myself a Christian, I carried my bible (I was asked why I carry it; I asked "why aren't you?") but now that I am out, I ask them if they consider themselves Christian and they say "no", the smart ones will know that I mean if they believe in Christ, the central figure the priests talk about every Sunday, but that's very few.
Roman Catholics are Christian. Christians with the wrong extra add ons admittedly, but Catholics believe that Jesus died on the cross for the forgiveness of our sins, and that he rose again and is seated at the right hand of the father. It is the true meaning of grace that Catholics aren't thought properly about.
@4u soul who's the other co-redeemer that Catholics are meant to believe in???
@4u soul I was raised Catholic and I was never thought or believed that Mary or the saints could save, only Jesus, I think the saints and Mary are used to ask favours of, but I do agree with you that the only way to God is through Christ and the only reason that I would try defend my Catholic background and heritage is that it gave me my foundation in faith and led me to being saved. I think the Catholic church should definitely focus more on teaching the way to salvation and less focused on promoting prayers to Mary and the saints, both of which I no longer do. It is easier to dismiss and reject Catholicism when you haven't been raised Catholic and have never identified as Catholic and have no shared family connection in it. I still believe that the holy spirit is alive in the Catholic church because there is where I first encountered him. I can't explain that to you, only that the teaching of salvation that I received touched me while I was part of the Catholic church.
@4u soul thank you, I defiantly will. When the truth is revealed it is impossible to turn back.
@FaithHopeGrace all I can say is our Lord and saviour can save anyone in any church if he so chooses, it is he who brings the true truth alive in a person, he reveals the truth, Jesus gave his life for the forgiveness of our sins so that we can be made clean by the shedding of his blood, he rose again and is seated at the right hand of our father God, we have eternal life with him when we pass from this life. Many born again Christians think its themselves who save, it is not, they may plant the seed and another will water it, but it is Jesus who saves and many Catholics are saved, I agree that every Catholic is mislead because we are thought to pray to Mary and many actually worship her as the mother of God who can intercede for us, that probably comes from when Mary asked Jesus to do his first miracle, turning the water into wine, so they think she can get things done. Jesus meets us where we are at and will reveal himself to us in his own timing, don't be dismissive of Catholics, have faith that they too will be saved and pray for that.
Pastor Mike Winger, you speak as though you had more infallible authority and knowledge than the Roman Catholic Church of 2000 years. Well, then, can you answer this question: Did Jesus believe in sola scriptura and teach it to his disciples? You may take your time to answer. But in the meantime, let me enlighten your audience.
It is very interesting and enlightening to see that Jesus never believed nor taught the doctrine of sola scriptura. As we all know Jesus had access to the Old Testament which he read and quoted from it whenever he preached. If he believed in the false doctrine of sola scriptura, what should he have done or abstained from doing? He should have believed that the Old Testament was the sole infallible rule of faith for salvation and that it was sufficient for all purposes; and so he would not have preached anything new apart from what was in that scripture of the Jews. At the most it would have been enough for him to explain the Old Testament to people at length just as he did with his disciples and as he did on the way to Emmaus. There would have been no need for him to reveal any new divine truths concerning God’s kingdom or salvation. But what did Jesus actually do? Fortunately for us, not being a Protestant, he was not led astray by the likes of Mike Winger and did not believe in sola scriptura. Instead while accepting the Old Testament as God’s Word he also preached his Gospel because he knew that the former was not the sole rule of faith and sufficient for salvation. In fact, had he believed in sola scriptura, his life and ministry would have been utterly futile and meaningless.
If Jesus did not believe in sola scriptura, do we need to believe in it? NO. Just as Jesus did not believe in this false doctrine, his Apostles and disciples also did not believe in it. Neither did the Old Testament prophets who waited for the Messiah’s new teachings.
Moreover, the Bible itself, particularly the New Testament, establishes that the doctrine of sola scriptura is false and untenable. For example, take these passages from 2 Tim 1:13-14; 2:2; and 3:10, 14: they very clearly demonstrate that Apostolic traditions are also an important rule of faith. There are similar passages in the Bible that show that scripture alone is not the only rule of faith - traditions are also. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 shows that scripture also is an important rule of faith. Taken together, the Bible teaches that both scripture and traditions of the Church including its teaching office are equally valid and infallible rules of faith.
The Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 also makes his take pretty ridiculous. There was no biblical authority even posited there when they made their decisions.
@@thesiriproject3840 Thank you.
@@albertdevasahayam6781 Biblical tradition must draw its sources from scripture with clear indication of that source. Within the non catholic churches , there are still positions of authority that discuss and debate scripture. Protestants and other non catholics dont simply make things up as they go along but use scripture to draw conclusions instead of how others may twist scripture to fit a narrative. Such as Mary veneration and essentially worship. There is no indication that Mary is to be venerated or worship, neither an intermediary for prayers. Yet somehow, scripture is twisted and traditions are read into scripture instead of scripture dictating tradition. Cause then youll have traditions superceding gods word which is a no no. Cause at the end of the day, all non catholic protestant based church members can visit eachothers churches with no real issue of understanding services and sound doctrines found in scripture. While catholics, orthodox, eastern orthodox etc cant visit eachothers churches really.
There are bishops and deacons in protestant churches and there is church order. Sola scriptora allows biblical literacy for the average person. How can one test things if its not known ? How can one test teachings of authority in fear of excommunication? Though excommunication is biblical, questioning traditions or teachings is allowed and ive seen individuals almost kicked out of their churches fror having legitimate questions.
1 Thessalonians 5:21, NLT: "but test everything that is said. Hold on to what is good
@@SimpleMinded221 Which one came first? Scripture (New Testament) or Church and Traditions?
@@thesiriproject3840 For sure. I know truth can be illusive but I cannot understand why this truth is overlooked. It's in plain sight.
The ONLY reference made to circumcision from Sola Scriptura people are quotes from Paul's letters where he rebukes Peter. Head scratching for sure.
@truthsayer6414 *Jesus asked Apostle John to take care of Mary. RCs take that and pretended Jesus asked RCs to make statues for Mary and bow down to all the statues. Then claim Mary = momma of all RCs. Lol. Does not sound logical.* 😅😅😅
you said
Jesus in his dying breath said "behold YOUR mother".
Mike claims bringing in traditions don't work. But Mikes beliefs about scripture, the text as scripture and his position on tradition are really only his own private traditions he believes in himself.
Some traditions Mike believes in, are as follows -
1) All of the five solas of the reformation are oral traditions invented by the reformers.
2) The arguments for the canon without an external authority of the church to bind and loose is an invented oral tradition from the reformation.
3) The split between the gospel and tradition as recorded by the church fathers and church councils is a reformation oral tradition.
4) The negation of the Catholic priesthood is a reformation oral tradition.
5) The negation of the historically well recorded catholic papacy is a reformation oral tradition.
6) The general claims of Protestants that "we cannot see any evidence for that belief in the scriptures" is a negative reformation oral tradition. Or again, the belief in universal negations regarding Catholic doctrines Protestants disagree with is an oral tradition.
7) Mikes own beliefs about other Protestant denominations he disagrees with are oral traditions he or they hold to. Mike doesn't hold to Calvinism for example, so according to Mike the Calvinist sola scriptorists hold to traditions he doesn't believe in and they don't believe in his traditions either.
The ongoing disagreements within Protestantism is itself an ongoing oral tradition all sides participate in and to some extent believe in within their own system.
8) Penal substitution is a theory invented (supposedly developed) by the Reformers which has both logical problems, historical problems, and authority problems. Apparently a central doctrine of the gospel is really only a theory that did not exist as a developed theory until the 16th century. Whilst Protestants such as Mike also hold to the gospel delivered 1600 years earlier, once for all to the saints in Jude 3. So according to Mike's sola scriptora, the gospel of penal substitution was clearly taught in scripture, but unknown to the church until the 16th C, and now must be believed, even though the theory is not clearly in the scriptures and not clearly held by anyone in church history, nor taught in any church council.
This is one convoluted oral tradition Mike believes in from the reformation and his own reasoning. And its an oral tradition Mike cannot defend because nobody can defend a legal fiction of the double exchange within the penal substitution theory. Not even William Lane Craig can defend the legal fictions involved in penal substitution.
So when Mike opposes Catholic tradition, Mike also holds to his own traditions which did not exist in church history prior to the reformation and have virtually no explicit or implicit evidence for in the scriptures. Even Mikes arguments from scripture against Catholic tradition, are in fact Mikes own oral tradition he invented as part of his own faith system.
Mike denies Catholic tradition, but then embraces his own version of private, subjectively derived tradition.
The "historically well recorded Catholic Papacy" has a very well historically recorded dissent from all of the rest of the patriarchates. Not saying one's right or the other, just that the Catholics aren't the only ones with history on their side. It's easy to see Catholic vs Protestant and forget there are three other historical traditions.
This video is silly at best.