“Bible verses that teach Sola Scriptura” (REBUTTED) 

@YAJUN YUAN The Bible canon wasn’t put together until the 4th century.

Maybe God is a monster who wants most people in hell? Yeah, I don't buy that one either.

@YAJUN YUAN that's a possibility. But then Jesus would then also be explicit in telling us what future letters would be in the scriptures for us to read..... But what does happen is he gives us a council that infallibily lists the books. The council would have to be infallible otherwise it could not produce something infallible. Action follows being.

@YAJUN YUAN that someone was a Catholic priest

@YAJUN YUAN They weren't simply "reading" the Scriptures. They were explaining them too. Or when you gather for preaching and worship, is your pastor simply reading the Bible without explanation?

Google translated this comment beautifully. God bless you maam

Absolutamente, gracias Trent

Que agradable sorpresa ver un comentario en español. Que Dios le bendiga también.

Welcome home, and may God's blessings continue in your life! PS: as you can see by his reply, you've now been introduced to pope Tony, of the city-state Tonytown: population 1. You'll no doubt come across other self-proclaimed vicars of Christ, as Jesus himself warned us, so as He also counseled, don't be deceived and don't be concerned. As for Tony, he spends a lot of his time on Catholic channels, so there's hope for him yet!

@@tony1685 You seem like a thoughtful Non Catholic to answer this question. It is a bit long but easy to follow. Maybe you could give me an answer to the question. I posted on several "Sola Scriptura" videos and have no answers. I am desperate for an answer on this question. Let me just take one disagreement between Catholic and Protestant. The question is how can we trust the Bible? Catholics say the Church put the Bible together. Protestants say “NO the Bible revealed itself. Protestants say "the Church no more gave us the Bible than Newton gave us gravity.” For me not growing up in a religious home I just read the Bible until I was convinced that it was not a myth. I read it carefully so I know the contents pretty well. So to the question as to why we should trust anything the early Church did; this is what the Bible says: Jesus said 1) He was going to build a single Church. 2) He said the gates of hell would not prevail against it. 3) He said that He would be with the Church until the end of the age. 4) He said that He was going to send the "Spirit of Truth" to guide the Church in all truth. Then Paul says 5) the pillar and bulwark of truth is “the church.” Okay so let us look in church history at the Canon. In 382 AD the Church had the Council and determined that the canon was 73 books. They chose which books are infallible. That would be a radically important thing right? So the question is why would we trust those 73 books? Well, the answer is that Jesus said he would be with the Church to the end of the age. He also said he would give it the Holy Spirit to guide it in all truth. So we should trust what he says right? So from 382 AD to 1520 AD the Church that operated on the earth had the 73 book canon. But then Protestants come along and around 1520 AD and they claim that the early Church got the 73 book canon wrong. I am not being rude or belligerent but I really would like someone to explain - calmly and in simple language because I am slow - Please tell me how that is not absurd to say the Church got the 73 book Canon wrong based on Jesus promise to be with the Church to the end of the age and to send the “Spirit of Truth” to guide the church in All TRUTH. I am not being belligerent here really, I earnestly want to know. Did Jesus lie? Did He make a mistake? Did the Holy Spirit make an error with the 73 book canon? I cannot for the life of me believe that the church which is described as the “pillar and bulwark of truth” was not even on the earth from 382 To 1520. But then let’s move on; let’s say that the Protestants are right and the Church errored in the 73 Book canon. If the Church errored in the 73 book canon did God wait from 382 AD until 1520 before He restored the real truth? Are we really going to believe that for 1200 years the true Christian Church was not there? You could not say the true church was there if they could not even get the correct books in the canon. And I don’t see any other church in history declaring anything different than the 73 book canon. So the real church with the correct Bible was not on earth if the Protestant claim is true. Can that make any sense? I am just a guy who read the Bible very closely and came down on the Catholic side only recently but now I have Protestants telling me I am going to hell. I am not being rude or accusatory. But please tell me how it is not absurd that Jesus says he would create one Church. He would be with the Church to the end of the age. He would give it the Holy Spirit to guide it in ALL TRUTH. But then for one of the most important issues in all of Christianity the early Church gets 73 book canon wrong and so the real truth on this issue is not there until 1520. If that is true that would make me question the Christian truth claims entirely. Just a reasoned answer to this question would really help me.

Maybe you can help me out regarding my numbered comments I posted yesterday? Some feedback would be greatly appreciated.

@@stevenwall1964 You too might be a good candidate for my recent post! Regarding your comment... 1. Can you tell me what "the Church" IS? 2. Do you think the gates of hell could ever prevail against God's truth? 3. See #1 4. Could you cite the specific Scripture on that? Would need to review in order to understand correctly. 5. See #1 As for the canon, I would use the term "recognized" as I think that is more accurate. And this recognizing was based on very clear criteria. Regarding which books are infallible, we know that does not include the Apocryphal books that the RCC includes in their canon. (These books contain known historical and scientific errors and their teachings don't always comport with the rest of Scripture. Not exactly what one would call "infallible", agreed?) And finally, my previous questions come into play regarding your conclusions-and it seems your reasoning is perhaps viciously circular-meaning "the Church" in 1, 3, and 5 must be defined first. This certainly raises the question of whether "the Church" is in error or Jesus, or if "the Church's" claims about itself are in error. Best as I can figure anyhow. (There is also issues regarding "the Church's" claim to the 73 books, as it seems all of them appeared on like a single list-and the truth is that the Church officially added them later-appealing to this one time list-though they were considered worthy of study historically, but never considered canonical by Jews or Biblical Christians. And it would seem, though I haven't thoroughly studied it out for myself, that that is for good reasons.) But, if you go by the Bible, what of all the extra-biblical, un-biblical teachings and traditions invented by "the Church" sometimes hundreds or thousands of years later? How can one not find such teachings by the "infallible Church" to be deeply troubling? As for whether or not you or anyone else is going to hell, well, how about answering this question: According to the Roman Catholic Church, what is the Gospel of Jesus Christ? "...what must I do, that I may be saved?" (Acts 16:30)

@@jessebryant9233 Well lets just take this one at a time to avoid confusion. I don't believe in Sola Scriptura because the church that existed for 1500 years before the Reformation did not believe in it. I am new to Christianity. It makes no sense to me that Christ would say that he is going to "build a church that the gates of hell will not prevail against" and then turn around and let the church fail right away. That is what I have to believe to be Protestant. The Apostolic Fathers like Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus all saw themselves as part of one church. In Greek it was the Katholicos Ekklysia. It was one church that worked together to begin to establish doctrines like the Trinity and the 2 natures of Christ as fully God and Fully human in one person. Those are complicated doctrines. It is difficult to use the Bible alone to define them or prove them. It took the early church to have the council at Nicaea in 325, Constantinople in 381, Ephesus in 431, and Chalcedon in 451 to define these doctrines against many heretics. My question is how can we trust that the church got these doctrines right? Don't we trust the church because Jesus said he would build a church and that he would be with the church? I went to my Protestant pastor and I asked him if he could use the Bible alone and explain to me from the Bible alone how you arrive at the doctrine of the Trinity plus I ask him to show from the Bible alone how you get to the idea that Christ has 2 natures in that he is fully human and fully God in one person. And from the Bible alone he could not do that. I have read the New Testament 10 times in seeking Christianity to determine if it is true or not. And I know I could never have come up with the doctrine of the Trinity and the 2 natures of Christ like the early church did. So my question is don't Christians have to trust that church that existed from 107 AD When Ignatius called the church Katholicos until Chalcedon in 451 AD? It was that church that developed those important doctrines. Don’t I have to trust THAT particular church? Modern day Mormons reject the Trinity based on Bible arguments. So how do I know that the early church got those doctrines right? The only reason I can think of is that it is because Jesus said that he would build a church, he said that church would be persecuted and he said that church would go to all nations. And when I look at the evidence of the early church fathers, that church back then that determined the crucial doctrines was the Catholic Church. All of the big players in the controversies over who Jesus was were “Catholic.” Athanasius who was important in the Council of Nicaea was a Catholic Bishop who believed in baptismal regeneration and the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. He believed that he was one bishop in a “college of Bishops” who worked together to establish the doctrine of the Trinity. Augustine was instrumental in clarifying and defining the Trinity. He was a Catholic Bishop who obey the Pope, believed in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, infant baptism, baptismal regeneration and he wrote extensively about confession an penance. He believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. My point is as someone who did not grow up religious when I look at the early church the only church I see is the “Catholic Church.” All of the those early church fathers saw themselves as part of one unified church. They site the apostle Paul who says that the church has to agree on everything. Paul is constantly writing about the church being one single united church. And the church for the first 500 years seems to be one united church. And it is the church that determined the difficult doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation. As a new comer I just don’t see how it is legitimate to look back at the church and say that we will trust that they got the Trinity correct and trust that the got the doctrine of the 2 natures of Christ as one person correct but then claim that it was a false church or that the other doctrines that those same men developed are wrong. The same men who developed the Trinity and the Incarnation are the very same ones that developed the doctrine of the Bishop of Rome being the leader of the church. How can we trust that they got some things right and then claim they got other things wrong?

2 Thessalonians 2:15 is actually referring to the Jewish traditions, that had to do with the oracles of God. Romans 3:1-2.

@@soteriology400 strawman argument.

@@nickw9766 But it were the Jews whom God entrusted His oracles with, Romans 3:1-2 "3 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2 Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God. " How did they build the scriptures? Through their oral and written traditions; 2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us. The word "us" was referring to the Jewish apostles (they were not Roman Catholics). Paul was writing to the Jewish Christians in Thessalonica concerning their gathering (2:1). The sign occurred in the sky on May 2, AD66, apostasy came first (Jewish revolt, September AD66), man of lawless revealed on August 14, AD66 (his name was Eleazar, who was the grandson of Judas Iscariot btw). So what epistles did they see or hear about to let them know it was time for their gathering? It was 1 Peter. We see in 1 Peter 1:1 is says; "1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen". Keep in mind, Peter was an apostle to the Jews, not Gentiles (Galatians 2:7). So he was writing to the Jewish Christians in those 5 churches. Notice he referred to them as "scattered". These were the Jews who came out of Babylonian captivity, who were scattered through the Roman Empire from Jerusalem, where the temple was. These are the stick of Joseph (Ezekiel 37). Peter and Mary were the stick of Judah in case you were wondering. This was a hint to them they were to leave for their gathering. This also suggests at the time Peter wrote 1 Peter, he was either in Jerusalem or near Jerusalem. If Peter was in Rome at the time, this would make him a part of the scattered. So, this makes no sense if he was in Rome. The temple was in Jerusalem, not Rome btw. So where were they to go for their gathering? Notice in 1 Peter 5:13, Peter mentions Mark greets you. Mark was in Alexandria, Egypt at the time. Do you see how it was located on the western most water channel, funneling to Babylon, Egypt? Peter would have immediately written this letter, after August 14, AD66 btw, since that was the day, the lawless one was revealed (restrainer died that day, who was his dad, and that was the same day he announced no more sacrifices for Caesar). So, they would have left by boat for their gathering quietly. They had to leave quietly to reduce the risk of the persecutions by the Gentiles (Nero was in power at the time, and he was having Christians murdered, emperor of Rome who you claimed wrote the NT scriptures, ha?) persecutions following them. At this time, Rome was the most dangerous part of the world btw. They would have arrived in Alexandria, to greet Mark. Then from there, Mark would have escorted them by boat to Babylon. There were only 2 Babylon's on the map at the time. There was Babylon, Iraq and Babylon, Egypt. They knew Peter was not referring to Babylon, Iraq, since this is where they left from their captivity. They knew Peter was referring to Babylon Egypt. This was considered their safe place in the first century (Egypt, Matthew 2:14-15). So, Mark would have escorted them by boat to Babylon, just south of him within 100 miles. Then from there, Peter would have escorted them to Petra, which is where their gathering was. We see in Revelation 12, the flood and later the earth split. Petra has a history of flooding, and we see the earth split just southwest of Petra, if you look on the map. This was the stick of Joseph, who would have arrived first (Matthew 19:30, they were the last to go, since they arrived first). During this time, they would have prepared a place for the stick of Judah, who arrived about 3.5 years later. They fled the temple on Thursday afternoon, April 10, AD70. They arrived the next day in Petra, which started their 1260-day prophecy of revelation 12:6, so the two became one stick (fulfilled Ezekiel 37:19). I will stop there, do you see how Peter fulfilled 2 Thessalonians 2:15? The letter they were waiting whether written or orally? Those 5 churches were not too far from the church of Thessalonica. It was Eusebius who made up the idea "Babylon" referred to "Rome" in 1 Peter 5:13. He claims Peter was using a metaphor. But was Peter using a metaphor in 1 Peter 5:13? No, he was not. Eusebius was fooled billions of people around the world, including you. He was trying to define the orthodox view of the relationship between church and state for Constantine. Eusebius did a lot of rewriting of history to accomplish this. He was trying to use the names of John and Peter to push this through. I encourage you to understand the biblical narrative first, purge out outside paradigms first. Then study the scriptures and understand the biblical narrative with Peter and John, it is an exhaustive study, but then you will see the discrepancies in written history.

@@nickw9766 In other words you can't prove him wrong. All you have is nothing. It is talking about Jewish traditions. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 15 So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings[a] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter. This is a better way to put this verse. It has nothing to do with any Catholic traditions of any kind.

@@bcalvert321 are you sure you want to go down that road with me? Keep reading! It also says, “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the Tradition that you received from us” (2 Thess. 3:6). It’s called apostolic tradition! By the way, Paul refers to the first four generations of apostolic succession-his own generation, Timothy’s, the generation Timothy will teach, and the generation next in turn. See 2 Tim 2:2, “What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also”. That’s apostolic succession right there!

Scripture will NEVER lead you astray, however, anything in its place will.

@@mak88119 where is that in scripture?

@@MZONE991 Why would the Word of God lead you astray? 2 Tim 3:16 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:. Not the Church or any other document ONLY scripture and the word "inspiration of God" is God-breathed it. God told the profits and Apostles what to right

@@mak88119 the word of God does not lead astray but our interpretation of it does "as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures." - 2 Peter 3:16

@@mak88119 We all use the same Bible yet have massively different beliefs. Almost like our interpretations arent reliable and we must rely not only on the Holy Ghost but also a council created on earth by God Himself to guide his sheep on matters of faith and morals.

This prot would believe you

What do you think the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is?

What's the alternative, the pope is the true apostolic successor? How is that when your pope is a universalist? Your pope isn't even Christian. So Sola Scriptura or follow a non-Christian. Hmm, tough choice.

//Perhaps Protestants could have a better case if they argued we should embrace Sola Scriptura as a matter of doctrinal development: "Hey, it's already written, it's handy, let's make it the sole infallible source of doctrine"// But that is Sola Scriptura. It's worth digging into the history of the 5 solas and understanding their context. This former Protestant, now outgrown it and happily atheist, understood Sola Scriptura exactly that way you described. The apostles had authority by virtue of being taught by God himself. The question for the Reformers is whether a council declaring assent to a Marian dogma, for example, to suddenly be necessary for salvation is defensible. It implies God changed the rules of salvation. The solas did not originate in a vacuum, all of them are explicitly or implicitly a rejection of Roman Catholic accretions in the eyes of the Reformers. Sola Scriptura is a claim *about* Scripture and about what ought to be authoritative. It's not going to be decided by proof-texting from the content Scripture itself. No verse needs to mention sola scriptura. All one needs is to acknowledge the difference in authority between men sent and taught by god himself, and those who have no such teaching. //yet they shoot themselves in the foot by trying to claim it was around by the time of Pentecost, when the Church had all she needed to complete her mission./ What pop-apologists on the internet do can vary. I think Protestants trying to find it at Pentecost is missing the point.

The problem with your argument is that some protestants will agree with you, but that after the last apostle the Bible is what we are left with.

Yes the Canon is ratified around 325, a general Canon is already accepted. Also you are assuming that every Protestant put there just believes that every book just.kind of floated down to earth on a silver platter, when we have done more for the distribution, translation of the word than the Catholic church has done since it began, in 1033. You see what I did there, before you claim you are the church, you need to go tell the East that only you are the Church, that you are totally one in doctrine. Uuugh I hate tribalism I get sucked into it. Such a waste of time

@@ronaldfelix1000 Tribalism? I don't know if you're serious or not. But I suppose it makes kind of sense to allude to tribalism as a modern Protestant. Of course, one must be, since no one can claim to have the truth or know the truth - it's all interpretations. And you definitely didn't answer my argument at all, you just set up some strawmen. It still stands that a Protestant in the year 324 would be unthinkable.

@YAJUN YUANThank you for your reply. 1) No you cannot choose such an option. That would lead to many canons, not one canon. The proto-protestant then always that their specific canon is the "sola scriptura" (just like Protestants reject Deuterocanonical books today). The other problem would be: Who would decide what was "accepted"? Every priest and every layman? This just shows very clearly that Protestantism is an anachronism. 2) You're strong in the faith, but - no, it doesn't work. History has proven it beyond any shadow of a doubt. Your solution is sheer fantasy - it will never happen. At best your solution can help people to become a little bit more liberal in their interpretations, to allow for other people who they recognize as Christians. This is what is happening today. Such a trend will eventually make it hard to do the necessary demarcation of what is and what isn't a Christian belief. And the "man in Rome" as you say, is a Magesterium bound by Scripture and Sacred Tradition, so your strawman doesn't work.

@YAJUN YUAN I think you are a little unaware of how NT was compiled. There were some uncertainties about some of the letters, like Hebrew - that's why I mention this in my argument to begin with. One didn't know whether or not Paul had actually written this, and we still don't. So the problem was real and acute, not easily solved before the Councils decided. That is of course not to say (yet another strawman) that I or anyone else believe that people suddenly came to believe the canon in 325. There was a wide agreement on most of the texts. But the point remains: There was disagreement. And if there was no possible way to make an infallible decision on this matter, the canons would have diverted already at that stage. I don't know understand how you can defend the latter part of your agreement. The various denominations are *only* being able to hold on to a central core of creeds, and barely that - as a common truth. These are the remnants of the original church. So much else has been lost. To be happy with a loose agreement on the creed, while there is a wide disagreement on nearly all other topics is to be happy with little. You seem to believe that things are moving in the right direction, tbh I cannot understand which world you live in? I think it boils down to something very simple: You disagree with the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. But that has zero weight. Really, you don't believe yourself to be infallible, so why trust yourself? You should in fact expect to disagree with absolute truth since otherwise, you would already know all of the absolute truth. Therefore, your sense of "things going in the right/wrong direction" - cannot be the measure by which even yourself is measuring. I have shown pretty clearly how impossible your Protestant position would be before the Councils. Reason should compel you to revise your position on Sola Scriptura.

if it's the WEAKEST link, that others will fall apart then, specially TULIP of reformed protestantism

This is such a weak reed you're trying to use here. It's just trying to use ancient Greek skepticism to buttress Rome, which is how we got the Enlightenment.

@@tony1685 the abundance of scripture proves the real presence of the bread and wine in the holy communion. real, actual presence along with it also being a representation. its a both/and situation.

Exactly

@YAJUN YUAN so why so many different denominations

@YAJUN YUAN For as far as I can tell the news Phillip proclaimed wasn't part of scripture at the time, it was to become scripture. So I wouldn't consider this to be a very strong case against John's post. How would you address that the news Phillip proclaimed wasn't in scripture yet?

@YAJUN YUAN You don't understand the distinction between various laws that can be changed and those that cannot. Nice try.

@YAJUN YUAN "Redemptionis Sacramentum," Nos. 48-50, which states: "[48] The bread used in the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharistic Sacrifice must be unleavened, purely of wheat, and recently made so that there is no danger of decomposition. It follows therefore that bread made from another substance, even if it is grain, or if it is mixed with another substance different from wheat to such an extent that it would not commonly be considered wheat bread, does not constitute valid matter for confecting the Sacrifice and the Eucharistic Sacrament. It is a grave abuse to introduce other substances, such as fruit or sugar or honey, into the bread for confecting the Eucharist. Hosts should obviously be made by those who are not only distinguished by their integrity, but also skilled in making them and furnished with suitable tools." The traditional use of unleavened bread in the Latin Church is a requirement for the Eucharist's licit celebration. A priest who consecrates a roll, bun or some other form of true wheat bread containing leaven performs a valid but illicit act. Most Eastern Churches traditionally use leavened bread for the Eucharist and this would be a requirement for the licit celebration of the Eucharist in those Churches. So you're wrong. It is not a sin to use leaven bread in the Universal celebration of the Eucharist. It is illicit to the celebration of the LATIN RITE, but the opposite (using unleavened bread) is also true when celebrating it in the EASTERN RITE. It is not a question of universal practice, it is simply the reverent celebration of the Mass as passed on to a certain tradition. The Catholic Church teaches that the Latin Catholic Rite MUST stay Latin and not stray away from the instruction of the Roman Catholic Liturgy, while the Eastern Catholic Rite MUST stay Eastern and not stray away from the Eastern Catholic Liturgy. This makes perfect sense, since The effect of deviation from the beautiful liturgical traditions of the apostolic church, as we can see, has its results in Protestantism, where the apostolic way of worship due to God is diffused and can no longer be seen. The sin is in the illicit and abuse of the celebration of the Eucharist from how a specific liturgy is celebrated. The fact that there are 23 ANCIENT Liturgies actually show that diversity in the Church do not need schism and deviation in terms of the fundamental Christian doctrine necessary for Salvation, unlike what is common in differing Protestant denominations (where there are very dangerous differences of the necessary doctrine of Salvation: Calvinist vs. Arminian, Trinitarian vs. Unitarian, etc. These differences cannot - and should never be - ignored and just be put on equal terms with diversity in the Eucharistic Liturgies, which all point to a singular truth). The danger of it all just proves that even with all this diversity, a magisterial authority is needed to PREVENT apostasy and falling into false Gospel.

@YAJUN YUAN a dozen heretical sects, is a dozen to many. Just as 30,000 heretical sects is 30,000 to many.

It should also have a table of contents so we know it applies to this text. It's circular reasoning in my opinion.

Why does it have to be defined in Scripture?

@YAJUN YUAN where are you taught that divine revelation alone is infallible?

@@jackdaw6359 which other form of revelation is infallible and why?

@@Justas399 If the scripture is the final and sole authority for doctrine, which is what sola scriptura teaches, then, that must also apply to the doctrine of sola scriptura itself.

Yup ,so true! ....And that includes the Catholic church!

@@petethepeg2 exactly unless of course the Catholic church is correct that it is Divinely instituted and protected from teaching doctrinal error. Worst case for us Catholics - we are just another big denomination that for some reason is very old and has bared much wheat and tares. With amazing fruit. With bad guys too. Worst case for Protestants, everything that Catholicism teaches is true.

@@jackdaw6359 Well if there`s a level playing field here ,the worst case for Catholics is that everything the Protestants teach is true ! It just goes round and round ,rebuttal and rebuttal and rebuttal ad infinitum until every knee bows and THEN shall we all know even as also we are known

@@petethepeg2 which Protestants?

@@petethepeg2 Protestants don't claim to have infallible protection on their doctrine.

@@tony1685 The fact that you have a Bible proves that sola scriptura Protestantism is false

@@tony1685 The canon of Scripture, for one, which is not in Scripture. We don't have a Bible without it, do we?

@@tony1685 Now you got a whole 'nother problem because Scripture contradicts itself. Lol

@@tony1685 The notion of the canon of Scripture requires and is inclusive of the authoritative list of what books are to be considered inspired. This is not written down anywhere within Scripture. In other words, Scripture does not include a table of contents. That would be kinda important, don't ya think?

@@tony1685 you have no idea what scripture says, like the scribes and Pharisees you are blind

The Church hadn't declared it to be scripture or written yet? What are you talking about? Firstly, the writings of Paul, Peter or any of the twelve were backed by Gods spirit as authoritative. Paul makes this very clear when he says: I was not sent here by mere men but by Christ and God the Father who raised him from the dead to the church at Galatians. ALL the letters these Apostles wrote down at that time were scripture. First, they preached the gospel verbally then wrote them down to various churches to remind them of the gospel and to instruct them to live in accordance to Gods will. But yes, Paul would have been refencing the OT in conformity with the Gospel. That is to say: The Gospel is the fulfillment of the messianic prophecies. As is written: "I the LORD, will shepherd my people" and "For I [am] the LORD thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Savior: I gave Egypt [for] thy ransom, Ethiopia and Seba for thee" Here, Paul is telling Timothy because he is IN the truth and because the OT bares witness to Paul's testimony about Christ being the Savior and LORD spoken to us and written down for our benefit in the OT that these events have been completed. So, by believing by faith that Christ is the Son of God who came down from heaven written down for us to read and see for ourselves these things have occurred have confidence in what Paul is teaching whether Jew or Gentile. To be more plain, First you MUST show that Christ IS the Messiah. Second, you must demonstrate this by citing various OT versus and parallel them to Christs ministry and life. Again, the whole point to Timothy and by extension to us is false prophets and teachers will come and are already here trying to deceive you into believing in something that God never said or wants you to believe. So, how can YOU and US therefore ascertain these things? Or how can YOU and I know that this person is a false prophet? If they teach something that contradicts the Gospel preached AND if it contradicts the OT prophecies concerning the messiah. That is why placing scripture above all things including the Church is vital. The Church holds up scripture and clings to it not adds things into it to statisfy theology.

@@danielhaas9469 What you write does not make sense, Daniel. The Church existed before the New Testament, remember? The Church wrote the New Testament, just as Israel wrote the Old Testament. You first need the people of God before they can write anything. If you want to understand the relation between both, look at old Israel, my friend. You should not follow yourself: you should follow Him. All you do is presenting your own ideas and opinions and interpretations and all. You follow yourself, Daniel.

@@pierreschiffer3180 I think you need to reread whay I wrote in response to Saint Yeah Okay...he made the ascertain that the Church did not define what Paul Peter and the others wrote as scripture. I am pointing out that the Gospel being preached must be in the OT. AND to demonstrate that Christ was the Messiah that was proclaimed for our benefit has been fulfilled. Therefore, Peter Paul or any Apostoles work are backed by God as authoritative.

@@pierreschiffer3180 I also don't know what you mean by I follow myself: I tell you the truth that I deny myself daily and follow Christ who is ready and able to save us. But again, even Christ himself had to demonstrate that the OT prophets spoke about Christ in advance so that we will know he is I AM (the LORD). How many times do you think Christ himself referenced the OT? Most of the time: That is why he cites many passages that demonstrates that he is the Messiah, the Son of Man and the Son of God and God for that matter. But because of their hardened hearts as was foreknown by the LORD they rejected him and nailed him on a tree. As a result, for our (Gentiles) benefit we too are grafted on to the true vine which is Christ as the result of the Jews rejecting God. So I do not follow myself for what is myself? Nothing, worthless, guilty sinner who deserves death. But rather I have placed my hope in the one who has promised. And the one who promises will not disappoint.

@@pierreschiffer3180 Excellent. As the late, great Bishop Sheen stated: The Church did not come out of the Bible; the Bible came out of the Church; the one established by Jesus Christ. Jesus established His Church; He did not set up biblical societies known as protestant churches.

Good idea!

@YAJUN YUAN you don’t announce the the already written scriptures publicly. The only scripture that they had was the OT so is only the Old Testament what we have to look at? Any reasonable person would say no

@@TheCounselofTrent Hello Trent God bless your work. Can you do a respond video to the video the rabid anti catholic Anthony Rogers and co made about Catholicsm today? He made a 5 hour video

@YAJUN YUAN the point made at the timestamp is not saying the word of God is *other* than scripture. Trent there is saying its *Not just scripture* that is the key difference. It doesn't exclude scripture but its not referring to just scripture.

@YAJUN YUAN also, Paul "reasoning with them from the scriptures" already implies that he is using both reasoning and scripture. Because... just showing them scripture alone would not have landed them to the Pauline conclusions implying an external authority through Paul as he reasons with them from scripture.

Because they don’t know any better. It’s how they were teach in there bible school from their protestant churches.

ive heard counters to this being "a doctrine is made when 2 or more verses support a doctrine". or "good hermeneutics". or something similar. they cannot follow the Pope because clearly everything he teaches is unbiblical, like Mary being a perpetual virgin so Catholicism to them is a complete write-off based on Marian dogma alone.

"But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him."- 1 John chapter 2 verse 27.

No consensus on salvation? Scripture is pretty clear if you take it all into context. We are incapable of saving ourselves. God became human lived a perfect life and took the punishment we deserve. We need only to place or trust in Christ and HIS work and sacrifice and repent of our sins. A true conversion will be evident by our fruit. We are not saved by our works but we do good works as a result of being saved. No man will be able to boast of their works in the afterlife because it was God that saved us, not our works.

@@Gondor149 who says we are capable of saving ourselves? No one says that.

to reason sola scriptura from scripture ALONE is mind numbing, circular reasoning.

The church any church teaching or traditions are NOT above scripture. The bible says God puts his WORD Above his name.

@@mak88119 The Word is first orally spoken. And he said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. (Mark 16:15-16, RSV-CE)

@@harryallenpearce89 The first books of the Bible were written down by Moses when God sat him in a tent, the Glory of God filled the tent and he literally was writing what God was saying. Again, believe whatever you want. I know where my salvation lies, it's with Faith in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior and the Word of God. That is It! The Church can not save, priests can not save you, Mary can not save you Salvation is by Grace Through Faith in Jesus Christ and him alone.

@@mak88119 It’s important to be logical, rational, and reasonable when considering these things. The printing press does not get going until the 1500s CE The book of Genesis: Adam didn’t write anything Noah didn’t write anything Abraham, Isaac , and Jacob didn’t write anything Also, what Moses wrote went inside the Ark. Do you think the average Hebrew was strolling into the Tabernacle, cracking open the Ark, and reading it? And Moses commanded them, "At the end of every seven years, at the set time of the year of release, at the feast of booths, when all Israel comes to appear before the LORD your God at the place which he will choose, you shall read this law before all Israel in their hearing. (Deuteronomy 31:10-11, RSV-CE) Israel had Moses’s writings read to them 1 time every 7 years.. obviously “daily scripture reading” was not a part of their lives, but the Oral Torah was how the Law of Moses was taught by parents to children. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_Torah Even Jesus, at the Last Supper, drank the 4 cups of the Passover. Search your written Scriptures, you will not find the 4 cups of the Passover in Moses’s writings, or in any of the Old Testament writings. It’s Oral Tradition. Paul writes this: As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith; (2 Timothy 3:8, RSV-CE) Search Moses’s writings, you will not find those 2 names. This information comes from the Oral Tradition. Paul also writes: 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, RSV-CE) Either by word of mouth or written letter. If you only follow the written letter, you’re not following the instructions of Scripture.

@@mak88119 As far as Salvation, why did Paul say this: Take heed to yourself and to your teaching; hold to that, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers. (1 Timothy 4:16, RSV-CE) Why did Paul say to Timothy “you will save”? Not “Christ will save”? Perhaps Paul teaches us that we are doing God’s work. When Timothy comes, see that you put him at ease among you, for he is doing the work of the Lord, as I am. (1 Corinthians 16:10, RSV-CE)

@YAJUN YUAN is it not a ‘logical deduction’ to quote your good self?

lol Personal interpretations are still being made to this day, but breaking down the popular ones would be helpful

@YAJUN YUAN What point are you trying to make in relation to my comment? I don't see the connection.

@YAJUN YUAN technically it's not. Paul preached, meaning he spoke to them. So "scripture existed in a spoken form" any new testament reference to scripture is specifically the Old Testament.

@YAJUN YUAN scripture denotes something written down. So Trent's conclusion is actually correct

Sola scriptura is Catholic

@@neoturfmasterMVS it's anti Catholic

HTBC's logical takedown of 2 Tim 3:16 as a prooftext is so good.

Such good videos

He's so good with easy explanations. Sadly he takes ages for him to make videos

His videos are objectively awful

This made me realize that he hasn't posted in 3 months

Why were Deut 4:2, Prov 30:6, Rev 22:18-19 avoided. I know that these verses individually may have a specific context but together they have collective force.

@@johnrowland9570 I’m sure he couldn’t discuss every possible interpretation of every possible verse which could relate to the topic, but for what he did cover, i was satisfied with it. Would you like to write out an argument based on those verses? Trent may see it and reply, or i could try to Specifically, though, in Deuteronomy Moses is retelling the history of the Jews to that point, as a reminder for them not to reject the covenant made at Horeb; taken strictly literally, the Jews would never have written or maintained any book after Deuteronomy, and yet they did. There must be something more to the meaning than simply “don’t write anything more,” as God did speak more to them and they did write it down. Proverbs is in wisdom literature, and is profoundly helpful for making practical and moral teachings easier to remember, but i doubt you would find people who strictly literally interpret every line from Proverbs, or why that one in particular and not the other ought to be. Revelation’s citation is specifically referring to the visions had by John during his exile on Patmos, not to anything else; remember, “the Bible” as we have it today did not exist yet as a collection of these particular books, so treating that verse as though it applied to more than John’s visions is going to be the wrong perspective

The idea of 'Trinity' by word or definition does not appear in scripture. However we believe the doctrine on the basis of the cumulative force of a number of references in the bible. So with 'Sola Scriptura'.So with Deut 4:2, Prov 30:6, together with Rev 22:18-19. For sure each on their own has a specific context but jointly they establish a principle. I would also add 2 Tim 3:17. The words 'complete, equipped' have a linked root in the Gk giving emphasis on what Paul is saying. We notice that it is for 'EVERY good work'. Every good work includes what we believe and how we live. Hence the man of God does not need man made accumulated superstious Catholic traditions. Sola Scriptura stands.

​@@johnrowland9570 Help me understand better. Can you define what you mean by "sola scriptura"? Because as many people as say those words have their own idea on what it means. I generally receive it as a negative thing: by making the statement, you 'negate' or deny the validity of the Church, the Tradition, the Holy Spirit active today, etc. If it's not in the written book, then it's not legit. Perhaps you mean something else? Define your terms please. You use the Trinity as an example of things not appearing in Scripture, but I don't think it supports your argument. God has revealed Himself as Three Persons in One God; how we refer to that reality isn't directly called "Trinity" in the Bible with that word, but the *meaning is there. The Church may have used "triad" or "Divine United Triple" or something else, but the words used to describe the reality aren't as important as the reality itself. In the verses you sited, though, the *meaning for "sola scriptura" isn't there, unless (as you say) you ignore the context multiple times to create a new principle. You also ignore the context of 2 Tim 3:17, as the entire chapter is about avoiding evil actions (literally verses 1-9) and how the witness of the Old Testament (stories we all know) shows why evil actions ought to be avoided. The "all scripture" St Paul is referring to is only the Old Testament, as the remaining books of the New Testament likely hadn't even been written yet, as St Paul's writings were some of the earliest written works of the New Testament. So, cumulatively, the principle you're advocating is actually (Deuteronomy) "Only value the Torah" (Proverbs) "Don't add to the Torah" (Revelation) "don't write more into St John's Revelation" and (2 Tim 3:17) "Don't read the New Testament" That's what you get by ignoring the context and "jointly establishing a principle": you're just confusing the intent of the text. You also make several claims about the Church which only demonstrate your anger. "man-made accumulated superstitious Catholic traditions" is just an empty sentence. So I'll issue you another challenge: name a "superstitious tradition" taught by the Church, site 3 Bible verses which could be used to advocate for that idea, because literally billions of people believe the Church's teachings on various topics, and then use your Intellect and Reason to show me why the "superstitious tradition" is not only wrong but bad for us.

The nuance in this video. Definitely Warranted a compliment from The nuance man himself

@@nibcim5589 LOL =D In seriousness, I do get the importance of nuance though, it can make all the difference!

But the catholic church is pagan.

Ye that would help

@@zangified0117, we are not called to just any agreement, but to a "great and godly agreement," like our forefathers in the holy Faith.

Well, essentially, the Catholic Church regards the Holy Eucharist as a SACRIFICE of the body and blood of Jesus Christ offered to God under the appearance of bread and wine.

You were blessed to arrive at that understanding because you were being offered a falsehood. That's because the proper context of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is established all the way back in chapter one. However, even starting a few verses earlier helps us arrive at a better idea of what Paul was communicating. Beginning with verse 10 we read: 10 You have followed my teaching, way of life, purpose, faith, patience, love, endurance, 11 persecutions, and sufferings, such as happened to me in Antioch, Iconium, and Lystra, persecutions that I endured. Yet from all these things the Lord delivered me. 12 In fact, all who want to live religiously in Christ Jesus will be persecuted. 13 But wicked people and charlatans will go from bad to worse, deceivers and deceived. 14 But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed because you know from whom you learned it, 15 and that from infancy you have known [the] sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work. Paul points out that Timothy has followed his teaching, way of life, etc. In the previous chapter, we are informed that Timothy learned it from Paul by what he heard from Paul through many witnesses (2 Timothy 2:2). We know that the only sacred writings that Timothy could possibly have known from his infancy would have been books from what we now call the Old Testament. In fact, none of what we now call the New Testament books had been written when Timothy was a child. Using 2 Timothy 3:16-17 as authentication for books that had not been written yet goes far beyond what the text claims. Furthermore, Paul does not list any specific books that comprise the sacred writings. So, we know there are sacred writings, but Paul does not identify a single one by name. Neither does Paul tell us how many books are included in these sacred writings. In verses 15 and 16, Paul provides a summation of the preceding verses. His main point is not that the Old Testament is inspired, but that it has practical usefulness. What Paul here asserts is that the writings of the Old Testament have a great practical value, of which men should avail themselves. Neither the extent of divine inspiration, nor its mode, nor the limits of the Old Testament canon, nor the relative amount of practical value in the different portions of the Hebrew Scriptures, is discussed. Paul does not furnish the answer to such questions. He certainly does not claim that ONLY Sacred Scripture is useful. Beyond all of the above, there is serious translation bias that is present within many of the Protestant bibles. That's because there was a desire to have a "go-to" text in support of sola Scriptura. It was necessary to mistranslate verses 16 to achieve the objective. Many Protestant bibles render it as: All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness An unbiased translation reads much differently. Every God-breathed writing is profitable unto teaching unto convincing evidence unto correction unto chastening in the justice There is much more to this but time limitations prevent me from going into further detail.

@ZachCICM I was not addressing any of Trent's argumentation. I was responding to Glenda's comment. When she attended the Baptist Church they used 2 Timothy 3:16-17 as a "proof text" for the inspiration of ALL the books of the bible and they also use it to defend their erroneous doctrine of sola Scriptura. That is bad exegesis and they are using those two verses out of context. I was happy to hear that she did not buy into that nonsense. I agree with you that Catholics believe that all of the Bible is true. However, Catholics don't use 2 Timothy 3:16-17 as the proof text for that belief. Catholics believe that all of the books of the Bible are inspired and inerrant because they were discerned as such by the teaching authority of the Magisterium.

in the US, when you got dispute about the constitution, you go to the authority, the SCOTUS, in Protestantism when you got dispute over interpretation of the Scripture, you get yourself a new denom....no authority to settle the dispute ! by the fruit you will know the tree...Jesus Christ

Haha great point

You mean like Catholics do at every mass, covering the entirety of scripture in a three year cycle

@@michaelibach9063 I think she is being sarcastic. If Biblical interpretation is self-evident, why do protestants even have preachers? She's pointing out the irony.

@@tony1685 it depends what you mean by “God’s church”, since he only started one and also what you mean by walking “in truth.” There are so many different meanings regarding what the church is and what truth is or isn’t among the ever growing and increasingly divided Protestant sects, I would need more information to answer your question properly. If you mean Christian in communion with Rome, then yes. You cannot go wrong following the teachings of the Church Christ founded. God bless!

@@tony1685 you do not know God, you do not love God and you do not walk in truth.

@@tony1685 Regarding point 1 it is in Matthew 16:18 “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build MY church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Regarding point 2, of course I believe the Bible. We only have the Bible because of the Church. We owe the Cannon of scripture to Holy Mother Church, which was decided in a council in the late 4th century. It’s not about believing the Bible, it is about believing the Bible properly interpreted. This requires the authority of the Church as given to it by Jesus in Matthew 18:18 “Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” We also learned through scripture that we must be properly instructed, when St. Phillip encountered the Ethiopian Eunuch reading scripture . St. Phillip asked the Eunuch if he understood what he was reading and he replied, “How can I, unless someone instructs me?” And he urged Philip to come up into the carriage and sit with him. Acts 8 31. If not, then anyone can interpret scripture anyway they want, and often do, which is why there are an estimated 70,000 different forms of Protestantism and counting all proclaiming to be preaching “the truth”. We know that Jesus taught in scripture that a house divided cannot stand. Luke 11:17. Regarding point 3, I gladly follow the teachings of Jesus as taught through the authority of HIS Church. All others are the invention of man. Well intentioned or not, there is only one truth. Here on earth, that lies with Christ’s one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

@@tony1685 you are a Sadducee

@@tony1685 I love having these discussions because it is easy for me, I get to cheat. I have 2000 years of history to rely on, Holy Scripture, which, when properly interpreted is wholly supportive of Catholic doctrine, the teachings of the apostles, the teachings of all the great Saints and Doctors of the Church like Polycarp, Athanasious, the Desert Fathers, Augustin, Aquinas, Francis De Sales, Thomas Moore and on and on. These brilliant men in conjunction with the Holy Catholic Church protected and defended her teachings through Scripture AND tradition, as implored by St. Paul in his letter to the Thessalonians, “Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.” I am truly saddened by those who hold their own opinions of what the Bible says above the Church Christ founded to teach it. I put my faith in the teachings and traditions of Christ’s Church. You put your faith in the traditions of man and in your own opinion. These great Saint’s I mentioned are some of the greatest theological minds in history. They spent their lives dedicated to serving Christ and his Church. It is incredibly prideful to think you know more than any of them individually, never mind their collective teachings and wisdom which have held firm for 2000 years and counting. But then, pride took down Lucifer, it took down Adam and Eve and countless others since the dawn of time so it is not surprising it is still leading people astray. I would like to know one thing if you’d like to continue with this discussion, where in Scripture does it say you have authority to interpret scripture?

I didn't understand what's Good work in there in faith alone?

classic protestant maneuvering. james white is a gold mine for stuff like that, sometimes almost sounds like he's debating last week's version of himself

Not true. A true faith is reflected in good works but we are not saved by those works. We do them because we are saved, not to be saved. James speaks of faith without good works being a dead faith. You can have false converts who profess to believe and yet never place their faith in Christ or repent.

@@Gondor149 and never do what Christ commander we do.

Catholicism teaches that Scripture is enough for Salvation, and private revelation cannot introduce anything that the Church did not already know.

@@Maxfr8 That does not mean that whatever interpretation of the Bible is good. What the Church teaches in the Catechism or the Councils must lead your interpretation of biblical passages.

@YAJUN YUAN In the verses with various possible interpretations, yes. You can't say Matthew 16:18 denies the Papacy for example

@@Maxfr8 how does what you said, disagree with the original commenter?

@@tony1685 how does Matthew 16:18 not validate the Papacy?

You could look up the Catechism of the Council of Trent, which declared that Judas is in Hell. It's the only declaration of a damned soul. There is a lot of private revelation also to Saints visiting Hell and seeing souls there as well as Our Lady of Fatima revealing souls going into Hell like snow falling from the sky.

@Totus Tuus That's not true. It's a document summarizing the position and teachings of the Magestrium. It may not be binding, but it certainly has weight.

Being in the process in becoming Lutheran I'd be interested in this.

@@tony1685 yes

@@tony1685 Jesus Christ was raised on Sunday. This was the day that Christians worshipped. Jewish Converts to Christianity, went to the temple on Saturday to make converts, not worship. They were eventually kicked out of the synagogue, but continued to worship on Sunday. Truth & Life App Acts 20:7 7 On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the morrow; and he prolonged his speech until midnight. Your Saturday worshipping church never existed, it’s a modern invention. Btw, Catholics start their week with worship, giving God the first fruits and then end it with a second sabbath, double portion. Thank you Jesus for two sabbaths, the first I give to you, the second I’ll take for myself. I certainly wouldn’t want to be so ridged as you are, you would have me working six days a week.

@@tony1685 I’m sorry, your interpretation of scripture is just your opinion. You aren’t anybody. Christianity has already existed for 2000 years and they all worshipped on SUNDAY. You have no argument, none, zero, zip, nada, no Saturday worshipping church has ever existed before 500 years ago. I don’t care that you don’t like it and neither does the majority of Christianity.

@@tony1685 you mean like the cathars, a gnostic sect that believed that the god of the Old Testament is evil, sex was evil, wrote a fake creation story, rejected the entire Old Testament and starved babies and children to death, to free them from their “mortal prisons”. You mean People like that? Boy, tough decision. I’m pretty sure the world is better off without them or do you believe people should just be allowed to continue to murder babies and children and rewrite scripture? Imitation of Christ, you mean like Joan of arc. A poor illiterate peasant girl, that one, got France to give her an army and two, was able to use it to force the Protestant English soldiers occupying France back out of France. A feat no rich and powerful man had been able to do, total David and Goliath story and then she died a martyr at the hands of Judas Catholic priests getting kick backs from England. Just like Jesus was killed by His own people and betrayed by Judas. Yah, I have a few thousand more stories just like that. Catholicism calls them Saints. See, God protected His Church. Those other groups, didn’t get Gods protection. Gods Church spread THE GOSPEL to the world. Those other groups, didn’t. Gods Church hand wrote bibles for 1500 years. Those other groups didn’t. Truth & Life App 2 Peter 2:1 1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. You should probably understand what those heretical groups believed before you claim them as your brothers in faith and if you find some group that did possibly believe as you do, you should ask yourself why Catholicism either converted them, destroyed them or they simply died out.

@@tony1685 Gods Church is the Catholic Church, has been for 2000 years. You simply don’t understand the FAITH.

Great points!

God gave us intellect and reason, but Jesus said to be like little children. Intellect and reason are hindrances to the spiritual life. If I had followed my intellect and reason, I’d still be a Protestant, having learned nothing

@@tony1685 He's referring to the KJV bible removing the Deuterocanonical books.

@YAJUN YUAN Think before you post and try to actually understand the comment. Not everything needs to be an argument.

Martin Luther wanted to remove New Testament books too, I don't think he would have subscribed to Sola Scripture since he had theological gripes with many books.

It would be helpful if Trent didn't use the term "protestants" so generally under the theologial premise that solo scriptura defines itself. It's just bad apologetics.

Christ be with you The Church teaches that scripture is true. What the Popes authority does not override scripture but is used to interpret it. To many think their interpretation is true and should take president but Jesus gave us a Steward and gave us a Church and gave them authority. (Matt 16:15-19 18:15-20) We believe in him. God bless you

who do you think won?

@@leonardu6094 It’s been awhile since I watched it. Fr Pacwa said something that really stuck with me though that scripture has a unique authority but sola scripture takes it too far saying it to be the ONLY authority. There’s no oversight as to what the authentic interpretation was without tradition and a magisterium. I’m loosely paraphrasing from what I remember though.

@@davidf5089 oh ok thank you

It isn't worship to ask the saints in Heaven to intercede. They are part of the Body of Christ. Revelation 5:8, the saints pray for us. Another passage in Revelation proves that the saints are lucid. Therefore, as they are aware and do pray for us, why would it be wrong to ask them to pray for us? We do not consult them. Also, the images aren't idols. We don't worship the images of Christ, Mary, or the Saints. They are simply a physical representation of the saints, Mary, and Christ. God bless you!

@@shepherddog1199 I can see that it’s not worship per se. You’re venerating and worshipping Christ through them. And I appreciate that a lot more as I study it more. But I still think it’s excessive and not the same as asking a friend or brother in Christ to intercede for you. For example if you read through prayers to Mary there’s plenty of verbiage you wouldn’t say to or refer to another human. And I personally believe is reserved for God alone. I’m curious though about the verse in revelation that says the saints are lucid? Which one is that?

​@@calebdesjardins616 Conceded, there are many Catholic prayers that go a bit far on the intercession of Saints, and some that use less than fortunate language. However, that doesn't mean the official teaching of the Church is so. The Church is comprised by millions of people, today, and countless millions in the past. Not all of them have a way with words. Some Saints have been great scholars and poets, some great warriors but most of them were just ordinary people that put God above all else, even if they weren't able to perfectly articulate their theology in the best possible way, never mind translations and colloquialisms that are now lost in translation and time. Thing is, as a Catholic, no one is forced to pray a prayer they aren't confortable with. People can be extremely catholic and pray the Rosary, or not pray the Rosary. Have a fervent devotion to Mary, or not. There are things we must believe if we consider ourselves catholics, but there isn't a single way to pray, there isn't a single language in which to pray to, nor a list of literary figures we must use in order to pray "catholically".

@@jpesmar So if this is the case, can I pray to CS Lewis?

@@calebdesjardins616 I don't know if you insist on calling it "praying to" to make a point, but let's take it as the Catholic viewpoint of asking for the intercession of the Saints. Yes, I suppose you could ask for the intercession of CS Lewis, a man of whom we have all reason to believe was a man of God and, now that he's deceased, is most likely with God. There can't be 100% assurance for us of who's in and who's not in heaven, because no one besides God is God, no one besides Him can judge because only God knows our heart. That being said, when you ask for the intercession of a Saint, is like when you ask a friend to pray for you. Like how I'm asking you to pray for me, and how you can be sure I'll be praying for you.

@YAJUN YUAN Just to clarify language, I suppose "no longer in bondage" is equal to "Thy will be done". Unlikely that biblical "Hope" is (merely) in perfection. Living with certainty in salvation is false - it's would be a personal groundless speculation: who, when, why - we will know only in the afterlife.

@YAJUN YUAN Who "we"? "Christians"? Baptists/Catholics/Orthodox? Believers? All humanity?

Do you believe God can fail to save someone? Do you think God can fail at anything? What do you take perfection and holiness to mean?

Petrine supremacy in conjunction with apostolic succession

Also the church fathers point to the bishops and the bishop of rome

@YAJUN YUAN bishops ordained by the apostles and at different occasions saying that you need to be in communion with the bishop in Rome. 1 of them actually says that while john might still have been alive so why not point to john instead at that point

This video is only "tearing down", so to speak, Sola Scriptura. That doctrine being false doesn't make you Catholic. It just makes you not Protestant. Making the case for Catholicism would require more material. Erick Ybarra does a lot of good work on this topic, and a good book is "Upon This Rock" by Stephen Ray. Those are all from Catholic perspectives, so you know what you're getting into.

@@tony1685 The Bible is not a synonym with God's Word. Even in Scripture, the New Testament is only rarely referred to as the Word of God. That is normally referring to the Old Testament, but it also refers to Christ Himself and the oral teaching of the apostles. None of these proof texts even lend support to Sola Scriptura unless "Word of God" refers to Scripture alone and nothing else, which it clearly does not.

Halal is a muslim construct, why do you care dude? Smh

Halal meat is prepared in a certain style, like how Kosher refers to the numerous preparations done by Jews. Kosher includes not letting dairy and meat touch, no pork or other ‘unclean’ products, etc. A big thing with Kosher meat as well is making sure the animal is killed quickly and humanely, as life is considered precious and blood is considered sacred. There’s special knives and preparations Jews take to collect blood so none of it is left in the animal or wasted on the ground. Halal meat, in contrast, calls for the animal to pretty much be tortured before they are killed. It’s supposed to bring out ‘better flavor’ or something according to Muslim preparers. However, torturing animals is a horrible practice. They are part of God’s creation and even though they are here for our consumption and work, they should still be treated with respect to their life as God created them. So I can see why people are taking a stand against Halal meat. Torturing animals for “better flavor” or whatever is quite bad.

@@christeeleison9064 because majority of the places we buy our food and takeout are halal certified( it is a Muslim certification body), despite the muslim minority.I think even Mc donalds and KFC are halal. They also pray to Allah to bless their food. It has to be a Muslim butcher and shop. Putting aside the meat and restaurant monopoly by them ...I never really cared, considering our catechism says that Muslims and Christians pray to the same God. But recently in our area, ( In India) the church is becoming quite outspoken against halal food. saying its wrong to consume it. Thats why I am also confused .Is it such a big deal?

@@Pratsg86 I wouldn’t worry about eating it to much, if nothing else was available, but I certainly wouldn’t be skipping the blessing. I do find it interesting that Judaism does everything it can to ease the fear in the animal and Muslims do everything they can to intensify it. Seems adrenaline and other hormones that would be released into the meat could have an effect on the human body and brain as well. Note: meat processing that’s neither halal or kosher is very humane to begin with.

The Tawahedo Canon, the Peshitta Canon, the Greco-Russian Canon, The Papal Canon, and the Protestant Canon all differ. They all share the homologoumena books and all have discrepancies among antilegomena books. So we can dismiss the exaggerated claim that some one council magically created one definitive canon one day. Homologoumena has always been accepted by Assyrian Church of the East, Miaphysites, Palamists, Protestants, and Papists from the time of the Apostles until today. Even the Popes don't fret that Byzantine Catholics chant the portions of their longer canon in their Holy Liturgy. Antilogoumena books do not present a challenge to Anglican or Lutheran protestants because they don't contradict their doctrines anywhere. Luther didn't throw any books out. Rather he put homologoumena books first and antilegomena after.

Who added pagan traditions (catholic church)? Who started worshiping mary( which is unbiblical)? Who has unbiblical doctrine? Catholic church Who keeps man in the place of God?(catholic church does that with pope) Who replaced Christ's intercessions for apostles and mary? Who started saying" to go to Jesus you need mary", even though Apostles never said that?

1)word of God . 2) after Martin started translating. 3)God Himself through Martin Luther.

4) not sure

5) God Himself, He doesn't need anybody to do that

6) maybe catholics 7) Protestant because they were not inspires by God.

I agree!

How that talking about the authority of Scripture prove Sola scriptura? The Father's did talked highly about scripture that doesn't mean they believe Sola scriptura, the same way catholic and orthodox speak highly of scripture

@@romasliv The Scriptures are proof for their own self-standing as sole authority in terms of doctrine and morals. We would not need the Church Fathers to prove that. But the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox, who claim to be apostolic and heirs of the Church Fathers but do not follow them in this regard, should give them heed in this matter.

@@LuizLange well I was responding your comment about the church father, now you say that we don't need church fathers, I don't get it, guess Lutherans appeal the church fathers only in things they agree with them. The truth is that without tradition we wouldn't know what is scripture and what is not, the claim that scripture is self attesting is wrong by the fact that we didn't have a unified Canon before the church couldn't settle the matter of what scripture is inspired.

@@romasliv, the church with her tradition did not define what was or what nor Holy Scripture; it just recognized it in a concerted way. Jesus Himself attested to the sufficiency of Scriptures in His temptation battle with Satan after His Baptism, and in His promises regarding His apostles' teachings. If all of church's tradition limited itself to just echo Scriptures and faithfully reflected the "faith once for all delivered to the saints" as we have in the Apostolic, Nicene, Athanasian Creeds and in the Book of Concord of 1580, we would not be even arguing here. The Holy Spirit's message is and has always been the same: Jesus Christ crucified for the forgiveness of your sins. When then a tradition deviates and contradicts the Holy and God-inspired Scriptures, then it is not a reflection of God's Word any longer, but rather just man's talk, and many a time also doctrines of demons. The Word gave birth to the holy catholic church, not the opposite.

2 Pet 1, 19-21 (KJV): “19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”

And yet thousands of former protestant ministers, preachers who were seminary-trained in Bible study, and devout readers of the bible, etc. converted to catholicism. What a mystery of our good God!

You're right, sister. Good for you! Jesus will always lead us to all truth!

Thank you for a great explanation 🙌

the infallible part is correct ( material sufficiency ), we don't argue about it, the "sole" part is problematic. Who can put all this correct material into a COHERENT teaching ( formal sufficiency ) ? you, me or anybody ??? any plough-boy ( borrowing term from Luther ) ? Read Acts 8, the story of Phillip and Ethiopian eunuch, then you probably will see my point. Bible is simple, not complicated. God bless

What's better is God's literal Church, community. "Endless accretion" is not a bad thing, Science develops and so does theology, over the centuries the knowlege piles up, not from new Revelation but from insights into the once for all times Revelation.

AMEN brother

@@mynameis......23 what's bad with "accretion"?

How does it work? There are thousands of protestant denominations, each interpreting the scriptures slightly or very differently...

Protestants can't claim to have the Holy Spirit if they can't agree on the meaning of scripture.