Heresy? Or Just a Doctrinally Different?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 24 бер 2024
- For more information visit: www.reasonablefaith.org
We welcome your comments in the Reasonable Faith forums:
www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/
Be sure to also visit Reasonable Faith's other channel which contains many full-length videos, debates, and lectures: / reasonablefaithorg
Like the Reasonable Faith Facebook Page: / reasonablefaithorg
Follow Reasonable Faith On Twitter: / rfupdates
Follow Reasonable Faith on Instagram: / reasonablefaithorg
Follow Reasonable Faith on TikTok: www.tiktok.com/@reasonablefai...
I can think of a few people who need to hear this but if I sent it to them they'd just say WLC is a heretic...🙄
He's endorse the heresy of Monotheism. This view was condemned by the Church.
@@calson814monotheism is not a heresy, monothlitism is.
Your like fine wine Dr. Craig . Better with age. Turning water into wine was Jesus's first miracle. God bless
I can hear the Theologians screaming from the top of their Ivory Towers... *FILLIOQUE!!!*
😂😂😂
hahahahaha
The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, I do believe you need to adhere to that if you call yourself a Christian. But in the end Christ said that those who follow his commandments are his brothers, sisters, mother etc., and there's nothing opaque about "love your neighbor as yourself."
Always good to see you around! 👍
1. Why should anyone be obligated to believe in some document made hundreds of years after Christ in very problematic circumstances where most of the attending bishops denied it right after the council? It was basically enforced by caesar Constantine. After all, this document is not scripture.
2. I hope you are aware that this creed was followed by one of the most brutal and bloody conflicts in early Christianity. The circumstances in the fourth century have been almost like civil war. Christians during this period have been known for the hatred against each other. This shows how far these "christians" have already drifted away from the truth. They are definitely no heros, nor are the things which they have produced heroic. The nicean creed is an abomination.
3. I hope you are aware that this creed is basically modalistic to the core? It proposes that god is of a single person (hypostatis). This was basically the position of the "nicean party" in the arian controversy. The trinity was not even invented, yet. The trinity developed as some form of intermediate position between the two parties. It was not like 50 years later when the trinity was invented.
May the spirit of truth lead you into all truth in Jesus name!
I think that particular creed and everything after are where the church went wrong. Having a pagan emperor force a consensus across the majority of the current world power and get all the sycophants to excommunicate everyone that didn't participate is ludicrous. That it continued over a millennia is crazy, and oddly most denominations still follow most of it after the protestant reformation (minus Mary Angels and Saints). To stack dogma upon dogma like a wobbly jenga tower upon the bible and say that's stable theology is either malicious intent or retarded.
State of the day: Christians can't just accept Jesus as God in human form without some hyper trinitarian nonsense, but Jews and Muslims can be strict monotheists and deny Christ and that's okay.... all in the name of ecumenicalism?
Does Dr. Craig consider heterodox understandings of the nature of Christ's heresy? For example, Nestorianism or Monophysitism?
thank you for this wonderful, Spirit, and love filled response. It is so important for us to remember this when we interact with each other.
Thanks doc
I'm glad Dr. Craig posted this video because I would like to know if he considers Christians who disbelieve in the doctrine of the Trinity to be heretics or non-Christians. I would also like to know if he considers it a heresy to disbelieve that Jesus Christ is or was jewish.
Additionally, I would like to know if he considers it heresy to disbelieve that the current day state of Israel is the Promised Land written of in Scripture and that the world's jewish population are God's chosen people and that therefore Gentiles are inferior to them and exist primarily or solely for their benefit.
@@elgatofelix8917I doubt he'd label it heresy.
However you're confusing the 'land' with the 'zionist state'. The land is the promised land but that doesn't mean that the present state of Israel is the fulfillment of prophecy or that God agrees with everything they do.
The old testament doesn't say gentiles exist for the Jews or are inferior.
We're in the dispensation of grace and Jews and gentiles are totally equal (Ephesians 3:1-10)
@@stephenglasse9756 are you sure Dr. Craig is aware of that distinction? I'm not sure if you're making that assertion based on geographical coordinates described in the OT, but usually the pretext given (by them directly) for the occupation of that land is that it was given to them by "God" (which "god" exactly is often left conveniently unnamed). You didn't address the following point but the OT (and NT for that matter) doesn't mention the word "Trinity" either, so my questions are not necessarily based on what's written, but what's commonly believed among Christians to be doctrine.
@@stephenglasse9756 BTW the comment you're responding to got hidden by YT's odious censorship algorithm so most people can't read it unless they have their comment settings configured to "Newest".
@@elgatofelix8917 well Craig is a lot more sophisticated than me so I suspect he's aware of distinctions. I don't know whether he would make belief in the Trinity a condition of salvation but he seems to limit the condition to belief in Christ's deity.
Even amongst Jews there'll be different views on their right to the land. Some will say 'no rights to the land until Messiah returns ' others will say 'not only do we have divine rights but we have legal rights since the land was originally ottoman Turkish non-arabic land that Arabs and Jews just lived in. Ottoman empire collapsed after siding with losers in WW1 and victors (League of Nations in 1920) gave land of Palestine inc Gaza and Jerusalem to the Jews. Therefore it's not 'occupied' but legally possessed by Israel .
Well said Craig! Christ love! ✝️
Thankyou for this, I am not an inerrantist but definitely a born again christian in love with God.
Often full Preterist are referred to as heretics. I used to look at them as different. But after much study, I became one of them! I appreciate this video, for often the correct view is labeled as heresy.
Full preterist?! Nice to meet you. I’m a partial preterist. Became one a year ago after being a futurist for 25 years. I haven’t really looked into full preterism yet so who knows if I’ll became _that?_
This is essential to strengthening the body of Christ, Thank you.
This needs a LOT more than a 1min 46 video.
Even to just take the example he gives regarding sacraments: This needs more detail - but if someone takes, for example, Baptism, or confession to be necessary for salvation - surely that adds works to grace and is a salvation issue?
Moreover, it does seem to me there is such a stark difference between, for example, John MacArthur and Benny Hinn that they can't possibly both be within orthodoxy...
Trying to work for salvation is certainly heresy by WLC's definition of the term. However, I think there's a difference between someone actively trying to perform good works to merit salvation (EG: Catholicism) and someone who isn't trying to do good works to earn their salvation but instead they simply incorrect think that the Bible teaches that water baptism is somehow necessary for salvation. Someone who thinks that probably would view water baptism as somehow being a work of God; after all, they're conflating it with baptism of the Holy Spirit which water baptism seeks to represent, and that certainly is a work of God.
There are issues of secondary importance that are not heretical. However, if you read 1 John 2 and 2 John 1:7-11 and you study it carefully you will see God's definition pretty clearly. John is direct so there is no ambiguity. These are attacks on the person of Jesus Christ and his teachings AKA the bible. So there is a place for heresy. However because someone isn't in your denomination and differs on secondary issues - yes you should be flexible.
I think the first thing to do is to define orthodoxy and present the formula that we use to determine a thing to be orthodox. Without that, determining heresy is guesswork.
Whether Jesus 'is' God, or a perfect, unfallen son/creation of God as Adam should have been, was an unsettled question in Christianity for centuries.
So it's surprising to hear that Dr Craig believes a person isn't saved if they don't hold to his view that Jesus is God.
Here, Dr Craig is clearly saying that his camp have the right view on Jesus, one that coalesced centuries into the Christian faith, and anyone who doesn't have that view is not saved.
As someone who believes that Jesus is not his own, distinct person from God, yet one with God in his perfection, I don't hold that if someone is wrong about that then they aren't saved.
And one would think that if it was such a key point for salvation, Jesus would have made it more clear rather than making statements that can be interpreted one way or the other.
If an ambassador or regent for a king has the full authority of the king then they could say 'when you hear me, you hear the king', but that would not be a statement that he is the king.
So when Jesus said, 'when you see me, you see God' then likewise, that is not Jesus saying he is God.
When Jesus is declared to be in the image of God, that is just the same as when Adam and Eve were created to be in the image of God. My point is that those who believe, as Dr Craig does, that Jesus is God and claim there to be incontrovertible scripture to back it up are just ignoring the fact that certain scripture verses that they have interpreted a certain way could be interpreted in any other way.
It's a kind of confirmation blindness. They don’t believe it because it’s true, rather they see it as true because they believe it.
Even if you believe your own interpretation is correct, I think the reasonable thing to do would be to also accept that other interpretations are just as logically sound.
I will do a video on Christology on my UA-cam channel as it's a pretty important topic.
Do you trust that Christ suffered what your sins deserved on your behalf?
This feels like a question cued up so a 'condemn and walk away' move can be enjoyed :)
I do not believe that children born into a fallen lineage through no fault of their own 'deserve' to be tortured to death for it.
I do not believe that some random Buddhist or Hindu trying to live a good and moral life, who is a good family man for example who lives for his children and community sake and never mistreats or cheats on his wife and although has fallen nature due to his being born apart from God does his best to resist sin deserves to be tortured to death.
Being born with original sin is a sickness not a crime. The crime was committed by Adam and Eve and Lucifer. Children should not be tortured to death for the crimes of their parents.
When God sees our sinful state, He sees children he wants to cure, not criminals he wants to punish.
Dr Craig is wrong to fixate on punishment and characterise God as having a lower standard than humans.
As we know from the words of Jesus, God and Jesus hold us to the standard that we forgive those who do evil. This is possible because we generate love. Our love enables this forgiveness.
It is bizarre to suggest that God, the origin of love and holiness, has a need or desire for retribution so great that he would have not only the guilty but his innocent son tortured to death to satisfy that retributive desire.
We are saved by the love of Jesus, not because God got his desire to torture someone, anyone off his chest.
We are saved 'in spite of' Jesus being murdered, not because of it.
It is the love of Jesus and his offer for us to make a relationship with him that saves us. the fact that this offer is open even after we tortured him to death is the astounding thing about our salvation.
It was a misstep to fetishize the torture and murder of Jesus then 'retcon' all the scripture to make it sound like it was the plan all along.
'He will be pierced'. This is what happens when the sickly branch of a wormwood, dead tree is engrafted to a healthy tree. The sickly branch is not glued on. The healthy tree first receives a wound and bleeds so that the sickly branch can engraft to it.
I will give a talk about this on my UA-cam channel.
@@Dizerner
@@pathfinding4687So is that a "no"? It really isn't hard to just say "no."
Thanks for sharing. I believed that Jesus was God for a quarter century but upon further extensive study I became a biblical unitarian for a year. After watching multiple debates on the topic of the divinity of Jesus I’m currently on the fence. I never once thought that if someone doesn’t believe Jesus is God they’re not saved. If that were my belief I obviously never would’ve became unitarian. With mad respect and love for brother Craig, I have to disagree and say this heresy is an example of dogma & tradition taking precedence over scripture.
@@NickSandt Nick, do you trust that Christ suffered what your sins deserved on your behalf?
I'm not asking as a "gotcha," I'm genuinely curious where you are coming from here.
Agreed. The charge of heresy is to Christianity what racism is to politics: made almost meaningless through abuse.
Great comparison! - RF Admin
Just like the heresy of Monothelitism?
@@calson814 Why do you consider monothelitism heresy? - RF Admin
@@drcraigvideos because this doctrine holds that Christ as having only one will! Therefore the Sixth Ecumenical Council held at Constantinople condemned Monothelitism.
@@calson814 Why should one affirm the Council's conclusion? - RF Admin
What about donatism, which has always been understood as heresy? It would seem strange to say someone isn't saved because they believe some sacraments aren't valid under certain ethical situations of the priest involved. Even if their wrong, that doesn't seem important enough that you'd go to hell over, but donatism is still considered a heresy.
If the beleif being shared is this: Jesus's sacrifice on the cross was only for a few elect people only God knows, which makes it impossible to tell everyone that God loves them because maybe He didn't elect them to receive His love? What about that doctrine?
I am struggling with labeling teaching from a popular figure as heresy. The who teaches that if you reject young earth creation, you must reject the authority of Christ. I believe he is placing a wedge between believers and Jesus, forcing people to choose between leaving the faith or affirming what is almost certainly false. That sounds like heresy to me. But I also realize that is a serious accusation
What about the thief on the cross? Did he believe Jesus was God or a person of the Trinity? Yet the Lord promised him "you will be with me in paradise".
It seems unlikely that all the 3000 on Pentecost believed Jesus was the Eternal Creator of the Heavens and Earth on the basis of Peter's sermon or prior teachings. *I of course do believe all of that* but it doesn't seem a requirement for salvation does it?
We are bound by sacraments although we may vary on what we think those are but God is not. God saves who He saves whenever He choose to save.
Here’s what I think I know, we’re held accountable for what we know the faith we have.
@@Papasquatch73 in truth I could be underestimating the testimony to Jesus divinity on Pentecost but it seems unlikely that the man crucified believed it.
Hershey?
did someone say chocolate?
According to WLC denying the deity of Christ is a heresy and hence someone who believes this will not be saved. Apologists often give the example of Isaac Newton as a great scientist and Christian. Sorry folks, he denied the deity of Christ so will be found in hell.
Orthodoxy arguing sacraments: the passover lamb not lasting through the day and having unbroken bones
● Joseph's bones (intact enough to move) were moved and noted after a 400* years hiatus, Elisha's bones (not corpse) brought back another to life, Jesus had unbroken bones even after being about beaten to death and he died quickly.
● God taking offense to the rock and wellspring of living waters being disrespected at meribah, anger at grumbling about the mana (that perished same day) miraculously provided, Jesus offering people the parable of his body and blood being real food and real drink AFTER spontaneous generation of food to the masses. He and Moses were known to go 40 days fasting with God sustaining their bodies... he told his apostles he had sustenance they didn't know about, same source.
It's always been God providing life. He breathes life into us and he takes it later. He plants a harvest and he reaps it. Jesus comes with a sickle and riding a cloud on the last day, all those parables he taught about such things aren't to be taken hyper literal but they're dead serious. Nothing about any of that even implies something so sinister and vile as cannibalistic trans-substantiation with chunks of Jesus organs and fluid blood in your belly.
Wow! Jesus plainly said, "My God and Your God...My Father & Your Father...." Yet, this man says anyone who doesn't believe Jesus is "God" is not saved??? Wow! I strongly disagree. Messiah, was for-seen and Prophesied about, and NEVER did the Prophets say, Yahweh was coming to Earth as a Man. STUDY WELL, and BE CONVINCED IN YOUR OWN MIND.... Blessings, to TRUTH~
You are either saved by faith alone or faith and works. Also a line where to draw the heresy mark. Salvation is the most important doctrine and most have it wrong. The majority of teachers today are heretics!😂
Worship of the Eucharist is pure idolatry and NEVER happened in the Bible
I think without an objective God-given authority by which the Bible can be interpreted, that claims of heresy and orthodoxy are subjective and thusly illusory.
That's the beauty of most theology. Anything gets to be true.
@@mattr.1887 The question isn't theological in my mind. Perhaps hermeneutical. For example, do you believe your (or your church's, etc.) interpretation (or hermeneutic) of Scripture to be objectively true? If so, why? If not, doesn't it bother you that no objective interpretation (or hermeneutic) exists?
@brotherdamien1804
> I think without an objective God-given authority by which the Bible can be interpreted,
To me this statement has kind of an odd implication. An infinitely wise, intelligent, and powerful God gave a book, but it’s a little hard to understand so there needs to be another book to clarify it. This fails for a couple of reasons. First, what’s to prevent someone from coming along later and saying the same thing about the second book? And then the same thing about the third book? It becomes an ever growing stack of books with the latest book on top claiming authority on all those below. Secondly, one of the requirements for canonization (and thus authority) of the New Testament was eyewitness of Christ or by an associate of such an eye witness.
> that claims of heresy and orthodoxy are subjective and thusly illusory.
This logic might not be as strong as you think it is. God is absolute Truth, so even without the authority you mentioned, there absolutely is orthodoxy and heresy, so it’s not illusory. Something that is true doesn’t cease to be true just because you don’t understand it.
That being said, the authority that we have IS the Bible. There are certain things we are told very simply. John 3:16 for example. Then there are things we can immediately deduce logically (‘immediately’ doesn’t necessarily mean easily). For example once you embrace the deity of Christ, you have to start embracing some notion of the Trinity since it is necessitated by Isaiah 43 and 45.
@@joenuevo Hello Joe, thanks for responding. Let me start by saying that I wasn't talking about another book being the objective authority. Allow me to explain: I can't help but ask--was one of God's intentions in providing us with the Bible to unite all His children in love and truth in imitation of the Trinity? I think so, but that's not what the Bible has done. It has divided God's children because we read it and disagree about what it says. We disagree about salvation, baptism, sin, morality, the nature of God, and on and on. I conclude one of the following: that division was either God's plan for us, which I cannot believe because God's nature is unity, or He did provide us with an objective authority that we have overlooked. To me, an objective authority must exist, since God cannot will disunity among His children. So I ask, where is it?
@@joenuevo Joe, the objective authority does indeed exist. It is the Church, which the Bible calls "the pillar and bulwark of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15). In turn, the Church calls the Bible infallible divine revelation. So, you see, God gave divine authority to the Church to interpret Scripture so that His children will be united in an objective Truth. Now the question is, which Church? I can't help but go to the infallible divine revelation of God as written in Matthew 16 for the answer: "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will 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.” There it is--the Church and the authority, all in one. That is why I am proud to say after years of studying theology at Oklahoma Wesleyan, that I am now a Catholic.
The bible speaks of heresy, damnable heresy and blasphemy. It’s interesting how people get definitions from catholic doctrines.
Monothelitism cuts you off from salvation.
What’s that?
Why think that? - RF Admin
@@drcraigvideos hey Admin. Does dr Craig believe denying faith alone is a heresy?
@@matejskoko8915I'm not an Admit, but Craig should absolutely think that. The Bible is crystal clear that salvation is by faith alone, and that by trying to work for it you don't have faith.
@@matejskoko8915 How is "faith alone" being defined here? Regarding the relationship between faith and works, this may be a helpful article showing Dr. Craig's position: www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/faith-and-works. - RF Admin
I think the Calvinist view of predestining some to Hell is so far removed from the character and nature of the God of the Bible, that it's heresy.
And that's because you do not understand Calvinism. Our understanding of Scripture is orthodox.
@@johnschutt9187😂😂😂
I'm not Calvinist, but from what I've seen most people who denounce Calvinism as "heresy" haven't actually read the Reformed confessions, and/or end up having an extremely heterodox soteriology of their own.
@@BenjaminAnderson21 It isn’t “heresy”, but it’s definitely wrong, Biblically speaking.
Just out of curiosity How would you interpret 9 ? I’m not a calvinist but as of right now but I think Calvin staring point is the Bible and it would be hard to interpret Romans 9 without predestination? IMO I prefer molenism but I see but I can’t ignore this part of scripture. But if you have a better understanding I would like to hear and consider it .
No salvation outside of the Catholic Church.
Heresy.
In other words "muh Pope is God"
@@elgatofelix8917 Matthew 18:17.
@@MegaNovice1 Matthew 18:17.
If salvation is by grace then it is no longer by works, otherwise grace would no longer be grace.
You can't have God's grace as payment for the debt of your sin if you also try to work for your own salvation at the same time. By trying to work for your salvation you're essentially suggesting "Where Jesus's sacrifice wasn't enough to forgive the debt of all my sin, I will use my own meritorious works to fill this gap of God's inadequacy."
You can either trust in Jesus's sacrifice as the payment of the debt of your sin, OR you can try to work to earn your own salvation. You can't do both. Trying to work for your own salvation can't ever save you.
This is why Catholicism is heresy. It teaches a works + faith salvation that the God Himself has told us isn't an option. He told this to us directly through His own word, the Bible.
The word "heresy" is literally meaningless coming out of the mouth of a protestant. At best, it literally just means "I think you're wrong"
What have you heard protestants claim as heresy? Also protestant is far too general, can you be more specific?
@@benjaminwatt2436 I should state that I'm not a catholic either, but to answer your question, I've been in conversations with Calvinists about so-called original sin and laid out my beliefs and rejection of the idea of inheriting guilt and sin nature, and to my shock, have been called heretic and anti-Christian. It's not enough that they disagreed with me, apparently; they also stated that I'm not saved, lmao.
@@leonardu6094 Some people are trigger happy with the term "heresy". i'd say especially in the more fundamentalist/reformist camps. I'd say its unfair to apply that to all Protestantism. If it makes you feel better my wife and I have been called pagans two seperate times...i'm not a pagan, im a Christian, but keep standing in the faith, it happens
@@benjaminwatt2436Thanks, very encouraiging.
I can see why to a Catholic someone who actually believes the Bible is a heretic. That's why the protestant reformation happened in the fist place. Protestants are heretics because we read "Don't call anyone on Earth your father." and therefore we don't call pastors "father" like Catholics refer to their priests as. Protestants are heretics because the Bible is absolutely 110% clear that salvation is by God's grace, NOT our works, otherwise grace would no longer be grace, whereas Catholics think that where Jesus's sacrifice wasn't enough to forgive their sins they will use their own righteousness to fill the gap of God's inadequacy. Protestants are heretics because we read "don't pray in vain repetition" and therefore don't, whereas Catholics pray the rosery. Protestants are heretics because we read that we are not to ever try and contact the dead and so we don't, whereas Catholics regularly pray, "venerate", PRAY to dead human beings to assist them in salvation. Speaking of which, Protestants are heretics because the Bible says to pray to absolutely no one and nothing else that isn't God Himself and so we don't, whereas Catholics get down on their knees, clasp their hands, bow their heads, close their eyes, and speak to dead human beings as if those human beings could hear them (PRAY to human beings, to the dead).
You're married to traditions created by men and convinced that somehow these man made traditions will save you because you don't believe God Himself in His own word, the Bible.
Good thing none of this is true
Dr. Craig, I am shocked that someone as brilliant as yourself is not a Catholic. A Heresy is a deviation from the true teachings of Jesus Christ, meaning any teaching in opposition to the doctrine of Catholicism is in a fact heretical.
The teachings of Jesus Christ have best been preserved through Catholicism, it is arrogant to assume that you (a person living 2,000 after the life of Jesus Christ) know better than the earliest Church fathers. And that virtually all Christians who lived from 40 AD to 400 AD had it wrong in their doctrinal views concerning the Church.
dr craig is a rational thinker, you catholic belief doesnt allow that, in fact every catholics person i knew care less about scripture than tradition. The Scripture proclaim itself to be the guide to test something is right or false including tradition.
So if you agree that dr craig is brilliant then you should ask yourself, why is he not catholic? whats wrong with catholicism? that dr craig cant agree
The problem of heretical teachings is not limited to Biblical interpretation. You only need to study the Christian timeline from AD 35 to AD 400 to understand that God designed his original Church with a magisterium of disciples (a body of elders responsible for infallibly prescribing the doctrine of Christianity). Throughout history, groups of confused Christians in the 1st Century began to preach that 1. Jesus was fully divine and not human; 2. That Mary is Christ bearing and not God bearing, and 3. That Jesus had a beginning in space time rather than being eternal like the father.
These are pivotal questions, and if God is Holy and Just, then He will safeguard a mechanism for ensuring doctrinal accuracy within his Church.
The role of the Catholic magisterium dating back to the 2nd century has always been to infallibly address these concerns to prevent heretical teachings from misleading the people of God.
Fast forward to the 16th Century, Martin Luther commits a grave heretical error by self-inventing the notion of Sola Scriptora which was unanimously and therefore infallibly recognized as a heresy (just like many other prior heresies i.e., Arianism, Appolarism, Nestorism, etc.) at the Council of Trent.
And so scripture alone cannot be a guide to right and wrong because there are countless wrong interpretations to scripture. God understood this, hence why He gave us the practice of tradition through a body of elders who are inspired by the Holy Spirit to infallibly prescribe the proper doctrine.
Luther's arrogance is a perfect epitome of the new world. People want to redefine marriage, they refuse to admit that pro choice is really a synonym for pro death, and they want to invent their own religions and their own theologies when in fact Jesus already did so through his disciplines.
@@unfrozenleaf970 you clearly didnt follow what Jesus said hence you are the one heretic.
Dont you know that God gives us all His Holy Spirit? Not only to Pope or Bishop but we as true Christian have God Spirit dwells in us:
1 Corinthians 3:16 (LITV) Do you not know that you are a sanctuary of God, and the Spirit of God dwells in you?
And what is the role of Holy Spirit within us? Jesus our only Lord stated clearly:
John 14:26 (LITV) but the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He shall TEACH you all things and shall REMIND you of all things that I said to you.
This is TOTAL REFUTATION to the doctrine that exclusively give Pope and Catholic Church the right to interpret God's words. Off course we need to study bible comprehensively to understand the bible and to interpret it. Anyone who want to interpret the Bible MUST know the hermeneutic of Bible. Anyone who wants to makes claim about bible need to have complete understanding of Bible.
In relation to Doctrine of Sola Scriptura Paul stated clearly:
1 Corinthians 4:6 (LITV) And, brothers, I transferred these things to myself and Apollos because of you, that in us you may learn NOT TO THINK ABOVE WHAT HAS BEEN WRITTEN, that you not be puffed up one over the other.
2 Timothy 3:16 (LITV) All Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for DOCTRINE, for REPROOF, for CORRECTION, for INSTRUCTION in righteousness,
Test everything according to Scripture! What is it with Scripture that you are so afraid of?? Scripture is perfect Divinely Inspired by God hence it is complete or are Catholic impliying that Scriptures isnt complete? isnt perfect? Repent! God gives us Holy Spirit and Scripture for us to think rationally and independently in Truth.
@@ansich3603Leave catholic alone bro 😂😂😂 they dont even read their Bible 🤣🤣🤣
Your misinterpretation of John 14:26 presicely proves my point. The people reading this thread can see for themselves that laymen are NOT and SHOULD NOT spread self-invented interpretations of rather ambiguous statements in the Bible. Through our tradition of elders, these Biblical passages have already been studied and interpreted by our Church fathers who firsthand knew the disciplines of Christ.
Yes, the Holy Spirit dwells within all of us. That is why more than 2,000 Bishops gather together at ecumenical Councils to pray and to allow the work of the Holy Spirit to guide the Church to the correct doctrinal position.
You have misinterpreted John 14:26, as I have no doubt that you have misinterpreted several other Biblical teachings. In John 14:26, Jesus is addressing his disciplines after several years of apprenticeship to spread and grow the Christian faith. In order to effectively write everything Jesus taught them in what we now refer to as the Gospels, God sent the Holy Spirit to REMIND them of everything He taught and said to them over what would have been several years of teachings.
Certainly God sends the Holy Spirit to all Christians, but there are instances when the Holy Spirit is uniquely reinforced to protect a body of elders (such as the disciplines) as they accurately fulfill a more specific God given assignment.
The issue with Protestantism is that you don't even want to acknowledge nor understand the context upon which the word of God is prescribed.
Not all Biblical statements or instruction are addressed to all Christians. Some Biblical instructions were restrictively prescribed to the 12 disciples and the body of elders who inherited the mantle of leadership in the Church.
To further prove my point... Read John 20:22-23 "Then, taking a deep breath, he blew on them and said, Receive the Holy Spirit. Whoever's sins you forgive will be forgiven, but whoever's sins you do not forgive WILL NOT be forgiven."
Sola Scriptora is a heresy because any misguided layperson can read passages like John 20:22-23 and come to the conclusion that they as laymen are authorized to forgive the sins of fellow Christians. Whereas God specifically restricts this level of spiritual authority to his 12 disciplines and their authoritative line of succesors within the Church.
Yes all scripture is inspired by God which is why neither you nor Luther should be removing books from a pre-approved Biblical Canon that predates your existence. That's called Heresy and epistemological arrogance.
It's not what YOU think that matters, Dr. Craig: it's what the CHURCH believes...
What church is that???
Jesus is our highest authority and his chosen Apostles who wrote the Books of Bible.
@@davidjanbaz7728 Are those Apostles still alive?
No?
Well then WHO is the Church if not those who can trace their apostolic succession TO the first Apostles???
@@superapex2128There are dozens of denominations today which claim to have apostolic succession... many of them have conflicting theological positions, and as far as I know none of them have an official exhaustive list of which errors are damnable.
@@BenjaminAnderson21 YOUR job is to sort things out and find our the Truth, not just 'give up' - as a friendly reminder, 'You will know them by their fruits'...
@@superapex2128you mean the Catholic Church right?