We're just a humble Christian channel that largely focuses on Catholic & Jewish-related apologetics from a classical Protestant perspective, but we also deal with things like UFOs or random stuff. We proclaim the message that we are saved by faith alone, apart from works, so that no one may boast (Ephesians 2:8-9) and hopefully this channel helps you walk in works God prepared beforehand for us (Ephesians 2:10).
Great points! Great research! Thanks for sharing. It must be said, though, that the belligerent tone and the choice of words saddens, as one cannot possibly see imitation of Christ in the use of those adjectives to describe someone that may be deluded, mistaken or even very ignorant on the topic of debate. Before doctrinal discussions, may we honour Our Lord and seek serenity and peace.
Speaking as an ancient Catholic I can answer this quite simply, as it has been answered before J. White _fabricated_ the question. There was no need to hold a council. Just as there is no need to hold council on a great many things. The until date is fish mongery as the list is exactly the same as it had been from the local councils some 1200 years earlier. This whole question begs the question how Protestants have a canon of scripture without a council of their own much less an official canon.
There's another word, or words, for this. It's called "talking out of both sides of your mouth". Or as I like to call it "forked tongue serpentry". The moment you being taking a position that relies on deception of any kind, you become a child of the father of lies. Sadly, this is the position that Rome has put its defenders in, and sadly too many of them are so blinded by their zeal for inherited pride, that they can't see it. I always point this out, and it should be shown to them over and over, because there's no escaping it. The Council of Trent anathematized Paul, and in so doing also anathematized the Holy Spirit.
Did Jesus weep? The Holy Spirit is telling me that Jesus Wept is actually a metaphor. I feel God telling me that my interpretation of scripture is the correct one. Anyone who disagrees with me either isn’t as connected to God as I am, or is willfully ignorant of the obvious truth that Jesus didn’t actually weep. I am right, your wrong, and God told me so.
Jews before Jesus didnt had an established canon, there were a lot of factions that had different canons like sadducees and Pharisees and the one that john the baptist belonged to (I forgot its name esenians?) And jews who rejected our Lord chose a canon opposed to the the doctrines of the christians. Which is quite an ironic choice
The reason the canon wasn’t defined until Trent was the church doesn’t casually define something until a heresy is posed in a grand way. Also, if the canon wasn’t defined until Trent then how did the Orthodox get the same canon as the Catholics given they split off in 1054. The Sadducee vs Pharisee vs others is a valid Catholic point, further why would the church accept a Jewish perspective (Jamnia) as to the canon? I’m a Protestant but it’s arguments like Dr Whites that are moving me towards Catholicism. I have been searching for reasonable and clear Protestant arguments against Catholicism and I’m not find it.
On point, and you are not even catholic, interesting. Trent don't defined the canon. It confirmed the canon in use in the Chruch, because protestants were teaching another canon. Trent was not a normal council. It was called to answer the protestants claims. Some things the church accepted and tried to fix (disciplinary issues normally, like the bad exemples of priests), others the Church rejected and confirmed the previous teaching. The canon was one of the second cases.
It was essentially the same as Rome. They added 3, 4 Maccabees and a psalm that was found elsewhere in the Bible. Not sure all the orthodox agree the same. But essentially the same Bible.
Please reference the plenty of Catholics who held to 66 book canon? If you mean Martin Luther, Calvin I will concede them as schismatic Catholics. The question then becomes authority. Does just anyone have the right to decide the canon?
6:05 Josephus verified the Jewish canon. The scribe's would not add or omit from their writings!!! If any Hebrew word was suspect they wrote in the margin of what it might be. We westerns dont understand that mentality.
Baptists seem to do this too, only the opposite. They say things like "the church was corrupt since AD 300 so nothing the church fathers said or wrote can be trusted." It's restorationism, but it's apparently Baptist too. So, if you argue for infant baptism or baptismal regeneration, they quickly say, "Roman Corruption" and "Church father's texts have been changed," and refuse to engage the baptismal texts.
Hey everyone, I hope you all are doing well. I was wondering if you guys can help me out. I was asked the other day why Protestants do not include the Apocrypha in our Bible. I heard a couple people say “the Jews do not accept it so we shouldn’t” and “it goes against what the rest of the Bible teaches.” I still don’t know why we don’t include the apocrypha if it’s included in the Septuagint text and that was what Jesus apparently read. It seems like if Jesus saw this text and it was not suppose to be with the rest of scripture, he would have said that. Thanks for any help. This question really got me and I don’t know how to answer it.
There is no real reason why the books were completely erased. Most sources indicate it happened due to saving money in printing. In reference if they were inspired, early church councils believed so, Jerome argued them, than Luther also used Jerome’s reason. They both claimed the Hebrew version was more accurate. New Testament writers used the Septuagint more than the Hebrew. As far as Jesus knowing Hebrew I always consider the sign that was written on top of the cross. Hebrew Latin and Greek. Most scholars claim Aramaic at that time was mostly spoken at home. But again to your question no one has said a real reason other than money. People complained the first couple years till it became the new normal. *Several other Bible Societies, including the American Bible Soclety, which was founded at New York in 1816, followed the decision and practice of the London Society. As a consequence it was not long before commercial publishers, for obvious reasons of economy, likewise ceased including the Apocryphal books in their editions of the Bible, and it soon became difficult to obtain ordinary editions of the Bible with the Apocrypha." Metzger, Bruce M., Introduction to the Apocrypha, p. 202.
Ok. You get lots of uninformed answers on the question of canon. You will have to do your own digging, see Michael Kruger's work, Bruce, Canon of Scripture. Long and short, there were historically two streams of canon from early church to Mid Ages. One stream, in the East rejected Deuteros. The other stream received. Numerous church gathers on both sides but it was just not a matter of conflict until the Reformation. Until then, Roman Catholics could receive or reject, Pope Gregory says 1 Macc is not canon, Cardinals Jimenez & Cajetan.... Athanasius excludes the Deuteros from his canon list, 4th century except Baruch (commonly thought written by Jeremiah) and letter of Jerem. Big topic, needs considerable study. Respect.
Just like to point out the irony here. This channel is trying to call out Catholics for doctrinal development(as if he didn’t have and with his tulip)meanwhile the guy who runs the YT channel and Jordan cooper don’t even believe in the same Gospel. Goy for Jesus believes sola fide is essential, but Jordan Cooper does not. Maybe y’all should figure out what the foundations of your beliefs even are before coming after Rome.
@@aGoyforJesus the way i see the gospel defined by what id deem as ignorant Protestants which I consider you to be, is the list of essential beliefs one must hold to be “saved” you include sola fide in that list hilariously, and cooper does not include sola fide in his, therefore yes, you do indeed have different gospels.
Thing is none of this proves anything, cause neither the bull nor Bellarmine are infallible. Also to respond to comments in the video one man said Catholics can not point to infallible interpretation of scripture. This is blatantly untrue, it is a lie, and it is slanderous, as id expect from a son of satan. Catholics through the ecumenical councils will have infallible interpretations of scripture, and unlike as is even said in here by the videos creator, Protestants who can’t even agree about the essentials of the Gospel. Heretics will be heretics and hell is your home you lying sons of division. And also maybe get in line with the rest of Protestantism and the reformers who themselves said that there were saved Catholics.
I have to state outright that I appreciate your video and your honest and calm demeanor. As a Catholic, and a traditionally minded one with a lot of experience with both the diocesan Church and the SSPX, I'm having trouble reconciling your position. "Assurance" as a term isnt' really within the Catholic Lexicon. What you are referring to is called "Certitude" It was Robert Bellarmine who is most noted for making the distinction between "absolute certitude" which is only possible in Heaven and "moral certitude" which one can attain in this life. The moral certitude explanation was dealing with the problem of scrupulosity, in which a person was so afraid of committing a sacrilege if they weren't "really" in the state of grace. The Church had to address this distortion and addressed it intellectually with the explanation of "absolute" and "moral" certitude and you could discern and then act on moral certitude. The second element to combat scrupulosity was to address the fostering of the virtue of Hope by employing its value so as to not fall into sins of the extreme such as Despair for the overly scrupulous and Presumption for the slothful. The Church actually made a law in which Catholics have to go to Confession and receive the Eucharist at least once a year in order to force people who were scrupulous to the point of avoiding taking Holy Communion unworthily. (Now, the Church has the opposite problem in the post-Vatican II part of the Latin Church) That explanation of the value of the virtue of Hope actually precedes Trent and it's formulation goes at least back 3 more centuries to Aquinas. I'm not seeing the contradictions that you believe are there. While there may be apologists who are not clear or quietly reject clear formulations and rely on subtleties that mislead people nowadays, the official teaching of the Church hasn't changed. You have moral certitude because you carry with you the virtue of Hope. I don't see the value of Hope if you have "absolute" certitude. That's why the Church teaches that Faith and Hope will not be present in Heaven but Charity/Love will and that's why Paul ranked it the highest of the virtues. So we have the Revelation from Paul, which leads to questions about it, which leads to explanation by Aquinas, which leads to more questions which leads to Bellarmine providing answers which gets to Trent and beyond. Chesterton wrote this about Doctrinal Development: "In short, it was what is technically called a Development in doctrine. But there seems to be a queer ignorance, not only about the technical, but the natural meaning of the word Development. The critics of Catholic theology seem to suppose that it is not so much an evolution as an evasion; that it is at best an adaptation. They fancy that its very success is the success of surrender. But that is not the natural meaning of the word Development. When we talk of a child being well-developed, we mean that he has grown bigger and stronger with his own strength; not that he is padded with borrowed pillows or walks on stilts to make him look taller. When we say that a puppy develops into a dog, we do not mean that his growth is a gradual compromise with a cat; we mean that he becomes more doggy and not less. Development is the expansion of all the possibilities and implications of a doctrine, as there is time to distinguish them and draw them out; and the point here is that the enlargement of medieval theology was simply the full comprehension of that theology. And it is of primary importance to realise this fact first, about the time of the great Dominican and the first Franciscan, because their tendency, humanistic and naturalistic in a hundred ways, was truly the development of the supreme doctrine, which was also the dogma of all dogmas. It is in this that the popular poetry of St. Francis and the almost rationalistic prose of St. Thomas appear most vividly as part of the same movement. There are both great growths of Catholic development, depending upon external things only as every living and growing thing depends on them; that is, it digests and transforms them, but continues in its own image and not in theirs. A Buddhist or a Communist might dream of two things which simultaneously eat each other, as the perfect form of unification. But it is not so with living things. St. Francis was content to call himself the Troubadour of God; but not content with the God of the Troubadours. St. Thomas did not reconcile Christ to Aristotle; he reconciled Aristotle to Christ."
Hes resentful because Catholics can bring scripture together while protestantism needs to tear everything apart to try to make it make sense. It's part of their nature. Thats why they can't hold together as one.
A Jew could not have known in the time of Jesus. The Saduccees had restricted itself to the five books of Moses. The Pharisees had a different canon. Others included the deuterocanonical books in their canon. Debates over the Jewish canon continued past the time of the resurrection. As far as Jesus “holding people accountable”, he held them accountable to their own beliefs as to what the canon was.
@@adenjones1802 Whether the Bible applies to me would depend on what part of the Bible you are citing to me. For example, I would say that the Mosaic law does not apply to me. I am a Gentile living outside the Holy Land. So, yes, my socks are not always pure wool or cotton.
@@charleskramer8995 How do you know the old law does not apply to you? was there perhaps something in the scriptures that gave you that idea? If your not a protestant, then you just substituted one set of laws for another. The only thing Christs blood accomplished for you is a shortening of the laundry list of works you need to do.
@@ScroopGroop baptism, Eucharist, liturgy, tradition, no sola scriptura, relics, councils, hierarchy, Marian prayers, etc. all in first 500 yrs Or else Jesus let the gates of hell... .. And didn't send d holy Spirit to guide. To me, proof of papacy is set so high yet sola scriptura evidence is even more dubious. Is it possible that the provision of sending d holy Spirit to guide includes the development of papacy as need arises? I mean an organization of a few hundreds to tens of thousands, George Washington didn't have air force one, secret service.
@@ScroopGroopdo you even know history, bro go read acts 15. There’s literally a quote from an early church author about if one can even have assurance of salvation if he’s not in communion with the bishop of Rome. Even if the papacy was a radical development it still appeared earlier in Christian history than sola fide, or sola scriptura and thats just an indisputable fact.
Protestant churches have baptisms, liturgies, celebrate the Eucharist, etc. You are wrong on Sola Scriptura and the Marian stuff. I can expand on that if you wish.
I find the "The Catholic Church has centuries of infallible tradition" argument a bit hollow since the Roman Church has had numerous councils over the centuries, well beyond those that most Protestant strains and the Eastern Orthodox both accept. This doesn't sound like a Church with infallible tradition. Besides even the Roman church itself has multiple strains. You have people every bit as liberal as the most modernist mainline Protestant denomination all the way to people who consider themselves more Catholic than the Pope himself. You also have the Eastern Catholic Churches that use the same liturgy as the Eastern Orthodox and haven't completely accepted every Roman innovation/"development."
"Doctrinal Development" inside the Church Christ founded is somehow invalid - but inventing doctrine out of absolutely nothing other than a reactionary hostility to the Church Christ founded is absolutely A-OK. Protestantism is nothing more than proto-liberalism.
There is no one "Lutheran View" of justification as evident by the Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation signing the joint declaration 25 years ago. When reading the early Church Fathers, I read of great consistency on their speaking to our being justified by faith, both in context to the initial faith AND our remaining faithful, that faith, The Greek word for faith: _pistis,_ means to be "faithful," to be obedient to God's commandments, living a life in love and charity. As James 2:24 says, speaking of Abraham's faith, his faith was made complete by works of love (Ja 2 v22) and can a faith, empty of works of love save you? God says no (Ja 2 v14). That is why James says that one is justified by works (not of the OT law, but of love) and not faith alone, the ONLY time in all of scripture those two words are side by side. St Clement of Rome, the 4th Pope, who Tertullian (not a Church Father) claims was ordained by St Peter, is consistent with scripture and tradition (cleaving to those whom grace as been given by God) : _“Seeing, therefore, that we are the portion of the Holy One, let us do all those things which pertain to holiness, avoiding all evil-speaking, all abominable and impure embraces, together with all drunkenness, seeking after change, all abominable lusts, detestable adultery, and execrable pride. ‘For God,’ saith [the Scripture], ‘resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the humble.’ Let us cleave, then, to those to whom grace has been given by God. Let us clothe ourselves with concord and humility, ever exercising self-control, standing far off from all whispering and evil-speaking, *being justified by our works, and not our words.*”_ Epistle to the Corinthians, 30 (A.D. 98). Interesting that for 1500 years, no one in the Church brought forward the 16th doctrine of the Catholic priest named Luther, faith alone. Historical silence. If some would have believed the protestant notion of "faith alone" in this time period, there is no doubt the Church would have brought forward a synod or council somewhere, at sometime, to debate the issue as they did with oter issues. *Question:* which early Church Father would you invite to preach in your Church on the subject of being justified by faith alone??
With respect, while it is true that certain "Lutheran" communities (for example those who participated in and were signatories to the JDDJ) may continue to claim the denominational identifier, they have (and often self-admittedly) departed from all or some of the historic Lutheran confessional positions. A thorough reading of the JDDJ itself will reveal that the consensus they attained was for all intents and purposes a recognition and therefore a "union by indifference" that both sides use the same terms, but have vastly different meanings, and accept the others diversity in use. Like many well-meaning Catholic apologists across the various YT channels where this issue is discussed, I suspect you may have a mistaken understanding of what the position actually consists of which you criticize. That's not meant insultingly. Perhaps in an age of modern evangelicalism so-called, where it's popular to hold up an altar call as testimony of being 'once-saved, always-saved', it can't be faulted of you or anyone to think that sola fide is this "easy believism", practiced today by many. Confessional Lutherans would claim two things over and against this: 1.The Apostolic faith through which justification is received is NOT a choice of man nor is it easy...in fact for we as unregenerate men prior, it is quite literally impossible. 2.The Apostolic doctrine (filling the patristic writings as well as scripture) is equally quite literally solus Christus (Christ alone); and hence MUST necessitate sola fide by virtue not only of the scriptural account surrounded by such a cloud of witness in the faithers, but also logically and essentially as well. I know that you will disagree with my theology and I say this not to start a debate on it here, only to point out that denying something which confessional Lutherans would also deny, is not to defeat the position. I would not attempt to dismiss the Catholic perspective on Justification by confusing it with something else and then claiming victory in so doing. Peace be with you.
@@voyager7 " is equally quite literally solus Christus (Christ alone)" A good read (maybe you have read?) is BENEDICT XVI, GENERAL AUDIENCE on Wednesday, 19 November 2008, titled "The Doctrine of Justification: from Works to Faith." In it, he says: _Luther's phrase: "faith alone" is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love. Faith is looking at Christ, entrusting oneself to Christ, being united to Christ, conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence to believe is to conform to Christ and to enter into his love. So it is that in the Letter to the Galatians in which he primarily developed his teaching on justification St Paul speaks of faith that works through love._ This is 100% consistent with St James 2 saying: _21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and _*_faith was completed by works [of charity / love]._* And can one be saved by an incomplete faith? God says no. _What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him?_ (Ja 2 v14) One is saved by faith alone as defined above, regenerated by baptism. All one must do from that point to be saved is to stay out of mortal sin. And if one does the latter, one must repent. Unrepentant mortal sin leads to spiritual death, eternal separation from God.
@@TruthHasSpoken I have not read that but will certainly look at it. As said I do not mean to debate the issue here, but think it's worth pointing out that the faith of which Benedict here appears to be speaking, is like that of the CCC or Catechism of the Council of Trent before it. The confessional Lutheran position does not deny that true regenerative faith BRINGS love and charity with it, but that these do not constitute the faith itself which receives Christ our justification, but are the fruits and gifts of it. The Council of Trent would not really have disagreed with this statement above from Benedict as they, like the framers of the Catholic Confutation to the Augsburg Confession, rejected the Reformers' position of faith apart from these blessings (love, charity and a life of perseverance) ie excluding the works of man either prior to or afterward of faith. All that to say this: Benedict's position above is NOT that of Luther; and why this is vitally important is because it forms and informs that which we preach as the very Gospel. We both know from the letter to Galatia that there is only one gospel and no other. If we are reconciled to God and justified by Christ THEN to live a life of good works prepared beforehand for us in which to walk, this is a different Gospel than if we MIGHT be reconciled to God and justified by Christ THROUGH a life lived of good works prepared beforehand for us in which to walk. The gospel message of the truth and "faith" we proclaim in each of these cases is vastly different. Again not to argue or resolve this here in a 3-yr old video, only to point out why the Reformers and confessional Lutherans like myself see this doctrine as absolutely central and essential. Thanks again for the citation, I will check it out more fully!
@@voyager7 If you agree with Ja 2 v14 and v21, then I say AMEN. - faith ( _pistis_ ) is made complete by works (of charity) - a faith without works (of charity) can not save And of course, Catholic understanding, justification is a process.... not a once and done. Abraham was - justified by faith (multiple times) - justified by works "as absolutely central and essential" So if one rejects it one is not saved?
Dr Cooper do you pray to the angel? I think you will say no, based on your video, right? Please read psalm 148? How come in this psalm you ask the angel to praise God? You were talking about the saints in Heaven right? You could not pray to them right? Look at what Jesus said to those that are in Heaven in matthew 22:30: at the ressurection you would be like angel.... Thus, if you could pray psalm 148 then you could pray to the saint in heaven. Last biblical argument: Christ is our model, if the Son of God could spoke to two figure in heaven Moses and Eli why are forbidden to do the same? Jesus said and John you will do more then what I did... why are protestant are so picky with prayer of the saints in heaven? Aren't we one Body in christ? Could the leg said I don't need the hand as Paul said? Why can we as for tne prayer in psalm 148 request prayer from those who are in heaven? Knowing that they are alive, because God is a God of the living. May God bless you. And repent to the true church... the catholic church
I want to see if I follow the argument first and then see if the question I have is valid. Let me know if my understanding of the argument is flawed. Protestantism was based in a view that there is an absolute truth which can be known through the revelation of Holy Scripture and can be logically understood through hermeneutical principles and reason. To bolster Roman authority, the Roman church turned to skepticism as a way to remove any certainty in the objectivity of the revelation in Scripture, instead pointing to the church as the final authority on spiritual matters. First, there seems to be a hole in this argumentation, which makes me think I’m missing something important. If the Roman Church puts itself as the highest interpreting authority rather than Scripture, it seems that they make themselves prone to the same sort of skeptical argument against their own authority. Did they address this at the time? It seems fairly clear, unless I’m missing the nuances of their argument. Second, I think it’s important to note that, at least on the Lutheran side of the reformation, rationalism and natural revelation were largely rejected as means of understanding God over and above Word and Sacrament. This is not a skepticism, but it is an acknowledgment that there are some mysteries that human reason cannot grasp, such as the bodily presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper or election/single predestination. The Lutheran Confessions regularly reject both “enthusiasts” (those who believe they receive the Holy Spirit apart from the means God instituted) and insertions of human reason to explain mysteries of the faith, both on the Roman and Reformed sides.
This aspect shouldn’t be lightly passed over. Why is it that Clement is speaking with authority from Rome, settling the disputes of other regions? Why don’t the Corinthians solve it themselves, if they have a proclaimed bishop or even if they didn’t claim one at the time? Why do they appeal to the bishop of Rome? These are questions that I think Matt needs to seriously consider and offer some sort of answer for. St. Clement writes (I use the standard Schaff translation: no Catholic “bias” there!): You therefore, who laid the foundation of this sedition, submit yourselves to the presbyters, and receive correction so as to repent, bending the knees of your hearts. Learn to be subject, laying aside the proud and arrogant self-confidence of your tongue. For it is better for you that you should occupy a humble but honourable place in the flock of Christ, than that, being highly exalted, you should be cast out from the hope of His people. (57) If, however, any shall disobey the words spoken by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and serious danger; . . . (59) Joy and gladness will you afford us, if you become obedient to the words written by us and through the Holy Spirit root out the lawless wrath of your jealousy according to the intercession which we have made for peace and unity in this letter. (63) Clement definitely asserts his authority over the Corinthian church far away. Again, the question is: “why?” What sense does that make in a Protestant-type ecclesiology where every region is autonomous and there is supposedly no hierarchical authority in the Christian Church? Why must they “obey” the bishop from another region (sections 59, 63)? Not only does Clement assert strong authority; he also claims that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are speaking “through” him. That is extraordinary, and very similar to what we see in the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15:28 (“For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things”: RSV) and in Scripture itself. It’s not strictly inspiration but it is sure something akin to infallibility (divine protection from error and the pope as a unique mouthpiece of, or representative of God). Moreover, Max Lackmann, a Lutheran, makes the observation: Clement, as the spokesman of the whole People of God . . . admonishes the Church of Corinth in serious, authoritative and brotherly tones to correct the internal abuses of their ecclesiastical community. He censures, exhorts, cautions, entreats . . . The use of the expression send back in the statement: Send back speedily unto us our messengers (1 Clement 65,1), is not merely a special kind of biblical phrase but also a form of Roman imperial command. The Roman judge in a province of the empire sent back a messenger or a packet of documents to the imperial capital or to the court of the emperor (Acts 25:21). Clement of Rome doubtless also knew this administrative terminology of the imperial government and used it effectively. (In Hans Asmussen, et al, The Unfinished Reformation, translated by Robert J. Olsen, Notre Dame, Indiana: Fides Publishers Association, 1961, 84-85)
Catholic apologist Joe Heschmeyer adds: It’s also worth noticing that Clement is involved in this situation at all. It’s clear from the outset of the letter, in which he apologies for being “somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the points respecting which you consulted us,” that it was actually the Corinthians who reached out to Clement and the Church at Rome. This isn’t a case of a meddlesome Roman bishop but of a Greek church reaching out to the Roman bishop to settle a strictly internal dispute. Consider also the reception of St. Clement’s letter. If the early Church were Protestant, we might expect them to pay little heed to St. Clement, treating him merely as another churchman or as a threat to the apostolic order . . . [T]he mere fact that there was a question on this point tells us something about how Church members beyond Rome viewed the bishops of Rome following St. Peter. . . . What makes Pope Clement’s involvement in the Corinthian dispute more shocking is that it happened around the year 96, while the apostle John is still alive. In a colorful 1914 anti-Catholic sermon, pastor George Rutledge proclaimed to a crowd of about 1,500 people that the Catholic claims to the papacy couldn’t be true because “the apostle John lived a number of years after Peter’s death. Yet Rome declares a fellow by the name of Linus was made pope while an apostle was living!” Rutledge argued that since apostles are the highest order within the Church (1 Cor. 12:28), St. John would have “had a just grievance and could have bankrupted the whole business.” Yet St. Clement’s letter is evidence that St. Peter’s successors did play a central role in the governance of the early Church, even during the lifetime of the apostle John-and that John, as far as is recorded, did not object. (“The Papacy in the Early Church”, Catholic Answers, 10-23-19)
true, I submit that the essential questions I have asked, remain: why does Corinth have to obey Rome? Who determined that set-up? Why does it even cross their mind to write to a local church far away to settle their problems, and why does Clement assume that they should obey him, and that it would be “transgression and serious danger” if they don’t?
Letter 43: Cyprian to Maximus and Nicostratus, and the other confessors, greeting. As you have frequently gathered from my letters, beloved, what honour I have ever observed in my mode of speaking for your confession, and what love for the associated brotherhood; believe, I entreat you, and acquiesce in these my letters, wherein I both write and with simplicity and fidelity consult for you, and for your doings, and for your praise. For it weighs me down and saddens me, and the intolerable grief of a smitten, almost prostrate, spirit seizes me, when I find that you there, contrary to ecclesiastical order, contrary to evangelical law, contrary to the unity of the Catholic institution, had consented that another bishop should be made. That is what is neither right nor allowable to be done; that another church should be set up; that Christ's members should be torn asunder; that the one mind and body of the Lord's flock should be lacerated by a divided emulation. I entreat that in you, at all events, that unlawful rending of our brotherhood may not continue; but remembering both your confession and the divine tradition, you may return to the Mother whence you have gone forth; whence you came to the glory of confession with the rejoicing of the same Mother. And think not that you are thus maintaining the Gospel of Christ when you separate yourselves from the flock of Christ, and from His peace and concord; since it is more fitting for glorious and good soldiers to sit down within their own camp, and so placed within to manage and provide for those things which are to be dealt with in common. For as our unanimity and concord ought by no means to be divided, and because we cannot forsake the Church and go outside her to come to you, we beg and entreat you with what exhortations we can, rather to return to the Church your Mother, and to our brotherhood. I bid you, dearest brethren, ever heartily farewell. Few problems here: he doesn’t say listen to what we have written in the Holy Spirit, and it seems more of asking for a slight nudge, this letter is very different from clement to the Corinthians.
Cyprian of Carthage “The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18-19]). . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]). “Cyprian to [Pope] Cornelius, his brother. Greeting. . . . We decided to send and are sending a letter to you from all throughout the province [where I am] so that all our colleagues might give their decided approval and support to you and to your communion, that is, to both the unity and the charity of the Catholic Church” (Letters 48:1, 3 [A.D. 253]). “Cyprian to Antonian, his brother. Greeting … You wrote … that I should forward a copy of the same letter to our colleague [Pope] Cornelius, so that, laying aside all anxiety, he might at once know that you held communion with him, that is, with the Catholic Church” (ibid., 55[52]:1). “With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source” (ibid., 59:14).
We read in the acts of the seventh Carthaginian synod under Cyprian (and the eighth of which we know), that all were invited to speak freely. This synod is considered by most to be a response to the Pope’s rejection of Cyprian’s logic, sent via two former synods of A.D. 255-256. He gathered together a larger number of Bishops (87 in attendance) and once again set forth in turn, with the Bishops of Africa and Numidia, the declaration that those who were baptised by heretics must be baptised in the “one baptism of the Church”, solemnly repudiating Stephen’s position. The Council declares in the midst of this: Neither does any one of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. - 7th Synod of Carthage under Cyprian The Council is thought to have been explicitly against Pope Stephen’s claims. Cyprian denies, in a subsequent letter, claims of the same Stephen to some authority over other bishops, in the following manner: Peter, whom first the Lord chose, and upon whom He built His Church, when Paul disputed with him afterwards about circumcision, [did not] claim anything to himself insolently, nor arrogantly assume anything; so as to say that he held primacy [primates, seniority], and that he ought rather to be obeyed by novices and those lately come. - Epistle 71[70]:3 It must be questioned where this response is coming from. Surely, indeed, Cyprian could not have denied something that was not claimed; it would be more natural to read the challenge as one specifically repudiating that which Pope Stephen claimed in this time, concerning his holding of ‘primacy’ among the Churches and judging between the Bishops. This view had been upheld since the second century, with Saint Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, affording to Rome the honour of “holding the presidency among the Churches.” He goes on to say, in chapter 3 of the epistle, that “you have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force” - a specific allusion, it seems, to a seniority in that there was no one of whom Rome was taught or derived authority, save the blessed Lord and Saviour himself. This was to be confirmed in the letter of Dionysius of Corinth to Pope Soter, calling him “a loving father to his children” (in Ecclesiastical History 4:23:9-11), and indicating the confirmatory role of the Bishop of Rome in this place among the Churches: “For from the beginning it has been your custom to do good to all the brethren in various ways and to send contributions to all the churches in every city.” This theme was taken up again by St Irenaeus (A.D. 189) in his polemic Against Heresies, in which he speaks of Rome as: “the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” - Against Heresies, 3:3:2 The fact this Council of Carthage was attempting to secure the approval of the Bishop of Rome seems to have been for precisely this same purpose: that is, their attempts to have this practice approved as an Apostolic tradition (despite not being able to find a precursor to it before Agrippinus in 220) shows that the African Bishops were continuous with this same belief as those who had come before, such as Irenaeus. It is only after the Bishop of Rome denies there practice that they set themselves up against it. This can be no challenge, therefore, to the position of Philip the presbyter at the Council of Ephesus, cited at Vatican I and approved by the universal consensus of the Church: that “There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod.” The Aftermath of the Conflict But what of Saint Cyprian himself? Do we admit that he died outside the communion of the Catholic Church, by setting himself up against the idea of a bishop with universal jurisdiction? God forbid. For St Jerome tells us in the fourth century: “Blessed Cyprian attempted to avoid heresy, and therefore rejected the baptism conferred by heretics, sent [the acts of] an African Council on this matter to Stephen, who was then Bishop of the city of Rome, and twenty-second from St. Peter; but his attempt was in vain. Eventually those very Bishops, who had decreed with him that heretics were to be rebaptized, returned to the ancient custom, and published a new decree.” - Against the Luciferians 23 This event is not otherwise testified, but stands very well to reason; while we do not know what happened after Saint Cyprian’s letter to Stephen, we have no evidence or reason to believe it was dropped; neither did Dionysius nor Xystus cut Cyprian off. The fact of the matter is that eventually all the original party had come to be reconciled with the view given by Pope Stephen, in support of the Apostolic practice against re-baptising those who had been baptised outside of the Church. Cyprian has never however been impugned in the memory of the Saints, and the emphasis which he and others after him laid upon communion “in the same mind and judgment” of the whole catholic Church seem to show that he was later reconciled in his opinion towards the ancient and customary view. St Augustine, a contemporary with Jerome, took this approach to understanding him, defending his name against the Donatists who had taken up a form of his argument: “He merited to attain the crown of martyrdom; so that any cloud which had obscured the brightness of his mind was driven away by the brilliant sunshine of his glorious blood” - On Baptism 1:18:28. Therefore, says Hefele in his History of the Councils: “It is certain that church communion was not interrupted between them [Cyprian and Stephen]. The persecution which soon afterwards broke out against the Christians under the Emperor Valerian, in 257, probably appeased the controversy. Pope Stephen died as a martyr during this persecution, in the month of August 257. His successor Xystus received from Dionysius the Great, who had already acted as mediator in this controversy on the baptism of heretics, three letters in which the author earnestly endeavoured to effect a reconciliation; the Roman priest Philemon also received one from Dionysius. These attempts were crowned with success; for Pontius, Cyprian’s deacon and biographer, calls Pope Xystus bonus et pacificus sacerdos, and the name of this Pope was written in the diptychs of Africa. The eighty-second letter of Cyprian also proves that the union between Rome and Carthage was not interrupted, since Cyprian sent a deputation to Rome during the persecution, to obtain information respecting the welfare of the Roman Church, that of Pope Xystus, and in general about the progress of the persecution. Soon after, on the 14th September 258, Cyprian himself fell, in his turn, a victim to the persecution of Valerian.” The views Cyprian seem to have expressed were later taken up by the Donatists, and opposed by the aforementioned writers (Jerome and Augustine), as well as Saint Vincent of Lérins in his Commonitory. This Vincent says of the Council, “What was the end? What force was there in the African council? By God’s gift, none at all. All, as a dream or a tale, was abolished, forgotten.” We see that ultimately, whereas Cyprian may be taken one way or the other concerning his opinions on the rebaptism of heretics and the logic by which he came about those views, the fact of the matter is that he was chafing against orthodoxy by this very act, and it was Stephen’s position, less documented, which “won out.” This simple presence of conflict over the issues does not make the positions in these conflicts unknown or invalid simply because men of repute disagreed with them; but rather, the logic of Cyprian was ultimately rejected by the universal Church, who came to accord with the Bishop of Rome “in whom the Apostolic Tradition is maintained” (St Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:3:2.)
The Orthodox also make unfalsifiable claims. "It's Tradition!" "Show me!" "We can't. It's orally persevered!" "How do you know the Telephone Game isn't happening?" "Because the Church practices it." When claims aren't based on Reason open to all, but on Authority given only to a privileged few, unfalsifiability is all you're left with in the end (or axioms that cannot be proven)
I would actually say the Orthodox are plainly falsifiable, in that they actually hold to the idea of the "constant custom" or "practiced in every age" whereas somehow the RCC is allowed to divorce statements about historical fact from infallibility which allows them to basically slice up the councils and pick and choose whats right.
Christie ignores the fact that it’s not just Catholics who see Wisdom at least alluded to in Matthew, so did the translators of the 1611 King James Version.
@@aGoyforJesus Obviously, that this isn't some dastardly Catholic plot or whatever to see that Wisdom is at least alluded to in Matthew. I know y'all like to push that meme which doesn't work in this particular instance.
I think part of the answer here is Jews didn't have consensus on scripture in its entirety. He even says in his video that Sadducees and Pharisees probably didnt have consensus and we know the dead sea scroll community included deutocanonical books, but for the most part they all did agree on the 1st five books. With that you could see how Jesus could hold people accountable to those just like I can hold my kid for knowing her times tables without saying I need a closed definition of what is and isn't "math"
By your argument you should know the scriptures without reading them. Meaning there is no need of revelation. Meaning there is no need of a cannon. Meaning there is no need of the church. Not to mention there was no clear cannon in the early church either. So try again.
@@adenjones1802 the argument is pathetic, first of all. The point I was making is im going to take the side of 2000 years of Christians filled with the Holy Spirit
@@FisherOfMenParakletos What makes you think both of those churches are filled with the holy spirit? If they go against the bible thsts fruits of the devil not the spirit.
@@adenjones1802 hmm? Jesus said do not remarry if you get divorced unless there is a death or you are cheated on, yet protestants give permission to remarry all the time. you go against the bible. but i will let that go, please give me one dogma of the catholic church that goes against scripture?
@@FisherOfMenParakletos First of all, the verse on remarrying is only relevent to the old law which we are no longer under. Jesus was asked if it was lawful to divorce your wife. This does not mean it applies today since we are not under the law. As for how catholics violate the scriptures lets see The perpetual virginity of mary The sinlessness of mary Idolatry via icon veneration Claiming authority over the word of God Salvation by works soteriology Aesthetacism (or however you spell it) Crusades Inquisitions Your pope have had orgies in the vatican They have also drunk childrens blood for eternal youth Just to name but a few examples.
What cannot be argued against is that the Roman Catholic Church is an organic development of the Church that Christ founded. Love it or hate it, the Roman Catholic Church is the Church from which you must dissent to be any other type of Christian.
I don't think thats a fair take. You can look at any number of Churches and make the same claim. If the Lutheran tradition was in dissent as a jurisdiction as opposed to being a theological confession, we wouldn't get this criticism. Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, the Assyrian Church etc. *all* make that claim, they can't all be true, which reflects the reality, that is, that "The Church" is not a monolithic institution one can dissent from. The only thing that makes one in dissent, is to depart from biblical teaching. This is something Rome has done time and time again
This was a tragically shallow argument. What does Catholicism believe about justification? Read the catechism para 1987-2029. It’s not a secret teaching so clouded in nuance that it can’t be accurately understood. Compare this to what Protestants believe about justification. That depends entirely on which Protestant you ask. No set of defined doctrines that represent all of Protestantism. In fact, this turns Mr. Coopers argument on its head. It’s Protestantism that can’t give you a straight answer on this issue. It’s Protestantism that’s willing to bend biblical interpretation to fit every whim of culture. It’s Protestantism that allows anyone with any ideas about Christianity to have a pulpit and call it a church. Unity and clarity is impossible under that structure.
The notion that Jerome split Ezra-Nehemiah into two books does not work for two reasons: 1) Early Vulgate manuscripts, such as Codex Amiatinus, have Ezra-Nehemiah as one book. Jerome also stated that his translation would include one book of Ezra in his Preface to Ezra. 2) Athanasius (Festival Letter 39.4), Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lecture 4.35), and Origen (quoted in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.24.2) all say that the two books of Ezra in the Christian canon are the same as the one book of Ezra in the Hebrew canon, and they imply that this is in the same sense that the two books each of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles in the Christian canon are the same as the single books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles in the Hebrew canon.
Whenever Roman Catholics get criticized, they always belt out “There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be." Why to they always conflate criticism with hatred? It makes them look insecure.
I think the pagan strongholds are just much stronger in recently pagan or currently pagan lands. I even believe when the Supreme Court returned jurisdiction of parts of Oklahoma from the US back to the native Americans they transferred the spiritual principality back to those pagan false gods. I bet supernatural activity in that part of Oklahoma has spiked tenfold ever since.
Unfortunately you'll find Paulides lied over 300 times throughout his work. Check out Zealous Beast and The Missing Enigma. I resent him for discrediting so many legit researchers who take him at his word and thereby make fools of themselves.
In the end, Protestants are wrong about this one so many angles. The Christian Bible has 73 books, not 66. Let me share why I think this. I implore you to do your own research on what I say. What can be established as factual of the Jews of the Second Temple Period is two things: 1. There was no fixed canon of “divinely inspired scriptures” during this time period. Sadducees believed in a extremely minimalistic Torah-only canon. Pharisees had a larger canon but still had reservations about some books. Essenes collected many books including books we would not read as scripture today (Enoch & lesser ones). All reputable modern scholarship can demonstrate that there was no such thing as THE Hebrew Bible during the time of Christ. It would not be until the mid-to-late 2nd century AD that the newly formed Jewish school of thought in Yavneh (of Pharisaic origins) would finally establish a fixed and clear biblical canon of the books of the Hebrew Bible. 2. The manuscript tradition and translation of choice for the Second Temple Period Jews and many Early Christians of the 1st century, alas even Jesus himself, was that of the Septuagint collection. The Septuagint collection according to our understanding includes these Deuterocanonical books. We can reason then, and indeed we can infer based on later 3rd-4th century writings these books of the Deuterocanon were read in churches. There exists other translations including those of the likes of Aquila, Theodotion, and even extant Hebrew translations and Aramaic Targums. Even so, the Septuagint remained a popular one and was even used by the disciples of Jesus and Jesus himself when referencing the Old Testament. Now, by the time of the post-Second Temple Period (destruction of the temple, 70AD), and into the early 2nd century we can see that, at least according to the works of Justin Martyr (the Christian Apologists) in his dialog with Trypho the Jew, the Pharisees (who were becoming the de facto representatives of Rabbinic Judaism) were committed to engaging in polemics against Christians, resorting to even manipulating the contents of scripture itself to suit their agenda. This should cast doubt on any believer in the Christian Faith to trust their decisions on the canon later, or even the peculiarities of their translations of scripture (such as the Masoretic Text). On the Christian side, what do we see as “canon” to scripture? We see a period of formation of doctrine from the 1st to the late 4th century. Some figures disagreed on the Deuterocanon, favoring instead the Hebrew Canon (a 2nd century invention), other figures considered the Deuterocanon to be scripture. We can see that, in terms of the formal decisions on these churches, like the Council of Rome in 382, the Synod of Hippo in 393, or the Council of Carthage in 419, that the Deuterocanon was indeed scripture and in the list of the inspired books (even amidst the disagreement of Jerome on the non-Hebrew books, a disagreement he relegated to the authority of the churches anyhow). And subsequently after the 5th century until the reformation, we see little to no disagreement on the status of these books. This convicts me to believe these deuterocanonical books are inspired for three reasons: 1. They were considered among the inspired writings by the nature of some sects of Judaism as it was in Jesus’ time. 2. They were considered and declared to be inspired scripture after the formative period of the ante-Nicene church, from the 4th century onwards. 3. The alternative canon (the supposed Hebrew Canon) being the result of Jewish rabbinical authority which has demonstrated an anti-Christian agenda in terms of doctrine. For more resources on why I believe these things, see the following: Letter to Rufinus (Jerome) Jerome’s letters of correspondence about the Latin Vulgate The Synod of Hippo Council of Carthage Council of Rome (Gelasian Decree) Iraneaus Against Heresies Justin Martyr, Dialog with Trypho the Jew. Babylonian Talmud
Gotta say as a Lutheran, I had a real crisis of faith thinking about abortion, whether aborted children go to heaven or hell and I landed in that we can't know, thus we must not gamble on the issue.
