A Defense of Sola Scriptura 

After 43 years Catholic, I was drawn to scripture. We were just confirmed in the LCMS Lutheran tradition. My experience is the Church uses scripture when it backs up a teaching. Disregards it when it doesn’t. I’d rather error on the side of scripture. No longer need to care what a pope or bishop says. Kinda refreshing. There are many disgruntled Catholics and I don’t blame them. Anyhow, scripture has the answers if you take the time to look

"Do not go beyond what is written"

I'm a Catholic and just getting started on this debate. While I differ, I respect still your scholarship and intelligence--two most admirable values. God bless you, Doc!

Please do a video rebuttal on Trent Horn's arguments against Sola Scriptura

I'm an Anglican (occasional lurker) who often finds myself agreeing with much of what you say. A really helpful way of distinguishing between the Reformed understanding of Sola Scriptura and that of Lutherans and Anglicans lies in the distinction between what is called a "regulative" and a "normative' hermeneutic of Scriptural interpretation. (This was the crucial issue of disagreement between Anglican Richard Hooker and his Puritan opponents.) For a "regulative" hermeneutic, anything not specifically commanded in Scripture is forbidden. For a "normative" hermeneutic, anything not specifically forbidden by Scripture is allowed -- as long as it is consistent with the positive teaching of Scripture. This plays itself out in such differences as hymn-singing, liturgical worship, creeds, councils, and bishops. For example, historically, the Reformed did not write hymns, but based church music exclusively on the Psalms. Thus, the importance of the Genevan Psalter. (Some Reformed churches still follow this practice.) Anglicans (and Lutherans) have traditions of hymnody, liturgical worship, consider themselves bound by the ecumenical councils of the undivided church, and, at least in theory, affirm episcopal polity. It is the last on which there is some disagreement between (some) Lutherans and (some) Anglicans. Some Anglicans affirm that bishops ordained in the apostolic succession are necessary (of the esse of the church), while the traditional Anglican stance (as formulated by writers like Hooker) is that bishops are of the bene esse of the church -- preferable, and in accord with the church's historic tradition, but not absolutely necessary.

You should make a rebuttal response video to ‘How to be a Christian’ on sola scriptura

Hello, It seems a large part of your argument hinges on scripture being "God breathed." Im curious how you would respond to John 20:21 where Jesus, in telling his disciples that He is sending them just as the Father sent Him. And then He "breathes" on them and tells them to recieve the Holy Spirit and have the authority to forgive/retain sins... Is their "God breathed" authority/sending a lesser authority than scripture is said to have in 2 Tim 3? If so, what is the basis given that theopneustos is not used anywhere else in scripture? Thank you:)

Against Heresies 3.1, Irenaeus writes this: We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.

Even if Sola Scrptura were explicitly and undeniably taught in scripture it wouldn't convince people. They would demand more proof and disregard it as a circular argument.

Its not just Roman Catholics that say this. Also Orthodox, Catholic (Non-Roman) also say this. Paul persecuted christian's before the NT existed. So how did Christian's worship before the NT? Where they not valid Christians?

Concerning the question of whether 2 Timothy 3:16 refers to the NT as well as to the OT - 2 Peter 3:16 (can't help but notice the numerical coincidence even though it doesn't matter) includes the epistles of Paul in reference to those scriptures wrested by the unlearned and by the unstable. So if Scripture does not contain or define anything corresponding precisely to an explicit "Doctrine of Sola Scriptura", it does at least contain a definition of itself which includes the Pauline epistles. This would exclude an understanding of 2 Timothy 3:16 as pertaining only to the Old Testament books.

I got through the Timothy reference. I’m just curious: what’s keeping you from Rome? You seem to be trying very hard to defend Solo Scriptura but why? If you’ve studied Luther you know he first came up with it as a defense (not some positive divine revelation) during a debate. I’m honestly curious. I’m assuming you love Jesus and want to be in His Church. Why stay away from the Sacraments? God bless!

2 Timothy 3:16-17 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. Notice how verse 16 says ALL Scriptures is given by the INSPIRATION of God, it is profitable for Doctrine, reproof, correction etc. And here comes the important part verse 17 that a man of God may be COMPLETE COMPLETE COMPLETE, THOROUGHLY EQUIPPED, for EVERY good work. This Scripture makes me COMPLETE, and THOROUGHLY equipped for EVERY GOOD WORK. I don't need any more doctrine because this one make me complete, and aslo helps me to perform EVERY GOOD WORK.

Thank you Rev. Dr. Cooper for this video. While I am not Lutheran, I am proudly Protestant & I believe all of us should be able to defend Sola Scriptura against critics.

Great argument. Thanks for the video!

How do we respond to groups that claim there are books that have been removed from the Bible? Eastern Orthodox church claims that reformers removed 7 books from the new testament and 3 books from the old testament.

Hi Dr. Cooper. I appreciate your channel 9o 9

From an anglican perspective: sure, scripture places itself as authority, but you need reason and tradition as authorities if you want to claim that any historical text is actually scripture, and you need tradition and reason to interpret scripture. They're not equal authorities, but they are authorities

I have realized how different evangelicals and more historical reformed christians are.

How do you which books to include ?

Hi Dr. Cooper. I want you to know that I appreciate your channel and being exposed to the Lutheran tradition. It’s refreshing to find a Protestant channel that isn’t in some form or another Reformed or non-denominational. I’ve really come to respect the Lutheran tradition, especially on the Eucharist, because of your work here. However, as someone who is drawn to the Catholic Church, I did notice some arguments in your defense on which I’d like some clarification. I actually agree with your point that Catholic apologists tend to use that “gotcha” argument against Protestants to subvert the doctrine of sola Scriptura, but then also affirm Scripture doesn’t need to explicitly teach doctrines (like the Trinity) for it to be true. It is a kind of double-standard and probably needs to be re-evaluated how it’s defended. However, I’ve come to understand the exegesis of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 differently. It seems like most translations of that verse do not translate the Greek to mean Scripture makes “sufficient” the man of God, but rather something more like “perfect”, “adequate”, or “complete”. As you pointed out, something about the nature of Scripture makes perfect, makes adequate, or complete the man of God, but as far as I can see, concluding that Scripture is the sole infallible authority for a Christian from this verse, which is the best evidence of sola Scriptura, is like saying Revelation 12 proves the Queenship and Assumption of Mary. For something can complete another thing but not be sufficient. For instance, a hammer can complete a carpenter’s materials to build a dresser, but a hammer isn’t sufficient for a carpenter to build a dresser. So, in my understanding of 2 Tim. 3:16-17, taking those Greek words to mean “sufficient” (artios and exartizo, I think?) either proves too much or too little. For if it does mean the man of God is sufficient, sufficient for every good work, does that mean that all that’s needed is a belief that one is a man of God and a Bible, without faith, hope, and love, or others, or God? Or if Scripture “completes” the man, how does the completeness of man prove that the Bible is sufficient as the sole infallible authority for all Christians? Then, regarding Matthew 15, I think you raise a good point regarding how one determines the difference between human traditions and divine traditions, and I’m curious to read Geerhart? And the other person you quoted who attempt to trace historical inconsistencies in the Catholic Church’s teaching. Yet, how do you reconcile your view of tradition as being tempered by Scripture in light of Jesus commanding the apostles to listen to the Pharisee’s teaching on account of their authority being on Moses’ seat? Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; 3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice. To me, for Jesus to teach his chosen twelve apostles to submit to and do the teaching of the Pharisees by virtue of their office ([they] sit on Moses’ seat) and because their teaching is true (for Christ wouldn’t command his disciples to follow un-truth) gives at least some clout to the Catholic dogmas about apostolic offices and the Petrine primacy claims. Obviously, this passage doesn't prove those claims, but at least makes them more reasonable. What do you think? Thank you for what you do!

Greetings Dr. Cooper - I appreciate your work and actually found this video as the first hit on an internet search on defending sola scriptura. I wanted to let you know I did a response video to it on my channel. No response required or requested - just a courtesy. :) God bless.

Don't mind me.....I'm just hanging with Dr. Cooper.

2 Tim 3 doesn't say anything about the bible being sufficient by itself. Dr. Cooper is reading that into the text.

This is funny saying 'solascriptura defended' without having a debate with Catholic apologetics...to look wise is different than to be a meaningful....keep a debate with Trent horn, Jimmy Akin, Patrick madrid, tim staple than we'll believe sola scriptura is defended....

God also breathed on the apostles, not just the bible (john 20:22)

Hey dr jordan, A catholic friend once said to me if scripture claims to be infallible within the scripture itself that wouldnt be sufficient evidence to prove its infallibility. The claim should come from the outside to justify what the scripture says(like tradition). He gave example of the apostles saying they declared the scripture to be "God breathed" and there claim was backed by them knowing Jesus and the work they carried out. Which is outside the bible. What can i reply back??

Scripture Primacy is quite a bit different than Sola Scriptura and how most would come into this debate. If this truly is the Lutheran position, it's not Sola Scriptura at all. As for scripture itself, how did the Lutheran Church determine what is and what isn't scripture? You threw out the Septuagint which is referenced all throughout the NT and would have been considered "scripture" according to Paul in his letter to Timothy. And Luther would have thrown out more books from the NT if he hadn't been stopped by saner individuals.

Just want to say thanks for posting! These videos have really helped me to understand my faith better.

I'm no doctor. Or scholar of any note. But it seems to me that you are assuming sola scriptura in your response. If I was an alien from another planet and I'm trying to evaluate these claims (either Jesus established a church or he gave us a book that each Christian needs to read and interpret for themselves) I would have liked to hear a positive case for why you think sola scripura is true. I don't think you do that.

FANTASTIC.

My starting point is that Scripture wasn't codified until the Council of Rome 382AD (by the Catholic Church). So, if the Bible (Scripture) didn't exist for almost 400 years, what did the early Christians believe, they couldn't have believed what Scripture teaches if Scripture didn't exist. Of course, Sola ScripturS has to discard or at least disregard Paul in his writing to the Church in Thessalonica (2 Thess: 2:15) " "Therefore, brothers, STAND FIRM AND HOLD FAST TO THE TRADITIONS THAT YOU WERE TAUGHT, EITHR BY AN ORAL STATEMENT OR BY A LETTER OF OURS."

Dr. J Cooper, there at at least seven scriptures where God said you can't ADD to His word. Why didn't you give those seven scriptures to prove the defense of Sola Scriptura.

To say scripture is 'God breathed' is subject to interpretation. To interpret this as meaning scriptural infallibility is to apply a speculative judgment outside of scripture. Adam was also God breathed, but what's your point? By that logic, the mystical life within us is as equally valid as scripture. Then we have two authorities that should be weighed against each other equally. What does Timothy say exactly after claiming scripture is God breathed? That it is *useful*. It is definitely good for teaching and training. It does *not* suggest the meaning of 'God breathed' is infallibility- pedagogical utility does not imply infallibility. Sola Scriptura is so blind to its own presuppositions.

Your ilk take for granted that the Church so thoroughly established what the New Testament Canon is that no one could even imagine other books competing. But just as you anachronistically read the New Testament without considering that it was first taught authoritatively by the apostles and men they appointed and then continued in written form, you don't put yourself in the shoes of ancient Christians who might have considered Clement's epistles or the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas, or even semi-gnostic and gnostic gospels to be scripture while not considering some Canonical books, like Revelation, Hebrews, 2 Peter, etc, to be scripture. You have no reason without the Church to assume you have the correct scripture

What I’d like to know is when Protestants think the Catholic Church started. Is it not built on apostolic succession?

Okay, but how do we know what is Scripture and what is not? How can we defend Scripture is God-breathed until we can know what the canon is and why? You don't even touch this. It's kind of important. 😁

"Scripture over tradition, where there is a conflict." OK. But that still leaves us with the problem of whose understanding of scripture we follow and what the criteria are that regulate such an understanding.

It's hard to defend Sola Scripture. We do not see the early Church operating with a Sola Scripture premise. The only reason the reformers came up with this idea is because they lacked any authority to start new Churches and make up new Bible Canons. So yes, they had to make this idea up because otherwise they would be held accountable to God's judgment for disobeying God approved authority in the form of the Bishop's and the Pope.

Is man not God breathed as well? Or is there a central difference between the breath that inspires scripture the breath of life in Genesis? As the Word of God is living and breathing, is not man’s living soul born of the same means?

Lutheranism recognise saints like John from Damasc or other orthodox saints from Greece , Siria etc o this means that if they becaome saints if they are in Paradise so their way and ideas are good..like , monasteryes and monks , icons, etc

Regarding whether any other authority is "God-breathed," John 20:21-23, when Christ breaths on the Apostles and gives them the authority to forgive sins.

I think Jesus relationship with rabbinic Authority is a little bit more complex than him saying tradition is bad, because on some of the occasions when he is disputing with the scribes and Pharisees, he does seem to be making rabbinic arguments. He also says that they sit on the seat of Moses and that people should obey their rulings, while also warning people not to adopt their hypocritical behavior. He could have easily told people that because they are blind guides, they should be disregarded. I think he acknowledged at the very least that tradition was not illegitimate in and of itself. I think his main point is that in trying to mechanically keep to the letter of the law, describes and Pharisees had neglected the spirit of the law. Other words, they were punctilious about keeping the sabbath, but they had forgotten what the point of the sabbath was. They clung to the Torah's allowance of divorce while forgetting the cruel tragedy that divorce is. They were concerned with purity laws, but they were impure where it really mattered because they did not care for the orphan and the widow, they did not Focus on true Justice, and they never kept the jubilee, not even once. The Torah itself does leave certain things open to interpretation. There are several instances where it has a certain commandment, but it is very vague on the specifics of how that commandment is to be carried out. So it is reasonable to that there was an oral tradition that elaborated on the things. I think at least some degree, Jesus did acknowledge this oral tradition, or at least the legitimacy of scribes and judges exercising juris prudence in order to ascertain the best way to keep a particular commandment.

2 Peter 3:15-16 says that Paul's writings are Scripture. 2 Timothy 3:16 affirms that all Scripture is inspired by God etc. Only ten books of the Old Testament and the thirteen letters of Paul are identifiable as divine Scripture on the sole authority of Christ or an Apostle. So on what authority do we accept anything further as Scripture?

If you are teaching "by scripture alone," and yet cannot give evidence of this teaching "by scripture alone," then yes, I think that greatly undermines your argument. Orthodox Christians can point to scripture and to the historical Church and show where the Apostles and the Church Fathers used tradition, so YES, if you are attempting to justify your belief in Sola Scriptura, the burden of proof is absolutely on you because you cannot follow your own guidelines and they can.

Thanks for making the video. I thought you said some interesting things. You say that the burden of proof is on Catholics to prove that Tradition has the same infallible authority as Scripture, so this is what I will address. I may address a little on Matthew 15 also. The clearest reference to the apostles communicating doctrine through Sacred Tradition and not just Scripture alone is 2 Thessalonians 2:15: “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” In his prior letter to the Thessalonians, Paul referred to the time when his hearers “received the word of God which you heard from us” and how they “accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God” (1 Thess. 2:13). Now he instructs this same community to “stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” So, clearly the Scriptures teach that the spoken Word of God (Sacred Tradition) is infallibly authoritative because it is the Word of God (1 Thess. 2:13). Now on Matthew 15. Catholics agree that if a tradition contradicts Scripture, then that tradition does come from men rather than from God and shouldn’t be followed. In this passage Jesus said that the Pharisees nullified or made void the written word of God through their application of the korban tradition. But Jesus didn’t teach that Scripture must corroborate tradition; he only taught that tradition couldn’t contradict Scripture. Neither did Jesus teach that Scripture always has a higher authority than tradition just because traditions that falsely claim to be of divine origin are exposed with Scripture. The early Church relied on apostolic tradition to distinguish Gospels that have a divine origin from those like the Gospel of Thomas that do not, but this wouldn’t show that Scripture has less authority than tradition just because Scripture is judged by tradition. (The Case for Catholicism; Trent Horn; pg. 38, 40-42)

It seems to me that advocates of Sola Scriptura hold "reason" to be the proximate normative authority (of course God is the Ultimate normative authority): : The Bible means X and we determine this by reason. If this is true then how do you get the doctrine that the judgment of the church has no greater normativity than that of our reason? And do the truths of your faith derive their normativity from reason? If so, how can they transcend reason?

With all my respect, I have questions about Sola Scriptura whose answers have yet to be adequately supplied to me. In summary, they are as follows: Paul died in AD 67. He wrote in 1 Timothy 3:15: “…if I am delayed, you will know how people are to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth. He did not say that the Bible is the pillar and foundation of the Church because there was no "Bible." The initial effort to assemble a Bible was in AD 200 with the Muratorian Canon. It was not until the AD 382, at the (local) Council of Rome, that all the different churches came to a basic agreement on a Biblical canon. If Christ intended the Church to be guided by Sola Scriptura, what were the faithful to do until AD 382? And why is there no recorded idea of Sola Scriptura until the 14th century? Moreover, it is not a random accident that placed into Jn. 21:25 the guiding words, “... many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book.” Well, if not written here, where else are the rest of these thaumaturgies and words of eternal life deposited and how do we act on Christ’s words which were not written down? Saint Paul addresses this in the above cited 1 Timothy 3:15. Now, for me here is an overlooked point: Martin Luther allowed that every Bible reader is his “own pope” (his words), Therefore, he ought not have balked at the Catholic Church for Her definitions. Would not the Fathers of the Magisterium and elsewhere have their rightful interpretation, just as does one’s neighbor? And where does self-interpretation begin and end? Often, I talk to a supporter that insists on sola scriptura. However, when I point to things in the Bible that are as literal as daylight, they either express amazement at having missed it or at never before seeing it that way, or, sadly, it’s shaken off. Christ left a Church, not a book, and certainly not a handbook. What lies outside the Book is far more than the Book can hold. Christ left a Church and this He did well-before the compilation of a scribal New Testament.

Dr. Cooper, I have alot of respect for you and your ministry but I feel like I must point out a few things that may seem as problematic for your defence of Sola scriptura. 1. Scripture isn't the only thing that is God breathed. See (John 20:21-23) Jesus (God) breathed on the disciples and gave them his mission "As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you." Furthermore this can also be demonstrated in Luke 10:16 "The one who hears you hears me, and the one who rejects you rejects me, and the one who rejects me rejects him who sent me." We can clearly see here that there is a sacred oral Tradition alongside scripture that is God breathed. 2. Scripture makes the man of God perfect (2 Timothy 3:17). This is true, but notice that scripture also teaches that the church also does the exact same thing in Ephesians 4:11-15 "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: 14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; 15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:" This passage seems to parallel 2 Timothy 3:16-17 showing that Both scripture interpteted and taught Via the church is the perfect combination to make the man perfect and complete. Notice that the church prevents people from being tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine. Therefore you can't put scripture above the church nor the church above scripture, they both need each other. 3. In Matthew 15 Jesus condemns the Corban Tradition. Specifically a tradition that violates scripture because the Corban Tradition violated the 4th commandment "honour thy father & Mother." Thus it was a tradition of men. But Rome's traditions don't violate scripture, rather they Interpret scripture and compliment scripture. That's what seperated sacred Tradition (2 Thessalonians 2:15, 3:6 & 1 Corinthians 11:2) from Traditions of men mentioned in Matthew 15.

I’m a convert to Catholicism, two things: 1) I agree that the Bible doesn’t claim that it is the sole authority…in fact it calls out Tradition as valid inspiration in addition to written letters. This validation of Tradition is key. The Bible itself is a Tradition of the Church. It took 60 years for the NT to be written, then 300 years for agreement on the TOC. The church created the Bible, not the other way around. 2) the Bible is not self interpreting. If it was, we’d all agree on baptismal regeneration, apostolic succession, Trinity (unfortunately Mormans and JW read our Bible and deny the Trinity), etc. The reality of 30,000+ Protestant denominations, so many disagreements on fundamental theology, show the Bible needs an interpreter. Why trust men 1,500 years after Christ (most of whom you also disagree with) instead of the Church that was there from the beginning?

How would you (or anyone) respond to claims like that of Josiah Trenham in his argument that we in Sola Scriptura have only a few chapters in two letters to show for his many years in Thessaloniki and that is all we can hold ourselves to?

3:20 the table of contents would be one, The verse you are talking about was written before the canon as you know it was compiled, or contained some of the Scripture you take as God-breathed, who proclaimed that Scripture God-breathed? and how can you have certainty that it's an infallible proclamation if it comes from an unauthoritative source.

The psalms and proverbs paint a pretty good picture within the Old Testament as well. There is also an argument from silence. We don’t find an appeal to any other magisterium of traditions or literature in relation to the texts we find concerning settled scriptures. I think we can find in the Jerusalem council, that it was the texts of the OT and the experiences of the Apostles that resolved the consensus they reached. They did not see themselves as coming away with anything ‘new’ but rather discovering something that was already true. It’s not mentioned enough that in proverbs there are anathema’s pronounced on anyone who would add or take away from the word of God. This in itself, seems to imply that it holds a unique infallible authority that nothing else possesses. This is where the burden of proof to show that something possesses these characteristics is not on us, but on anyone else who lays claims to it. And there is atleast one book we can say is self-defined as “sola scriptura” with anathema’s attached to it, for anyone of whom would add or take away from it. That is the book of Revelation, which is the final book in the canon.

There's also the need to rebut material sufficiency vs. formal sufficiency in 2 Tim 3:16. Catholics affirm the Material sufficiency of Scripture.

How To Be Christian ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-GNEYi-PcOkc.html

Love the beard, brother!

Where is the table of content of the Bible? And who made it?

"ophelimos" in 2 Tim 3:16 does not mean 'sufficient', but 'useful' or 'beneficial' (maybe even 'necessary'). Paul commends the tradition of 'what [Timothy] has learned' (v. 14) (presumably from Paul) in equal measure as the scriptures Timothy has known from his youth (v. 15). The tradition which the apostles handed on are not the 'traditions of men' since they _are_ from a kind of inspiration by which Peter was able to make his confession (Mt 16:17-18), and so the apostles (and their successors) are able to speak with the same authority as Jesus (Mt 18: 18; Lk 10:16).

This is great!!

I like your mention of 2 Timothy 3:16 because it says that scripture furnishes the man of God Completely. That alone is proof that scripture is a sufficient authority. Roman tradition cannot be trusted as quoted by Luther who said Popes and councils do err as they contradict themselves. Another issue is some of the late Marian doctrines are claimed to be from the 1st century, (Apostolic tradition ) when in fact they are modern novelties.

After the coming of the Holy Spirit the apostles went to preach to all the world - They created churches everywhere and ordained Bishops, Priests and Deacons - they celebrated the Holy Communion on the Lord's Day - But... did they sold Bibles everywhere?? No - the Bible as we know it was completed only in early 2nd century - besides, a complete Bible was handwritten in many parchments and getting one Bible would cost a fortune. Bibles, as we know it only appeared well after Gutenberg so people had no Bibles for some 15 centuries. So "Sola Scriptura" is out of the question. For 15 centuries the word of God was preached by the clerics - Bishops, Priests and Deacons - that it, the Magisterium of the Church, the only and true Church, the Roman Catholic Church. Peter was the Pope and the Apostles the first Bishops. See Galatians 1:18 “Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days - See? Bishop Paul of Tarsis went to Pope Peter to check if what he (Paul) was preaching was all right. And he saw no other apostle but James, as of course, James was the bishop of Jerusalem. So, good-by sola scriptura

1) Dr. Cooper defines the Catholic argument as “because Scripture does not explicitly teach sola scriptura, you’re going outside of Scripture to prove your doctrine, which is self-contradictory”; but this is not accurate in its representation of Catholic concerns. We believe Scripture explicitly teaches that we should uphold God’s Word, as passed down in oral as well as written Tradition (2 Thessalonians 2:15), while the Bible itself never uses the word “alone” when teaching about Scripture. Our argument is that Sacred Scripture and Tradition together comprise the Word of God: that is, it has been passed down in a written and oral manner. We support the belief in sola verbum Dei, but object to the exclusivity of written Tradition. In short, Dr. Cooper set up a straw man at the beginning by misconstruing our core objections to the doctrine. 2) I understand that sola scriptura has several iterations within the world of Protestantism: ranging from prima scriptura to variations of sola scriptura: Calvin taught that we must approach the Scriptures using sound reason, for example, and didn’t teach that perspicuity could exist outside of rational thought. I say that because it’s not as simple as “only the Bible and nothing else.” We Catholics should be careful to distinguish this when we address such matters. Such distinctions are helpful and important. 3) Around the 1:50 minute marker, Dr. Cooper asks whether we have to find sola scriptura in Scripture for it to be true. I would answer that, while I would *expect* something that is the foundational doctrine for Protestant authority to be found in Scripture, I agree it isn’t *necessary* from an epistemological standpoint - I believe its absence would be conspicuous, however, due to its centrality in Protestant thought. Again, though, this fails to account for the fact that the Scriptures and the early Church fathers both seem to support the Catholic and/or Orthodox beliefs in contrast to sola scriptura. It then becomes a matter of weighing evidence for/against the claims. 4) Regarding the unique role Scripture plays (around 2:30), we Catholics agree that it is God breathed and, of course, uphold the Pauline belief that it is useful for teaching and the like. It is God’s Word and must be treated with the utmost respect. We do not believe that oral Tradition supersedes Scripture; rather, we believe (as Paul teaches) that we must follow God’s Word whether it was written or passed down orally through apostolic Tradition. 5) Around 4:08, I believe this is convoluting and muddling the discussion by a) granting that Dr. Cooper’s own interpretation of a single passage is clearly understood as he understands it (which is untenable, or at least very difficult to prove, historically speaking) while b) failing to acknowledge that there are passages in Scripture that not only teach that oral traditions should be followed, but also that in Acts the apostles clearly leveraged this authority in many different situations, perhaps most notably (but not exclusively) at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. He may be right that he doesn’t have some sort of special burden of proof: but we’re not saying that. We’re simply asking that Protestants revisit this topic without inserting their preexisting interpretations (an example of eisegesis) so that we can then weigh the cumulative evidence fairly. 6) Around 4:20, this is an egregious example of reducing the opposition’s argument to the most absurd application possible. We are not defending wild cult leaders or the like, nor does a Catholic/Orthodox understanding of Tradition support this claim. Ironically, albeit sadly, sola scriptura has facilitated many a cult as a direct result of its introduction. This was not the Reformers’ intention, of course, but I think it’s a historically sound observation in terms of the post-Reformation shift in interpretive authority. 7) Regarding the sufficiency of Scripture, Catholics uphold the *material* sufficiency of Scripture (i.e., that all the necessary pieces for sound doctrine are present), but that doesn’t mean the same as *formal* sufficiency, which is the position that the Reformers took (i.e., that everything necessary for the Christian faith could be clearly understood by individuals reading Scripture: this is what the concept of perspicuity touches on). It is the latter position that we reject. 8) Around the 13:00 minute marker, he uses the phrase “Scripture alone” - but this isn’t what the Bible says. The operative word “alone” is absent. While perhaps well-intentioned, this is a misleading way to present it as he treats it as an indisputable fact, when the reality is that the vast majority of Christians through the entire history of the Church would not agree. I’m not suggesting that the majority is automatically correct, of course; but I don’t think it’s fair to claim his position as the obvious starting point for several reasons, not least of which is the fact that the canon of Scripture was not fixed at the time of Paul’s writing, in addition to the troubling fact that Luther tried to have James removed from the NT. These points don’t disprove sola scriptura, but they give serious reasons to doubt that there was a clearly understood concept of what Scripture actually comprised. 9) Around 14:19, he correctly elevates Scripture above the traditions of men, but he fails to distinguish between the traditions of men and Sacred Tradition, which is God’s Word handed down orally. We too reject supplanting God’s Word with worldly traditions, but that’s not a defense of his position: it’s a mischaracterization of ours. 10) He addresses my rebuttal in #9, and then asks, how do you know? This is a great question: we Catholics judge the credibility of a belief based on whether it’s in line with the deposit of faith, as passed down through the apostles and as guided by the Holy Spirit working through the Magisterium. I would ask Dr. Cooper the same question: how does he judge whether it’s true? By comparing it to Scripture, I imagine the response would be. And then I would ask: why don’t the major Protestant camps come to the same conclusions if they are applying this technique … how can they know they are not in error when in disagreement with one another? 11) Finally, he anachronistically assumes Jesus is operating on a sola scriptura basis, while failing to address the fact that Paul does in fact explain this further. Cherry-picking single passages to “prove” comprehensive points is a dangerous mode of Scriptural interpretation. I believe this is another example of eisegesis.

Masterfully said, Dr. Cooper! Thank you. Sola Scriptura is a reasonable conviction based on the unique nature of Scripture. The burden of proof is on those who claim that something else has the same status. From a historical perspective I would add that the Holy Scriptures are also uniquely defined, sure, and able to be referenced. The content of the Protocanon is attested to with higher agreement than just about any other Christian doctrine including formulations of the Trinity. The sheer number of extant manuscripts of these works, and therefore certainty and completeness of text, is unparalleled by anything else we have from antiquity. Given this sureness of content, which books belong and what those books say, the Scriptures can be pointed to and therefore referenced in a way that more nebulous Tradition(s) cannot. Nature aside, Tradition simply does not have the same mode of existence as the Holy Scriptures.

What is your thought on Acts 15:28 when Luke says about the Council at Jerusalem, "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things."

John 20.22 says that Jesus breathed on his disciples. Jesus is God so his disciples are God breathed!! So scripture isn't the only thing God breathed.

"Do we have to find a particular scripture that says, 'Scripture is the only authority?'" (~1:40) "Scripture places itself as this authority that is so connected to God Himself that He breathed it out that the burden of proof is on [Catholic apologists] to prove that anything else has those characteristics, [i.e., some kind of divine authority]." (~3:28, 4:28)) So, even if the burden of proof is on Catholics to demonstrate that anything else has the unique characteristic of having the authority of God, we can easily find that simply because the Apostles were given the authority of Christ, who is God: -"Whoever listens to you listens to me." Luke 10:16 -There's also Matt 18:18, Matt 16:18-19, and 1 Thes 2:13. In addition to the Apostles being given the authority of Christ who is God, it seemed the Apostles placed some kind of divine authority on the Church: -"I am writing you about these matters, although I hope to visit you soon. But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, _which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth_ ." 1 Tim 3:14-15 So do you Protestants _have_ to find a particular scripture that says, "Scripture is the _only_ authority"? Yes, it would seem like you do, especially since these scripture passages ultimately refute Luther when he said, "The true rule is this: God's Word shall establish articles of faith, and no one else, not even an angel can do so."

Thanks for the great video, here are a few concerns or at least thoughts I have on the matter. My main concern is less that Sola Scriptura is not being thaught within the Bible, which becomes also evident by the need that people even have to argue for it, but rather it seems that the Bible teaches against Sola Scriptura, and so wonder, what are we to make out of that. First, when we read that all scripture is God breathed, it carried a different meaning in the days it was written. "God-Breathed" or "inspired" originated from the greek word "theopneustos", and was used anciently in the sense of things being livening. We also see the same word being used in reference to springs of water, ointments and even sandals. So the meaning we impose upon the Bible today simply was different back then. Personally I agree that people can gaing understanding from the Bible about Savlavtion, but, I also believe that this understanding does not come merely from learning "about God", but rather comes by "knowing God". The Bible certainly is a great source to learn about God, but the question is, where does it state that it is the only infallible source we are to rely on? It seems that the more we allow the Bible to speak on its own termns, we have to agree that the Bible does contain many errors, contradictions and mistakes. We get authors disagree on doctrine, and we even get a Jesus teaching three different doctrines on hell, for example.. There would be many examples I could bring in.. So that being said, people can always pick and choose whaterve verse they need to back up their claim, which means that unless people use a proper spiritual discernment, there is no way people will obtain the understanding needed. Now there are a few things, first, Paul clearly teaches that even "the knowing and understanding of all things" is worth nothing, if not rooted in charity. That means, even if people know everything about God, that does not mean they know God.. At the same time we are thaught that to love, is the means by which we are to "know God".. And to "love", is not something we are exclivvely thaught within the Bible (often times, actuaklly, rather the opposite). So spiritual discernment stands above scripture, charity stands above scripture, and knowing God is independant from scripture. Also, why would Jesus teach us how to discern true from false Prophets in these latter days, if there were not any Prophets around? Why did Jesus teach that his church will be built upon the rock of revelation, if revelation has always to submit to the scriptures? I dont see how his church is built upon artificial authority, but rather upon spiritual revelation and the good fruits of charity

The problem with the idea of sola scriptura is that practically it doesn't work. If scripture is all you need then we would all understand it the same way and everyone would be in agreement on their interpretation.

The bible explicitly says that scripture is not the only word of God. It says that the oral teachings of the apostles is the word if God also (1 thess 2:13)

Great video! Thank you, although I would even add that the way men knew that the scriptures were from God was that each prophet and spokesperson of God validated his claims through miraculous signs and deeds. Rome is quick to point at the traditions and authority of the apostles, but fail to realize that such an authority was authenticated in Acts as a unique authority of the Holy Spirit. This was a practice throughout the entire Bible-claiming authority and then validating it. After the apostles, no such validated authority exists, which leads to your point that they need to prove that the Roman authority or any other further revelation is from the Lord, the same way virtually every Biblical author did.

My favorite argument is that the Ethiopian eunuch didn’t understand Old Testament prophecy about Jesus who he knew nothing about

Since Protestantism has no central authority, it is everyman his own Pope. This applies espcially to churches though part of the whole denommination are run as individial churches. So you can get as many versions as there are pastors. Protestantism has and continues to splinter to the point where you have become a Sunday entertainment center. Sola Scriptura is a bloody joke. Martin Luther late in life wrote: “There are almost as many sects, division and factions and beliefs as there are heads. This one will not admit baptism. This one rejects the Sacrament of the Altar. Some teach that Jesus Christ is not God. There is not an individual however clownish he maybe, does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Spirit and who does not put forth his prophecy to his own ravings and dreams.”

When you realize the first proposed Canon was by Marcion of Pontus. It had 1 gospel (Luke) and a few letters from Paul.

Yes you're right. Sola scriptura is not biblical. If a Protestant affirms Sola scriptura he should apply this for himself this "faith". There is no other thing to do. You could circumvent if you wish but honestly you could not affirm sola scriptura.

I accept Apostolic oral tradition in the early centuries as 'points of interest' but once the NT canon was decided upon, it is much safer to rely only on the Inspired Word of God, particularly as many Early Church Fathers disagreed with each other. This weakness can also be seen in some of the doctrines and dogmas literally 'made up' by the Catholic Church - ludicrous at best, dangerous at worst (I'm thinking specifically of all the Marian dogmas and how they have 'normalised' idol veneration). Plus, the Pope's infallibility along with the idea that you will be in a state of mortal sin, if you willingly don't attend Mass and therefore ear-marked for hell if you don't attend reconciliation, is what ultimately controls the Cult. Sola Scriptura it has to be because man is most definitely not infallible, whether he's spouting dogma or not.

Brilliant!

"Sola Scriptura" falls completely apart when you realize that you only know what counts as "Scripture" because of Church Tradition in the first place. None of the Gospels name their authors, the New Testament does not say how many Gospel accounts there are, and nowhere in the New Testament does it list which books and letters are canonical. Every single one of those things has been given to you by the Church, so appealing to Scripture to "prove" Sola Scriptura is an entirely self-defeating argument. Orthodoxy is the Church planted by Christ and the Apostles.

Protestant: 'You Catholics believe a lot of things not found in the Bible.' Catholic: 'Well, is Sola Scriptura found in the Bible?' Protestant: 'No, doesn't have to be.'

But a foundational issue for sola scriptura is even knowing what the canon of scripture is. Protestants have the NT only because the Catholic Chuch (Latin and Eastern) already had it. And if you think about, if any Protestant sect has traditional orthodox teachings, it’s only because the Catholic Church has already defined them in councils ect. So if sola scriptura is true, then where in scripture do we find the canon? Since councils, and THE Church can error on sacred tradition and doctrine, then the supposed canon must have it, but this also can’t be proved since Protestantism relies on Catholic Tradition to tell us what is canon. Protestantism cannot account for the scriptures in the first place. They stand on borrowed capital, turn around and say “we don’t need that tradition that gave us what we have,” It truly inconsistent.

Whether Scripture is or is not the only infallible rule of faith for doctrine and regardless of who put the final stamp of approval on the Canon, if your traditions clearly contradict or go far beyond the words of the Prophets, Apostles, and Christ himself, I will side with them over your traditions.

Orthodoxy for the win!

Sorry, but this “defense” is no defense at all. Please know that I love the Bible with all my heart and that I believe it is inspired and inerrant. But I don’t subscribe to sola scriptura; it is an unscriptural and indefensible doctrine. I believe Dr. Cooper is sincere and is trying his best, but there are so many holes in his arguments, and his explanations are not at all convincing. At times, I get the impression that he is just mumbling his words, as if even he is not convinced by the soundness of his logic. At the outset (in 1:42 onward), Dr. Cooper concedes that one cannot find in scripture any passage showing that scripture is the sole authority. Then he argues, using scripture, that scripture is God-breathed, and that this is enough to prove the sufficiency of scripture, of sola scriptura. Dr. Cooper primarily bases his arguments supporting sola scriptura on the uniqueness and sufficiency of scripture. In 5:41 he says, “The unique authority of scripture in that it is God-breathed gives it its sufficiency, and so it is sufficient to equip one in good works that include teaching because of its unique character.” Although, it is hard to see from his arguments how sufficiency flows from uniqueness which flows from its being God-breathed, let us assume for a moment that this is a logical flow. This reasoning, that being God-breathed gives sufficiency, leads to an absurd conclusion. We know that each book of Scripture is God-breathed from inception to completion. Does that mean then that each one God-breathed book, including in the Old Testament, was a sufficient rule of faith as soon as it was completed? Of course not. Besides, this reasoning begs a lot of questions: What are the standards for determining that a book is God-breathed? Who determines those standards? What authority does this person possess to decide for all Christians which books should be part of the Bible? (We know that many books purporting to be inspired were circulating during the time the canon of the Bible was being discerned.) In 14:24 Dr. Cooper says, “It is in that context that Jesus does set up some principles …and the principle is that there can be indeed opposition between tradition and scripture, and when scripture and tradition are at odds, it is scripture that is the thing that gets the final say. Scripture has this overriding power over tradition.” The problem with that argument is that Jesus never taught that at all. Otherwise, the Gentiles would have been circumcised because that was what scripture was saying at the time when the apostles disputed about the issue. I’m afraid Dr. Cooper here is inventing a doctrine never taught by Christ. Dr. Cooper argues that ”[w]hat these infallible traditions do is interpret scripture.” However this statement begs the questions “What makes tradition infallible?” and “Who decides which tradition is infallible?" It seems that interpretation of scripture seems to reside on a final determining authority outside of scripture. Besides, that statement seems to contradict his earlier assertion on the overriding power of scripture over tradition. Peace with you and God bless.

Thank you

1-3) All Christians subject themselves to one of four authority traditions under the Son of the Living God: Catholic/Eastern Orthodox, High Protestantism (Anglican/Lutheran, etc.,) American Christianity (Reformed, Non-Denominational, Evangelical), or their own private Opinion. Of all these "churches," only the Catholic Church has the spiritual and historical commission back to the Apostles and Jesus Christ. Private Opinion is condemned in 2nd Peter, and thus as an Athiest would say, you are a product of your religious environment. 2) The Bible and Infallible Judgement. It is a historical fact the official closed canon of Scripture came in the second half of the 4th Century (Councils of Hippo, Carthage, Rome.) If you grant Scripture is "the infallible" word of God, you must give the Church Bishops "infallible judgment" by the Holy Spirit that picked the specific books of the canon. You cannot have one without the other. If you reject the 73 book closed canon based upon the argument of Martin Luther, then you are rejecting a closed canon of nearly 1100 years. If you accept any non-Catholic translation such as the King James Version, you still must grand the men who compiled that translation infallible judgment, which directly refutes the Protestant Position. Secondly, what Bible translation do you use, and is it a good translation? An excellent argument for an English translation is the King James Version (but not 1611); however, the Douay Rheims is a better version translated over 41-42 years. Thus what version do you give authority to, and why, and do you grant "infallible" judgment to the translators. If you don't, then your translation is not safe. 3) The 60-second Position of the Church for Salvation is a confession of belief and baptism, then love the Lord Jesus and keep his commandments: (Acts 8: "Then Philip, opening his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preached unto him, Jesus. [36] And as they went on their way, they came to a certain water; and the eunuch said: See, here is water: what doth hinder me from being baptized? [37] And Philip said: If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest. And he answering, said: I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. [38] And he commanded the chariot to stand still; and they went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch: and he baptized him. [39] And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord took away Philip; and the eunuch saw him no more." "If you love me, keep my commandments."

You jump to sola scriptura without defining what your sola scriptura is made up of. That’s the problem.

you would need a inspired book to have the list of canonical books so that sola scriptura be true...

Protestantism is contradictory and self refuting. Dr JBC said there are no verses in the Bible that teach the doctrine of Sola Scriptura but we have to rest our salvaton on a doctrine that is not taught in the Bible.

Debunking catholicism I'm more blessed than mary Proof = Luke 11:27-28 27 And it happened, as He spoke these things, that a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed You!” 28 But He said, “More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!” In Luke 11:27 that random woman LITERALLY said Jesus your mother is Blessed, but are Lord Jesus LITERALLY said Believers are more Blessed than mary. Amen and Amen _________________________ 1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach Paul allows bishops to get marry, but catholic church goes against paul. Now these catholic will give a Verses from 1 Corinthians7 to say that paul gave the advice to stay unmarried. But they will not tell you that the same chapter they quote says 1 Corinthians 7:28 "even if you do marry, you have not SINNED". The passage literally says "young women, young men" and a bishop is supposed to be a Church ELDER. Mic drop _________________________ Jesus said Matthew 23:9 9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. And also said Holy Father to Heavenly Father= John 17:11 11 Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are. Jesus said call no one Father but still catholics call *pope holy father. Sad _________________________ Whenever a catholic argue about mary being the mother of God Use this to defeat the argument. Luke 8:21 But He answered and said to them, “My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.” Matthew 12:46-50 46 While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. 47 Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.” 48 But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49 And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”. Mark 3:35 For whoever does the will of God is My brother and My sister and mother.” John 19:26-27 26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” 27 Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home. ( Jesus basically said John is the son of mary, and mary is the mother of John from that time onwards). By the way sarah is the mother of all proof=Galatians 4:21-26. _________________________ We should not pray to apostles Romans 1:25 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Acts 10:25-26 25 As Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. 26 But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I myself am also a man.” Acts 14:15 15 and saying, “Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you, and preach to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them, Revelation 19:10 10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, “See that you do not do that! I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren who have the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” Revelation 22:8-9 8 Now I, John, saw and heard these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel who showed me these things. 9 Then he said to me, “See that you do not do that. For I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren the prophets, and of those who keep the words of this book. Worship God." Colossians 2:18 18 Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, Holy Spirit intercedes for us=Romans 8:26 26 Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession [a]for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. And CHRIST as well=Romans 8:34 34 Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us. Hebrews 7:25 25 Therefore He is also able to save [a]to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. It's Christ and Holy Spirit who intercedes for us not apostles There is only one Mediator between God and men LORD Jesus Christ= 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus. _________________________ Apostles are allowed to marry, 1 Corinthians 9:1-5 1 Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? 2 If I am not an apostle to others, yet doubtless I am to you. For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord. 3 My defense to those who examine me is this: 4 Do we have no right to eat and drink? 5 Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas? If Peter (peter is cephas read John 1:42) the so called "first pope" was married, why does the catholic church doesn't allow "pope" to marry? _________________________ The so called vicar of christ/ pope/holy father Peter called himself a fellow elder in 1 Peter 5:1, and as per the qualifications of elder in Titus 1:5-9 the elder is allowed to get married; then why does the "pope" is required to be celibate and catholic? ( when Peter was neither celibate nor catholic). 1)Peter was not perfect human nor was he a perfect disciple 2)He sank down while walking on water 3)Our Lord said to peter get behind me satan 4)Peter reject our Lord 3 times 5)Our Lord rebuked Peter for calling fire from heaven 6)Our Lord rebuked Peter when he cut of the soilders ear 7)Paul rebuked Peter for being hypocrite because he was acting different in front of Jews and different in front of gentiles. 8) Moses messed up, and he was a important part of Bible ( that's why he never entered the promised land), 9)David messed up ( and he has the Holy Spirit), 10)King Soloman messed up, 11) Saul messed up and God regretted the decision (1 Samuel 15:10-11). Hatrick (Saul then David then Soloman back to back messed up) 12)The apostles run away a day before Lord Jesus got locked up. 13)The early church messed up Rev 2:18-20 If these great people could mess up, why do you think the catholic church wouldn't mess up. ____________________________________ Galatians 4:21-26 21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar- 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children- 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all. Sarah is mother of all, Not mary. _________________________ Also the Church has many name like Christians, Evangelists, Children of God, Believers, servents of God, bride of Christ, but not once the Church is called catholics. _________________________ Also, if the apostles didn't wrote it, I don't want it.

To those who are too lazy to watch the whole 17 minute video, I will summarize what he said in one sentence "I can't find sola scriptura in the scriptures, therefore, I don't have to defend it."

Sola fide is not biblical.

I have made an in-depth reply to this video from a Catholic perspective: "Is Sola Scriptura Biblical?" (4-25-22) It's posted at my blog, "Biblical Evidence for Catholicism".

Some Philosophy here: Epistemological vs. Metaphysical - how we know the presence of something is different what that thing essentially is, e.g. a gold detector is not the gold detected , etc.

Using SOLA SCRIPTURA........why do I see such a big difference between a Lutheran and a Baptist? Every game needs a referee; every gathering of people needs a "leader" for the sake of KEEPING ORDER. Otherwise one has a free-for-all. SCRIPTURE FIRST and the other SOLAS makes the most sense to me. The USA a has the Constitution and two houses of Congress and it needs the "referee"..... the SUPREME COURT

Yes Dr. Cooper does have the burden if proof to demonstrate sola scriptura in scripture. He is making the positive claim that scripture is the highest authority, so he must demonstrate that in scripture. His argument is a giant shifting the burden of proof fallacy. Anyone who makes a positive claim has a burden of proof.

“Scripture ‘never says’ it is the ultimate authority" - reminds me of Zakir Naiak saying, “Nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus state, ‘I am God, worship me’” Dr. Wood argues decently that such statement hunting is naive.

Epistle of 2 Peter 3:15 & 16 Oracles of God?

Sola scriptura is a tradition of men that is not taught in scripture. Dr. Cooper is saying that if scripture is at odds with tradition, then we should reject the tradition. Good, thats why we should reject sola scriptura.

Searching to find the truth in the matter, I had to ask myself: "If I only had the Bible, would it be enough?" The obvious answer is yes.

9:09 9:09 How do you know which books are scripture? Scripture doesn't say. You have to go outside of scripture to determine scripture... Using sola scriptura, tell me which books are scripture... Of course, Sola Scriptura doesn't deal with everything related to faith and practice...It only applies to that which must be believed as being necessary for salvation.... that seems to have been largely forgotten

A few more examples of the NT encouraging Sola Scripture.... Matt 24:15 "let him that readeth understand" not encouragement for the reader to seek correct interpretation from a tradition. Rev 1:3 "Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein". Apostle Paul reasons from Scripture in Acts 17:2. "And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures" The Bereans were considered noble for searching the Scriptures, not for consulting leaders or scribes in Acts 17:11. "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so."