Roman apologists can argue against sola scriptura until they are blue in the face, but it won't stop the avalanche of people who are leaving the RCC in favor of churches who teach the pure and simple truths of the Bible. I attend a reformed church and a majority of the attendees are hispanic former Catholics, along with a Spanish-speaking ministry that reaches out to the large hispanic population in our area. Our church's membership is exploding. My wife and her entire family are former Catholics as well, and have never looked back to its empty traditionalism.
Any chance we can see a friendly debate between Anthony rogers and Tony Costa on the Sabbath? I know they hold different positions on this …I think Anthony is sabbath continues to bind on Christian’s on Sunday and Tony’s position is not binding …
Never heard of the hottentot Indians before, @anthoy..but I am sure a decedent of the hottentot Africans. Praise God, the gospel reached our ears too!!
Anthony Riogers aka Reverend Rumplestilksskin.😅 What a beard. 😂. I do not know anyone who is better prepared to present a particular doctrine than Brother and Apostle Anthony Rogers. The man is a walking encyclopedia of knowledge. If I had to pick one solid Christian man and send him to Worms to defend the gospel today, Apostle Anthony is my choice, hands down. It never ceases to impress me how much knowledge he has. His ability to articulate it is unsurpassed.
Funny you should say that. I've been reading the writings of the early church for a while, now, and I'm no closer to joining the RCC. In fact, I'm more convinced they've fallen away than ever.
@@midnighthymn Thanks for the question. There are few ways to put it, here is one way If Protestantism were true there would be a unanimity as it relates to core beliefs There isn't unanimity as it relates to core beliefs Therefore Protestantism is False And here we should point out atheist use a similar argument IF Christianity were true there would not be other religious views There are other religious views Therefore Christianity is not true. Unanimity is not the same thing as truth. You could have diverse opinions about what the truth is but that is different from the truth or a correct interpretation of the truth. Hope that was clear.
@@midnighthymn Not sure if my previous reply showed up, youtube is being gltchy for me. I pointed out in his recent debate with Gavin Ortlund on Sola Scriptura he argues as much, though not formally, but implicitly in his rebuttal time. On the Pints with Aquintas page I posted (timestamps) where he argues as if Protestants need unanimity related to core beliefs.
It is not just their audacity in claiming what they claim, but the hostility in the manner they argue for it. They seem to always give off those vibes that make my spidey senses tingle. It was sola scriptura when Jesus kicked the devil's butt in the wilderness, it was sola scriptura when I was born again. No institutions were involved.
In 1:20:11, Anthony mentioned that the Apostles in Acts 15 appealing to Scripture to settle the matter...could you point which verse to this effect ????? Any body ??? God bless
In Acts 15:15-18, James quotes from Amos 9:11-12. Verse 19 then begins with "Therefore my judgment is" the "therefore" following the quoting of Amos as scripture. He also referred to Peter's experience among the Gentiles as support for his judgment, but he makes a point of saying that "the words of the prophets agree" with what Peter had said.
Question I had when we say that a Coptic Christian who does not believe in justification by faith alone which is nothing but the gospel …. And then dies as a martyr like he gets beheaded by isis or someone ….do we regard him as believer with errant theology or as an unbeliever who died for Christ … especially if he is a part of a church that does not teach the true gospel
I think my response would be the same as what I would say with Catholics - connecting to Curtis's comment - If there are any Coptics saved they are saved in spite of bad theology. They certainly aren't saved by martyrdom for that would be a denial of justification as well. We must trust that God will judge with equity and true justice keeping in mind that all of us have received the death penalty for our sin and can not generally choose the means by which we depart this world. As a side note I think a similar question could be asked about JWs holocausted in WW2 and I'm more inclined to say that their beliefs would be vain.
How does Scripture self-authenticate but on criteria which can only be described as gnostic? The only criterion by which a writing can without anomaly and circularity be certified as divine Scripture is that all the churches generally accept it to be read in the course of public worship. The NT does not quote from Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon. So, by what authority do we receive these as Scripture? Jesus cited and thereby authenticated 24 books of the OT. Peter on apostolic authority authenticated the writings of Paul. Paul authenticated the Gospel according to Luke.
We accept those OT books because they were the scriptures as given to the Jews. We know what the canon of scripture was for Jews, and Paul's letter to the Romans refers to the entirety of that as the words of God. "The Jews were entrusted with the very/actual words of God." Many translations say oracles of God, and some say "whole revelation." The NT is all books and collections of letters written by apostles or close associates of apostles recording their teachings; we can also verify that historically. However, that's not really the point. The point is that God having spoken makes it scripture, whether we recognize it or not. The church recognizing scripture did not imbue it with meaning or significance, and to claim otherwise is tremendously arrogant on their part. The words already had meaning for them to recognize.
This is how Catholic Church views the Scripture, Dei verbum ex Vatican II ; Article "10. Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort. (7) But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, (8) has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, (9) whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed. It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God's most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls. This is pretty much in line with the Early Church Father, St Irenaeus, Book IV, 26.5. When you'll want to discuss about the teaching of Roman Church, please be honest ! Doesn't Jesus teach us to be honest ???? You can hate the RCC, but AT LEAST PLEASE BE HONEST !!! God bless
There was nothing dishonest about this video. They put all the references and information on the screen for you to read. You can look up everything they said. This is more than just a discussion about the official RCC teaching. It's also about the way Catholics treat scripture as a result. The official teaching/wording is not always the effect on the ground. And even if it were, they also refute the idea put forward in this post. The idea that the task of "authentically interpreting the word of God" was "entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the church" is something you don't just get to claim. You have to demonstrate it. For protestants, you'd have to prove it from scripture. The RCC cannot do so and has never been able to. It always, always comes down to "trust us because we're the church" which they have also not been able to demonstrate. It's a difference in where authority is placed. Protestants believe God and God's spoken word in the scriptures have authority. Catholics believe the church has authority. Jesus pretty clearly stands on one side of that argument, and it isn't with the RCC.
“Scripture is clear on the fundamentals of salvation”… except for whether baptism saves, whether your kids need to be baptized for salvation, whether you can lose your salvation, what all must be believed for salvation, etc. If these things were clearly taught then scholars would agree on these important interpretations but they certainly don’t. So the only way to say they are clearly taught is to say that people with your interpretation are the only ones reading honestly.
If a blind man can’t see, or if a bleary-eyed man has trouble seeing, is it because there is something wrong with the sun? I sincerely suggest laying the blame on men rather than God and His Word. Judgment day will go a lot better.
@@Ousias1again you’re just saying that everyone else is blurry eyed except those who agree with your interpretation. But if you were wrong you wouldn’t know it any more than those who you now think are blurry eyed. I’m criticizing your reasoning. Not God’s word.
@@Ousias1saying that scripture isn’t self-authenticating isn’t saying that it’s lacking in some way. It seems like you’re dodging his argument by accusing him of criticizing Scripture.
Anthony Riogers aka Reverend Rumplestilksskin.😅 What a beard. 😂. I do not know anyone who is better prepared to present a particular doctrine than Brother and Apostle Anthony Rogers. The man is a walking encyclopedia of knowledge. If I had to pick one solid Christian man and send him to Worms to defend the gospel today, Apostle Anthony is my choice, hands down. It never ceases to impress me how much knowledge he has. His ability to articulate it is unsurpassed.
Roman apologists can argue against sola scriptura until they are blue in the face, but it won't stop the avalanche of people who are leaving the RCC in favor of churches who teach the pure and simple truths of the Bible. I attend a reformed church and a majority of the attendees are hispanic former Catholics, along with a Spanish-speaking ministry that reaches out to the large hispanic population in our area. Our church's membership is exploding. My wife and her entire family are former Catholics as well, and have never looked back to its empty traditionalism.
Looking forward, brothers!
Any chance we can see a friendly debate between Anthony rogers and Tony Costa on the Sabbath? I know they hold different positions on this …I think Anthony is sabbath continues to bind on Christian’s on Sunday and Tony’s position is not binding …
Never heard of the hottentot Indians before, @anthoy..but I am sure a decedent of the hottentot Africans. Praise God, the gospel reached our ears too!!
Anthony *
A VERY much needed presentation. Superb work gentlemen - be blessed :-) !
Thank you both
Thank you gents. This is so helpful
Anthony Riogers aka Reverend Rumplestilksskin.😅 What a beard. 😂. I do not know anyone who is better prepared to present a particular doctrine than Brother and Apostle Anthony Rogers. The man is a walking encyclopedia of knowledge. If I had to pick one solid Christian man and send him to Worms to defend the gospel today, Apostle Anthony is my choice, hands down. It never ceases to impress me how much knowledge he has. His ability to articulate it is unsurpassed.
Knowledge and humility.
One of the best
Love your work and your humbleness and wit.
He claims to be humble, yet claims to understand Christianity better than the Church Fathers.
@@fantasia55the fathers did that to one another all the time. They weren’t united on everything.
@@jermoosekek1101 true, but on the essentials of Catholicism, such as the Mass and the papacy, absolutely
@@fantasia55that’s a pretty powerful claim, are you sure no one would have a different view of the Eucharist and ecclesiastical structure?
@@fantasia55 Since he has the knowledge of the church fathers that makes sense.
Excellent video brothers
"The child is not greater than the mother" is an ironic metaphor for a Christian to use.
Could you link sources for the quote in the description?
Thank you! Could you guys also do a video on the view of justification and the church fathers?
Lol you don’t want that unless you’re ready to become Catholic. Don’t look in to baptism, church authority, or Eucharist either.
@@thegoatofyoutube1787he has one on sola fide
Funny you should say that. I've been reading the writings of the early church for a while, now, and I'm no closer to joining the RCC. In fact, I'm more convinced they've fallen away than ever.
It’s funny though I’ve reviewed Horns Unanimity argument against Protestantism and it is straight out of the playbook of atheists.
What’s the Unanimity argument?
@@midnighthymn Thanks for the question.
There are few ways to put it, here is one way
If Protestantism were true there would be a unanimity as it relates to core beliefs
There isn't unanimity as it relates to core beliefs
Therefore Protestantism is False
And here we should point out atheist use a similar argument
IF Christianity were true there would not be other religious views
There are other religious views
Therefore Christianity is not true.
Unanimity is not the same thing as truth. You could have diverse opinions about what the truth is but that is different from the truth or a correct interpretation of the truth. Hope that was clear.
@@Repentee Is that really one of his arguments? If so that’s extremely sloppy just from a philosophical standpoint.
@@midnighthymn Not sure if my previous reply showed up, youtube is being gltchy for me. I pointed out in his recent debate with Gavin Ortlund on Sola Scriptura he argues as much, though not formally, but implicitly in his rebuttal time.
On the Pints with Aquintas page I posted (timestamps) where he argues as if Protestants need unanimity related to core beliefs.
@@Repentee Awesome. Thanks man. It’s encouraging to see a Protestant being willing to push back.
It is not just their audacity in claiming what they claim,
but the hostility in the manner they argue for it.
They seem to always give off those vibes that make my spidey senses tingle.
It was sola scriptura
when Jesus kicked the devil's butt in the wilderness,
it was sola scriptura
when I was born again.
No institutions were involved.
Born again means baptized with water (and spirit). 💦
Jesus Christ is God our Lord and Savior 🙏✝️🕊
In 1:20:11, Anthony mentioned that the Apostles in Acts 15 appealing to Scripture to settle the matter...could you point which verse to this effect ????? Any body ??? God bless
In Acts 15:15-18, James quotes from Amos 9:11-12. Verse 19 then begins with "Therefore my judgment is" the "therefore" following the quoting of Amos as scripture. He also referred to Peter's experience among the Gentiles as support for his judgment, but he makes a point of saying that "the words of the prophets agree" with what Peter had said.
All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them Canonical. 39 Articles uf Religion
📖❤️✝️❤️
I'm grateful for this material, can you bros recommend any good literature on the topic.
Yeah, but which books comprise scripture? And how exactly is this self-compiling?
Question I had when we say that a Coptic Christian who does not believe in justification by faith alone which is nothing but the gospel …. And then dies as a martyr like he gets beheaded by isis or someone ….do we regard him as believer with errant theology or as an unbeliever who died for Christ … especially if he is a part of a church that does not teach the true gospel
I think my response would be the same as what I would say with Catholics - connecting to Curtis's comment - If there are any Coptics saved they are saved in spite of bad theology. They certainly aren't saved by martyrdom for that would be a denial of justification as well. We must trust that God will judge with equity and true justice keeping in mind that all of us have received the death penalty for our sin and can not generally choose the means by which we depart this world.
As a side note I think a similar question could be asked about JWs holocausted in WW2 and I'm more inclined to say that their beliefs would be vain.
Anthony, in this video I have become convinced of Presuppositionalism. Is there any books that I should read to help in this? Thanks
Always Ready - Greg Bahnsen
The Defense of the Faith - Cornelius VanTil
Bahnsen was a student of VanTil.
@@theinfiniteawe Thank you so much.
Tonyg2829. Deleted his comments… hahaha😂😂😂😂😂
33:00
How does Scripture self-authenticate but on criteria which can only be described as gnostic?
The only criterion by which a writing can without anomaly and circularity be certified as divine Scripture is that all the churches generally accept it to be read in the course of public worship.
The NT does not quote from Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon. So, by what authority do we receive these as Scripture?
Jesus cited and thereby authenticated 24 books of the OT. Peter on apostolic authority authenticated the writings of Paul. Paul authenticated the Gospel according to Luke.
We accept those OT books because they were the scriptures as given to the Jews. We know what the canon of scripture was for Jews, and Paul's letter to the Romans refers to the entirety of that as the words of God. "The Jews were entrusted with the very/actual words of God." Many translations say oracles of God, and some say "whole revelation." The NT is all books and collections of letters written by apostles or close associates of apostles recording their teachings; we can also verify that historically. However, that's not really the point. The point is that God having spoken makes it scripture, whether we recognize it or not. The church recognizing scripture did not imbue it with meaning or significance, and to claim otherwise is tremendously arrogant on their part. The words already had meaning for them to recognize.
This is how Catholic Church views the Scripture, Dei verbum ex Vatican II ;
Article "10. Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort. (7)
But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, (8) has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, (9) whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.
It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God's most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.
This is pretty much in line with the Early Church Father, St Irenaeus, Book IV, 26.5.
When you'll want to discuss about the teaching of Roman Church, please be honest ! Doesn't Jesus teach us to be honest ???? You can hate the RCC, but AT LEAST PLEASE BE HONEST !!!
God bless
I agree..... these people don't seem to.. honest? Idk though. I'm assuming.
There was nothing dishonest about this video. They put all the references and information on the screen for you to read. You can look up everything they said. This is more than just a discussion about the official RCC teaching. It's also about the way Catholics treat scripture as a result. The official teaching/wording is not always the effect on the ground. And even if it were, they also refute the idea put forward in this post. The idea that the task of "authentically interpreting the word of God" was "entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the church" is something you don't just get to claim. You have to demonstrate it. For protestants, you'd have to prove it from scripture. The RCC cannot do so and has never been able to. It always, always comes down to "trust us because we're the church" which they have also not been able to demonstrate. It's a difference in where authority is placed. Protestants believe God and God's spoken word in the scriptures have authority. Catholics believe the church has authority. Jesus pretty clearly stands on one side of that argument, and it isn't with the RCC.
Also Jeffrey Epstein and John McAfee didn't kill themselves
“Scripture is clear on the fundamentals of salvation”… except for whether baptism saves, whether your kids need to be baptized for salvation, whether you can lose your salvation, what all must be believed for salvation, etc.
If these things were clearly taught then scholars would agree on these important interpretations but they certainly don’t. So the only way to say they are clearly taught is to say that people with your interpretation are the only ones reading honestly.
If a blind man can’t see, or if a bleary-eyed man has trouble seeing, is it because there is something wrong with the sun?
I sincerely suggest laying the blame on men rather than God and His Word. Judgment day will go a lot better.
@@Ousias1again you’re just saying that everyone else is blurry eyed except those who agree with your interpretation. But if you were wrong you wouldn’t know it any more than those who you now think are blurry eyed.
I’m criticizing your reasoning. Not God’s word.
@stevenhazel4445 No, you are laying the blame on the word. “Scripture is clear…EXCEPT”. Repentance rather than denial is always the right course.
@@Ousias1saying that scripture isn’t self-authenticating isn’t saying that it’s lacking in some way.
It seems like you’re dodging his argument by accusing him of criticizing Scripture.
I criticized what he said. He didn’t say anything about self-authentication.
Please make your argument pretending you were born and lived in Hawaii in the year 900 AD. Thank you.
Anthony Riogers aka Reverend Rumplestilksskin.😅 What a beard. 😂. I do not know anyone who is better prepared to present a particular doctrine than Brother and Apostle Anthony Rogers. The man is a walking encyclopedia of knowledge. If I had to pick one solid Christian man and send him to Worms to defend the gospel today, Apostle Anthony is my choice, hands down. It never ceases to impress me how much knowledge he has. His ability to articulate it is unsurpassed.