protestants on their way to persecute Christ's Church every time their heretical beliefs are called out: protestants protest the false doctrines of the roman Catholic hierarchy that claims to be one true and apostolic . No believer in Christ protests Christ or the body of Christ which is the church.
Protestant response: 0:10 "If it were the case that Sola Scriptura were true, then the scriptures should teach that the foundation of the church is the written word of God" This is a misunderstanding of what Sola Scriptura is. It does NOT mean that written is superior to oral. Additionally, it does NOT mean that the church is founded on scripture. I agree with you that it's founded on the apostles and Christ! Sola Scriptura simply means that the only teachings we can be 100% sure come from the apostles/Christ are found in scripture. Everything else is subject to a fallible telephone game process. Those oral traditions are valuable, but scripture is more valuable and authoritative because we can be CERTAIN it's apostolic. To restate, Sola Scriptura is 100% on board with the church being founded on the apostles and Christ. Sola Scriptura doesn't make sense in the first century, because you have direct access to apostolic teaching! All it's saying is that TODAY, the only teachings we can be sure are apostolic (and thus fully authoritative) come from scripture. Rome does not believe in Sola Scriptura. It claims that the fallible telephone process by which oral teachings are re-interpreted and passed down CAN be viewed as 100% apostolic. This is why Protestants fight you so much on things like icon veneration. It's not in scripture, and we don't believe it was apostolic. You can SAY it was apostolic, because one side of a 500 year long telephone game said so, but that's a tough sell. 1:24 "if you can show me that Pope Francis is not the successor of Peter, I'll stop being Catholic" Dude, the Eastern Orthodox believe the Roman bishop has a chain of succession. A lot of educated Protestants do to. It's the SUPREME BISHOP POWER CLAIM that makes you Roman Catholic. 1:32 "I'm hinging my entire salvation on that claim, that Pope Francis is the lawful successor of Peter" Now we're really in trouble. I'd recommend hinging your entire salvation on Jesus being your savior, not some bishop being in charge of some other bishops.
"I'd recommend hinging your entire salvation on Jesus being your savior, not some bishop being in charge of some other bishops." This is not in oposition. Jesus said "he who reject you, reject me". Jesus is the ultimate savior, but he said that salvation is also dependent on hearing apostles (ie. bishops). So you recommend the complete opposite view, then the disciples of the apostles, and then the apostles as well.
Silly Protestants... What is the Word of God? It is a who, and it is Christ Jesus the living God. The Word of God is not a book. Go to Medina if you want to worship a book.
All of Sacred Scripture came from an already established living Apostolic Sacred Tradition. Some of the Sacred Tradition became written (Sacred Scripture) inspired by the Holy Spirit. Catholics are faithful to both and maintain both the living oral and written Sacred Tradition.
@@apostolicapologetics4829 why do you cherry pick verse :18? the entire passage is about Jesus being the Messiah. this is known as 'Peter's Confession'.
“and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;” Ephesians 2:20 KJV Where do you find the apostles, prophets and Jesus outside of scripture that can be used for foundation?
Matt 16:19 is where Jesus tells Peter he'll EVENTUALLY give him the keys. What verse does he actually get them? We don't know that, but it's a pretty good bet to say that it's Matt 18:18 where he gives the apostles the binding and loosing (just like Matthew 16). Which would mean, ALL the apostles get the keys, not just Peter.
@mikekukovec4386 Nice try, but there's no evidence that Jesus gave the "keys" to anyone but Peter. In Matt 16:19, Jesus is directly addressing Peter and the "you" is singular, not plural. And Jesus did not give all the apostles the name "rock" - only Simon (John 1:42).
@brucewmclaughlin9072 simple. Nowhere in scripture does it say scripture alone. So, if it is scripture alone, it can't be, because scripture doesn't say so
@@rukidding-y2c You are correct scripture alone is never found in a verse in all 73 books of the bible What is found is Romans 15:4 and that tells us scripture , not tradition ,not oral is to be used as an example to live by . Anything that contradicts existing scripture is not to be taught or thought of as a supplement.
@@brucewmclaughlin9072 the problem with Romans 15:4 - it does not say that "evrything needed to teach us was written...") It says "everything that was written..." That is a big difference.
The Baltimore Catechism helps us here also. It names three reasons why we cannot go to the Scriptures alone: 1) the uniquely Christian parts of Scripture had not yet been written when Christ sent the Apostles, 2) not everyone can examine the Scriptures for themselves, but everyone CAN hear the Church, and 3) those that claim to do so are always disputing its meaning, as some things from Scripture cannot be correctly interpreted without tradition. Don’t let the Prots in the comment section detract from your work. Keep it up.
The apostles literally say don’t go beyond what is written 1 Corinthians 4:6, 2 Thessalonians 2:15. Everything profitable was taught and written down for the church 2 Timothy 3:16, 1 John 1:4. When Paul said his goodbye to the elders of Ephesus he committed them to the “word” of God which was already written to the early the churches.
What? What about 1 Tim 3:15 “For if I tarry long, that you should know how to behave oneself in the house of God, which is the church, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” Or how about 2 Thessalonians 2:15? “So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold to the TRADITIONS which you were taught either by word of mouth or by letter from us.” Now you have Scripture telling you the Apostles taught by word of mouth as well as by letter, and that they exhorted early Christians to adhere to what was taught in BOTH forms. This is heavy Biblical evidence AGAINST sola scruptura.
@ you have to consider, the traditions were first taught by word of mouth and then by letter. What they taught in letter is not separate nor different from what they taught by mouth. These traditions are heavily evident in the epistles of both the Jerusalem apostles as well as Paul who is tasked with the gentile ministry. You will find all the early Christian traditions in their epistles i.e. Lord’s supper, church gathering on the Lord’s day, financial contributions, order in church gatherings, from how the Christians are to act, behave, clothe themselves in church to the hierarchical process of leadership. Nothing necessary for the church’s salvation was left unwritten. Even extra biblical records like the didache are congruent with the doctrine taught and explained in the epistles. If it’s not supported by the written doctrine, how will you verify it. The command given to ALL (not just elders as John is addressing the whole church when he gives this command) is to test the spirit (1 John 4:1) How do you suppose you can test the spirit if the written foundation wasn’t left for you? If anyone can just say what they’re teaching is oral tradition not found in written traditions, to which will you verify if what they say is truth? If even you yourself can come up with your own oral tradition apart from the written doctrine? Hence again, why the church was commanded not to go beyond what was written. Consider that we were even warned not to believe angels (Galatians 1:8) should their teachings be other than what the apostles taught (a gospel which was first taught by mouth and next by word in the gospels we now have.) Listen to the writer’s voice in all four gospels. You’d hear them teaching, preaching, explaining, uncovering prophetic meanings and addressing the church (with the exception of Luke which was addressed to one specific person) because these gospels were written to the church during the time of the apostles and the disciples tasked to spread the gospel.
@ you made a HUGE assumption there: that what was taught in the letters was NO DIFFERENT than what was taught be word of mouth. How do you know this? They certainly didn’t CONTRADICT one another but that does NOT mean they were EXACTLY the same information verbatim. You made a HUGE assumption.
I’ll take on your point so I can make you understand mine. Suppose you’re correct, tell me which oral tradition is not the same as the written? Which are they?
Protestant churches are also founded on those three things-by definition the foundation is the first thing laid. As you say, that’s Christ first, then the Apostles who were the first to believe and spread the gospel, Peter being the first of them to announce that belief. Nobody thinks the Scriptures (the NT at any rate) came before them, so saying sola Scriptura is wrong because the Bible doesn’t say the foundation of the church is Scripture seems to me a category mistake-you’re taking one concept and applying it in a context where it doesn’t make sense or belong. And claiming Protestant churches are founded on Luther, Calvin, etc. is really just a way of saying you disagree with their theology, but by the same token a Protestant might say Catholicism is founded on Constantine or someone else, depending on their specific view of when and how the church went wrong.
Why would you say is the same as saying "Protestant might say Catholicism is founded on Constantine" ? Before Constantine did the catholic church exist ? historically we can say yes The first mention to word Catholic was from St Ignatius of Antioch in 110 AD “Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” way before Constantine 272-337 AD. Can you quote the word "Protestant church" before the reformers? They claimed the Protestant church was already there but at the same time Luther was a monk in the Catholic church so he might have joined a church that existed? who was leading it?
And how come he managed to speak on behalf of an existing "Protestant" church by being the first to mention Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura because for 15 century it has never been "clearly" mentioned not even in the bible nor by any church fathers?
@@joyb8062 “Catholic” is from Greek “kata holos,” meaning “according to the whole.” It wasn’t a proper noun naming a particular institution, just a term referring to the whole or universal church.
@@joshuascott5814 yes it's a greek term and it was the name used to refer to the church founded by Jesus Christ and I just used it to show that one cannot argue that Constantin would have founded something that already existed and that was clearly named and accepted by all Christians who had the same faith belief and practice up until at least 1054 AD. Can you please prove that the reformers didn't found the "Protestant churches"?
@ you’re assuming the “Catholic Church” of today is the same one that Jesus founded and which was called “ekklesia kata holos” in the quote you gave above. Thats the whole point-Protestants do not share that assumption.
all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be COMPLETE, THOROUGHLY equipped for every good work. thus, paul exhorts timothy to "preach the word". that he must continue in the things he has learned, and been assured of, knowing from whom he has learned them, and that from childhood he has known the holy scriptures, which are able to make one wise for salvation thru faith which is in jesus christ. in the beginning was the word. the word was God. the Word became flesh. the word of God is living and powerful.....searching the scriptures daily to see if the things men are saying are true. solid food is for the mature, who by constant use, have their senses exercised to discern good and evil. how does a bank teller recognize a counterfeit? by studying the real thing. if the blind lead the blind they both fall into the ditch. continue in the apostles doctrine. do not go beyond what is written, that none of you would be puffed up one against another. constantly jesus spoke the word of God: "it is written". that settles it. the word of God defeated the devil in the wilderness. but it is not sufficient? blasphemy. you are the protestant cameron, constantly protesting against the liberty we have in christ jesus, based on the doctrines of men, saint this guy and that guy. a leaky cistern when examined against the written word, the very foundation that the apostles stood on, and passed down to us, having the seal of God. jesus, the living word of God. pope francis? peter's successor? a proven heretic over and over. and you have no shame?? you prop him up? blind leading the blind for sure. all cults claim to be the one true church. the church, the church, the church. russia, russia, russia.🙃the Kingdom of God. Christ is King, and "Head over all things to the church".
When where whom was pope Francis proven heretic? What is the context of Paul's message to Timothy? About what scripture does he speak? Does this verse says that scripture is the only thing you need to be complete?
Sola Scriptura doesn’t dismiss holy tradition. It’s simply the recognition that the magisterium can’t exceed it. There is a more extreme ‘solo scriptura’ among very low-church Protestants, which is scripture alone without a clergy, but that’s a different phenomena.
But the Word of God is Christ Jesus, the Living God. The Bible is the inspired word of God, but it is not THE Word of God. So who did the Living God shared His authority with? Can the upholders of your current tradition, in full confidence, say it is them? If so, walkthrough with us on how that is.
Well Matthew 16 is pretty clear about the church having authority. But Rome abused that authority, hence the Reformation. I was raised Roman Catholic and am now Reformed for that reason. We don’t claim to be the one true church, but rather a subsisting body within the invisible church. So it’s always an asymmetric argument given the different presuppositions. As for knowing that we are ‘a’ church, we profess the creeds and the teachings which have been passed down since the apostles.
Nice try, the true church of Jesus Christ is built on Himself, the true rock which u can find throughout the Bible. The true church where Jesus Himself is the head and the true born again Spirit filled believers the body, alive and well through the ages despite s atan's plans to hi jack it.
What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 1 Corinthians 1:12-14
As Catholic we never worship the pope. Jesus Christ is the head of our Catholic Church, the Church is the body of Christ which He build with the authority of His Father, Lord of heaven and earth through His Apostle Simon Peter only, not even through His 11 Apostles BUT ONLY ONE CHURCH. And the popes are the successors which they continually preach the Kingdom of God and to heal without broken till today. But there are thousand of churches build by men themselves and with their own authority they are trying so hard to search the scriptures from the words of God itself and the rejects and protest against HIS WORDS AND HIS CHURCH.
@@doinic09 One of the basic principles of biblical interpretation is the analogia scriptura, the analogy of Scripture--we must compare Scripture with Scripture in order to understand its full and proper sense. Since the Bible doesn't contradict itself, any interpretation of a specific passage that contradicts the general teaching of the Bible is to be rejected. What has been removed from tradition and is it actually scriptural in nature or the common beliefs of the time?
@@JamesHarrison687 The church which is the body of Christ on earth made up of all believers in the Lord compiled the existing scriptures into the canon we have today.. The roman Catholic church came into being /founded in 385AD and promptly rewrote history to provide it with authority/
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. - 2 Thessalonians 2:15 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. - 1 Timothy 3:15 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, - 2 Peter 1:20 Just going to leave these little numbers for you to gnaw on.
So u say God is unable to give us a manual as guidance? He gave us a manual that trace back to Moses, from creation, the fall, the Saviour and the promised new covenant up to Revelation where everything will be restored yet u need to add to that? The only reason anyone would need to add to the manual is when their ideas and teachings are not found in it, exactly what the Bible warn us against. Hope u get saved from b ondag e.
1:34 So will you quit being a roman Cathodic when you realize that what you are basing your salvation on is not scriptural but a flawed concept of the church being a central authority as an entity and not the body of Christ that the scriptures claim? IIRC you have dumped roman Catholicism to embrace Orthodox ? The church had the scriptures of the old testament as 2 Tim 3:15-17 , Romans 15:4 , and Acts 17:11 point out. Peter stands up and tells the Jews to repent and he did not require the new testament to do so. Your concept of sola scriptura is also false. One of the basic principles of biblical interpretation is the analogia scriptura, the analogy of Scripture--we must compare Scripture with Scripture in order to understand its full and proper sense. Since the Bible doesn't contradict itself, any interpretation of a specific passage that contradicts the general teaching of the Bible is to be rejected. You obviously don't understand Sola Scriptura. It doesn't mean that you can interpret any passage any way that you wish. Romans 15:4 For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through the endurance taught in the Scriptures and the encouragement they provide we might have hope. Sola Scriptura is saying that The New Testament is the Life and Teachings of Jesus and the original Apostles and the First Churches.. Sola Scriptura just points to THEM not just the Holy Spirit inspired Words, but the Holy Spirit inspired Authors/leaders and their Proven Authority as the true source to prove or test or Disprove future so called 'leaders' or future claims and teachings. Sola Scriptura means going all the way back directly to Jesus, John, Paul, James, Peter, Mark, Luke, Matthew, Moses, David, etc.. and going back to Their Lives, and Their preserved written teachings and traditions. Sola scriptura skips the questionable 'middle-men'.... thousands of years of Post New Testament groups and so called 'leaders' and takes you back to the first Source Leaders that were confirmed and are not questionable. This is the best way. Skip Luther and Skip the Vatican and just Learn the Truth Directly from Moses, David, Jesus, John, Paul, James, Peter, . Please read the whole New Testament... you will find no popes, no cathedrals, no Statues, no Marian dogmas, no prayers to dead saints, No Vatican, No wafers, No fancy Robes, No Christian thrones. Please Follow Jesus and Him Alone.
You should just look up eucharistic miracles of the Catholic Church. Please just look at it. It might just change your opinion and if it doesn't I will be willing to talk more with your questions for the church
who put together the bible you read, even with the deuterocannonical books cut out? name the year and place and then please name the non-Catholic leaders involved?
@@RedRiverMan Define non catholic and catholic? Were the believers who compiled the scriptures into the canon Believers in God with Christ as their savior?
Who did you learn what you now know about Christianity? Can they trace their learnings from the Apostles and to the Word of God Himself? How did Jesus' teachings get transmitted before the Bible was even compiled? If you trust whoever that complied the Bible, then you must trust their Authority and their guidance. Who did the Word of God shared His Authority with? Can these people be found till this day?
@@euengelion Who did you learn what you now know about Christianity? Originally from an evangelist who was a friend of mine's father. Can they trace their learnings from the Apostles and to the Word of God Himself? Yes that is precisely what this evangelist did contrary to what we see on TV and the mess that is created by people who have monetary goals. How did Jesus' teachings get transmitted before the Bible was even compiled? Read these verses 2 Tim 3:15-17 , Romans 15:4 , Acts 17:11 and you will find that every feast in the old testament pointed to Christ , and all the old testament was available well before anyone thought about the new testament to make the bible complete. If you trust whoever that complied the Bible, then you must trust their Authority and their guidance. Yes I would trust their authority and their guidance , however they are no longer among the living and the group that has claimed authority is no longer aligned with those who had authority and have brought in different beliefs taught as truth. Who did the Word of God shared His Authority with? Jesus founded His church on Himself and He is the Rock and the chief cornerstone . Jesus created the church and the church is the body of Christ made up of all believers in Christ,. Jesus is the head of the church. Each group of believers found in the new testament are called the church and there was no central church to run to when a problem arose. Jesus gave His authority to the church and that means every body of believers had His authority. Can these people be found till this day No they can not as they have passed on and what we find today is not what the early believers would approve of.
That is why I believe Scriptura to not trust a guy like you, your teaching is away from the Bible. Salvation is not faith with your leaders even with Peter, only with Jesus. Jesus never said that He will build a church because of Peter and Peter is not the foundation of the church. and there is no succession of Apostleship and pope is not Biblical. Come on
The Bible very clearly teaches that Jesus gave us a church and entrusted his apostles to lead it. Very clearly in acts ch 1 shows the idea of apostolic succession “let another his office take”…. I can show you many places in the Bible where Jesus built a church and gave the church authority. You cannot show one place in the Bible where Jesus commands the writing of a book. If he did, it wouldn’t take 350 years after his dead and resurrection for that book to even come into existence
For the first 1600 years of Christianity, all Christians believed what the video just said. Your argument places such a little confidence in the Holy Spirit.
Peter is NOT the Savior. Peter/Paul were the first evangelists of Christs Church. They point to what Christ did for us, and on the Third Day. To God be The Glory. To rely on a man Peter or The Pope or Paul all sinners by God's standard, and not the only begotten Son that died, shed His blood, and again Resurrected on the Third Day is not Biblical. However, those 3 and the apostles were called for a purpose, to spread the Gospel, like all that believe. All that believe makes up the Church. Lastly, NOWHERE in The Bible does God say, "Catholic" or that Peter is the "First Pope" or it was ok to pray to Mary. Similar to Islam, which was founded 500 years after Christ, Catholicism was founded 590 years after Christ and after The Bible was written. To make honestly such an arrogant claim that Catholics are "The Chruch" is not true. The Bible is clear, The Church is AGAIN, made up of ALL that Believe.1 Corinthians 12: 13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. Once you Believe upon The Lord Jesus Christ, and trust in HIs finished work, we become a member of HIs Church, and are baptized and sealed by HIs Holy Spirit of Promise. Being Catholic doesn't do it, being a denominational "Church of Christ" member doesn't do it. Faith does.
Protestants on their way to persecute Christ's Church every time their heretical beliefs are called out: 🏃🏃🏃🏃🏃
protestants on their way to persecute Christ's Church every time their heretical beliefs are called out:
protestants protest the false doctrines of the roman Catholic hierarchy that claims to be one true and apostolic .
No believer in Christ protests Christ or the body of Christ which is the church.
Protestant response:
0:10 "If it were the case that Sola Scriptura were true, then the scriptures should teach that the foundation of the church is the written word of God"
This is a misunderstanding of what Sola Scriptura is. It does NOT mean that written is superior to oral. Additionally, it does NOT mean that the church is founded on scripture. I agree with you that it's founded on the apostles and Christ! Sola Scriptura simply means that the only teachings we can be 100% sure come from the apostles/Christ are found in scripture. Everything else is subject to a fallible telephone game process. Those oral traditions are valuable, but scripture is more valuable and authoritative because we can be CERTAIN it's apostolic.
To restate, Sola Scriptura is 100% on board with the church being founded on the apostles and Christ. Sola Scriptura doesn't make sense in the first century, because you have direct access to apostolic teaching! All it's saying is that TODAY, the only teachings we can be sure are apostolic (and thus fully authoritative) come from scripture.
Rome does not believe in Sola Scriptura. It claims that the fallible telephone process by which oral teachings are re-interpreted and passed down CAN be viewed as 100% apostolic. This is why Protestants fight you so much on things like icon veneration. It's not in scripture, and we don't believe it was apostolic. You can SAY it was apostolic, because one side of a 500 year long telephone game said so, but that's a tough sell.
1:24 "if you can show me that Pope Francis is not the successor of Peter, I'll stop being Catholic"
Dude, the Eastern Orthodox believe the Roman bishop has a chain of succession. A lot of educated Protestants do to. It's the SUPREME BISHOP POWER CLAIM that makes you Roman Catholic.
1:32 "I'm hinging my entire salvation on that claim, that Pope Francis is the lawful successor of Peter"
Now we're really in trouble. I'd recommend hinging your entire salvation on Jesus being your savior, not some bishop being in charge of some other bishops.
"I'd recommend hinging your entire salvation on Jesus being your savior, not some bishop being in charge of some other bishops." This is not in oposition. Jesus said "he who reject you, reject me". Jesus is the ultimate savior, but he said that salvation is also dependent on hearing apostles (ie. bishops). So you recommend the complete opposite view, then the disciples of the apostles, and then the apostles as well.
Thank you brother 🙏 I don’t have to comment now 😂
@@JanGavlas that is the least interesting point of my 3. do you have a response to the top one?
@@JanGavlasWhere does Jesus say that "salvation is also dependant on hearing apostles"?
@@mikekukovec4386 So complete opposite view of the apostles is the least interesting? That is interesting.
Silly Protestants... What is the Word of God? It is a who, and it is Christ Jesus the living God. The Word of God is not a book. Go to Medina if you want to worship a book.
go to catholics if you want to worship a church
Your new studio is stunning.
Matthew 16:18 ❤
All of Sacred Scripture came from an already established living Apostolic Sacred Tradition. Some of the Sacred Tradition became written (Sacred Scripture) inspired by the Holy Spirit. Catholics are faithful to both and maintain both the living oral and written Sacred Tradition.
@@apostolicapologetics4829 why do you cherry pick verse :18? the entire passage is about Jesus being the Messiah.
this is known as 'Peter's Confession'.
@@tony1685 Jesus the Messiah, confessed by St. Peter and our Lord found His Church upon the foundation of the Apostles, Peter receiving the keys.
“and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;”
Ephesians 2:20 KJV
Where do you find the apostles, prophets and Jesus outside of scripture that can be used for foundation?
In reality? The Church. In story form? In the Bible.
Jesus didn't give "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" to a book - he gave to the "keys" to the leader of the Catholic Church (Matt 16:19)
nonsense. that's cherry picked out of a passage talking about Jesus Christ.
Matt 16:19 is where Jesus tells Peter he'll EVENTUALLY give him the keys. What verse does he actually get them? We don't know that, but it's a pretty good bet to say that it's Matt 18:18 where he gives the apostles the binding and loosing (just like Matthew 16). Which would mean, ALL the apostles get the keys, not just Peter.
@@tony1685 Sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about. Please explain.
@mikekukovec4386 Nice try, but there's no evidence that Jesus gave the "keys" to anyone but Peter. In Matt 16:19, Jesus is directly addressing Peter and the "you" is singular, not plural.
And Jesus did not give all the apostles the name "rock" - only Simon (John 1:42).
@AndrewLane-pm2ro what does it mean for Peter to have the keys?
Freaking love it Cameron! Huge hit keep it up!
But, if they really mean scripture alone, as they say, they have a huge logical paradox. Don't they?
explain the paradox?
@brucewmclaughlin9072 simple. Nowhere in scripture does it say scripture alone. So, if it is scripture alone, it can't be, because scripture doesn't say so
@@rukidding-y2c You are correct scripture alone is never found in a verse in all 73 books of the bible What is found is Romans 15:4 and that tells us scripture , not tradition ,not oral is to be used as an example to live by . Anything that contradicts existing scripture is not to be taught or thought of as a supplement.
@brucewmclaughlin9072 problem is that there was no Canon of scripture when that was written. God be with ye! aka: Goodbye!
@@brucewmclaughlin9072 the problem with Romans 15:4 - it does not say that "evrything needed to teach us was written...") It says "everything that was written..." That is a big difference.
The Baltimore Catechism helps us here also. It names three reasons why we cannot go to the Scriptures alone: 1) the uniquely Christian parts of Scripture had not yet been written when Christ sent the Apostles, 2) not everyone can examine the Scriptures for themselves, but everyone CAN hear the Church, and 3) those that claim to do so are always disputing its meaning, as some things from Scripture cannot be correctly interpreted without tradition.
Don’t let the Prots in the comment section detract from your work. Keep it up.
The apostles literally say don’t go beyond what is written 1 Corinthians 4:6, 2 Thessalonians 2:15. Everything profitable was taught and written down for the church 2 Timothy 3:16, 1 John 1:4. When Paul said his goodbye to the elders of Ephesus he committed them to the “word” of God which was already written to the early the churches.
What? What about 1 Tim 3:15 “For if I tarry long, that you should know how to behave oneself in the house of God, which is the church, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.”
Or how about 2 Thessalonians 2:15? “So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold to the TRADITIONS which you were taught either by word of mouth or by letter from us.”
Now you have Scripture telling you the Apostles taught by word of mouth as well as by letter, and that they exhorted early Christians to adhere to what was taught in BOTH forms. This is heavy Biblical evidence AGAINST sola scruptura.
@ you have to consider, the traditions were first taught by word of mouth and then by letter. What they taught in letter is not separate nor different from what they taught by mouth. These traditions are heavily evident in the epistles of both the Jerusalem apostles as well as Paul who is tasked with the gentile ministry. You will find all the early Christian traditions in their epistles i.e. Lord’s supper, church gathering on the Lord’s day, financial contributions, order in church gatherings, from how the Christians are to act, behave, clothe themselves in church to the hierarchical process of leadership. Nothing necessary for the church’s salvation was left unwritten. Even extra biblical records like the didache are congruent with the doctrine taught and explained in the epistles. If it’s not supported by the written doctrine, how will you verify it. The command given to ALL (not just elders as John is addressing the whole church when he gives this command) is to test the spirit (1 John 4:1) How do you suppose you can test the spirit if the written foundation wasn’t left for you? If anyone can just say what they’re teaching is oral tradition not found in written traditions, to which will you verify if what they say is truth? If even you yourself can come up with your own oral tradition apart from the written doctrine? Hence again, why the church was commanded not to go beyond what was written. Consider that we were even warned not to believe angels (Galatians 1:8) should their teachings be other than what the apostles taught (a gospel which was first taught by mouth and next by word in the gospels we now have.) Listen to the writer’s voice in all four gospels. You’d hear them teaching, preaching, explaining, uncovering prophetic meanings and addressing the church (with the exception of Luke which was addressed to one specific person) because these gospels were written to the church during the time of the apostles and the disciples tasked to spread the gospel.
@ you made a HUGE assumption there: that what was taught in the letters was NO DIFFERENT than what was taught be word of mouth. How do you know this? They certainly didn’t CONTRADICT one another but that does NOT mean they were EXACTLY the same information verbatim. You made a HUGE assumption.
I’ll take on your point so I can make you understand mine. Suppose you’re correct, tell me which oral tradition is not the same as the written? Which are they?
Without sola Scriptura, how did you get from, the foundation of the church is the apostles, Christ, and Peter, to the church is the Catholic Church?
Protestant churches are also founded on those three things-by definition the foundation is the first thing laid. As you say, that’s Christ first, then the Apostles who were the first to believe and spread the gospel, Peter being the first of them to announce that belief. Nobody thinks the Scriptures (the NT at any rate) came before them, so saying sola Scriptura is wrong because the Bible doesn’t say the foundation of the church is Scripture seems to me a category mistake-you’re taking one concept and applying it in a context where it doesn’t make sense or belong. And claiming Protestant churches are founded on Luther, Calvin, etc. is really just a way of saying you disagree with their theology, but by the same token a Protestant might say Catholicism is founded on Constantine or someone else, depending on their specific view of when and how the church went wrong.
Why would you say is the same as saying "Protestant might say Catholicism is founded on Constantine" ? Before Constantine did the catholic church exist ? historically we can say yes The first mention to word Catholic was from St Ignatius of Antioch in 110 AD “Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” way before Constantine 272-337 AD. Can you quote the word "Protestant church" before the reformers? They claimed the Protestant church was already there but at the same time Luther was a monk in the Catholic church so he might have joined a church that existed? who was leading it?
And how come he managed to speak on behalf of an existing "Protestant" church by being the first to mention Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura because for 15 century it has never been "clearly" mentioned not even in the bible nor by any church fathers?
@@joyb8062 “Catholic” is from Greek “kata holos,” meaning “according to the whole.” It wasn’t a proper noun naming a particular institution, just a term referring to the whole or universal church.
@@joshuascott5814 yes it's a greek term and it was the name used to refer to the church founded by Jesus Christ and I just used it to show that one cannot argue that Constantin would have founded something that already existed and that was clearly named and accepted by all Christians who had the same faith belief and practice up until at least 1054 AD. Can you please prove that the reformers didn't found the "Protestant churches"?
@ you’re assuming the “Catholic Church” of today is the same one that Jesus founded and which was called “ekklesia kata holos” in the quote you gave above. Thats the whole point-Protestants do not share that assumption.
The apostolos and the prophets and Christ
all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be COMPLETE,
THOROUGHLY equipped for every good work. thus, paul exhorts timothy to
"preach the word".
that he must continue in the things he has learned, and been assured of, knowing from whom he has learned them, and that from childhood he has known the holy scriptures,
which are able to make one wise for salvation thru faith which is in jesus christ.
in the beginning was the word. the word was God. the Word became flesh.
the word of God is living and powerful.....searching the scriptures daily to see if the things
men are saying are true. solid food is for the mature, who by constant use, have their senses exercised to discern good and evil.
how does a bank teller recognize a counterfeit? by studying the real thing.
if the blind lead the blind they both fall into the ditch. continue in the apostles doctrine.
do not go beyond what is written, that none of you would be puffed up one against another.
constantly jesus spoke the word of God: "it is written". that settles it. the word of God defeated the devil in the wilderness. but it is not sufficient? blasphemy.
you are the protestant cameron, constantly protesting against the liberty we have in christ jesus, based on the doctrines of men, saint this guy and that guy. a leaky cistern when examined against the written word, the very foundation that the apostles stood on, and passed down to us, having the seal of God. jesus, the living word of God.
pope francis? peter's successor? a proven heretic over and over. and you have no shame??
you prop him up? blind leading the blind for sure. all cults claim to be the one true church.
the church, the church, the church. russia, russia, russia.🙃the Kingdom of God.
Christ is King, and "Head over all things to the church".
very well stated and proven!!
yet we know he doesn't have the integrity to accept these facts.
@@tony1685 Not sure if it is integrity or a closed mind after being told what to believe by the RCC.
When where whom was pope Francis proven heretic?
What is the context of Paul's message to Timothy? About what scripture does he speak? Does this verse says that scripture is the only thing you need to be complete?
@@brucewmclaughlin9072 all catholics are told, such a sad situation.
@@JanGavlas friend, a 'heretic' is one who speaks contrary God's Word -- all catholicism is heretical.
this is the Biblical definition of it.
You re right, the real true church is the one that have the sucession of Peter. Long live the eastern orthodox church who not was manipulated by Rome
"Meditation on the Excellencies of the Word of God" psalm 119, all of it.
read it. it just might change your mind.
HERETICCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC !!!
Sola Scriptura doesn’t dismiss holy tradition. It’s simply the recognition that the magisterium can’t exceed it.
There is a more extreme ‘solo scriptura’ among very low-church Protestants, which is scripture alone without a clergy, but that’s a different phenomena.
But the Word of God is Christ Jesus, the Living God. The Bible is the inspired word of God, but it is not THE Word of God. So who did the Living God shared His authority with? Can the upholders of your current tradition, in full confidence, say it is them? If so, walkthrough with us on how that is.
Well Matthew 16 is pretty clear about the church having authority.
But Rome abused that authority, hence the Reformation.
I was raised Roman Catholic and am now Reformed for that reason.
We don’t claim to be the one true church, but rather a subsisting body within the invisible church. So it’s always an asymmetric argument given the different presuppositions.
As for knowing that we are ‘a’ church, we profess the creeds and the teachings which have been passed down since the apostles.
@@HDwedge012do you believe in divorce or contraception? (Genuinely curious)
Generally no but permissible in rare circumstances (abuse, adultery).
Welcoming my third in late December!
@@HDwedge012 as a Protestant yourself then, where does the Bible allow divorce in such cases? And what is your take on contraception?
Nice try, the true church of Jesus Christ is built on Himself, the true rock which u can find throughout the Bible.
The true church where Jesus Himself is the head and the true born again Spirit filled believers the body, alive and well through the ages despite s atan's plans to hi jack it.
Makes sense! Thank you!
AMEN!!
Boom!
What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 1 Corinthians 1:12-14
This is gotta be the most ridiculous response I've ever seen.
Then go ahead and worship the Pope as your God then, easy.
As Catholic we never worship the pope. Jesus Christ is the head of our Catholic Church, the Church is the body of Christ which He build with the authority of His Father, Lord of heaven and earth through His Apostle Simon Peter only, not even through His 11 Apostles BUT ONLY ONE CHURCH. And the popes are the successors which they continually preach the Kingdom of God and to heal without broken till today.
But there are thousand of churches build by men themselves and with their own authority they are trying so hard to search the scriptures from the words of God itself and the rejects and protest against HIS WORDS AND HIS CHURCH.
I understand why a catholic has to reject sola scriptura, with everything the Catholic Church has added to the gospel.
I understand why a protestant has to accept sola scriptura, with everything they have removed from tradition.
@@doinic09 One of the basic principles of biblical interpretation is the analogia scriptura, the analogy of Scripture--we must compare Scripture with Scripture in order to understand its full and proper sense. Since the Bible doesn't contradict itself, any interpretation of a specific passage that contradicts the general teaching of the Bible is to be rejected.
What has been removed from tradition and is it actually scriptural in nature or the common beliefs of the time?
The Catholic Church compiled the Bible.
@@JamesHarrison687 The church which is the body of Christ on earth made up of all believers in the Lord compiled the existing scriptures into the canon we have today.. The roman Catholic church came into being /founded in 385AD and promptly rewrote history to provide it with authority/
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. - 2 Thessalonians 2:15
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. - 1 Timothy 3:15
First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, - 2 Peter 1:20
Just going to leave these little numbers for you to gnaw on.
😂😂😂 why is this so funny
It’s not funny, it’s just sad.
So u say God is unable to give us a manual as guidance?
He gave us a manual that trace back to Moses, from creation, the fall, the Saviour and the promised new covenant up to Revelation where everything will be restored yet u need to add to that?
The only reason anyone would need to add to the manual is when their ideas and teachings are not found in it, exactly what the Bible warn us against.
Hope u get saved from b ondag e.
So true
1:34 So will you quit being a roman Cathodic when you realize that what you are basing your salvation on is not scriptural but a flawed concept of the church being a central authority as an entity and not the body of Christ that the scriptures claim? IIRC you have dumped roman Catholicism to embrace Orthodox ?
The church had the scriptures of the old testament as 2 Tim 3:15-17 , Romans 15:4 , and Acts 17:11 point out. Peter stands up and tells the Jews to repent and he did not require the new testament to do so.
Your concept of sola scriptura is also false.
One of the basic principles of biblical interpretation is the analogia scriptura, the analogy of Scripture--we must compare Scripture with Scripture in order to understand its full and proper sense. Since the Bible doesn't contradict itself, any interpretation of a specific passage that contradicts the general teaching of the Bible is to be rejected.
You obviously don't understand Sola Scriptura. It doesn't mean that you can interpret any passage any way that you wish.
Romans 15:4 For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through the endurance taught in the Scriptures and the encouragement they provide we might have hope.
Sola Scriptura is saying that The New Testament is the Life and Teachings of Jesus and the original Apostles and the First Churches.. Sola Scriptura just points to THEM not just the Holy Spirit inspired Words, but the Holy Spirit inspired Authors/leaders and their Proven Authority as the true source to prove or test or Disprove future so called 'leaders' or future claims and teachings. Sola Scriptura means going all the way back directly to Jesus, John, Paul, James, Peter, Mark, Luke, Matthew, Moses, David, etc.. and going back to Their Lives, and Their preserved written teachings and traditions. Sola scriptura skips the questionable 'middle-men'.... thousands of years of Post New Testament groups and so called 'leaders' and takes you back to the first Source Leaders that were confirmed and are not questionable.
This is the best way. Skip Luther and Skip the Vatican and just Learn the Truth Directly from Moses, David, Jesus, John, Paul, James, Peter, .
Please read the whole New Testament... you will find no popes, no cathedrals, no Statues, no Marian dogmas, no prayers to dead saints, No Vatican, No wafers, No fancy Robes, No Christian thrones.
Please Follow Jesus and Him Alone.
You should just look up eucharistic miracles of the Catholic Church. Please just look at it. It might just change your opinion and if it doesn't I will be willing to talk more with your questions for the church
who put together the bible you read, even with the deuterocannonical books cut out? name the year and place and then please name the non-Catholic leaders involved?
@@RedRiverMan Define non catholic and catholic?
Were the believers who compiled the scriptures into the canon Believers in God with Christ as their savior?
Who did you learn what you now know about Christianity? Can they trace their learnings from the Apostles and to the Word of God Himself?
How did Jesus' teachings get transmitted before the Bible was even compiled? If you trust whoever that complied the Bible, then you must trust their Authority and their guidance. Who did the Word of God shared His Authority with? Can these people be found till this day?
@@euengelion Who did you learn what you now know about Christianity?
Originally from an evangelist who was a friend of mine's father.
Can they trace their learnings from the Apostles and to the Word of God Himself?
Yes that is precisely what this evangelist did contrary to what we see on TV and the mess that is created by people who have monetary goals.
How did Jesus' teachings get transmitted before the Bible was even compiled?
Read these verses 2 Tim 3:15-17 , Romans 15:4 , Acts 17:11 and you will find that every feast in the old testament pointed to Christ , and all the old testament was available well before anyone thought about the new testament to make the bible complete.
If you trust whoever that complied the Bible, then you must trust their Authority and their guidance.
Yes I would trust their authority and their guidance , however they are no longer among the living and the group that has claimed authority is no longer aligned with those who had authority and have brought in different beliefs taught as truth.
Who did the Word of God shared His Authority with?
Jesus founded His church on Himself and He is the Rock and the chief cornerstone . Jesus created the church and the church is the body of Christ made up of all believers in Christ,. Jesus is the head of the church.
Each group of believers found in the new testament are called the church and there was no central church to run to when a problem arose. Jesus gave His authority to the church and that means every body of believers had His authority.
Can these people be found till this day
No they can not as they have passed on and what we find today is not what the early believers would approve of.
Oh my goodness!! Someone, please share the Gospel with this guy. He seems to be very lost😢.
That is why I believe Scriptura to not trust a guy like you, your teaching is away from the Bible. Salvation is not faith with your leaders even with Peter, only with Jesus. Jesus never said that He will build a church because of Peter and Peter is not the foundation of the church. and there is no succession of Apostleship and pope is not Biblical. Come on
Ah yes, the famous "nuh uh" argument that goes against all the writings and traditions of the early Christians.
The Bible very clearly teaches that Jesus gave us a church and entrusted his apostles to lead it. Very clearly in acts ch 1 shows the idea of apostolic succession “let another his office take”…. I can show you many places in the Bible where Jesus built a church and gave the church authority.
You cannot show one place in the Bible where Jesus commands the writing of a book. If he did, it wouldn’t take 350 years after his dead and resurrection for that book to even come into existence
For the first 1600 years of Christianity, all Christians believed what the video just said.
Your argument places such a little confidence in the Holy Spirit.
Sola scriptura is not in the scriptura
Peter is NOT the Savior. Peter/Paul were the first evangelists of Christs Church. They point to what Christ did for us, and on the Third Day. To God be The Glory. To rely on a man Peter or The Pope or Paul all sinners by God's standard, and not the only begotten Son that died, shed His blood, and again Resurrected on the Third Day is not Biblical. However, those 3 and the apostles were called for a purpose, to spread the Gospel, like all that believe. All that believe makes up the Church. Lastly, NOWHERE in The Bible does God say, "Catholic" or that Peter is the "First Pope" or it was ok to pray to Mary. Similar to Islam, which was founded 500 years after Christ, Catholicism was founded 590 years after Christ and after The Bible was written. To make honestly such an arrogant claim that Catholics are "The Chruch" is not true. The Bible is clear, The Church is AGAIN, made up of ALL that Believe.1 Corinthians 12: 13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. Once you Believe upon The Lord Jesus Christ, and trust in HIs finished work, we become a member of HIs Church, and are baptized and sealed by HIs Holy Spirit of Promise. Being Catholic doesn't do it, being a denominational "Church of Christ" member doesn't do it. Faith does.
classic pharisee catholic…