Does The Bible Teach "Scripture Alone" (Sola Scriptura)? 

lol

...

No... just, no.

*snort laugh* 😂

I'm am Indian 🇮🇳 and your comment makes so much sense.

The Lord Jesus is the Word

which was given orally

@@MasterKeyMagicand then written down. 😊

@@xnihilo1044 By Catholics, For Catholics, about the Catholic Church established by Jesus, and only made possible by the traditions handed to us orally by Jesus, who never told us to write anything down.

@@MasterKeyMagicwhich the Catholic Church didn’t exist then.

You mean 2,000 years later this guy speaks and acts a little different than someone from the other side of the planet?

yes, and where is Sola Scriptura explained in the bible?

@@williamkung9863 Because the scriptures are the only example of God-breathed revelation in the possession of the church, and because they are the only thing that God holds men accountable to, they form the only infallible rule for faith and practice for the church.

Lawrence Stanley where does the Bible say all that?

@@miqueasbello5382 The church does not possess a single, documented word of Jesus or the Apostles outside of scripture (simple fact of history). Jesus subjugates tradition to scripture (Matthew 15:1-14). Jesus only holds men accountable to the scripture (Matthew 12:3, 12:5, 19:4, 22:31, "have you not READ..."), and nowhere does Jesus hold men accountable for something that was God-breathed, and yet not inscripturated by His prophets or Apostles. According to 2 Timothy 3:16, the only thing in possession of the church that is θεοπνευστος is the scriptures - scriptures as defined by the apostles themselves, not by any church or church council. This means that there is nothing outside of the scriptures that are God-breathed, not traditions, not councils, not men, not the church, nothing… so if anyone makes an appeal to anything other than the scriptures as being of equal authority with the scriptures, then they had better be prepared to demonstrate that it too is θεοπνευστος, since whatever is asserted without the scriptures may be held as opinion, but need not be believed.

Lawrence Stanley Which part of 2 Tim. 3:16 says that the Scriptures are the ONLY thing that is God-breathed that the Church possesses?

Amen, according to Biblical scholar Lee Martin McDonald..."we had the faith first before the Bible" ( para-phrase )

@@anthonytan7134 But only the Early Oral Traditions that were chosen by God to be written down with the guidance of the Holy Spiurit after the Temple was destroyed circa 70 A.D. and the Revelation was revealed to Apostles John around 92-96 A.D... The Scripture of God thru Christ Jesus was COMPLETED from that on... Today, the Sole Authority of God's WORD is the written Bible (collection of Holy Scriptures). Catholics still kept on the practice of other oral tradition not allowed to be written down by God in the Bible... Just like what Apostle John saw in the Revelation... Not all that John saw were allowed to be written down as instructed by the Angel of God... Amen.

@@anthonytan7134 All I am saying, while the Bible was not completed yet in those days, the Early Christians practiced so many extra ORAL TRADITIONS not necessarily for the Soul's Salvation... But after the Temple was completely destroyed onward, only some ORAL TRADITION were allowed by God to be written down thru the guidance of the Holy Spirit that has full significant to our salvation to complete the Word of God...

@@jvlp2046 if the oral tradition written down, it should be properly called written tradition...don't you think ? so when Paul wrote to the Thessalonians about spoken word, it didn't make sense at all . Tradition in greek "paradosis" simply means what's been handed and passed on...in some translation "teaching", so do you really think that ALL teaching contained in the Bible ????? Next question will be simple, who you think has the authority to interpret the Scripture ? You, me, anybody ????

@@jvlp2046 Let me give you another challenge, in acts 15, council of Jerusalem, who do you think argue from the Scripture ??? Maybe those folk believed in sola scriptura, be my guest. God bless

I'm catholic who once looked into Anglican church but laughed when I saw a Facebook video of one of their live recorded worships. Rock music and rainbow flags don't belong in the church.

@@TruLuan I’d laugh too and never join that Church also. And I’ve seen videos of Roman Catholics parishes doing the same.

@@Psalm144.1 I have too unfortunately within the RCC. That's why I've settled with the SSPX. The traditional Latin Mass is beautiful. The community is great too.

@@Psalm144.1 I think my other comment got deleted because I put a link, but I was going to say that the doctrine of Purgatory is what also keeps me from considering protestantism. Check out the video titled "Proof of Purgatory part 1: Twenty two Bible verses"

Id say read it for yourself so that you may know what they are about but do NOT read it as the word of God for it is not.

@@az-jinx354 thank you.

There's some wacky stuff in gnosticism. They deny the birth of Christ and, I think, though I may be wrong, the humanity of Christ. There's a lot of belief that John was specifically refuting gnostic teachings when he wrote the Gospel of John.

Why G-d?

@@henos.h.w9921 he believes God is actually God's name. And he appears to cling to the tradition of the "ineffable name" that the talmudic jews held, which was the belief that we are not worthy enough to say God's name with our mouths. However as sons of God when we're born again we have the privilege of sons to call our Father by His Name, YAH. (PSALM 68:4 KJV)

Plppp

P pop pop ppp

There is no a secrete rapture, brother; and beeing Pastor Jeff a presbiterian, I think he is amillenial or premillenial, but not dispensacional

@@froyvm7868 jeff is post millennial

@@froyvm7868 Jeff Durbin is also not Presbyterian, but Reformed Baptist.

@@seanbrenon Yeah I didn’t know that 3 years ago

@@froyvm7868 Understood. I just wanted you to be aware in case. He mentions Doug Wilson, so he is clearly friendly with the Presbyterians. Well... not PCUSA......

Which is said right after Jesus gave the crowd his miracle bread and his point was that special bread could not save you but rather its the believing one who would be saved.

To understand the Lords Supper you need to study in great detail the book of Hebrews and what it teaches of the sacrificial priesthood, but to fully understand Hebrews you must study Leviticus & Daniel, without true understanding of Leviticus and Daniel the book of Hebrews will be empty to you. John 6 will become clear to you in view of Leviticus and Hebrews. As most Roman Catholics and Orthodox do you conveniently left out the words you don’t want to hear. When studying scripture, one must study in toto in context of all of scripture. So here you go. 26 Jesus answered them, and said: Amen, amen I say to you, you seek me, not because you have seen miracles, but because you did eat of the loaves, and were filled. 27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto life everlasting, which the Son of man will give you. For him hath God, the Father, sealed. 28 They said therefore unto him: What shall we do, that we may work the works of God? 29 Jesus answered, and said to them: This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he hath sent. 30 They said therefore to him: What sign therefore dost thou shew, that we may see, and may believe thee? What dost thou work? 31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert, as it is written: He gave them bread from heaven to eat. 32 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you; Moses gave you not bread from heaven, but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is that which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life to the world. 34 They said therefore unto him: Lord, give us always this bread. 35 And Jesus said to them: I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall not hunger: and he that believeth in me shall never thirst. 36 But I said unto you, that you also have seen me, and you believe not. 37 All that the Father giveth to me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me, I will not cast out. 38 Because I came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me. 39 Now this is the will of the Father who sent me: that of all that he hath given me, I should lose nothing; but should raise it up again in the last day. 40 And this is the will of my Father that sent me: that every one who seeth the Son, and believeth in him, may have life everlasting, and I will raise him up in the last day. 41 The Jews therefore murmured at him, because he had said: I am the living bread which came down from heaven. 42 And they said: Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How then saith he, I came down from heaven? 43 Jesus therefore answered, and said to them: Murmur not among yourselves. 44 No man can come to me, except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him; and I will raise him up in the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets: And they shall all be taught of God. Every one that hath heard of the Father, and hath learned, cometh to me. 46 Not that any man hath seen the Father; but he who is of God, he hath seen the Father. 47 Amen, amen I say unto you: He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life.

@@tricord2939 Catholics affirm the truth in both selections. However, this is a secondary issue. The idea that you or I can authoritatively teach on these matters is absurd. We have not been given authority to bind and loose. The primary problem at hand is a belief in Sola Scriptura which is absolutely irrational, illogical and ahistorical.

You stopped reading too soon. 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. (John 6:63)

Perhaps, the Heavenly Father YAHWEH just plain FORGOT to "implant" a "HOLY, UNDEFILED BABY GIRL" to be called "MOTHER of the TRIUNE Elohim" in the WOMB of ANNE, eh?? Sarcasm apart, but it's a valid proposition to JUSTIFY the satanic Dogma of the "IMMACULATE CONCEPTION" blasphemy of Mary of Nazareth!

Was Paul a church baby? Was Timothy?

Josip M How so?

@@StarbuckJames where is sola scriptura in the Bible

@@brody.jones147 The Bereans were more noble than the Jewish people in Thessolonica because they examined the apostles teaching against scripture to see if what the apostles were teaching them was true. That is a clear example of sola scriptura in the Bible

I heard Dr. White say that on his website, maybe Alpha&Omega Ministries, that he had rebuttals to Jay. Although I have yet to search them out. Just letting you know, in the case that you wanted to really see responses to Dyer.

Synchronicity I Love Jeff (even though I’m not a Protestant), and he does some great work for the pro life movement, but Dyer would absolutely obliterate him AND James White.

No one should debate that fool.

Which statement in this video did you disagree with, and upon what basis? Give the time stamp.

Hebrews 10:24-25 ESV _”And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.”_ Colossians 3:16 ESV _”Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God.”_ 1 Corinthians 14:26 ESV _”What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up.”_ There are many, many more, but hope these are a good beginning point. If there was no need for Christians to meet together as the Church, once Jesus ascended into heaven, the disciples and others followers could’ve just gone back to their individual lives. There would’ve been no need for the epistles to the churches, admonishing them, many times, on how they should act when they gathered in Jesus’ name.

Well? Where is your response?

Yesica1993 I think they mean the modern incarnation of the church. In the apostolic age church gatherings looked way different then they do today. We do need to gather together as citizens of heaven and love and grow in the Christ together, whether on Sundays at the “church” or anytime anywhere.

What I focus on is how the church is made up of believers, the book of Acts and how the church was made, how Jesus went to the synagogue on the Sabbath, verses about not isolating yourself in proverbs, verses about submitting to your elders which you can’t do unless you’re a member of a church, and yes, it’s full of humans who sin, but community sharpens us, gives us opportunities to serve and be served. Christ died for the church and what’s important to Him should be important to us.

That's his point, lol. Catholicism in particular likes to point to the Church fathers as if they are holier than we are by virtue of the fact that they were closer in time to Christ or something. But the fact is that we *should* be far more righteous than they because we have so many years of Church history, where we have tried to weed out many of the mistakes.

@@seanbrenon And weeded out many of the thruths.

@@seanbrenon Martin Luther, who lived later, claimed to understand Christianity better than the prophets and apostles. Catholics disagree.

@@fantasia55u know that Lutherans don’t consider him infallible right?

@@joshuajaison9957 Martin Luther believed Jesus committed adultery, so I'm glad Protestants don't think their founder was infallible.

He's following the same script as James White's book "Roman Catholic Controversy." Yes, it's an apologetic against Roman Catholicism, but it discusses Sola Scriptura in depth.

Can you give some examples of valuable traditions that we lost?

The Sacraments, especially the Eucharist and confession. 7 books of Inspired Scripture. Communion of Saints. Blessings of persons and objects. Grace through relics.

to argue from the Bible is circular reasoning

It’s great! I visited once, even though I live near I haven’t made it a home church since I don’t believe I’m called to be there but it’s an amazing church with amazing leaders and sheep. All willing to forward the kingdom. I’ve evangelized with them since one of my friends is a member there

Why do you want to be near his church when you have the bible? I am not trying to be rude or anything I ask this in respect

But listening to a man that edifies himself above the church doesn't. Gotta love Catholic Beliefs

By God’s sovereigns authority, also if they follow the characteristics of what scripture is then that’s what scripture is discovered by. I have faith in scripture, the apostles , and on God. The Catholic Church is irrelevant. They just helped us discovered the inspired word of God. Let me bring an analogy (it doesn’t have to make sense, it just wants to make a point) , a random dude discovered that grass is green, im not gonna have faith in that random dude. I’m gonna have faith that grass is green. The church help discovered scripture, I’m not gonna have faith in the Catholic Church.I’m gonna have faith in scripture.

There a lot of good information on the internet about how the canon was formed, criteria for what books were included, etc.If your REALLY interested do some research.

Harry Waddington they discovered the inspired books, not select or determined which book is going to be inspired.

Harry Waddington the gospels were already know to be written by the apostles or someone related to the apostles like mark and Luke, John and Mathew were also known and recognized. I trust the apostles since they were with Jesus and were great men of God who gave us the message of the gospel. The letters of Paul are also known and recognized and also used for teaching, instruction, correction and have a sustainable doctrine. Paul even quoted Luke’s gospels. All of those book and letters are early and around the time of the apostles. And if we check any other book we will make a conclusion on whether the book is inspired or not and some would be difficult to know which is inspired which results into years of debate. I thank the early Christians for their help on preserving the books and thank them for putting the books into the Bible. But just because they did that doesn’t mean they have the authority they say they do in today’s Catholic Church. I trust them like I trust any medical expert or scientist but if they didn’t put the Bible together, then anyone who has the Holy Spirit would be able to discover the inspired books, I just thank the early church for not giving us the burden. I’m a Protestant but I don’t hold Martin Luther as an authority.

@@tan1591 just a matter of fact brother, Luke was not an apostle , he was an evangelist and a doctor , and became a companion of Paul, he was a gentile not a jew

paradosis...the teaching, what's been received and passed on...so all NT writing could fall into this category as well

Amen.

Should Creed's and confessions be considered authority?

Jonathan Derek Moseley Yes because without them you wouldn’t have scripture.

@@HarrisonB72 because they came before scripture?

@@jonathanderekmoseley2130 Yes, but *not* over the authority of scripture.

Judas wilfully chose to betray Jesus by his own free will and that's why he can be condemned for it(he meant it for evil)but at the same time the will of God was also coming to pass.(which he meant for good) We have free will but it will never be as free as God's who knows all things past present and future. I think something's we will never fully grasp with the human mind.

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-YTR2n5NkCNE.html

@@Cinnamonbuns13 so, (that was a lot and I have a hard time understanding their terminology and I probably need it to be dumbed down) this video leads me to 2 more questions. 1) what about the people that have literally never heard the name of Jesus or the gospel? It seems unfair (ik I'm human and I cant understand everything God does entirely but it still feels unfair) that they are going to hell without knowing Him. And 2) it the passages they quoted, it appears that God is being selfish. Now I've been a Christian since I was 4 ish and I'm 22 and a 6th gen Christian so I'm not going to walk away or anything like that from this, but I also know God isnt afraid, or cought off guard by my questions and doubts. So if someone could help me understand this in a way that makes sence that would be incredibly helpful.

@@brianslater289 no one is innocent and God would be completely just to let everyone go to hell

@@jemboy7777 ik that. But. That still doesnt seem to answer my 2 questions above. Like, what's the reason for question 2 and whats the answer the question 1? I'm not trying to be arrogant, I just dont understand the answer or reason

Catholics would say they do believe that Scripture is the highest authority above tradition.

@@yomama847 I didn't know that. I thought that Catholics thought that Holy Tradition was equal with Holy Scripture. I'm glad to hear that they don't. But now I'm wondering why they deny Sola Scriptura being how they believe that Scripture trumps tradition.

@@redbearwarrior4859 In practice, there may be Catholics ignorant or indifferent to Scripture, but the Church has always revered and upheld Scripture. In fact, I would wager that more than 66% of the Catholic Mass is direct quotes or minor variations of verses from Scripture. Here are some more recent examples of Church teachings regarding Scripture: DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON DIVINE REVELATION DEI VERBUM SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI ON NOVEMBER 18, 1965 Chapter VI ...since, as inspired by God and committed once and for all to writing, they impart the word of God Himself without change, and make the voice of the Holy Spirit resound in the words of the prophets and Apostles. Therefore, like the Christian religion itself, all the preaching of the Church must be nourished and regulated by Sacred Scripture. For in the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven meets His children with great love and speaks with them; and the force and power in the word of God is so great that it stands as the support and energy of the Church, the strength of faith for her sons, the food of the soul, the pure and everlasting source of spiritual life. Consequently these words are perfectly applicable to Sacred Scripture: "For the word of God is living and active" (Heb. 4:12) and "it has power to build you up and give you your heritage among all those who are sanctified" (Acts 20:32; see 1 Thess. 2:13 Also Catechism of the Catholic Church PART ONE SECTION ONE CHAPTER TWO ARTICLE 3 SACRED SCRIPTURE... 107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72 108 Still, the Christian faith is not a "religion of the book." Christianity is the religion of the "Word" of God, a word which is "not a written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate and living".73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."74 III. THE HOLY SPIRIT, INTERPRETER OF SCRIPTURE 109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.75 110 In order to discover the sacred authors' intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."76 111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. "Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written."77 The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.78 112 1. Be especially attentive "to the content and unity of the whole Scripture". Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God's plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.79 The phrase "heart of Christ" can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.80

@@daddydaycareky thanks for this. So why do Catholics deny Sola Scriptura? What you wrote seems to be compatible with it.

@@redbearwarrior4859 the short answer is because it ignores the other, more explicitly established, infallible source of truth, which are the successors of the Apostles, who are transfered authority through the laying of hands.

On the authority of Scripture.

Absolute nonsense. The scripture was unavailable to most Christians because the apostate Roman Catholic Church literally made it illegal to translate in to languages that people could read. Yet there are hundreds of thousands of early transcript copies of the New Testament documents which were hand-written and copied long before the the first council of Nicea. Sola Scriptura is fact. The pope has no authority. Your priest has no authority. The church cannot save you because the church is a satanic cult. The pope is a satanic false prophet. Your faith in man-made theology damns you. I beg you to repent, please, and believe the gospel of Jesus Christ for you own good. The church will not, does not, and cannot save you. Faith alone in Christ alone can do that. I love you buddy. Hope you see the light some day.

the problem with this approach is that anybody can build his/her own theology...read EARLY church histories where the heretics also argue from the basis of the Scripture

@@anthonytan7134so it’s better to listen to a church of fallen sinful men who will do the same but say they have authority over you ? As a Christian who believes the Bible is Gods word, we listen to everything and compare it to Gods word.

@@Jacksonmontyart the question is...which Bible ? Who's authority are we listening to when comes to "the version" of the Bible we should read ? at the end of the day you are listening to some sort authority ? do you realize that ?

Good question?

Election has nothing to do with being good enough, you should know that. Romans 9 makes it very clear that it does not depend on human effort works, but on God who has mercy. It's God's unconditional choice.

@@jacobgarcia4826 where is free will than??? If you think that you do what ever you want to doing and still be saved, you are doomed to failure.

@Curtis Hazen But if God elects, how does someone know their belief is sincere enough, how do they know if in a bad time and they stray, are they truly elected?

@@jacobgarcia4826 Oh so, if it is not by effort how does someone know they have been elected, how do you know personally someone has been elected?

He can't

that would be great! refer the video below ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-dFMDXhPnczU.html

@@rockko7 Sure he cannot ... We all know where the false teaching is!

Are you implying that Jesus (God) cannot make changes to his law? I will not judge God why his laws for the Israelites wondering in the desert are not the same after the incarnation. Do you refrain from bacon because of Moses' Law? That would be such a miserable life.

​@@Psalm144.1 Are you saying that God can make changes to his own law? Can He fail to comply with His own law? Are you saying that God, after the incarnation, changed his laws? But was it not only with his death, as Paul and Hebrews say, that the "covenant" was eliminated? Was Matthew wrong to mention that Jesus said he came to fulfill the whole law, and not to revoke it (Matthew 5: 17-18)? So Peter was with Jesus 3 years and He never told him that the law (the previous covenant) would be revoked with his death, did Paul have to discuss this matter with Peter? Dear Ichabod (whoever you are), I raised the issue of the adulterous women passage simply because this situation never happened. This text was added to the gospel of John. And therefore the evangelical definition of "Sola Scriptura" falls apart, since we do not have the originals of these "scriptures". Not to mention the contradictions / divergences within the "scriptures" themselves, and the factual and historical errors.

I did not say that God can change his law. I implied it. God did change his laws. Plenty of examples in the New Testament. I misunderstood why you mentioned John 8:1-11. I see your point now. However, that is not a text to use for arguing against the theology of sola scriptura. It was not in the earliest manuscripts. I don't think you listened to the video when Jeff explained Sola Scriptura. You have to understand the definition of Sola Scriptura before you can argue against it. Jeff Durbin is well aware of textual criticism as his mentor is James White (who wrote, The King James Only Controversy). We don't know that the adulterous situation never happened, we just have evidence to believe it was not in the originally written (inspired) gospels. It is completely orthodox, and in harmony with Jesus Christ's teachings. Divergences in manuscripts is not an argument against sola scriptura. Different topic.

​@@Psalm144.1 Divergences in manuscripts is a solid argument against "sola scriptura". It is at the core of the "internal evidence" against sola scriptura. How can we affirm that these scriptures, the Catholic canon we follow, are our basis of faith if they contain divergences between themselves and divergences with external reality? Along with the fact that we don't even have the originals. Is the number of the beast 666? Or is it 616? How many more differences will we discover as soon as we discover older manuscripts? And what impact will these differences have on our faith? At least the Catholic Church is united under the same coordination, as Paul desired, and internally defines it's (wrong, I think!) basis of faith and of christian life. Evangelicals are very divided, with very disparate beliefs. From churches that accept divorce (scriptural based) and have gay women pastors to churches where women have to wear a veil and cannot speak (scriptural based).

Sola Scriptura debates with real Roman Catholic apologists are posted below.Textual criticism is a different issue. That in no way devalues scriptural authority. The point of textual criticism is determining the original text. Again, you are arguing against a non-existent definition of Sola Scriptura. 666 or 616 changes nothing about faith in God and the authority of scripture. If textual criticism was a solid and viable argument, than Roman Catholic apologists would use that. They do not. Here is a debate between James White (Jeff Durbin's mentor), and a Catholic Priest, Mitch Pacwa. I happen to think Pacwa is wonderful man of God. He does not use your argument at all.ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-nxTEtArbCgs.htmlAnd here is another debate on sola scriptura. Again, the Catholic apologist does not use what you say. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-pmYWBwIvejY.html

If by "chosen one" you mean one of the elect, it has nothing to do with how good he is (or how good I am).

@@JustinHonaker So how are the elect chosen?

@@jennief7114 It is based only on God's good pleasure, His will. As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion,fn but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” - Roman's 9:13-17

@@JustinHonaker So when Christ died on the cross stating it was for all, was he a liar?

@@jennief7114 Meaning what?

Ahahah! Good point! And what is the obvious conclusion?

@@davidpinheiro9650 the solution is the one that has been used since the beginning. The early church had a disagreement on the question of circumcision for Christians. What did Paul do? He did not break away to create a separate church. He knew the body of Christ must be one, that a house divided against itself cannot stand. He brought the leaders of the churches together for a council in Jerusalem. Thexall discussed the matter and came to an agreement. Many times since then, the universal Catholic church has held similar ecumenical councils to resolve disputes and create an agreed upon doctrine. This way the church dies not have to keep splitting apart. We still follow scripture, but it is a single interpretation of scripture, rather than hundreds of different interpretations.

​@@Klee99zeno And why did Paul follow the law (Acts 21) when he himself claimed that the law was extinct? And why is it that Peter (supposedly the first pope, therefore saint) was continuously with Jesus for 3 years, and He never informed him that the law would lapse with His death, and then Paul came to oppose Peter? Sorry, Jonathan, but I think the obvious conclusion is "we don't know".

@@davidpinheiro9650 so if we are asking how we can resolve disagreements about the scriptures, is the answer " we don't know." If that is the answer, then this would mean that we would really not know how to follow the technique of Sola Scriptura. If this approach cannot be done, then how can can we follow a method that we do not know how to perform? Why would anyone give their support to Sola Scriptura if it is literally not possible?

​@@Klee99zeno You are absolutely right. But my point is that probably the "sola scriptura" is wrong, not because the scripture needs particular interpretation, but because the various writings were never "dictated" by God. The authors did not go into an "inspirational trance". God did not grab their hands when writing. They were made by humans (with more or less "divine inspiration") and as such contain errors and incongruities. Catholics say the Church was founded by Christ, who gave Peter the keys. They use "sola scriptura" when interpreting Matthew 16:18-19. But they reject "sola scriptura". Protestants who defend "sola scriptura" reject the direct interpretation of this passage. Probably they are both wrong.

How does Jeff know if he is a chosen one? His church thinks that the only people going to heaven are chosen...... Isn't it funny they don't tell you that upfront?

@@jennief7114 Actually, they are pretty open about the fact that they hold to the doctrines of grace.

@@JustinHonaker Oh no, if you go onto any of their church websites They never disclose they are Calvinists. Send me one church that does that.

@@jennief7114 apologiachurch.com/doctrine/ While they don't explicitly say, "We are Calvinists", at least the first four points of the doctrines of grace are present (and I would say the fifth is present as well, especially and obviously in light of what they actually teach).

@@jennief7114 Lol they don't say "we're Calvinists." If they read the bible in a contextually consistent manner, of course they're Calvinists.

Hey man, one good way to find a good church is a website called 9 marks. They've got a church search function that could help you find a faithful church closed by!

@@mack6861 look into the Catholic Church. If you find a priest in a Catholic Church teaching such nonsense, you can appeal to the Bishop directly to have the priest reprimanded.

@@daddydaycareky hi! I think you may have meant to reply to the one who's comment I replied to as well! I think his name is Mackedo, so I get the mix up haha!

look into the Catholic Church. If you find a priest in a Catholic Church teaching such nonsense, you can appeal to the Bishop directly to have the priest reprimanded.

Protestants in the 60s did not condemn abortion but attacked the Catholic Church because it did condemn abortion. Now they agree with the Catholics and condemn it.

"Scripture is technically just the old testament" what exactly does scripture mean in your head?

If you think the Old Testament is the only reliable text we have, you're not a Christian. You're Jewish, and you're under the curse of the law.

Colossians 1:25 "Of which I became a minister according to the stewardship of God, which was given to me for you, to complete the word of God." The New Testament is as much the Word of God (scripture, 2 Tim 3:16) as the Old.

In Latin Mass (Catholic Church) women still cover their heads 🙏🏽

discjockeydoll I think she means in the context of the passage in 2 Timothy, the Old Testament is what St. Paul was referring to. I could be wrong, but I’m trying to give her the benefit of doubt.

The existence of denominations does not deny the existence of a universal church. Protestants believe in a single body of believers collectively known as "the Church," but that Scriptures has not exhaustively defined all theological points. The Bible is sufficient to equip the man of God for every good work. Now, to address the other points, only a Catholic would argue that the Bible was 73 books since 382. Jerome did not include the detuerocanonical texts, and, without fail, early Church fathers who knew Hebrew did not include them. Josephus makes reference to a series of books that the Jewish temple housed that did not include them. If you are asking how the New Testament canon can be trusted, I would refer you to three passages. 1) Of course, 1 Timothy 3:16, which is brought up in this sermon. 2) 1 Peter 1:21, which is also quoted here and says that no prophecy has ever been given by the will of man, but by the will of God, borne through men by the Spirit. 3) Ephesians 6: says to put on the "whole armor of God," which includes the following: truth, righteousness, the gospel of peace, faith, salvation, and the word of God. There is no reference to tradition or the authority of the Church, and none of those things can even be interpreted in that light. For this reason, I find it annoying when Catholics say things like "it is not our responsibility to prove the validity of tradition as an infallible rule of faith, but on the Protestants to prove that there is no other infallible rule of faith." Such an argument, frankly, is stupid, since the burden of proof is ALWAYS on the party arguing in favor of an addition and not those against. We know that the Bible is God-Breathed and borne by the Spirit. We know that the sheep of Christ know His voice. The Bible is ontologically different than anything else ever written. All books are either inspired or not inspired. If God's sheep know His voice, then doesn't it logically follow that His sheep would know his Word, the Bible? There are many other topics here that are related. For example, I think it's silly that Catholics want a verse that says "sola scriptura" but rely on "tradition" to prove the infallibility of tradition. John 21:23 actually shows the first incorrect extra-Biblical tradition PASSED ON BY THE APOSTLES: that John would live forever. "So the saying spread abroad among the brothers[a] that this disciple was not to die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he was not to die, but, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?”" Additionally, if God's plan was to have one single organization of the Church, why does He address seven different Churches in the beginning of Revelation? If you are going to be Catholic-- and yes, true Catholicism is not the true gospel; I believe that if you adhere to the catechisms of the Catholic church, you are not saved because they do not preach a true gospel-- then you have to reckon with these questions. And if you cannot answer them by inferring something from the Bible absent the teachings of Rome, then I would challenge you to reconsider your position on Catholicism. After all, we are all presupposing something. Are you presupposing the inerrancy and sufficiency of the sole God-breathe revelation we have in the Bible, or in the doctrines of the Church organization. If it is the latter, please just consider whether or not that is what the Bible turly teaches.

​@@seanbrenon Look I told you that I was new to religion and I am just looking at the evidence. Which you did not respond to except to give an anti Catholic rant. I did not even say I was Catholic I just said when it came to the Canon I had come down on the Catholic side of the debate about the 73 books and I gave you the evidence. I said I was looking at the evidence for Sola Scriptura and I gave you the quotes about what Jesus and the New Testament said about THE CHURCH. Forget about what church it was back then. If Jesus said that he would be with the church until the end of time and that he would send the Holy Spirit to guide the church in all truth; and if Paul said that the church is "the pillar and foundation of truth;" then don't you have to look at the historical evidence and find out what that church was? If you don't think it was the Catholic Church don't you have to look at history and see which one it was? When I look at history of the Canon there was disagreement and so what did the church do when there was a disagreement? They held a council. In Acts 15 there was a disagreement as to whether Gentiles had to obey the Law of Moses or not. Some people said "yes" and some people said "no." The Church held the Council of Jerusalem in about 50 AD and they made the doctrinal decision that Gentiles did not have to obey the Law of Moses and be circumcised. We see that church in Acts 15 guided by the Holy Spirit make a doctrinal decision that was binding on the whole church. In 325 there was a debate about the divinity of Christ. Some claimed he was a created being who had God-like qualities but that he was NOT fully God. There was a terrible debate. Someone named Arius and his large group of followers argued against that view. They pointed to scriptures where Jesus indicated that the Father was greater than he was. Matthew 24:36 - No one knows when that day or time will be. The Son and the angels in heaven don’t know when it will be. Only the Father knows. Mark 10:18 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good-except God alone. John 14:28 - You heard that I said to you, ‘I am going away, and I am coming to you.’ If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. All of these Scriptures seem to say that the Father is greater than Christ. And so what did the church do? It held the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. And that Council specified that Jesus Christ was "of the same essence" as the Father. THE CHURCH rejected Arius view. So let me ask you; do you believe that Christ is consubstantial to the Father because of your excellent Bible translation skills? Or do you trust Christ when he said that he would build a Church that would be guided the Holy Spirit in all truth? I am no expert Bible translator. When it comes to question whether Christ was "consubstantial" with the Father or not I cannot go to the Bible and expertly determine that. And if you are honest you will agree that you cannot do that either. I have to trust someone else. You have to trust someone else. So whose interpretation do you trust? I trust the church that Christ established which held the Council of Nicaea and among a hotly debated issue with everyone pointing to dozens of Bible verses that support their interpretation; I trusted the Church established by Christ. If the Church that was established by Christ was not the Church that held the Council of Nicaea then where is it? There was not any other Christian Church around in 325 AD. So how do you know that THE CHURCH got it right? How can you be sure that Arius and the other half of Christianity that believed him are wrong? Can you trust your Bible translation skills to know that the Church was right, and Arius was wrong. Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses and Oneness Pentecostals all read these passages and they get their PhD's in Bible studies like everyone else and the DENY that the Bible teaches that Christ is consubstantial to the Father and that you are not saved because your interpretation of the Trinity is wrong. So how do you know that they are wrong. Millions of people read the exact same Bible as you do and they think that it is God-Breathed just like you do and they have a completely different and opposite view than yours. How can you trust your foundational beliefs unless you find out which Church was established by Christ and then follow that Church? You wrote - Are you presupposing the inerrancy and sufficiency of the sole God-breathe revelation we have in the Bible, or in the doctrines of the Church organization. If it is the latter, please just consider whether or not that is what the Bible truly teaches. Okay let us do exactly what you say. Does the Bible say that Jesus started a church and that he would guide the church until the end of time? I think the answer is "yes." He did. Did Jesus start a church and say that he would send the Holy Spirit to guide that church in ALL TRUTH forever? Again the answer is "yes." He said all of those things. Do we see the church do that in Scripture? Again "yes." Does the Bible say that the church is "the pillar and foundation of the truth?" Again, the answer is yes. Does the Bible say what instrument will be used to "teach the manifold wisdom of God?" Once again the answer is "yes." In Ephesians 3:10 Paul tells us that the instrument that "the manifold wisdom of God will be made known "through THE CHURCH." Now lets see if the Bible teaches your view. Does it say that Jesus sheep will hear his voice and so you should read all the documents that exist and if you are one of his sheep you will get it right. Does it say that? The answer is "no" it doesn't even hint of that idea. Your version of reading the Bible and making a determination of whether you hear his voice or not ends up in chaos because you believe from what I can tell in the 66 book Canon. But Augustine the greatest Christian theologian whoever lived disagrees with you. He believed in the 73 book Canon. Luther also disagrees with you. He did not include in James, Jude, or Revelation in his canon. He listed them with the Deuterocanon books. So if I sit here and I can't decide then who should I trust? Should I trust you? Should I trust Luther? Should I trust Augustine? Or should I find the church that Christ said he would establish and promised me that he would guide that church in all truth forever? I think I will go with Christ's church. There is tons of evidence of history which establish which Church was established by Jesus Christ. And for you comment on Jerome. The Curch held the Council of Rome in 382 and made the determination that the Canon was the 73 Book version. The Church then also held the Council of Hippo with Augustine in attendance in 393 AD and again guided by the Holy Spirit confirmed that the 73 Book version was to be considered Scripture. Augustine the church's greatest theologian believed in the 73 Book Canon. And then THE CHURCH met again at the Council of Carthage in 397 and made the same determination that the 73 book version was the official Canon. You mention Jerome and claim that he did not include them. But the evidence shows he doubted the Deuterocanon at first and he had questions about them. But he believed that Christ established one Church guided by the Holy Spirit because that is what the Bible says that he did. And when The Church made the determination of the Canon Jerome accepted it. By 402 AD he wrote a treaty against those "Hebrews" that you reference and Jerome said that he (Jerome) believed he would be in sin if he accepted the "Hebrew argument over the Church's decrees in the Councils. So while he originally questioned them. He accepted the declaration of THE CHURCH.

@@stevenwall1964 So you are not engaging in good faith. Two points on this: none of what you said is indicative of someone "new" to the issue. You're not desperate for an answer; you've already made up your mind. That's why I asked about your presuppositions. You have already decided that the Church is the determining agent of the canon. Second, if you took what I wrote as an anti-Catholic rant, then re-read it. I mention Catholicism once in reference to an exact point you implied: that Catholics say that I have to prove the fallibility of everything other than the Bible. Nothing else was specifically a reference to Catholicism. Was that your plan? To enter into the discussion in bad faith and then wallop someone with your real knowledge on the topic? What a joke. Nonetheless, the Revelation of John was written after Clement was allegedly passed on the papacy by Peter. This is the same time period as Ignatius, Quadratus, etc. So, you need to account for the fact that Christ does not address Clement in Revelation. You tell me where the Bible says that "one Church" refers to "one organization." So no, you do not have to look at Church history to see what the Church was in order to understand the idea that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. I don't really care what the early Church fathers said about things if they are saying things that the Bible does not. As for Acts 15, that is the Church in Jerusalem that is happening while revelation is still being made. Nonetheless, the Church does not say, "On our authority we say this." THEY QUOTE THE BIBLE and say "Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God." Why bother with the Bible if you are going to rip it out of context? "Millions of people read the exact same Bible as you do and they think that it is God-Breathed just like you do and they have a completely different and opposite view than yours." Easy. If they preach something that opposes the gospel preached to me, then I know it is wrong. That's not that hard to figure out. You're trying to use an example of something that doesn't change anything. Pick your group, and they are saying something that the Bible does not. Mormons don't believe in Sola Scriptura, JW actually create their own version of the Bible so it says what they want, and Oneness Pentecostals deny the trinity, which is a Biblical teaching. They clearly don't believe in sola scriptura. Again, show me where the Bible says that the Church is meant to be one, single organization, or where the Bible says that all Christians will agree on things. And if you are not using the Bible, but the Church's interpretation of the Bible, then you are arguing in Circles. How do you not see that? I would actually point to Jerome bowing to the authority of the Church as a great example of why you can't just take the Church's word on this. If you have never read the deuterocanonical books, go read them. Judith is laughably ahistorical. It's not even close. Remember, the Church is not infallible! Authoritative, sure, but not infallible. And you cannot prove that they are infallible unless you use the Church's interpretation of Scriptures. So again, if you are presupposing that the Church is infallible, then you need to examine what you are believing against what the Bible ACTUALLY says. And stop taking verses out of context. That's just solid hermeneutics.

@@seanbrenon Well thank you for letting me know that I am dealing in bad faith and you have somehow determined that I am not desperate to know something. And calling my statements a joke. But let's just take this back to my original question. My question was about the Canon. You are the one who brough in the Catholic claims about sola scriptura and stupid things you think Catholics claim. My question was focused on the Canon. When I read the Bible as an atheist I saw Jesus make comments about the Church like: I will build my CHURCH and the gates of hades will not prevail against it. If someone sins speak to him, if he won't listen then take w or 3 witnesses, if he still won't listen then tell it to the CHURCH. And if he won't listen to the CHURCH then treat him as a pagan. How would you do this, if there not a church to take the person to? I pointed out that the Bible says that the "CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of truth." And the Bible says that the instrument that was designated to teach the manifold wisdom of God is .... again "THE CHURCH." And so the ONLY question in my original post was if there was this Church started by Christ who said that he himself would guide that church until the end of time. How does it make any sense that he would let that church get the canon wrong and let it stay that way for 1500 years. That is my main question. So why don't you answer that. I was desperate to know because I was an atheist but the reason, I became a Christian was that Jesus made predictions about the church and those predictions came true. I realized the "ontological nature" of the Bible that you reference and so I became a believer. But to find Christ's Church I read what he predicted about his church. Christ said that his church would 1) be persecuted which was a strange prediction because the Romans were very religiously tolerant. And Christ said that his church would 2) "be one" so that the world would know that Christianity is true. And Christ said that his church would 3) go to all nations. And so when I look in history and see what church did all of those things it was the Catholic Church. I don't see any other church for the first 500 years. If there was a different church in the first 500 years would show it to me please? That church that I see that was persecuted like Christ said was the Catholic Church. It believed that the Bishop of Rome was the successor of Peter and the Romans hunted that person down and executed most of them and other leaders to try to stop Christianity. It was also that Church that stayed unified through the all of the great Councils (Nicaea 325, Constantinople 381, Ephesus in 431 AD, Chalcedon in 451 AD). Those councils defined the deity of Christ, the deity of the Holy Spirit, the Holy Trinity and the Doctrine of the Incarnation. And that church did go to all nations. Ignatius who knew the apostle John writing in 107 gives the structure of the entire church by as having a Bishop, presbyters, and deacons. The most famous church historians I know of say that there was one uniformly structured church by the middle of the second century. Read JDN Kelly's book Early Christian Doctrines or Jaroslav Pelikan's 5 Volume set on the History of the Christian Tradition. Or even read an atheist historian like Will Durrant. They all say that the Church that existed in the first 500 years of Christianity was the Catholic Church. To me that was amazing evidence that in fact a risen Christ was real and was guiding his church like he promised; because there was a church that did everything he predicted. Ignatius writing in 107 AD described the Church structure was asked how you could take something to the church like Christ says in Matthew 18 if the church had gone to all nations. How could you "take a person to the CHURCH? And Ignatius said to take the issue to the Bishop because where the Bishop is there is Jesus Christ, there is the "Katholicos Ekklysia. or the Catholic Church. And so by looking at history I saw that there was one church that did everything that Christ predicted and it was the Catholic Church and so I started going to a Catholic Church. And one day I walk out of church and someone who says he is a pastor of different church hands me a flyer saying I am going to hell for being a Catholic because the Catholic Church was not the true gospel. Well that was shocking. And so, I got my history books and showed the guy that the only church the history books talk about is the Catholic Church. I showed him all the statements that I have showed you about what the Bible says about the Church. And he pretty much said the same thing you did. That he thought I had made up my mind and I was going to hell and he got mad and quit talking to me. And so the question I posted that you answered was just about the Canon. But it could be any topic. My question was that if Christ started a church; and said the gates of hades would not prevail against it and said that he would guide that church until the end of time; then how can it make sense that he would let that church get the canon so wrong. That was my question to you. But we can expand to any topic. I asked about the Canon and you brought the topic of Catholics having a false gospel so lets just go with that. How does it make sense in light of all the things that Christ said about the Church that the only church that existed for the first 500 years not only got the Canon completely wrong; even worse it was a false gospel. How does that even make sense to you? That means that Christ started a church and the Bible makes all those comments about "the Church" but then for some reason the church that existed for the 500 years got it all wrong? I became a Christian because I saw all of the predictions that Christ and the Bible made about the Church. I looked at the early Church and saw that all those predictions come true; and now this pastor and you are telling me I am going to hell because that church that fulfilled all of Christ's predictions does not have the true gospel? Make sense of that for me. Just that one issue not all the other back and forth issue. I would gladly discuss those later but just stick to my basic question that I asked in the first place. If the Church I see in the first 500 years is a false gospel then what church do you think the New Testament is referencing?

@@stevenwall1964 Here's why I am saying that you have already made up your mind on this issue: only a Catholic would look at "Church history" and conclude that it is a single organization. You are taking one continent predominantly-- Europe-- and calling that the Church. What of the Ethiopians? Phillip Ministers to the Ethiopian eunuch a bit before Paul goes to Rome. How do YOU explain the existence of seven Churches in revelation? You are ignoring the issues in the positive stance that there are other infallible rules of faith only to ask a question of sola scriptura. That is not the disposition of someone seeking an answer. You are taking one idea-- that Christ builds His Church and sustains it-- and then inferring some kind of infallibility from that. Hence my statement that you cannot prove the opposing position. And the fact that you will not respond to these questions in favor of repeating a question I have already addressed while claiming that I have not is the basis for me saying that you are arguing in bad faith. This is not the first time I have debated this issue with a Catholic. I know what their talking points are, and you are hitting many of them. So you can keep claiming that you are seeking an answer, but you do not talk like someone who is. You are talking like someone who has made up their mind on this issue. Now, in spite of you claiming otherwise, I have already answered your question. First, I said that the canon you claim was championed by the Church fathers was not championed by them. I can't name all of them off the top of my head because it's not my expertise. But I mentioned Jerome. Origen and Justin Martyr also did not recognize the apocryphal canon. And, honestly, the canon was not infallibly declared by the Catholic Church until the Council of Trent. It's just not true that the Church widely considered the apocrypha part of scriptures. The Jews certainly did not, and Josephus explains that. Like I said, if you are interested in this topic beyond the unfounded assertion that the Church fathers universally believed in the deuterocanonical books, Roger Beckwith gets into this in his book "Old Testament Canon for the New Testament Church." Remember that every book of the apocrypha is OT. No Jewish sources quote them as Scripture. No books within 200 years of the New Testament quote them as Scripture. If the Jews did not accept them, why should the Church? Does not Paul tell the Romans in Romans 3:2 that the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God? And yet none of them believed in the apocrypha. Certain Church fathers like Justin Martyr don't ever quote the apocrypha, and many Church fathers who do also cite the pseudepigrapha, too-- for example, the second "pope" Clement. We don't call those Scriptures. I would argue that the fact the Church has survived and flourished in spite of many Church fathers claiming the apocrypha as Scriptures, when it is not, is an example of how the Spirit carries the Church in spite of its flaws. Finally, LIKE I SAID, even though you insist I haven't answered your question for some reason, the Church is not infallible. The members of the Church are fallen people and are liable to the fallible decision of all people. It does not surprise me to learn that many early Church fathers without the benefit of 2000 years of scholarship would fall into error on what belongs in the canon. Just like it should not surprise you to learn that many Church fathers quoted the pseudopigrapha. So the challenge once again is posed to you whether or not you want to rely on the one sole God-breathed Scriptures, or if you want to rely on something outside of that. I have already given a long defense of how the individual believer is responsible for their own beliefs. The Church is not responsible for the individual's belief, and you must prove one way or another that the Church is meant to function in such an infallible way, even as regards the canon. As I sad before, you cannot do it. Certainly, you will not, clearly, because you are calling this a "separate issue," even though your entire position on this relies on the infallibility of the Church in declaring a canon-- or at least on the idea that God would never let His Church be tested by allowing false books into their midst, even though, as early as Deuteronomy 13:1, God says that He will allow false prophets into the midst of His people to test them. If you are going to hold a position, you must be able to defend it. Asking questions of the opposing position is not a defense. One final point: I did not say that everything the Church taught in the early years was the false gospel. Obviously not. There was a lot of heresy back then, sure. But there are many great men that God used to bless the Church. The existence of a 73 book canon still maintains the correct 66 books. So, the presence of bad books does not negate the good ones. At the end of the day, there's a lot more good in the Catholic canon than bad. So, calling that a "false gospel" is not really what I was talking about. That's not what the term "false gospel" means.

In total agreement. The problem is when doctrines are created “in faith” that don’t originate from the Bible.

@@levibaer18 like Sola Scriptura?

@@daddydaycareky 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 perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. This my friend is Sola Scriptura.

@@levibaer18 I don't disagree that Scripture is God Breathed. I don't disagree that Scripture is beneficial for developing doctrine or for teaching. I don't disagree that Scripture fully and completely equips us for every good work. I disagree that this verse implies that Scripture is the only authority. Additionally, the other major issue is that the application of this verse, as proposed in this video, presupposes the canon of scripture.

@@daddydaycareky All God breathed scripture presupposes the cannon. This is a problem with Catholicism, not anyone else. Can you show me where traditions are God breathed or good for reproduction?

Sounds to good to be true, but how do you know ?

@@anthonytan7134 Jesus is the word of God who became flesh ("I am the truth"); the Holy Spirit's rhema word ( "When He, the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all truth." ); the written word of God ("All Scripture is given by inspiration of God...").

I would prefer a debate with Bart Ehrman, but Trent Horn would also be a good idea.

Based on Trent's responses it would be futile. He simply doesn't understand and is blinded by his false religion.

@@ministryoftruth1451 will this do to change his mind? CAnswersTV. . - This personal testimony is for all the many people who contact me, Larry Wessels of Christian Answers through our RU-vid channel at ru-vid.com on a regular basis about having relatives or loved ones in the Roman Catholic religion or who have friends or relatives who are about to convert to Roman Catholicism. In my own case I was never a Roman Catholic but was rather raised in the Lutheran Church from birth. My problem, which is the same problem for almost everyone born into the world (unless you are John the Baptist - Luke 1:15, "For he will be great in the sight of the Lord; and he will drink no wine or liquor, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother’s womb.") is that I was not born as a true "born again" Christian even though I was baptized as a baby to begin with (John 3:3-8, Romans 8:1-17, etc.) but rather born as a lost sinner (Psalm 51:5, Ephesians 2:1, Romans 5:12, 1 Corinthians 2:14, Titus 1:15-16, Jeremiah 17:9, Romans 3:10-18, etc.). Being a lost sinner yet masquerading as a "Christian" although I didn't know it at the time because my parents made me go to their church as I grew up brainwashing me into believing I was a real "Christian" although I was evil as any unbeliever & more so when I got to college. As evil as I was on a regular & unrepentant basis, I justified myself that I was okay with God because I went to church every Easter & Christmas (although I skipped a lot of Easters) while I attended the University of Texas at Austin, Texas. This fake religiosity made me think I had a hellfire insurance policy so I was free to sin all I wanted & I did. With this type of of religious delusion going on in my life throughout my college experience it came to pass that I met my future wife my senior year who was born & raised a Roman Catholic. My opinion at that time was everyone who claims to be a Christian must be okay so being a Protestant or Catholic didn't matter at all. To make a long story short I ended up marrying my wife in the Roman Catholic Church to make her family happy although I remained a very nominal almost nonexistent Lutheran in name only. After marriage I attended Roman Catholic services with my wife from time to time because she wanted it that way & to me it really didn't make any difference one way or the other. God, however, had other plans for me on May 16, 1981 about a year after we were married. That particular day I was supernaturally "born again" by the power of the Holy Spirit like the Bible talks about & suddenly everything in my life was turned upside down! For more on that see my testimony video "D & D Dungeon Master Testimony: Dungeons & Dragons, Wargaming, Violent Video Games & Wasting Time" at ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-V41a_5INzVY.html .Wow what a change & suddenly when I read the Bible it started to actually make sense! This sudden drastic change in my life obviously did not set well with my Roman Catholic wife. The more I studied & shared the Bible with her the more upset she got. She went to her friends for help & they told her I would get over this religious fervor in about six weeks and then I would return to my normal godless secular self. The problem for her was six weeks came & went & then months came & went & all I was doing was getting stronger in the Word of God & in my zeal for Christ. Things really started hitting the fan when I started to tell her that her Roman Catholic religion contradicted what I was reading in the Bible. In fact, after I was "born again" on May 16, 1981 I only went one final time for a Sunday morning service with my wife to her Saint Mary's Catholic Church in Austin, Texas & immediately spiritually recognized this place was a tomb for the dead not a place to honor, praise & glorify the Lord Jesus Christ (I had never noticed that before I was "born again"). Once again, to make a long story short, my wife ended up getting enraged at me for attacking her religion & started to throw away Biblical study materials I was collecting. She started to use sex as a weapon & refused to sleep in the same bedroom with me until I repented of all this "Bible stuff" (this went on for almost two years). I was seriously thinking she was going to divorce me & leave me just as 1 Corinthians 7:15 says, "Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace." My wife's side of the family are all staunch Roman Catholics especially her mother who regularly went on pilgrimages down to Mexico to honor the Virgin Mary. This only increased the tension in my marital situation. More than once I got in some serious theological discussions with my wife's mother that got her blood absolutely boiling probably because she had no answers to anything I brought up from the Bible even though I was following the command of 1 Peter 3:15, "but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence;" meaning I was trying to present to her Biblical information in a well meaning & kind manner without trying to start a fight. Unfortunately that situation with my mother-in-law came close to being a Galatians 4:16 occurrence, "So have I become your enemy by telling you the truth?" Total destruction of our relationship was saved when I followed the Biblical command in Titus 3:10-11, "As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned." From then on I talked no more about the things of God with my mother-in-law thus we got along fine after that. The strained marriage I had with my wife over religion finally came to an end somewhere in 1983 when my wife got the bright idea to have her two priests that she grew up with at Saint Mary's Catholic Church in Austin, Texas straighten me out on the things of God since she didn't know enough of the Bible to refute me. My wife got her priests to schedule a meeting with me in their office to discuss with me why the Roman Catholic religion was the true Christian faith. I gladly accepted the invitation from the priests & arrived at the appointed time with my wife coming with me to see what would happen. I have to say, after 39 years in public Christian ministry at the time of this writing, & after having been in more debates with people of multiple religious backgrounds than I can count, that this was the easiest debate discussion I ever had. For 30 minutes I lectured the two priests chapter & verse from the Bible while the priests struggled to quote two or three Bible verses they were aware of. This was a ridiculous encounter since the priests seemed to know next to nothing of scripture. This was like going into a cornfield & beating up on two scarecrows but more importantly my wife was there to hear it all. After 30 minutes the priests were done with the meeting & my wife was done with the Roman Catholic religion. After that my wife joined me in attending a good Bible based church & a couple of years later was water baptized thus rejecting the baptism she had as an infant in the Roman Catholic religion. For those that are interested see our playlist with almost 200 videos called "Dealing with Roman Catholicism, Idolatry & the Virgin Mary" at ru-vid.com/group/PLFFA8D69D1B914715 . Excellent websites to reference to in regard to Roman Catholicism: 1. bereanbeacon.org/ - The Ministry was founded in 1992 by former Roman Catholic priest for 22 years Richard M. Bennett. The Berean Beacon places particular emphasis on the evangelization and conversion of Roman Catholics. The other main thrust of the ministry is to inform evangelical Christians about Catholicism through its materials that are provided on the internet. 2. www.proclaimingthegospel.org/ - Former Roman Catholics Mike & Jane Gendron lead this Christian evangelistic ministry with deep compassion for Roman Catholics who are victims of deception. Excellent resources available. 3. www.cwrc-rz.org/ - CWRC, A Christian Witness To Roman Catholicism founded by Robert M. Zins, a former Catholic, with a Th.M. from Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, Texas; Major: Historical Theology. Rob made many videos concerning Roman Catholicism available on the internet through RU-vid and www.sermonaudio.com/ ; just type "Rob Zins Roman Catholicism" in a Google or Yahoo search on your computer . 4. christiantruth.com/ - Christian Resources is a non-profit teaching, apologetics and publishing ministry founded by William Webster, a former Roman Catholic, dealing with issues related to Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, the Gospel, Church history and the Chrisitan life. William Webster has a Masters of Theology in Biblical Interpretation and a PhD in Historical Theology, both from Whitefield Theological Seminary. 5. mtc.org/ -The founder and director of Mission To Catholics is Bartholomew F. Brewer Ph.D. Bart was ordained to the Roman Catholic priesthood at the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary in Washington DC. During ten years as a priest he served as a Discalced Carmelite missionary in the Philippines, as a parish priest in Arizona and California and finally as a U.S. Navy Chaplain. 6. www.takeheed.info/category/roman-catholicism/ - A Christian ministry founded by a former Roman Catholic from Ireland Cecil Andrews. Matthew 24:4, "And Jesus answered and said to them, "See to it that no one misleads you."

@@Sherlock245 Its not up to me to change their mind. It is up to me to speak truth. BTW, that was all too long. Nobody's reading that.

@@ministryoftruth1451 speaking truth is speaking up if you do not talk no one would know. The mormons are doing far better then most Christian did you know? Its a real shame. And jesus himself!!!! He talked non stop!!! And are you saying he talked too much?? Its never too much ONLY that you tried.

That's not how this works. Do you really think that you are not allowed to read other books? But obviously to those who understand Biblical doctrine Sola Scriptura means that Scripture alone carries the weight of God's inerrancy. When I read any commentary or book on anything I compare it to scripture to see if it holds truth. For example, is the Pope a mediator between men and God with the ability to forgive sins. 1 Timothy 2:5 says not a chance.

@@ministryoftruth1451 - can you find Gd's truth in the Bible if the protestant version of the Bible is missing several books of the Bible? Martin Luther decided that certain parts of the Bible should not be in the Bible. He took out several books of the bible that had been in there for centuries. He also wanted to remove some others. He hated the book of James and said he felt like burning it. He hated the book of Ester because he thought it seemed a little too Jewish to him. Protestant leaders made changes to the bible because they thought they could make improvements to it. King Henry the eighth changed the words of the Lord's Prayer because he arbitrarily declared that he had the authority to do this. If some one told you to cross out several parts of scripture and replace it with new words of your own, would you do it? What if someone told you to tear out several pages of your bible and throw them away? Would you do that? I would hope not. You cannot respect God's word if you want to change God's word.

@@Klee99zeno First of all, I don't agree with Luther on these things. Why would you presume I do. Starting with a straw man is dishonest. Secondly we know for a fact that the Bible AS WE KNOWIT NOW has been unchanged since the first century. the apocryphal books are not scripture. I would add you also can't add to God's word and have it still be truth.

@@Klee99zeno The Bible was "assembled" long before the Roman Catholic Church became dominant. The term “canon” is used to describe the books that are divinely inspired and therefore belong in the Bible. The difficulty in determining the biblical canon is that the Bible does not give us a list of the books that belong in the Bible. Determining the canon was a process conducted first by Jewish rabbis and scholars and later by early Christians. Ultimately, it was God who decided what books belonged in the biblical canon. A book of Scripture belonged in the canon from the moment God inspired its writing. It was simply a matter of God’s convincing His human followers which books should be included in the Bible. Compared to the New Testament, there was much less controversy over the canon of the Old Testament. Hebrew believers recognized God’s messengers and accepted their writings as inspired of God. While there was undeniably some debate in regards to the Old Testament canon, by A.D. 250 there was nearly universal agreement on the canon of Hebrew Scripture. The only issue that remained was the Apocrypha, with some debate and discussion continuing today. The vast majority of Hebrew scholars considered the Apocrypha to be good historical and religious documents, but not on the same level as the Hebrew Scriptures. For the New Testament, the process of the recognition and collection began in the first centuries of the Christian church. Very early on, some of the New Testament books were being recognized. Paul considered Luke’s writings to be as authoritative as the Old Testament (1 Timothy 5:18; see also Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7). Peter recognized Paul’s writings as Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). Some of the books of the New Testament were being circulated among the churches (Colossians 4:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:27). Clement of Rome mentioned at least eight New Testament books (A.D. 95). Ignatius of Antioch acknowledged about seven books (A.D. 115). Polycarp, a disciple of John the apostle, acknowledged 15 books (A.D. 108). Later, Irenaeus mentioned 21 books (A.D. 185). Hippolytus recognized 22 books (A.D. 170-235). The New Testament books receiving the most controversy were Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John. The first “canon” was the Muratorian Canon, which was compiled in AD 170. The Muratorian Canon included all of the New Testament books except Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter, and 3 John. In AD 363, the Council of Laodicea stated that only the Old Testament (along with one book of the Apocrypha) and 26 books of the New Testament (everything but Revelation) were canonical and to be read in the churches. The Council of Hippo (AD 393) and the Council of Carthage (AD 397) also affirmed the same 27 books as authoritative. The councils followed something similar to the following principles to determine whether a New Testament book was truly inspired by the Holy Spirit: 1) Was the author an apostle or have a close connection with an apostle? 2) Is the book being accepted by the body of Christ at large? 3) Did the book contain consistency of doctrine and orthodox teaching? 4) Did the book bear evidence of high moral and spiritual values that would reflect a work of the Holy Spirit? Again, it is crucial to remember that the church did not determine the canon. No early church council decided on the canon. It was God, and God alone, who determined which books belonged in the Bible. It was simply a matter of God’s imparting to His followers what He had already decided. The human process of collecting the books of the Bible was flawed, but God, in His sovereignty, and despite our ignorance and stubbornness, brought the early church to the recognition of the books He had inspired.

If I am discussing the Lord of the Rings books/movies with friends, they may give me insights, see things in them I´ve missed. I can learn and deepen my understanding. But how do I know their analyses are correct? By knowing the books/movies. For example, I come from a charismatic background and have always thought of spiritual warfare mainly in terms of prayer. But a bible teacher showed me that in 2 cor 10:4-6 Paul is using spiritual warfare imagery for apologetics, to challenge and tear down structures of lies raised against the truth. It was in the text, but I might not have seen it without help.

@@thomasfryxelius5526 I like that

@@peterdiscipleofjesus :)

"You then imply that ALL tradition is fundamentally evil.." No Pastor Jeff did not imply that. His point was that all traditions that make the Word of God void are evil. It's funny how you are quick to call him disingenious.

@@ianyimiah Hi Isaac. I hope you are well today. Sorry - I think he does imply that all tradition is wrong and does not make it clear that he is taking the incident with the Pharisee as an isolated one. If Mike was not intentionally implying that all tradition is inherently wrong then I apologise to him - it's very easy to slip into using offensive terms on a site like this. It would be great to hear his take on tradition in general in that case, because I have heard a lot of evangelicals talking about both religion and tradition as wrong and in error.

@@PapaJoeWalsh I don't think he was implying that. The scripture he quoted even makes it clear. Also, a few minutes after he said that, he said we can learn from church history and creeds. Church history is full of traditions and creeds and confessions are a form of tradition as well. In my view, I hear him saying this: that you can learn from church history (which includes traditions) as long as it does not contradict biblical truths.

@@ianyimiah I can accept that Isaac. Thank you.

@@PapaJoeWalsh Thank you as well for giving me a hearing.

@James Jose So you have a dilemma. If 2 Tim 3:15-17 is scriptural, then it is telling you that the only thing scriptural is the OT.

@James Jose 2 Tim 3:15-17 Paul says Timothy from his childhoood has been acquainted with sacred writings. During Timothy's childhood only OT was sacred scripture. Paul was referring to OT only.

@James Jose you are correct 2 Tim 3:15 is referring OT which means you cannot use it for Sola Scriptura. Otherwise you would limit Sola Scriptura to the OT.

Ok, so it's the belief that scripture is the sole INFALLIBLE rule of Faith. I guess I just changed my mind. Because other ways must be tested by the Word of God. The Word of God is the ultimate litmus test of any other means of information or Revelations that one recieves.

Ok, now watch the video

@@elvisisacs3955 again? i'm not a glutton for punishment. I'm sorry but no manner of twisting can make sola scriptura pop out of scripture. Its simply a non-christian doctrine made up by a heretic 16 hundred years after Christ.

Tyson Guess too true, my friend.

It's true, sadly the bible doesn't support it.

I'm really not entirely sure what you're trying to say.

Anthony Turner ‘We’ do nothing and ‘We’ save no one. God does all. We walk in faith of the works God already set before us. God alone saves those whom He foreknew. We walk in faith proclaiming of the gospel to the world and allow the Master to separate those we bring to Him (a world He created and completed before us, but blessed us in participating in the work He already completed).

Protestants would say either Peter was never in Rome or he was never the first Pope.

This mission was for the Jews since the 11 Apostles were a Apostles for the Jews. Paul was an apostle for the Gentiles. Once the gospel was fully preached throughout the Roman Empire, this mission was fulfilled. “which has come to you, just as in all the world also it is constantly bearing fruit and increasing, even as it has been doing in you also since the day you heard of it and understood the grace of God in truth;” ‭‭Colossians‬ ‭1:6‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬ “if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister.” ‭‭Colossians‬ ‭1:23‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬ This was needed before the destruction of the temple. This is not a cartoon where Peter is standing at the gate of heaven. That is not what is depicted in Matthew 16:13-20 nor Matthew 18:18 at all.

@@urawesome4670 oh so you’re saying that after the apostles completed their mission there was no need for anymore teaching etc? God stopped his hand in guiding the Church through individual men? He stopped revealing himself throughout history? Then what is the need for your Reformation if proclamation of the gospel has been completed through the apostles. This isn’t a cartoon where God gave the mission to just 12 men. He gave it to all men called to be Christians.

Okay great so Jesus is a God and Jesus is God. Same thing right? Jehovah is a God so saying a God doesn’t mean he’s not God. I love your logic. Tell us about the faithful and discreet slave. What makes you think that’s a prophecy?

@Samantha according to trinitarians he is not a God he subsists within a God. If you are a modalist I have a different line of questioning for you.

@@aservantofJEHOVAH7849 Answer my question.

I did answer your question unless you believe Jesus is your triune God. If you get an interlinear you will notice that the Greek text states that the logos was with the God 'ton theon'. According to your copy of strong's the expression the God is a reference to the supreme God i.e without equals. The logos on the other hand is referred to as God without the definite article according to strong's 'theos' without the definite article or in the plural can refer to angels or rulers whether angelic or human See psalms8:5, john10:34. Thus in the context of the logos being with the supreme God ,according to strong's, his being God without the article must mean that he was God in the sense of being a Godlike prince, doubtless one of those mentioned at Job38:4-7KJV"4Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. 5Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? 6Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; 7When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?"

@@aservantofJEHOVAH7849 No you didn’t. I didn’t ask you about that, I only made a statement about your own logic. I asked you about the faithful and discreet slave. So answer.

taking that scripture to it's logical conclusion - one would have to say they need to disregard anything that was written after 1 Corinthians (since it would be considered exceeding what was written) which basically throws out all of the Gospels and most of epistles

@@SuperSaiyanKrillin and there is different translations to that verse, 8, I think?!

@@SuperSaiyanKrillin No, only if it "exceeds" what is written, that is to say, if it goes beyond. What that means is that, so long as it agrees with scripture, it is okay. Everything in the New Testament agrees with the scripture that came before. Thus, it is okay. Not so for many Catholic traditions and practices. Even if we interpret it the way you propose, what is the conclusion? That that verse should be ignored?

Stubadub Yeah the only way the Roman Church could reform is if they denied the papacy because they believe the papacy is inspired.

Stubadub That still presents a problem because Catholics believe that everything they believe does not go against scripture.

It depends on how you define it. If you define Sola Scriptura as that Scripture is the only source of authority, then you are wrong. But, most people define it as the only source (that we have) of infallible authority, meaning that if something contradicts Scripture, it is wrong. It defined in direct opposition to that of the Catholics who taught that Scripture and tradition are equally authoritative.

Matt If scripture is the only infallible authority how can you know what the canon of scripture is since it’s not mentioned anywhere in the Bible? You’re forced to say the Bible is infallible but the list of books in the Bible isn’t.

@Glen...well said!! They should always end their sermons with "...thus saith the Lord...maybe"

Who was Jehovah speaking to when he said, “let us create man in our image”?

Proverbs8:22JB"Yahweh created me, first-fruits of his fashioning, before the oldest of his works." Job38:7JB"What supports its pillars at their bases? Who laid its cornerstone 7 to the joyful concert of the morning stars and unanimous acclaim of the sons of God?" We note that JEHOVAH was not alone before the creation of the physical universe and man. The first of these morning stars was particularly close to him in his work. Proverbs8:30JB"I was beside the master craftsman, delighting him day after day, ever at play in his presence," Note too that at revelation2:28Jesus identifies himself as morning star and as the wisdom of God a Luke11:49.

@@aservantofJEHOVAH7849 “Before Abraham came to be, I AM”. “I and the father are one”

I am what? One what? Nothing I said precludes Jesus being from before Abraham or one with God. John17:22ASV" the glory which thou hast given me I have given unto them; that they may be one, even as we are one" Note that the believers become one in the same way that Jesus and his God are one and also that they receive the glory that Jesus received from his God and Father. If you get an interlinear and check you will notice that the neuter form of the greek word rendered one is used "en" when ever one us used of God the masculine form is used "eis" indicating a single person also singular personal pronouns are always used of JEHOVAH. Indicating that the bible writers regarded him as a single person.

@@aservantofJEHOVAH7849 Error: “That they may be one, even as we are one” does not conclude that they are one with us. I AM what? “And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you”. One what? I AM. I pray for you. That you will turn to Christ.

The Bereans were more noble than the Jewish people in Thessolonica because they examined the apostles teaching against scripture to see if what the apostles were teaching was actually true. That is a clear example of sola scriptura that is in the Bible

The apostles taught the truth from Jesus. What you are describing is not Sola scriptura, but tradition. (The Bible speaks of it in the Corinthians.) The teachings were spread only orally until the Bible was written. Sola scriptura is the doctrine that only the Bible is the only source of faith. (But this is heresy, because the sources of faith are: the Bible, tradition, and the teaching office of the Catholic Church.)

that was not my question. can ANYONE get saved by reading the Scriptures or does he have to be a PREDESTINED ELECT for this to happen? Calvinists believe ONLY an unconditionally elected person can get saved. this is the U of TULIP the non elect, can read the Scriptures till they drop dead and will never get saved. why? because man has NO FREE WILL to decide anything, specially salvation, unless God gives him the ability to understand and believe. this ability required to get saved WILL NOT BE GIVEN to the non elect. why? because Calvin's god decided their future during eternity's past and against their will. the non elect are born FOREVER LOST by an irreversible sovereign decree. the elect are born SAVED children of God. this is Calvinism 101 Am I saying that a Calvinist must agree with John Calvin on EVERYTHING in order to be a Calvinist? No. BUT, I am saying that you must agree with him on the vital subject of salvation, if you are going to call yourself a Calvinist -which directly implicates Calvin's teachings on predestination, free will, sovereignty of God, etc. If you aren’t willing to agree with the T.U.L.I.P. of John Calvin, then stop calling yourself a Calvinist. in Calvinism CONTINGENCIES DON'T EXIST, God is the only Actor behind every act, good and evil, that has ever occurred in the history of mankind. If you aren’t willing to agree with the following quotes from John Calvin, then stop claiming that people who disagree with Calvinism, are misrepresenting it, or don't understand it or are straw manning Calvinism. these are Calvin's words: “Creatures are so governed by the secret counsel of God, that NOTHING HAPPENS BUT WHAT HE HAS KNOWINGLY AND WILLINGLY DECREED.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 16, Paragraph 3) “We hold that God is the disposer and ruler of all things, -that from the remotest eternity, according to his own wisdom, He decreed what he was to do, and now by his power executes what he decreed. Hence we maintain, that by His providence, not heaven and earth and inanimate creatures only, but also the counsels and WILLS OF MEN ARE SO GOVERNED AS TO MOVE EXACTLY IN THE COURSE HE HAS DESTINED.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 16, Paragraph 8) “The devil, and the whole train of the ungodly, are in all directions, held in by the hand of God as with a bridle, so that they can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how much soever they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as he permits, nay unless in so far AS HE COMMANDS, that they are not only bound by his fetters but are even FORCED to do him service” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 11) ”He testifies that He creates light and darkness, forms good and evil (Isaiah 45:7); that no evil happens which He hath not done (Amos 3:6). Let them tell me whether God exercises His judgments willingly or unwillingly.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 18, Paragraph 3) NOTE Calvin quoted the antiquated English of the Geneva Bible in Isa. 45:7 to say God creates evil. "I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create calamity; I, the Lord, do all these things." NKJV what God creates is calamity, disaster, tragedy in a responsive judgement for the wickedness of men, repaying them for their sins. “I admit that in this miserable condition wherein men are now bound, ALL OF ADAM'S CHILDREN HAVE FALLEN BY GOD'S WILL.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 4) “…it is vain to debate about prescience, which it is clear that ALL EVENTS TAKE PLACE BY HIS SOVEREIGN APPOINTMENT.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 6) “But since he foresees future events only by reason of the fact that HE DECREED THAT THEY TAKE PLACE, they vainly raise a quarrel over foreknowledge, when it is clear that all things take place rather by his determination and bidding.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 6) “THE FIRST MAN FELL BECAUSE THE LORD DEEMED IT MEET THAT HE SHOULD.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 8)

u need to read about the U of TULIP, unconditional election, double predestination, the elect for heaven and non elect for hell. then u are not a Calvinist. YES Jesus died for all men. but the L of TULIP, limited atonement says NO, Jesus only died for the elect. "And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw ALL MEN TO ME." John 12:32 "but now God commands ALL MEN everywhere to repent," Acts 17:30. "Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for ALL MEN." Rom. 5:18. "For the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that if One DIED FOR ALL, THEN ALL DIED; and He DIED FOR ALL, that those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again." 2 Cor. 5:15, 16 "WHO DESIRES ALL MEN TO BE SAVED and to come to the knowledge of the truth." 1 Tim. 2:4 "Who gave Himself as a ransom for ALL, the testimony given at the proper time." 1 Tim. 2:6. "we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of ALL MEN, specially of those that believe." 1 Tim. 4:10. "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to ALL MEN" Titus 2:11 "But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because He suffered death, so that by the grace of God He might taste death FOR EVERYONE." Heb. 2:9. "The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, NOT WILLING THAT ANYONE SHOULD PERISH BUT THAT ALL SHOULD COME TO REPENTANCE" 2 Pet. 3:9

14 ¶ How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

Todd Chaney Looks like your idol was attacked.

AA is not my idol, nor has it ever been. It’s not a religion. It doesn’t claim it is.

Brucev7 amen to that! God alone heals!

The A.A. Framework believes in a higher power. But that doesn’t make that higher power correct. To deny Christ is just that. Either he gets the glory or he doesn’t. Christ should be our peace. The Bible has instructions on the removal of sin in ones life. And Jeff is saying that the Bible is the guide and the basis for everything. AA helps a lot of people. And does very “good”. But even in that let’s examine good. How many good people will find themselves in hell for denying Christ.

Raycurlee23 to me it’s not an either or. It’s a first, then. Without AA I probably would’ve never made it back into church. Christ is my all and all, and to Him goes all glory. But I don’t discount the effect these 12 step programs have had on peoples lives. I’m not alone in my journey, I know many that have come to an ultimate relationship with Christ through this less popular venue.

Would you say the Trinity is a fourth-century invention?

@@xnihilo1044 no

It existed way before that lol

@@joshuajaison9957 The Trinity has always existed, but the doctrine wasn't established until the late fourth century.

@@fantasia55 the same can be said about sola scriptura it existed way before Martin Luther and even before the great schism with historical proof

No, we didn't have a Bible canon prior to the Catholic Church. That's false.

Let's debunk your interpretation that Jesus is referring to himself as the rock. Let's talk about this passage. Matthew 16:18 "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" There are two interpretations. Both are actually true for different reasons. Interpretation exegesis: #1 The Church is built on Peter's confession. This interpretation comes from early Church extra biblical writings. When some Christians say this, they probably mostly don't know where that interpretation came from. In a "philosophical sense" yes the Church is built on Peter's confession that Jesus is the Christ. Obviously if Jesus was not the son of the living God, our hopes and beliefs would have no foundation. Some early Christians held to this interpretation. I will provide an example from Saint Augustine: Augustine (354-430): “In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built.’ . . . But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable.” (The Retractions, 1:20:1) He says let the reader decide. Because there were two opinions. The reality is that both can be true at the same time. Interpretation #2 Peter is the rock. From a literal perspective, this is true. If you understand how language works, Jesus is not referring to himself in Matthew 16. He is speaking to Peter. He calls Peter "Kepha" and changes his name to ROCK. If you were not having any bias towards your interpretation and were for example an atheist, and you read this passage, no one can draw this conclusion that Jesus is talking about himself. Without a doubt Jesus calls Peter the rock on whom the Church is built. There is no ambiguity, in fact it's straight forward. The fear among non Catholic Christians is that acknowledging Peter is the rock would be tantamount to saying the Catholic Church is the true Church. So they absolutely would prefer not to to follow this interpretation. Even though it is quite literally the true understanding of this passage. Scholars don't interpret this passage as saying linguistically Jesus is talking about himself. He isn't. The literal meaning is Peter is the rock. The other interpretation can be true at the same time. Just not literally. The early Church overall accepted that the Church was built on Peter the rock. This interpretation wasn't challenged until the protestant reformation.

@@dman7668 the OT canon was already established, by who? God. If God is the One who establishes His Word then He had already established the NT canon as well, why? Because Jesus is the Word and He is eternally existing.

@@dman7668 furthermore, putting the NT into one book does not mean one established the NT, why? Because the NT gospels and letters were already well established, being copied and shared around among believers of the early church. RC teaches fallacy.

@@dman7668 your point #1, you flat out lie, it was established by the preceding verses and not extra biblical sources.

Just curious, I've seen others change the spelling to GQD or J3SUS, etc., what is the reason behind this? I have an idea of why, but would like to know for sure. Thanks.

I mangle certain c0ntr0v3rsial words to get around the left-wing c3ns0rsh!p by YT. They sh4d0wb4n btw. If you're wondering why you are not experiencing extreme c3ns0rsh!p it would be because you've not racked up enough no-no points from YT. My account has racked up enough naughty points though. Truth is, many of your c0mm3nts may, in fact, be sh4d0wb4nned, but you wouldn't even know it. That's leftism for ya.