In a prior video, many got sidetracked regarding what my real issue is with Protestantism as it pertains to Solo Scriptura. So here is a more direct breakdown of the problem PLUS a solution to the matter! Follow on IG: @thejewishcatholic
Catholicism will always be the whipping boy for all of Christendom. I was a “Cradle Catholic”, my family has been Catholic since the late 500’s. Still the most vile anti Catholic bile I began hearing from Protestants began at age 10. That is what started turning me away from The Church. I researched every religion, and every denomination that I heard of. I was so confused and scared that I may be “choosing wrong, “ that it paralyzed me . So much darkness was seeping into my life. It wasn’t until my mid 30’s that I began listening to Catholic speak about Catholicism. I was blown away how deep and beautiful Catholicism is. Protestantism is egoism to me. They are so sure as individuals, they specifically understand the scriptures. The only ex Catholics that converted to Protestantism , I have talked to, fall for the Anti Catholic Conspiracy Theories like the rest of the public. You know what I never heard growing up? A Catholic returning the treatment. Which, deepened my love and respect for The Church.
I've seen multiple sermons of preachers just bashing the Catholic church, never heard a priest ever say anything about another faith in a homily. Mass is all about Jesus.
Great testimony. It was how Catholics behaved online that set them apart. I craved their peace, grace & strength. It was in stark contrast to most Protestants.
@@LauraBeeDannon around the 90ies I decided to attend a protestant youth retreat since I had some protestant friends. In the meeting, the reverend mocking catholicsm (the cross sign, etc). I shocked, I cried because I never had the thought that they have such view towards the catholics. I thought they were our brothers and sistes in Christ. On the contrary, I never met a catholic priest who talks bad about protestantism, islam, etc.
Protetant Scholars who have become Catholic and explain why they have become Catholic have helped deepen my faith. People like : Dr Scott Hahn, Dr Peter Kreeft, Steven Ray, Jimmy Akin, Tim Staples, Keith Nestor just to name a few. They are all on youtube. I learned so much from all these wonderful people.
The Beauty of the Catholic Church “drew us in” and then reading the Early Church Fathers solidified our decision. ❤️ My husband reverted after being away from the church 40 years - During that time he was a senior pastor of three Protestant churches. After much interior struggle he “read his way” back into the church. It took us three decades to realize that we had not given the CC an honest evaluation. After doing so, we can attest that what it claims is absolutely true and worth every single struggle and loss (friends/family/ministry) that we have experienced in making the decision to believe the pillars of the faith. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-uz1tMcqIJeg.htmlsi=GbcsNqzCUv4YwYu_
Well said, my friend! Studying the scriptures led me to study church history and tradition. Studying church tradition led me to the Church. Now I'm going through RCIA. A lot of what I was taught as a Protestant only works if I ignore church history, writings of church fathers and contemporaries of the 12 Apostles, and church tradition. I finally have a complete story and feel a part of the same Church instituted by Jesus Himself 2000+ years ago! 🙏 😊😊😊
Hi! Ive been watching your videos for quiet some time now and have looked into the early church fathers, Marian devotion. I have prayed to God to show me direction, i then found a Catholic Bible, and on another day got given a rosary. Ive also been getting dreams. I go to a Baptist church, and im really struggling, ive noticed my pastor talks about himself a lot, and starting to see things ive never noticed before. I am really wanting to visit a Latin Mass but it is 1 hour away from where i live. I am yearning to worship the Lord that is pleasing to Him.
You are being called into the Church. Pray the Rosary. Watch as God pulls you in. I pray that the Almighty blesses you and leads your path. Trust that things will get tough but it will be worth it.
On the internet the Latin Mass crowd is very prominent. The Novus Ordo Mass is every bit as legitimate as the Latin Mass. The great majority of Catholics attend and prefer the Novus Ordo Mass. The Magisterium instituted the Novus Ordo Mass using their authority given by Jesus Christ to bind and loose. Attentively worshipping God in the Novus Ordo Mass is a proper and faithful form of worship. A word of caution. The Latin Mass is perfectly legitimate, but some in the Latin Mass crowd do not accept Vatican II and Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict and Pope Francis as legitimate. The SSPX (Latin Mass) society is in an irregular relationship with the Catholic Church. The Fraternal Society of Saint Peter (Latin Mass) is in full communion with the Catholic Church.
Baptist are kind sincere folks but I remained totally confused about my Baptist faith until I became Catholic. That's when I started a thorough research of Catholicism and Protestantism and church history. The clarity of Catholicism is so reassuring. Thank You Lord for leading me home to Your church.
Home run! The bottom line is the “A” word - authority. Devout, sincere Protestants - like I was - absolutely believe that their final authority is Scripture. When I realized that my final authority was actually my preferred interpretation of Scripture, I was crushed. Protestants generally only “submit” to teaching or interpretation that they intellectually agree with - have been convinced of. Real “submission” only happens when you submit to something you don’t yet agree with simply because the authority said so.
So then, why then does Luke COMMEND the Bereans, ... who SEARCHED THE SCRIPTURES, ... to see if what was being preached to them was true ??? Acts 17 10 But the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea. Who, when they were come thither, went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, who received the word with all eagerness, daily searching the scriptures, whether these things were so. 12 And many indeed of them believed, and of honourable women that were Gentiles, and of men not a few.
@@TheAegis1000Shaul and Silas went to Barea to speak to Jews. They wanted to verify that Christ was indeed the promised Messiah. They checked this by reading what the Tanakh says regarding the Messiah… this in no way implies Sola Scriptura is a doctrine.
@@TheAegis1000 respectfully, your question presupposes that Luke had "sola Scriptura" in mind when he wrote those lines. Please consider the context: the Jews in Thessalonica rioted in anger against Paul and his company, while the Jews in Berea thoughtfully considered Paul's preaching and double-checked the references he made to the Jewish Scriptures. They didn't get mad, angry, and violent - they took his claims seriously enough to check his references. To extrapolate from that event that "sola Scriptura" is self-evident is an extreme stretch of context. Please ask yourself, "What did Paul preach to them?" Did he have the NT Scriptures in hand when he preached to them? No. None of the NT texts (except perhaps Luke's long letter to Theophilos that became the Gospel text) had been written, but there's no evidence that Paul was carrying around a copy. Paul preached verbally what he had learned from the Holy Spirit and from the other Apostles. What he taught, because it was divine teaching and not in Sacred Scripture (yet) was Holy Tradition.
@@TheJewishCatholicthanks. It's been a whirlwind of a journey. Started looking into early Christian writings because I got tired of the truth realitism of Protestantism and found to my surprise that the early Christians were resoundingly Catholic. The rest is history. Been writing a paper on church history and Catholic dogma
Good. I’m 62. A life long Protestant and I’m in RCIA and I’m so looking forward to receiving the Sacramnents. Here’s a metaphor: Protestantism is like dating and meeting her at the mall, holding hands and small talk. Catholicism is like being married, having your kids, grandkids your parents and grand parents, brothers and sisters, cousins all in a cozy little house for Christmas. Candles all around, singing carols by the fireplace and the tree. I feel like I belong to something now. It’s all true. The Church didn’t get it wrong. Come home🙏🏻
@@samtatge8299once I started looking into catholicism I realized not only can be traced back to the beginning but Protestantism is basically a Bible study social gathering
I agree with you. I grew up in a Lutheran family, but went to catholic school. I am very familiar with the two faith traditions. I used to genuinely believe in sola scriptura, but not anymore. Recently, I’ve been searching a little more on the history of the church, and the more I learn, the more catholicism and orthodoxy make more sense to me. I’m no longer a self-professed protestant for at least 5 years. You are absolutely right. When you step back and take time to think about it, protestantism is not healthy. Something, somewhere is not right. Thank you for your video.
For some, like me, Protestant assurance of assurance of salvation can be dangerous because it can dilute concern for one's spiritual condition and morality so that things like divorce and abortion can become acceptable.
I was christened in the Catholic church as a baby, but not long after my parents separated and my mother converted to the Protestant church, therefore I grew up protestant. Coming back to my faith after years astray I feel a strong attraction in my heart to both the Catholic and Orthodox church. I'm not going to lie I struggle with the accepting Mary and the saints. I thank you for this content, I will take your suggestion where to research and delve deeper. God bless
Mary is your key. Read & meditate about her & she like the good mother that she is, will lead you closer to her son. With Jesus, the Eucharist & Our Lady, you have the solid three legged stool of Truth which no one can take from you.
The Bible was compiled by the Catholic Church ❤. Around 110A.D Saint Ignatius of Antioch used, for the first time in Christian literature, the expression “catholic church,” meaning the whole church that is one and the same wherever there is a Christian congregation.
Suan Sonna on Intellectual Catholicism can best explain that, Dr. Brant Pitre on Catholic Productions and even Michael Lofton on Reason and Theology on: Papacy Magisterium Tradition Shalom!
I used to be Protestant and had a lot of prejudice against the Catholic Church. Sola Scriptura is something that drives people crazy because there isn't an evangelical or Protestant who can interpret the Scriptures coherently without tradition, without a root, without being founded on the rock that is Christ Jesus. I converted to Catholicism, and it was one of the best things that happened in my life. Congrats on the video.
It’s been a while, brother. Merry Christmas & a very blessed New Year 2024 to you & your beloved family. I guess I missed the vid you were talking about, so I’ll take a watch of it now. Great content. Love that definition of “spiritual relativism”. 👍
¡Bravissimo Dani! Aprendí algo nuevo acerca del gobierno Divino de La Santa Madre Iglesia sobre el hombre. -Sagrada Escritura -Tradición -Magisterio Gracias!
How can we submit to one another in the fear of God when there is nobody to submit to? Ephesians 5:21 1 Peter 5:5-7 I look forward to going to my first mass, hopefully this Sunday, Lord willing.
In Ephesians 5:21, the command is given to the Church to submit to "one another". In other portions of the scripture, we are also commanded to "confess our sins to one another", to love "one another", to build up "one another", to gently interact with "one another," to speak to "one another" in psalms and spiritual songs, to encourage "one another", to pray for "one another", etc. Is this, in some way, difficult to understand ? 1 Peter 5:5 commands that that are younger (in the Church) submit to the elders (in the Church). Is this, somehow, impossible except given the centralized authority of the Catholic church ? In His famous parable (of the Good Samaritan), Jesus is answering a question concerning God's command to "Love your neighbor as you love yourself." His challenging questioner asks ... "But, ... WHO is my neighbor" ? Jesus goes on to demonstrate to His listeners that we are all accountable to love ALL of those around us, ... our friends, our enemies, our parents, our children, etc. As children of the living God, we are responsible to treat one another as family, living for the good of all, rather than just ourselves. Let love be your guide ...
In Ephesians 5:21, the command is given to the Church to submit to "one another". In other portions of the scripture, we are also commanded to "confess our sins to one another", to love "one another", to build up "one another", to gently interact with "one another," to speak to "one another" in psalms and spiritual songs, to encourage "one another", to pray for "one another", etc. Is this, in some way, difficult to understand ? 1 Peter 5:5 commands that that are younger (in the Church) submit to the elders (in the Church). Is this, somehow, impossible except given the centralized authority of the Catholic church ? In His famous parable (of the Good Samaritan), Jesus is answering a question concerning God's command to "Love your neighbor as you love yourself." His challenging questioner asks ... "But, ... WHO is my neighbor" ? Jesus goes on to demonstrate to His listeners that we are all accountable to love ALL of those around us, ... our friends, our enemies, our parents, our children, etc. As children of the living God, we are responsible to treat one another as family, living for the good of all, rather than just ourselves. Let love be your guide ...
I would like to get your thoughts on the following, which I think reinforces or goes with what you said. What you explained is simply the Fulfillment and Perfection of what God started through Moses. We should remember that even when Moses came down from the mountain he had the written Torah and the oral Torah. Everybody seems to focus on the Christian side on only the written Torah, but for the Jew the oral Torah was just as authoritative as the written. And then you had the Levites and Priests that explained, taught, and enforced both Torah. There's no reason to think that the Catholic thinking is new, but simply a fulfillment of what God did in the Old Covenant. Please share your thoughts, if I'm off base please feel free to express so.
This is exactly it. The pattern had been set to make it recognizable to His people and because that system works. The Trifecta: Written Torah- Sacred Scriptura Oral Torah- Sacred Tradition High Court- Magisterium.
And that is the reason Jesus told his apostles to listen to what the Pharisees say but not to do what they do since their teachings was also preserved by God.
Not to mention that the first Protestants never agreed among themselves and that Luther was a persecutor of the Jewish people, the true reformers of the Church are those who do it from within and not from the outside as are Saint Francis of Assis, the Cardinal Cisneros and Saint Ignatius of Loyola
Though I appreciate and like your argument, as I study church history, I have a major issue with the Filioque and ever since the bishop of Rome historically decided he was the pope his rebellion against the whole church I believe created the protestant reformation his rebellion to be the final, saying of what is in what isn’t created all of the factions now, can he be forgiven for that yes at the churches to repent and join the other bishops and allowing the Holy Spirit to guide them all and allow Christ to be the head of the church and not a pope I lean towards orthodoxy, eastern orthodox or Greek or even Ethiopian, they seem to have stayed the course where Roman Catholicism from my study of history got it wrong 90% is correct but this one in particular problem like leaven has permeated the whole Roman church. This is just the way I have perceived this if you can help me understand better I would appreciate. Thank you for your time and your ministry.
I recommend a few works: Steve Ray’s “Upon this Rock”, Michael Lofton’s “Answering Orthodoxy - A Catholic Response to Attacks from the East”, and Suan Soma’s videos and essays regarding the Papacy.
There's nothing wrong with our separated Orthodox brethren but, remember, you can go East and remain Catholic with 23 churches to choose from under 5 different Rites all of whom are in union with the Pope. Also remember Jesus built His church on Peter, gave him the keys (authority) and power to loose and bind and Jesus promised He would be with that church till the end.
It's a good video, but you missed both the protestant Dilemma: "If the Bible is the only infallible source of information, what is the Bible?" And you also missed the fact that Satan uses Scriptures to misguide people, and even Jesus. If Jesus could be misled by Scriptures (the Devil tried it because it works), how is a protestant protected from being tempted into following himself by the Devil? Matthew 4:6
Satan can use the scriptures to mislead people ... but he can also use personal teaching to do so. Examples are the Judaizers attempts to persuade Christian men that they needed to be circumcised (And follow other Jewish tradition/Law) ... to be true followers of Christ. Other examples are when Pope Innocent III led the Catholic church in a Crusade against the peoples of southern France in the 1,200's (the Albigensian Crusade) ... which culminated in the massacres of some 200,000 men, women, and children. So, yes, ... the scriptures can be twisted, ... but the Holy Spirit works to define and to refine the message of God to those willing to hear God's message. Which should give a fairly clear indication that the Spirit of God was NOT leading the Catholic church (through Pope Innocent III) in the 1,200's. P.S. Jesus was NOT misled by Satan in Matthew 4. There was an attempt to mislead Jesus by Satan (using scripture), ... but Jesus was able to triumph over Satan's ploy ... by His Spirit-led understanding of the scriptures.
You commented on my last comment saying that I misunderstood your previous video, well you've misunderstood my previous comment........... 1. The classical protestant understanding of Sola Scriptura is not that we reject tradition and church authority, but that Scripture is the Norma Normans Non Normata (the "norm that norms which can not be normed"). It is what roots tradition and church authority.......... 2. The claim "Sola Scritura leads to all the splits": Again, blame the anabaptists. Classical Protestantism very much values the church fathers, and tradition, while still upholding the primacy of Scripture. However, there is still sadly division in Classical Protestantism, but that is also true for the Roman church in its division between the Eastern Orthodox to the Filioque and in the division between the Dominican Thomists and the Jusuits. This sort of division has occurred throughout church history; in the early church there are many examples of the holy fathers disagreeing with each other (like in how Origen and Augustine differed in soteriology). There even have been some attempts to reunite the denominations of Classical Protestantism. 3. The claim that "Protestantism rejects the idea of authority": I feel like I am repeating myself here........ Classical Protestantism values the creeds, church fathers, the works of medieval theologians (especially Anselm, Scotus, Ockham, and Aquinas), etc. We also put authority in the church--hence we have syods, classis, and the council of elders and in the other two branches of Classical Protestantism, we have a heiarchy of bishops as well. But, ultimately we, of course, put the primacy on Scripture. 4. The claim that "Protestantism leads to relativism": Nope, the ideas of the enlightenment are what led to relativism. Protestantism historically was against the enlightenment ideals (especially against the French Revolution) and played a big part in the pushback against. Like, Edmund Burke, F. J. Stahl, and Groen Van Prinsterer were all classical protestants and were important in the pushback against the French Revolution. Of course, there were also Roman Catholics that were as well, like Joseph De Maistre, but there were many protestants too. The only reason that in places like America protestants have often embraced relativism is that America was founded on liberal ideals and the individualism that has influenced Baptists melded with that. 5. Classical protestants agree that the guiding of the Spirit is through the church and not on individual interpretation 6. That old the "church gave us scripture, and thus it has authority", I've looked into it, and I am very much convinced on the contrary based on how the church fathers spoke of scripture and other things around that debate. I won't get into that because then it'll be like 40 paragraphs and it is frankly too late at night for that.
Your use of the name “Classical Protestantism” makes it sound like there was a singular branch of Protestantism. Like there was a true version of it. If that is the case, point me to it. Let’s put them to the test. I want to see this real branch 500 year ago and now.
By Classical Protestantism, I am referring to specifically referring to the Lutherans, Reformed, and Anglicans. They are the historical groups of the magisterial reformation and have had a similar problem with the radical reformation that you are positing for the entirety of the reformation--like read their confessions, and especially read the Second Helvetic Confession. And yes, there has been attempts to unite the three (there has been many Lutheran-Reformed churches and the United church was supposed to have been a union of those three churches before it got hijacked by liberals) and are set apart from the other branches because they are creedal, confessional, high-church, value church authority, and value tradition. Their theology too has a ton of overlap.
@@Gregorycrafterwhich of the three are you? Why haven’t they united? Why do they believe different things regarding essentials such as wether Calvinism is true or not, or the level of reality in their “Eucharist”, who can be ordained a “priest”? Seems to me, that these failed attempts at reform are only bootleg versions of what Catholicism is.
@@TheJewishCatholic I am reformed. We haven't united simply because of historical reasons--it is very similar to how eastern orthodox and the roman church are separate, yet consider eachother brothers. The historical debate between them was really just "what is the mode of the presence of the body and blood in the Eucharist and how is it received, as well as how is the magistrate supposed to be structured and some minor nuances on how predestination works." How the debate took place was that the reformed position of it being present spiritually instead of corporeally was misunderstood my the Lutherans and that caused the initial divide (this misunderstanding is still common). Anglicans then basically took the position that we shouldn't fight about this and backed out of the debate, saying that either position is fine. Later there has been attempts to reunite them, but those attempts failed because in those churches it just became the lowest common denominator between the traditions instead of a true union (i.e. think of what would happen if the eastern orthodox and the roman church tried to unite--the doctrine of the filioque would be "I don't know, there is division in that regard"). Oh, and for becoming a Reverent in the reformed tradition, you first have to learn greek, hebrew, and arameic, and then go to theological college for 4 years, and then need to be tested by Clasis. I am not sure for Lutherans and Anglicans, but it is probably similar, but they have a heirachy of bishops instead of a polity. And on a side note, they agree a lot more than you think--like, if you read their confession they agree on 95% and where they disagree is really just a slight nuance akin to how the roman church and the eastern orthodox differ. And, it is not a bootleg version of Catholicism--it is Catholicism but without the errors of the medieval church and without the constant shifting and discontinuity between the popes.
Your rebuttals don’t suffice in trying to explain why Protestantism is not heretical, which it obviously is! No organisation, such as Protestantism can survive without hierarchy & a unifying authoritative interpreter, the fruits being confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects, resulting from personal interpretation, which is not of Jesus who willed unity Jn 17 11-21 No Protestant has ever been able to explain why personal interpretation, if guided by the Holy Spirit has resulted in 000’s sects proving that either the Holy Spirit is wrong or more likely, Protestantism! There are none so blind as those with a darkened intellect which the Holy Spirit obviously isn’t enlightening!
I agree if the Bible was meant to have been followed by sola scriptura only there would have been an even greater number of denominations with heretical doctrines than there is today so much so as to not differentiate what truth is. It is evident that even in 1 century early church there were already formations of heresies developing that the Church fathers had a need to form a consensus as to what the defenitive truth was, thus having a need for Universal truth. Had it not been for the Church in guarding these truths the bible we have today would be unrecognizable.
Catholic is the best religion. Church is open 7 days a week. You can have the body and blood of Christ 2x a day. The catholic churches have masses 2x a day from Monday to Saturday and on Sunday 6 x a day. Just love Catholic Churches. Imagine those beautiful churches it’s so amazing . Just like a piece of heaven. There is no excuse you can’t go because there are masses 2x a day every day except Sunday. Sunday’s masses is 6x a day. You can pick the day and time to go to the church masses. And yet Catholic introduced us to know the mother of Jesus Christ Virgin Mary. We ask Mother Mary to pray for us and help us to get closer to his son Jesus Christ.
I have a friend who came into Christianity 4 years ago tru protestantism and he believes in sola scriptura... first I've found it nice to see one my old friend who no one would have ever guest will one day become christian but now I'm not so sure anymore 😢 i explain. I reverted to my catholic faith 8 years ago when my daughter was born but keep it to myself for the most part. Since i was raise by my grandfather and grandmother who are irish catholics i know quite a few thing regarding tradition and scriptures . When I've found out my friend was crhistian I've gone to pray whit him and at first did not bring anything about denomination just to see what he was gonna do and say whitout any prompt. Turn out he said horribles thing about catholic church and more problematic about all catholics . I'm sure you heard them all catholics are devil worshiper, idol worshiper, priest and all clergyman are ped"phile and all kind of derogatory thing like that😢 In the first time i keep my mouth shut for two reason first he évangélise a lot and have a couple follower and for this reason I've tryed to do damage control secondly he is not familiar whit how to do a proper exegesis of the scripture since he is not from a religious nor academic background. And there he come telling his new convert ( it is a good things if he bring peoples to christ) that the earth is flat is one exemple or the fact he speak in a made up language telling he speak in tongue cuz the holy spirit is whit him 🤔 worst he tink he is a prophet because he tink his dream are prophetie from God 😮 ... I've tried to reasons whit him but he tink he is always right because since he is born again he can be wrong because of the holy spirit. I dont know what to do whit him and is new followers of this special kind of Christian "theology" . Obviously he is pridefull to the bone but in the beginning he seem to really love Christ , but I'm not sure if i can help him or if it is even possible to help him anyway 😢
all who are chosen by God and are united with the spirit of Christ are his body. What I see is that often different parts of the body of Christ say to others that they do not belong. In the end, the Lord knows who belongs to him. Or does he not?
It is a very Protestant-type move to watch a video such as this and imply such a silly thing…. But I assure you, Sola Scripture is heresy. The evidence is in its contradictory plethora of denominations that all claim the same doctrine.
@@TheJewishCatholic So, ... we are to trust YOU ... that Sola Scripture is heresy ? Scripture does not teach that believers will always be ONE in every understanding, ... but that we are ONE in Christ, ONE in the Spirit, ONE in Faith (in Jesus), and ONE in baptism. Ephesians 4 1 I therefore, a prisoner in the Lord, beseech you that you walk worthy of the vocation in which you are called, 2 With all humility and mildness, with patience, supporting one another in charity. 3 Careful to keep the UNITY of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 ONE body and ONE Spirit; as you are called in ONE hope of your calling. 5 ONE Lord, ONE faith, ONE baptism. 6 ONE God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all.
@@TheAegis1000no one said we will all have the same understand in all things. But One Faith at least implies belief in the same core dogmas and doctrines (such as the need for a priesthood, what actually is Holy Communion, predestination, etc). One would be hard pressed to find that to be the case in Protestantism. And regarding one Baptism, Protestants can’t even agree on wether it is even necessary to get baptized or not. Regarding One God, get all Protestant groups to agree on wether to be Trinitarian or Unitarian and then we can talk. Need I go on?
@@TheJewishCatholic All Protestants baptize. And most Protestants are Trinitarian, though there actually is no biblical requirement to be conversant on the ultimate nature of God. Jesus said that those who worship God "must worship Him in Spirit and in Truth." The Trinity wasn't even agreed upon until 325 AD, so, I guess all those Christ followers who died before 325 AD are left out, huh ??? Protestants agree (and with Catholics, BTW) ... on the essentials of the Apostles' Creed ... and the Nicene Creed. Jesus said that the only requirement for His church was coming to Him in faith. All of these others requirements that Catholics add are simply not specified in the scripture. Regarding priesthood, Peter says that we ALL are a royal priesthood in 1 Peter 2:5. Regarding Communion, Jesus said "Do this in REMEMBRANCE of Me in Luke 22:19. And are you really suggesting that a required dogma/doctrine is understanding predestination ???
@@TheAegis1000I really didn’t expect you to include such tremendous amount of error and contradiction in your response. But it is clear that you are a fantastic example to prove my video. Thank you. I see no more fruit coming from our conversation so I will conclude with letting you know, I am praying for your conversion. (Be aware that the more you respond afterwards, the more I will to that end). :)
It also ends up being a kind of gnosticism for the same reasons you cite. If two protestants accept that they have different interpretations but they agree on what they each call the important points, then they are saying their personal "gknowledge" matters to them as individuals and can be different from person to person. This is different than saying "I don't know", or "I don't understand", because they trust that the "spirit" guiding them when they interpret their bible (almost always the KJV which ends up being an idol for a lot of protestants) has lead them to the truth right there in their own heads separate from any process of discernment or logic or discussion or anything the Ethiopian eunuch did. You do good work. Thanks.
Protestants believe Jesus when He says that "the Spirit WILL BRING them into all knowledge and understanding" ... i.e. that it doesn't all come to us at once ... but over time, ... as we participate with and follow the Spirit's guidance over our lives. As one might imagine, the MAIN POINTS of the gospel message come first, ... with more coming clear ... as we study and obey what we have been already given (like the noble Bereans - Acts 17:10-12). For this reason, we are much less apt to declare as heretics, those who don't share our every whim about scripture. This, in turn, is a monumental assist in NOT following the Catholic church's example in joining hands with worldly leaders to militarily attack to eradicate those that we have declared heretic. See the Albigensian Crusade against Southern France in the 1,200's ....
@@TheAegis1000 if your first sentence was true than the Ethiopean eunuch was wrong. As for violence, the protestants cheered on from a distance the muslim invasion and Europe was saved by an act of God at Lepanto. Luther played both sides of the peasant's revolt, and secular leaders took advantage of his new religion to confiscate church property and kill priests. William VIII in England did the same, killing Catholics and outlawing the religion no different than in Japan. The reformation was violent from its start. Be careful about attributing to the church what is inherent in our fallen nature.
@loulasher The Ethiopian eunuch was not a believer (before Philip ministered to him) ... and so, did not have the guidance of the Spirit available to him. As for atrocities performed in the name of the Church, Pope Innocent III was the undisputed head of the Catholic church at the time of the Albigensian Crusade, supposedly under the guidance of the Spirit, I guess. Martin Luther has no such claim, in regard to the Protestant churches, and the Protestant Reformation coincided with rebellion of Europe's peasantry against European nobility. And yes, there was a mostly political conflict between England's Catholic and Protestant leaders, featuring Henry the 8th, Blood Mary and her sister, Elizabeth. This was another unfortunate circumstance where politics was pursued in the name of the Church.
@@TheAegis1000 I hope you realize your interpretation of the Ethiopian eunuch is your interpretation and no one else reading the bible should be expected to arrive at your conclusion. Luther himself considered his interpretations of scripture authoritative, but so did Calvin. Both thought they were guided by the Holy Spirit, but I think they were both misled by a spirit. Nice how you are so distressed over violence you blame on the the Catholic Church but do some hand-waving about violence done by protestants. The cheering for the muslims invading Europe is pretty much a deal breaker for me though. The reformers reformed nothing, only usurped. The sneaky influence of bad philosophical ideas, subjectivism and nominalism, are the most lasting and most damaging impact they had as it's being played out now in a war against reality itself. You can disagree, and you're going to get the last word, but I invite you to take a serious look at Luther's rejection of reason and the impact that's had on history. We can't just accept any sense of "spirit" we might encounter. Instead we have to use our reason, our ability to see order and logic, ie Logos, which God has also given us. The Holy Spirit will guide us, but if we abandon reason we end up in gnosticism, relativism and subjectivism. Without reason we have a hard time arguing against things like "well, if he says he's a woman, who are we to say he ain't?"
@@loulasher Do you have a different interpretation of the meeting of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch ? The scripture is pretty detailed about the encounter. I don't know that Luther considered his interpretations of scripture authoritative, ... rather than that some of the practices of the Catholic church (indulgences in particular) were not biblical. Now Calvin was pretty authoritarian in Geneva, ... but certainly no more authoritarian than the Catholic church in Europe, in general. Don't know what you're referring to in your comment about the Protestants "cheering on the Muslim invasion of Europe". Is it your belief that the church should have some role (other than peacemaking) in secular struggles ? The Spirit of God does not lead anyone into Gnosticism, Relativism, or Subjectivism. P.S. What did Jesus have to say about much of what was going with secularists in His world ?
There is no weakness in the support of Sola Scriptura. It is biblical and is taught throughout the Bible. Isaiah 8:20 20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. Matthew 15:9 9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. This is very interesting. I want to present something I recently came across. If you read the converts catechism of Catholic Doctrine and go to part II, Section II, Chapter 5, number 3(the third commandment). Q. What is the third commandment? A. The third commandment is remember the Sabbath that thou keep holy the Sabbath day. Q. Which is the Sabbath day? A. Saturday is the Sabbath day. Q. Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday? A. We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday. Q. Why did the Catholic Church substitute Sunday for saturday? A. The Church substituted Sunday for Saturday, because Christ rose from the dead on a Sunday, and the Holy Ghost descended upon the apostles on a Sunday. Q. By what authority did the church substitute Sunday for saturday? A. The church substituted Sunday for Saturday by the plentitude of that divine power which Jesus Christ bestowed upon her. Q. What does the third commandment? A. The third commandment commands us to sanctify Sunday as the Lord's Day. According to their(Catholic Church) doctrine The 2nd commandment in the Bible is not observed, the Sabbath was replaced by Sunday and the 10th commandment was broken into two parts thus fulfilling the prophecy of Daniel 7:25 25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time. The only commandment related to time is the 4th commandment. God did not change the 4th commandment nor does he change. God does not change. He does not break his covenant. The 10 commandments of God are a reflection of his character. Jesus is truth. John 14:6 God's word is truth. John 17:17 Psalm 119:142,151 God's law is truth. John 4:24 God's people worship him in spirit and in truth. Malachi 3:6 - God never changes Psalm 111:7,8 God's commandments stand fast for ever and ever and are done in truth and uprightness. Psalm 89:34 God does not break his covenant. The new covenant is not about the doing away with God's law, it's about where he puts it(in your heart; Hebrews 8:10). God's saints, remnant keep his law: Revelation 12:17, Revelation 14:12, Revelation 22:14 I pray you study this out and seek what the word of the Lord teaches. After all the warning in Revelation 14 is about worship of the true God. The Pope is also known as: The Annuario Pontificio, the official directory of the Holy See, describes the office of the pope by the following titles: Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church. The Pope is known as the vicar of Christ. The word “vicar” means to be a representative of; the pope is our leader who acts on behalf of Christ. Christ never gave any man on earth his authority which the Catholic Church teaches was given to the Pope. Claiming that is blasphemy. That's why the Pope is referred to as the anti-christ or 666.
You are in error from the very first sentences. But let’s make this easy for you: which Protestant group has the proper interpretation of Scripture? Since Scripture, according to you is supposed to be our guide, it would be fitting that we are getting it taught to us correctly….so again, who got it right?
@@TheJewishCatholicThank you for being so thorough in your research! I appreciate your diligence and effort. You are a gift from God to His Church. May God bless you and your family abundantly. May His angels assist you in every need. In the Holy name of Jesus we pray.
Sola Scriptura rebutted 2 Peter 1 20-21 the bible can’t interpret itself Sola fide rebutted James 2 20-24 Protestantism heretical Rom 16 17-18 Thus if one uses the language of the Bible, one would say that “a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law . . . not by faith alone . . . for faith apart from works is dead . . . but faith working through love” (Rom. 3:28, Jas. 2:24, 26, Gal. 5:6). Sacred Tradition, which existed from the time of Jesus complements Sacred Scripture under the unifying authoritative interpretation of the magisterium, the balanced three legged stool, far more rational & objective than the flawed unbiblical one legged stool of sola Scriptura 2 Peter 1 20-21
Imagine appealing to catechism over the literal words of Jesus… ““Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” John 14:6 NIV What the magisterium teaches… 841: "The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. 'The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.'"
How has Tradition adapted to the times? I have never heard this said. In fact I have always heard that Church teaching is unchanging and unchangable. I hope you are wrong about this.
What I mean by the Church being “able to adapt to the times” is in regards to the Church’s ability to provide guidance to modern problems such as artificial insemination, contraception, p*rn, etc. I clarified in the video that the deposit of the Faith does not change and the Church is constant. But due to it having a living body of authority, it is able to guide and instruct across cultures, times and places.
Sacred Tradition & Sacred Scripture are unchanging but the CC recognises that we live in changing times & needs to understand the challenges that society poses & guides us accordingly eg contraception, abortion, IVF, SSM, Transgenderism etc
perhaps you are looking at the whole thing from the wrong perspective. The Roman Empire was also united under one authority, the emperor, followed by various kingdoms and, in the 19th-20th centuries, the nation states of today. The structure of the Roman Catholic Church has its roots in the imperial era. We live "in the West" in a time of individualism, and this development is reflected in the diversity of churches. The principle of human authority is being questioned and personal experiences are gaining in importance. Perhaps in the future Christians will be united by their shared experiences with Jesus Christ and not by authoritatively held dogmas. Then there will be no more discussions, only worship.
What you are confusing is that the church is not a singular church. Does God want to be unified? Of course he does, but he wants us to be unified under truth. The church is simply God's true followers. His church comes remains in many different denominations, but ultimately he does desire us to be following his word at is written as we seek for answers. To say that the Catholic church is the church established by Christ is proposterous to me as through my reading of history, reading of it's doctrines, it is full of fallacies. As for prophecy, too many things point to a church that is responsible for the killing of the saints like the waldensians and many others that did not accept the Catholic doctrine and corrupted the scriptures blending them with paganism. Oh how we need true protestantism back, for at this point most protestants forget why we really even exist and the type of corruption we were fighting, at this point protestantism is just as corrupt as Catholicms sadly.
More Protestant nonsense! Jesus founded His One True Church Mt 16 18-19 that became known as Catholic or Universal in 110 which codified your bible in 382. His Church is the fullness of Truth 1 Tim 3:15 & has existed for 2000 yrs, in spite of sinful men, proof of its divine origin No organisation, such as Protestantism can survive without hierarchy & a unifying authoritative interpreter, the fruits being confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects, resulting from personal interpretation, which is not of Jesus who willed unity Jn 17 11-21 No Protestant has ever been able to explain why personal interpretation, if guided by the Holy Spirit has resulted in 000’s sects proving that either the Holy Spirit is wrong or more likely, Protestantism! There are none so blind as those with a darkened intellect which the Holy Spirit obviously isn’t enlightening! Consider the damage caused to society by relativism, caused by there being many “truths” of Protestantism which have resulted in contraception, which until 1930, all denominations prohibited until the Anglican broke away in 1930, abortion, IVF, divorce, SSM, LGBGT, transgenderism etc. Protestantism has a lot to answer for!
Hello! I see you have a decent grasp of Sola Scriptura, but your definition is off a bit. So, in my opinion, the premise of several of your videos start off on the wrong foot which leads down an incorrect path. Yes, we believe the bible is the inspired word of God and is the only infallible source of teaching and doctrine. But, you seem to think this precludes councils and leaders from providing scholarly truths - it does not. If you go to any common Protestant denomination's website, you will probably find a "what we believe" type of page. I would venture that you would find that most accept the Nicene Creed as a foundation for their faith. We aren't opposed to councils or scholars directing us towards an accurate meaning of scripture. It is that those council proclamations need to be measured against the scripture to ensure the teaching and doctrine aren't false. Early church fathers agree, such as Augustine, who said, ""But who can fail to be aware that the sacred canon of Scripture, both of the Old and New Testament, is confined within its own limits, and that it stands so absolutely in a superior position to all later letters of the bishops, that about it we can hold no manner of doubt or disputation whether what is confessedly contained in it is right and true." Augustine, and other fathers, knew the truth about the fallibility of man. Councils would come along and claim one thing to be true, only to have another council come along and recant the earlier rulings. So, 2 parts of your trifecta are not quite as infallible as you believe. Oral traditions change over time. People mishear things or change things purposefully to mislead. Jesus warned us about this. Protestants have their councils, too. And we have pastors preaching and teaching the bible in context. Presenting Jewish, Greek, Roman, etc., cultural explanations to help enrich various texts. We study with the help of interlinear bibles that let us compare an English translation with the Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek texts. Scriptures are read, parsed, dissected, compared, referenced, absorbed. Few of us would claim that we don't have a need for scholarly teaching. Learning and fellowship are two big reasons we congregate. Where we have the most disagreement though isn't about Sola Scriptura, per se. There are Catholic doctrines and dogmas that came about in later centuries as a result in a difference in our bibles. Y'all have added some deuterocanonical texts to the Old Testament that ancient - and modern Jews and Christians - do not add because of their lack of scholarly authority. Almsgiving, purgatory, prayers to the dead, and others. Along with wild New Testament inferences about Mary's immaculate conception and the establishment of a papacy, Catholics took things too far. This brought about the reformation. Though I'm not a Calvinist, Calvin said it well in his response to Cardinal Sadoleto, "Our agreement with antiquity is far closer than yours." The point being, the Reformation's goal wasn't to create new doctrines or new denominations - they sincerely desired to stay in the bosom of the Catholic Church. It was to refresh the Church and bring it back to its original ancient form before a Roman Pontiff and councils brought in innovations in doctrine. The Reformers did not think the Reformation was primarily a revolution for new, modern ideas, but a retrieval and renewal of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. Oh. It's late and I've said enough. God bless you. May we all grow in the Father's grace and may His Holy Spirit guide us to the truth.
Trust me, I understand your view and the hope you have for Protestantism but there remain 2 major problems with it all. 1) no matter how well meaning adherents to SS may be, the proof of its heretical nature is in its fruits. Now PLEASE don’t misunderstand, I’m not saying anything against the people, we are all imperfect. The issue is that SS has produced a plethora of denominations, many which believe in some form of tradition, or “councils”, etc… yet they end up with contradictory sets of doctrines. Many, in fact end up in more heresy. 2 )Speaking as a Jew, one who is well acquainted with the ancient “trifecta”, as you heard me call it, it is clear to me that the things God promised are most evident in the Catholic Faith. This includes the Papacy, the Magisterium, the Sacraments, the indispensable nature of Sacred tradition, the centrality of the Sacred Texts, the structure of the Kingdom. These, simply do not exist in Protestantism. Why is that, because those groups which separated themselves from the Catholic Church in fact became as Korah in the Torah.
@@TheJewishCatholic Hey. Thanks for the reply. My response is this. Our high priest and rabbi implicitly, but fairly clearly, did not share anything from the deuterocanonical books in his ministry. There may have been a literary allusion to a book, but it was never prefaced with "Thus saith the Lord" or "It is written," which would give any sort of scriptural authority. Further, if Jesus were counting the deuteros (can I just call them deutero for shorthand?), he had the opportunity when referencing OT martyrs. Those books were rejected when Jesus said, "“From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation." His list goes from Genesis 4:8 to 2 Chronicles 24:20 - the order of all martyrs scriptures presented in the Hebrew canon. Early Jewish Christians did not accept the added deutero books as canon. Though the authority of the original 24 is recognized. Check this out from Paul, "Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God." (Romans 3:1,2) Jewish scholars disregard deutero as authoritative. We do agree that the books have value from a literary point of view though. By all means, keep them in, but don't create doctrine from them that puts your immortal soul at risk! They used to be put in their own safe little section of the bible for this very reason! Early church fathers rejected the authority of those books, too. Jerome, Athanasius, Cyril, and Origen to name a few. If my appeal to your Jewish logic and tradition didn't sway you a single bit, we can start discussing where passages in deutero books flat out contradict more authoritative scriptures. Where you would say we rely on scripture too much (which we both agree to be an infallible source), I would challenge you to think about the creation of the bishops councils, filled with fallible men, who decided to vote that all doctrines they came up with would be infallible - because they said so. God bless you!
However well intentioned you are, your beliefs are founded on heresy & are not of God! Not a personal attack, rather the Truth, as unpalatable as it may seem. Sola Scriptura rebutted 2 Peter 1 20-21 the bible can’t interpret itself Sola fide rebutted James 2 20-24 Protestantism heretical Rom 16 17-18 Thus if one uses the language of the Bible, one would say that “a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law . . . not by faith alone . . . for faith apart from works is dead . . . but faith working through love” (Rom. 3:28, Jas. 2:24, 26, Gal. 5:6). No organisation, such as Protestantism can survive without hierarchy & a unifying authoritative interpreter, the fruits being confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects, resulting from personal interpretation, which is not of Jesus who willed unity Jn 17 11-21 No Protestant has ever been able to explain why personal interpretation, if guided by the Holy Spirit has resulted in 000’s sects proving that either the Holy Spirit is wrong or more likely, Protestantism! There are none so blind as those with a darkened intellect which the Holy Spirit obviously isn’t enlightening!
@@geoffjs Geoffjs, hello. I kind of feel like you didn't read the definition of Sola Scriptura. We don't read the bible in our native languages in a locked room and come out with what we think it means. Most serious Protestants who read the bible, will begin in prayer - asking the Holy Spirit to help us to understand what it is we are about to read. We consult texts written in the original language (be that Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek), read things in context of other scriptures, and also read commentaries from scholars and translators. Now, let's take your first example, 2 Peter 1:20-21. I think it is important that we agree, the bible is inspired by God, yes? And it is meant to be read and understood, yes? Prophecies on the other hand, as this verse is talking about, generally consist of hidden things. Things that we couldn't consult the plain text about to understand - unless by the Holy Spirit's help. I hope you can see straight away then that your argument using 2 Peter 1 isn't logical. It's not about understanding the word of God. It's about trying to use it to interpret prophecy. Only the Holy Spirit can guide us in that endeavor. Let me bring up 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (I'm using the ESV if that's okay) instead: All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. If you get the time, refer to Acts 17:11 as well. We are also told to "test all things" in 1 Thessalonians 5:21. And, interestingly in verse 27, the letter to the Thessalonians was to be read to the entire church. The letters that we still have are our New Testament scriptures! As for James 2:20-24. It can be argued that Abraham's LACK of a work - the actual killing of his son was the outcome God ultimately wanted. It wasn't the work, it was the obedience that God wanted. Let's look closely at verse 23, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness” It was Abraham's faith that was counted as righteousness, not the action or inaction. Refer to Romans 4:2-5. Good works are the evidence of a true saving faith - not the means by which one is saved. Yes, let's get into Romans 16:17-18. There are several accretions that have crept their way into Orthodox, and Catholic, churches over the centuries. The early church did not pray to Mary or to dead saints for intercessory prayer. The living prayed for each other. Let's look at an example from Acts 1:12-14. Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day's journey away. And when they had entered, they went up to the upper room, where they were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas the son of James. All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers. Did you catch verse 14? They were all praying together in one accord. Mary was even there. They weren't lining up to have her pray for them. She had no more "pull" than any of them. Jesus taught us to pray to the Father. Twice he taught this. Acts 1 is the last place Mary is even mentioned by name again. Funny, isn't it? And, the only mention of iconography is in the 10 Commandments where we are instructed not to make any graven image. Your church has gone FAR beyond the doctrine the first century Christians were taught.
@@ToeTag1968Tks for your reply, I guess we’ll agree to disagree. If, as I posed in a previous comment, the Holy Spirit was guiding Protestants in understanding the bible, why are there 000’s of sects, all by definition disagreeing with one another which is not the unity that Jesus willed Jn 17 11-21. Why aren’t there three churches, Catholic, Orthodox & Lutheran? Nothing else makes sense, can’t you see the scourge of relativism in our modern society resulting from the many “truths” of Protestantism? However well intended Protestants may be, there is still a huge credibility gap to be closed. Some facts about Catholicism which are biblically supported: - Jesus founded His One True Church Mt 16 18-19 - giving it hierarchy & an authoritative leader - He appointed Peter as His representative on earth - Peter was the first leader/Pope - a verifiable unbroken line of apostolic succession exists from Peter to today - referred to as the pillar & foundation of Truth 1 Tim 3:15 - Jesus instituted 7 sacraments for the transmission of His Grace - Jesus instructed us to be baptised Jn 3:5 & to receive His Real Presence in the Eucharist Jn 6 51-58, saying that both sacraments are essential for salvation - Jesus prayed for unity Jn 17 11-21 - the Catholic Church, as an institution has existed, in spite of sinful men for 2000 yrs, proof of its divine origin. No other institution can make such a claim. Other faiths have lasted longer, however, I’m referring to the institution. - Oral Sacred Tradition existed from the time of Christ & teaching was initially handed down orally - the Church first became known as Catholic or Universal by Ignatius in 107 AD - the CC codified the Bible in 382 AD which complements Sacred Tradition under the unifying authoritative interpretation of the Magisterium providing a stable three legged stool - the CC today still practises & teaches what the Early Church practised as documented by the Early Fathers - she is is the One, True, Catholic & Apostolic Church founded by Jesus Finally, the CC made a major contribution to the development of Western Civilisation as we know with - schools & universities - medicine & hospitals - science & astronomy - law system from Canon Law - economics - double sided accounting - social services - human rights - architecture - arts & music etc which in todays world, is politically incorrect to acknowledge, all covered in an excellent book by Thomas Wood
1) I never leave the Lord out of anything. 2) There is still no audio here....Call it a technical difficulty if you want. I call it divine providence. 3) Your request has been denied.
Because of the 5 sola's, which are errant because they go too far, protestant theology is similarly errant in some areas, incomplete (no confession, eucharist, etc, no apostolic succession) in other areas, and essentially theologically lazy (no need to go to confession, no need for good works, no need for Mary and the saints, etc, you're already saved so don't be concerned) Your spin about relativism is a good one also. That's because there is no human authority in Protestantism......you be you!
Gave you a copy of audio on buzzsprout account. Don’t want to argue but you are misrepresenting Catholicism, Judaism, early Christianity and Messianic quackery at the end being unaccountable is the problem. Show your sources other than propaganda and let’s see who has the truth (devar HaShem) by his side
Lol. Sheep mentality. Literally not what he said and he wouldn’t even have the power to do so. Get informed before making claims that only make you seem utterly uneducated.
Horrible biblical exegesis… you appeal too much to false authority. Ask more questions about Catholicism… saying “spiritual relativism” over and over doesn’t make Catholicism true.
@@TheJewishCatholic so you’re saying the Holy Spirit is not sufficient? I need to rely on some fancy bishop or priest to tell me what the Word of God is? Interesting. “Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth.” John 17:17 “Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” 2 Peter 1:20-21 NIV
@@seannews Jesus founded His One True Church Mt 16 18-19 that became known as Catholic or Universal in 110 which codified your bible in 382. His Church is the fullness of Truth 1 Tim 3:15 & has existed for 2000 yrs, in spite of sinful men, proof of its divine origin No organisation, such as Protestantism can survive without hierarchy & a unifying authoritative interpreter, the fruits being confusion, division & scandal of 000’s of sects, resulting from personal interpretation, which is not of Jesus who willed unity Jn 17 11-21 No Protestant has ever been able to explain why personal interpretation, if guided by the Holy Spirit has resulted in 000’s sects proving that either the Holy Spirit is wrong or more likely, Protestantism! There are none so blind as those with a darkened intellect which the Holy Spirit obviously isn’t enlightening! Consider the damage caused to society by relativism, caused by there being many “truths” of Protestantism which have resulted in contraception, which until 1930, all denominations prohibited until the Anglican broke away in 1930, abortion, IVF, divorce, SSM, LGBGT, transgenderism etc. Protestantism has a lot to answer for!
Having a centralized interpretation of the scriptures ... is not really a defense against twisting of the scriptures. In fact, in such a case ... when a centralized authority twists the scriptures, ... many more are apt to drawn along into the error. Consider Jesus' words to the teachers of the Law and Pharisees of His own day ... Mark 7 5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands? 6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. 7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. 8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. 9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. ... 13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do you. Although these were God authorized teachers of His Law, they had twisted the scriptures to suit themselves, and had dragged all of Israel down with them. Protestants determine to find their ultimate source of leadership in other than fallible men, ... but rather, only in Christ ... through those the writings of those who had association with Him in His day. Does this fully avoid the issue of the twisting of scripture ? No, but, ultimately, FEWER persons will be affected, ...and when God reveals that scripture has been twisted and that the manifestation of such twisting becomes evident, ... He provides a sure solution ... 2 Timothy 3 1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: FROM SUCH TURN AWAY. Protestants have done this, and are so, able to continue to refine and protect their belief and practice from outside worldly influence. Protestans harkening back to the roots of their belief in Christ alone as their leader ... led not only to their Reformation, ... but the the Catholic Counter-Reformation. Jesus, Himself, affirmed that He, and only He, should be recognized as the One and only ultimate authority in the Church, ... as only He is perfectly suited to lead it ... Matthew 23 8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. 9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. 10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. As for Christ's followers today, Christ provides the Holy Spirit to lead and guide the true message of the scriptures ... 1 John 2 27 But you have received the Holy Spirit, and he lives within you, so you don’t need anyone to teach you what is true. For the Spirit teaches you everything you need to know, and what he teaches is true-it is not a lie. So just as he has taught you, remain in fellowship with Christ. As we faithfully submit ourselves and our wills to God and His guidance (through the Spirit), ... He shall faithfully lead us through His words ...
Two main issues: 1, the comparison is a non-starter. The rabbis didn’t have the guarantee that Christ gave the Church. 2, your solution is not only spiritual relativism but it also undermines the very words of Scripture that command us to cling to the Church; THAT is Christ’s way. Denying that, is simply thinking we have a better solution just because we claim “I want to follow Jesus alone”…. Yet not the way He wants us to.
@@TheJewishCatholic Point 1: Christ's promise is given to the WHOLE of the Church, ... not to any particular part of the Church. To illustrate, Paul confronted Peter in Antioch ... because Peter, even by his example, was misleading the Church ... Galatians 2 11 But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 12 For before that some came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them who were of the circumcision. 13 And to his dissimulation the rest of the Jews consented, so that Barnabas also was led by them into that dissimulation. So, then, Christ will ensure that truth perseveres in the Church, but not in any portion of the church in particular. When areas of the Church depart from His teachings (example, Peter), He will send correction from another part of the Church (example, Paul). As that correction is received (or not) ... the portion of the Church which is being addressed perseveres in accurately representing the guidance of God (or not). Point 2: There is no scripture which commands "Cling to the Church", though there many biblical references for the admonition to "Cling to God" ... Deuteronomy 10:20 You shall fear the Lord your God; you shall serve Him and cling to Him, and you shall swear by His name. Deuteronomy 13:4 You shall follow the Lord your God and fear Him; and you shall keep His commandments, listen to His voice, serve Him, and cling to Him. Joshua 23:8 But you are to cling to the Lord your God, as you have done to this day. Deuteronomy 11:22 For if you are careful to keep all this commandment which I am commanding you to do, to love the Lord your God, to walk in all His ways and hold fast to Him, 2 Kings 18:6 For he clung to the Lord; he did not depart from following Him, but kept His commandments, which the Lord had commanded Moses. Psalm 63:8 My soul clings to You; Your right hand upholds me. Jeremiah 13:11 For as the waistband clings to the waist of a man, so I made the whole household of Israel and the whole household of Judah cling to Me,’ declares the Lord, ‘that they might be for Me a people, for renown, for praise and for glory; but they did not listen.’ ... and no follower of Christ ever serves Him by themselves. There are always other Christian brothers and sisters whom Christ sets in their midst ...
@@TheAegis1000 The WHOLE Church is supposed to be Catholic (Katholikos = Universal). It's not supposed to have PARTS that come up with different answers.
@@julieelizabeth4856 That the WHOLE Church is supposed to be Catholic ... is just a Catholic claim ... which must be proven. As to the name Catholic, ... it is a clever wordplay ...
