Reasons to Doubt Sola Scriptura (w/ Jimmy Akin) 

Hidden, right? Which is super scary!

Yes!!! And that's what I never understood as a Protestant!!

@joejohnston3 Absolutely. Every denomination that follows sola scriptura seem to claim biblical authority yet many many doctrines found in scripture are NOT found in protestant churches. Confession, true presence, warnings about taking the eucharist unworthily, no remarriage after divorce, celibacy, saints offering up the prayers of the living in heaven, Mary as the queen mother of heaven, the restoration of the davidic kingdom, binding and loosing, forgiveness and absolution or retention of sin, bringing disputes to the church to settle, and many prots do t believe baptism saves even though scripture says that it does. Prots like to think they're the biblical ones but as you can see they ignore the parts of the Bible they don't agree with. How is scripture the authority when you can interpret it as you see fit and ignore parts of it? Its actually pretty pathetic.

Ss is inadvertently disingenuous.

Which is its said that Protestantism always reduces to worship of the self.

Me too!

@Robert Stephenson Amen brother! 👍

2 John 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

@@eddyrobichaud5832 Amen!

@robertstephenson6806 Well, only a few Apostles wrote anything down. Presumably, the other ones that didn't also taught their churches infallibly.

This is exactly what we intended. Thanks so much for saying so, and for listening.

Shake your head? Please explain.

I’m not familiar with that program but John Smyth is credited with founding the Baptist faith in 1609 in Amsterdam. He was formerly an Anglican.

Was this Baptist successionism in practice?

Amen! Great point!

the guy confused Church and Christendom, and was fully assured of being a Christian because he was German - he reasoned like a pagan and detested the Church because it did not coincide with the Christian society, with all those devout souls

What difference does it make what he believed, when he was a monk, any more than what you believed before or after you became whatever you claim to be? What is the your definition of Reformational Thesis? In regard to Sola Scriptura, it is a creation of man, as it has no Historical basis. It does have an implied Scriptural basis however, even if it didn't, it wouldn't matter. Sola Scriptura is a Methodology, akin to the Scientific Method; a means for establishing through Evidence that something is either Fallacious (False) or Truth (Factual). It simply acknowledges that the Word of GOD is Inerrant Truth, as GOD himself stated, as well as implied in Scripture. The Scientific Method is Sacrosanct in the Sciences and has been for over 600 years, since developed by Descartes. I wouldn't be surprised if Decartes (died - 3/31/1596) got that Inspiration and Idea from Luther (died - 11/10/1483) Read Descartes "Discourse on Method", in which he proposes a Proof for God' Existence. I know of no one who has Publicly Rejected the Scientific Method in it's long history so, why would Catholics Reject the very same methodology in a Religious context or do you silently reject the Scientific Method?

I don’t understand your question. Are you saying that because Martin Luther was once a monk, and then he stopped being a monk, that everything he did, and believed after being a monk was invalid?

@@Joe-rd8mq Of course not. The point is that he rebelled against church authority. Where even in Scripture is that allowed or sanctioned? On the contrary. I do see a plethora of passages exhorting us to submit to authority. Unless you think it's fine if our own individual interpretation differs from the Church's?

The problem is, Protestants (depending on which one you talk to), define "biblical" in different ways. The more hardcore of them say a belief must be explicitly taught in the Bible, for example, this then results in Protestants who reject Sunday worship because it isn't explicitly in the Bible. Others will say, a teaching must have two verses in the Bible to form official doctrine. Why two and not three or four? I don't know, I can never get a straight answer. Others will say, a doctrine can be implicitly taught in the Bible and they will accept one verse as sufficient. Ok, ask that person to show a verse in the Bible where it says belief in the Trinity is necessary even implicitly. Crickets.

What exactly in 2 Timothy are you referring. 2 Timothy ?

That’s a great question.

That’s because Jesus said heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will endure forever! Oh wait wait, wait wait, I said that wrong . On earth will pass away, but Catholic teachings and traditions will remain forever. 😂

The Catechism of St Pius X - usually connected with radical traditionalism, but it has nothing of particularly RadTrad - is a very synthetic compendium that explains it even better: *On Tradition.* 34 Q. What is meant by Tradition? A. _Tradition is the non-written word of God, which has been transmitted by word of mouth by Jesus Christ and by the apostles, and which has come down to us through the centuries by the means of the Church, without being altered._ 35 Q. Where are the teachings of Tradition kept? A. _The teachings of Tradition are kept chiefly in the Councils' decrees, the writings of the Holy Fathers, the Acts of the Holy See and the words and practices of the sacred Liturgy._

@@masterchief8179 Well stated. However, I think the answer "the writings of the Ante-Nicene fathers" is better answer to "where Tradition is found" for engaging Protestants, even though incomplete. Those writings are written, obviously, and much earlier than the other sources apparently, making them much more plausibly of apostolic origin. The first council (Nicaea) didn't happen until 325 when Constantine ruled. When was the earliest infallible papal act/decree and what was its subject matter? While the words and practices of the Liturgy might be helpful with regard to the Eucharist or Mary/saints, even the oldest liturgy preserved in writings (St James?) doesn't seem to pre-date 325.

@@tonyl3762 I got your points now. You were specifically talking about the best way to engage Protestants apologetically. I simply tried to give the shortest (correct) definition for it. But I agree with you.

Trent Horn has often made the point that the Greek word from which we get the English word tradition simply means 'that which is handed down' and by definition this includes the written word or scripture

@@BrianGondo Do you think that's a more persuasive/impactful fact for the Protestant in comparison to the fact that Catholic traditions were written down by successors of the apostles in the 1st and 2nd century??

This is certainly a good point.

It is infallible for _teaching_ not reading. In this case the translation is moot as the teacher could take this in account. There is a tougher one than translation and that is culture.

You have to be kidding! The Scripture is Infallible for teaching and isn't responsible for others distortion through deceit. If it isn't infallible for teaching then it good for nothing so why read it?

Nothing wrong with that.

You would also have to understand cultures of different places and times. It isn't enough to understand the words written you also need to understand the people they were being addressed to. Some people believe Jesus drank grape juice at the last supper but give no method of having grape juice available out of season in the 1st century.

@@dave_ecclectic If you are responding to me, you are preaching to the choir brother.

@@soteriology400 No, I was just adding to.

Since the original Hebrew of the Old Testament lacked vowels, there were several possible readings (i.e. interpretations) for almost any sequence of consonantal characters. The correct readings of those characters were not, obviously, given in Scripture itself, but were passed on orally from teacher to student until such time as additions were made to written Hebrew that allowed the proper reading to be made clear. It was the TRADITION of the Hebrew rabbis and scribes that determined the meaning to be attributed to Holy Writ, and that tradition remains embedded in the Old Testament we possess today.

I totally agree! I was raised militant Irish catholic and we never took any nonsense from protestants

Thank you, I am getting the same. Please pray for them!

Pay the man. What you said is true. Protestants get these tired old lies from their holy man. No one comes up with anything new.

Only the traditions they agree with, and they are their own authority.

@CatholicDefender-bp7my Protestantism did not end the Magisterium and Tradition. It merely multiplied and deconcentrated them, giving rise to a considerable number of second-rate traditions and teachings, as it divided the Church into multiple copies of lesser quality...

I’d hoped so! Glad you enjoyed it.

​@@weaponofchoice-tc7qsSpot on!

@stevedoetsch …you nailed it!!

The oral and written traditions Paul was referring to were the oral and written traditions amongst the Jews at the time. He was not referring to the oral and written traditions in the RCC we see today.

@@soteriology400 to be fair in 2 Thess 2:15, the oral and written traditions Paul was referring to were not those from the Jews. They were those from the Apostles. But yes you are right. You will not find all the RCC dogmas in the traditions Paul was speaking of.

@@theosophicalwanderings7696 The apostles and Paul were Jews. The apostles (other than Paul) shared the news with other Jews (exception, Peter with the Cornelius household in Acts 10, this was the official transition of the gospel going from the Jews to the Gentiles, then Paul, apostle to the Gentiles, came on the scene.). The oral traditions amongst the Jews, had rabbis repeating over and over the scriptures with the disciples. The other oral tradition, Jesus spoke, the apostles shared what He said with the Jews. Then Paul came on the scene to share with the Gentiles. This could be the only oral tradition he was referring too, repeating the things Christ said, down to the Gentiles. During this time, the Jews were a light unto the Gentiles, fulfilling Isaiah. As far as written tradition, it were Jews only (Romans 3:2). All of the epistles were written by those whom God considered to be Jews. This includes Luke, who was a Gentile, but was a Judaizer or Hellenistic Jew and knew the scriptures quite well (was considered a kinsmen, Romans 16:21). The written tradition was never handed to the Gentiles, this is why the closed canon is the way it is. Interesting though, Acts 17:10-12, was a tradition that was handed to the Greeks (Gentiles) but the RCC rejects it.

@@theosophicalwanderings7696 hello friend, your initial comment is very detailed, thanks ! Who approved the selection of writings that make up "scripture" or as we would call it, "the Bible" ?? You do understand that the scriptures did not somehow self-choose and assemble, yes ? If so then as Jimmy stated you must concede that the church was infalliby guided. As Jimmy Akin stated in the video, there were communities of Christians who were infallibly guided by God and the Holy Spirit to choose which writings went into the Bible. That was the church and it is still here today. Sorry, but there were no Protestant Christians running around in ancient Rome writing about sola scriptura !! As many here have already stated there is no evidence that sola scriptura existed anywhere in western or eastern Christendom before the 1500s. On the contrary it is complete innovation that came out of the reformation in western Europe fifteen hundred years after the apostles of Jesus lived !

@@theosophicalwanderings7696 Absolutely wrong ! The apostles are always appealing to the Old Testament to prove Christ was the savior. Philip and the Ethiopian.. Paul from scripture which is the Old Testament. Jesus calls the Old Testament, the word of God. Minus those seven books. Lol😂 And even in the book of Job Job says, I know my Redeemer lives, and will walk the Earth … That’s the tradition

Yes! I’ve had Brad on the show before. He was fantastic!

@@TheCordialCatholic hello yes I viewed prof. Gregory’s interview on your show. It was fantastic thank you for sharing that. I don’t recall if I had come across reference to his books beforehand. But after seeing that interview it helped me to understand his book about the reformation and Luther much better. I basically shared the interview with everyone I know. Thank you again for doing this ! PS I also very much enjoyed the interview with Brett Salkeld, about transubstantiation. (I think I spelled that right.) Got his book too ! Thank you again for taking on these extremely interesting topics of the faith and helping people like me understand these things better.

Yes, as they should. Blasphemous Heretical doctrines of demons

Communion How do you labor for the food that endures to eternal life? Believe in me! (John 6:27, 29) “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me [in faith] shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.” (John 6:35) “For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” (John 6:40) “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.” (John 6:47) When the crowd took offense at his gruesome talk, Jesus exposed their unbelief: “The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe” (John 6:63-64). don't stop on v53, John 6:60-61,63 KJV Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? [61] When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? [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. -> you see, Jesus clarified on v63 that the WORDS HE SPAKE ARE SPIRIT, not LITERAL. -John 6:35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.--unquote Obviously you have NO understanding of that verse!!!! READ IT AGAIN!!! "he who comes to Me will not hunger"- his body "he who believes in Me will never thirst.-"--His blood!!! Whomever FOLLOWS Jesus will NOT hunger--due to His words!!! Whomever BELIEVES in Jesus will NOT THIRST--due to His words!!! >>>>ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-cmVWzhM8Bbk.html The Atonement: The Strongest Refutation of Rome's Eucharistic Errors >>>>>>> Early church leaders knew nothing of transubstantiation. The eucharist hardly makes any exegetical since to start with. Tradition cannot be the will of God if it goes against the word of God. Jesus uses parallelism in this discourse to equate believing with eating his flesh. Note the parallel between verse 40 and verse 54: (Jn. 6:40) “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.” (Jn. 6:54) “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” .>>According to this parallel, beholding and believing (v.40) are equated with eating and drinking Christ’s flesh (v.54). This is further paralleled by verse 35: >>(Jn. 6:35) I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst. >>(Jn. 6:54) “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” >>>To “hunger” and “thirst” and parallel to the one who “eats” and “drinks.” But note what Jesus says satisfies our hunger: “He who comes to Me… he who believes in Me.” Jesus isn’t speaking about his literal flesh and blood any more than he is speaking about literal bread (Jn. 6:35) or literal water (Jn. 4:10-14). Indeed, Jesus uses the term sarx for his “body,” rather than the common term sōma (which was the common term used in the Lord’s Supper). Indeed, the “term ‘flesh’ is never used in the NT to refer to the Lord’s Supper.”[4] Hence, this seems “to caution against a sacramental or eucharistic understand of these verses.”[5] This is why Augustine of Hippo wrote regarding this passage: “Believe, and you have eaten.” >>Jesus works in metaphor’s, analogy and hyperbole. In Mark 8 Jesus uses bread language again anhesd calls out those confused thinking he’s being literal not realizing the spiritual message. >>The catholic reasoning system will have little influence on the born again believer who’s truly born of the spirit. Those like my self who exegete and derive revelation from the spirit see the heretical lie of transubstantiation. >>>Irenaeus of Lyons (AD 180) stated that the elements do not lose the nature of bread and wine (Against Heresies, 4.18.4-5; 5.2.2). >>>Tertullian (AD 200) said Jesus’ statement was figurative (Against Marcion, 3.19). >>>Clement of Alexandria (AD 200) called the bread and wine symbols of Jesus’ body (The Instructor, I.6). >>>Origen (AD 250) held his typical allegorical and spiritual view when referring to the elements in the Last Supper. >>>>Eusebius of Caesarea (AD 340) called the elements the body and blood of Christ, but also referred to them as symbolic of spiritual realities (On the Theology of the Church, 3.2.12). >>>Augustine (AD 350) believed that John 6:53 should be understood spiritually and symbolically-not literalistically (On Christian Doctrine 3.16.2). Gelasius I (5th century pope): “The sacrament which we receive of the body and blood of Christ is a divine thing. Wherefore also by means of it we are made partakers of the divine nature. Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease to be… Thus, as the elements pass into this, that is, the divine substance by the Holy Ghost, and none the less remain in their own proper nature.”

Where?

It amazes me some of these people with such intellect. We run in circles and do mental, jumping jacks to try to justify what they believe. Why can’t Faith just be simple? Jesus died on the cross to save us from sins. We have the Holy Spirit we can have discernment and wisdom, and knowledge granted to us directly from God. We don’t need anyone else to interject on our behalf except Christ.

⁠@@Joe-rd8mqthat mode of thinking got us 40,000 denominations that can’t agree. Where does the Bible tell us which books are scripture? Christ clearly established his church.

​@@Joe-rd8mqTell that to the Apostles.

I disagree. In order to believe in SS, what you have to do is assume what you're trying to prove. This is the Protestant way, an inheritance from Luther himself who admits straight up that it was his doubts about his security that drove him to find doctrines in the Scriptures that seemed to him to provide it. His descendants do precisely the same thing with every one of their doctrines. Scripture must conform to their preconceived 'druthers or else Scripture is wrong and must be interpreted into conformity. They assume what they claim to prove.

If Mary is the mother of God, and God the Father is truly his father (as Jesus claims too many times in Scripture to count) then there must be some real sense in which it's correct to say that the Father chose Mary to be his wife; his human spouse. There's simply no way around it, unless one takes the position that Mary was not really the Lord's mother, but was just a storage container or gift box to contain him in temporarily--and the problem with *that* position is that Jesus seems to have grown and gestated within her womb just like any other baby, which is the sign of natural motherhood. The astonishing thing is the enthusiasm Protestants seem to feel for denigrating and insulting Jesus' mother--God's wife--as if they think Jesus and the Father themselves harbor similar negative opinions of her. "Ah, she's just a dirt bag like any other dirtbag," they seem to think God believes, and that they'll be praised and rewarded in heaven for insisting so. The true reason, of course, for Protestants' attitude toward the mother of God is that they don't worship the Jesus that actually exists, but an idol they've created in their imaginations. He's like a cartoon character, drawn in the bold outline and primary colors of a coloring book-- the natural consequence of Protestants' worshiping of a book instead of God. They worship that drawing, that limited and distorted picture of the man they glean from their own false opinions about the book, and not the man (i.e. the godman) himself, who reveals himself through his one, Catholic Church.

Christ died for Marys sins too

@@jimnewl quote---The astonishing thing is the enthusiasm Protestants seem to feel for denigrating and insulting Jesus' mother--God's wife--as if they think Jesus and the Father themselves harbor similar negative opinions of her. ". unquote THAT is a problem!!! Your comment then makes BOTH GOD and Mary adulterers!! ---quote---who reveals himself through his one, Catholic Church.. unquote The problem with that worthless opinion??? There is NOT one mentions of any church named "one, Catholic Church" anywhere in the Biblke!!!!! --matter of fact, the fisrt time Catholic is ever written, is by Ignatius of Antioch in 110AD!!!!!

Read a History of the Cannon and it will no longer be problematic.

You clearly haven't read a History of the Cannon. I suggest you do that for your own support.

I don't understand that. Please explain?

@@jakehccc1 if it were not for the holy roman catholic church which rose to power after the conversion of constantine... we may not have the new testament canon as we know it today! we may have over a hundred gospels, apocalyptic and gnosis writings ! the roman catholic church established orthodoxy , either compiled, redacted or wrote or rewrote text based on later declared heretic marcion of sinope's collection of 11 letters of paul & one gospel ( and they added some more ) and either burned or destroyed what they deemed heretical.. and we only found and know of them again in the last 200 yrs.. and please do not forget that christianity started and flourish for almost 400 yrs without the new testament canon

thats a lie

@@billbrasky12 who do you think compiled, edited, redacted and imposed the new testament canon and also confiscated, burned & destroyed the hundreds of other gospels, acts and apocalyptic and gnostic writings ( every group or sect has their own sacred writings) the church deemed heretical? we are just lucky now that most of them are found again so that we could have a chance to read it and know how diverse early christianity really was

@ranilodicen4460 Because they weren't the CATHOLIC CHURCH..The demonic entity filled with blasphemous and heretical teachings was NOT around when the Bible was being compiled. The CC is a demonic institution filled with corruption and persecution of the saints. It values man's word over God's word..and they admit it. History aline shows the raoes, corruption, worldliness for power, politics of mankind and worldly riches and gain.. Wake up..I did by the grace of God.

Nice quotation!

The cannon of scripture is a tradition.

You might be correct if this book fell out of the sky. But it didn't, it came with a Church and those who were taught if not by Jesus, then those that they taught, the bishops that the Apostles taught. Or the Bishops the Bishops taught. St. Paul comes to mind with his many letters to the different churches who were one. Some of which came up with incorrect teachings and were corrected in their own interpretation they had decided on.

@@dave_ecclectic Thoughts on Romans 3:2?

@@soteriology400 It doesn't' mean anything. _Much in every way. First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God._ You have taken too little a slice of Scripture. Thats probably why that guy Roman wrote another 29 sentences and one before. Mark 1:33 What would you say are the signs or requirements of a cult?

@@dave_ecclectic "It doesn't mean anything". The bible we have today were written by Jews, not Gentiles. Vision and prophecy has already been sealed up (revelation 10:4) since the house of Israel will never be back again and no need for anymore prophecy. It was a pretty big deal at the time the writings were made. To answer your question, signs of a cult. When people elevate someone to the same status as Jesus. When people don't do their own homework to study the scriptures and just go by what they been told due to "authority". When a person thinks their church teachings are 100% correct on everything, denying fallibility of the fallen nature. When one thinks their church is the one true church and everyone else is a false church. Those are traits of a cult.

​@@soteriology400 Luke was a Gentile. Luke Col 4:10-14 (not of the circumcised) I have no idea why you bring this up or how it is in connection with a single sentence. Your definition of a cult is your own, you won't find it anywhere. I mean you can't simply invent your own meaning of a word. As an example of how off the mark you are. _ everyone else is a false church_ This is not a requirement of a cult. This is a very short list and not anywhere complete, but all of them are false. Circumcisers, Gnosticism, Montanism, Sabellianism, Arianism, Pelagianism

Not very big on Jesus, are you? Jesus demands that you obey him, and obeying him requires that you understand what he's demanding--unless you want to take the position that he doesn't care how you interpret him, which does seem to be your (rather peculiar and impossible) argument. Understanding what the law intends requires an authority to determine what the words of the law mean. Otherwise, they mean both anything and nothing; otherwise, anyone could go before the judge and say, "Sorry, your honor, I thought your homicide law meant that I was to kill as many innocent people as possible," or that "it commanded me to eat licorice," or any other thing under the sun. So there must be an ultimate authority providing the true meaning of the words, which is precisely why Jesus left us one. He left us one and protected it by divine decree--the guardianship and guidance of the Holy Spirit--against error. He left us his holy Catholic Church and her magisterium.

@@jimnewl Magisterium came in the 1800’s (during the era of cults). Hebrews 11:6, John 1:1 refutes such a concept .

@@CatholicDefender-bp7myYou haven’t even thought through what I wrote.

“On this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.” Jesus Christ

@@johng7681 The catholic church is clearly not His church.

@@francissweeney7318and yet, here we still remain, as the Protestant smorgasbord continues to proliferate as one decides they must move across the street because their current church no longer preaches what they want to hear!!

a fact, because you say so?

@@fantasia55 no, because doctor of the faith and Saint John Chrysostom said so: It were indeed meet for us not at all to require the aid of the written Word, but to exhibit a life so pure, that the grace of the Spirit should be instead of books to our souls, and that as these are inscribed with ink, even so should our hearts be with the Spirit. But, since we have utterly put away from us this grace, come, let us at any rate embrace the second best course. For that the former was better, God has made manifest, both by His words, and by His doings. Since unto Noah, and unto Abraham, and unto his offspring, and unto Job, and unto Moses too, He discoursed not by writings, but Himself by Himself, finding their mind pure. But after the whole people of the Hebrews had fallen into the very pit of wickedness, then and thereafter was a written word, and tables, and the admonition which is given by these. And this one may perceive was the case, not of the saints in the Old Testament only, but also of those in the New. For neither to the apostles did God give anything in writing, but instead of written words He promised that He would give them the grace of the Spirit: for "He," says our Lord, "shall bring all things to your remembrance." John 14:26 And that you may learn that this was far better, hear what He says by the Prophet: "I will make a new covenant with you, putting my laws into their mind, and in their heart I will write them," and, "they shall be all taught of God." And Paul too, pointing out the same superiority, said, that they had received a law "not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart." But since in process of time they made shipwreck, some with regard to doctrines, others as to life and manners, there was again need that they should be put in remembrance by the written word.

@weaponofchoice-tc7qs I didn't make that up: John Chrysostom did: It were indeed meet for us not at all to require the aid of the written Word, but to exhibit a life so pure, that the grace of the Spirit should be instead of books to our souls, and that as these are inscribed with ink, even so should our hearts be with the Spirit. But, since we have utterly put away from us this grace, come, let us at any rate embrace the second best course. For that the former was better, God has made manifest, both by His words, and by His doings. Since unto Noah, and unto Abraham, and unto his offspring, and unto Job, and unto Moses too, He discoursed not by writings, but Himself by Himself, finding their mind pure. But after the whole people of the Hebrews had fallen into the very pit of wickedness, then and thereafter was a written word, and tables, and the admonition which is given by these. And this one may perceive was the case, not of the saints in the Old Testament only, but also of those in the New. For neither to the apostles did God give anything in writing, but instead of written words He promised that He would give them the grace of the Spirit: for "He," says our Lord, "shall bring all things to your remembrance." John 14:26 And that you may learn that this was far better, hear what He says by the Prophet: "I will make a new covenant with you, putting my laws into their mind, and in their heart I will write them," and, "they shall be all taught of God." And Paul too, pointing out the same superiority, said, that they had received a law "not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart." But since in process of time they made shipwreck, some with regard to doctrines, others as to life and manners, there was again need that they should be put in remembrance by the written word.

Does say ONLY Scripture which is kind of the point.

@@TheCordialCatholic I'm not following you

i would really like to continue this conversation what do you mean by what you said?@@TheCordialCatholic

@@rogaldorn2885 It doesn't say, "all scripture is the ONLY THING that is God-breathed...".

@@geogabegalan no but it does say every good work so if everything I need is in the bible why do I need to look at other things when the bible says it's all I need. Other Epistle say it's all I need and the very next chapter of 2 Timothy Paul writes to him preach the WORD and not to delve into myth that ruins the hearer

Hello friend, when St. Jerome translated the Vulgate--which became the standard Latin translation of the Bible used by the Catholic Church until the 1900s--he relied on the Septuagint and some Hebrew and Aramaic texts for the OT, and Greek and Latin manuscripts for the NT. The eariest complete Hebrew masoretic text of the OT and Pslams is contained in something called the Leningrad Codex which dates to about 1000 AD. Therefore St. Jerome could not have relied on Hebrew masoretic texts of the OT when writing the Vulgate because they did not exist ! In contrast the Catholic Church has always emphasized the Vulgate and the Greek Septuagint as the key texts of the OT and NT. For example see the history of the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus, which are most likely the oldest manuscripts in existence containing the Septuagint. These pre-date the Codex Leningrad by about 700 years !

They are in the Bible, right next to the word Trinity.

hello friend good point. And I suppose the many different teachings of the 30,000 Protestant denominations in America are in the Bible, correct 😂😂

@@HoMegasTaxiarches no.

Sola Scriptura is not taught in the Bible as well.

@@gch8810 what is Sola Scriptura?

Thanks for watching the first 10 minutes at least. 🤪

@@TheCordialCatholic 😆 you're welcome? The Catholic Apologetics world need to take some time dialoguing with good protestant thinkers about sola scriptura in an attempt to understand rather than refute. As someone discerning Catholicism, I want to hear the Catholic response to sola scriptura (it's not something I'm sure I believe), but they don't accurately represent sola scriptua and so the responses don't carry much weight.

​@@pigetstuckWhere are you at now, friend?

@@lyterman9195 I don't understand your question.

@@pigetstuck You said you were discerning Catholicism and trying to find good resources on Sola Scriptura. Where are you at with that?

@@weaponofchoice-tc7qs The catholic church has nothing to do with Jesus.

@@CatholicDefender-bp7my The two great evils with Catholic Responses; they never ever, directly answer a question and are masters at one line unintelligible, meaningless commentaries with no context only obfuscation and ambiguity.

@@CatholicDefender-bp7my I have no problem with people who disagree with anything I said and I didn't demand an agreement. I appreciate response as both parties to a conversation can have a chance to digest another perspective that we might not have considered, however, I do have a problem with statements that can be taken several different ways and are so obscure, I have no clue if they are in agreement or not. Ex: "No judgment there, huh?" What does that actually mean and how does it relate to anything I said? Actual questions always have question marks ending a question! A question, is a means of communicating that doesn't require a particular answer, because it's a Question and not a declaritive statement.

Where does the Bible reject these things?

the establishment of your popes are NOT supported clearly by scripture. doctrines of mariology are not clearly in the bible at all. i believe these were the result of the roman empire putting pressure on the early 4th-5th century Christian church to adopt the pagan mother-son god relationship began in ancient sumer, and expanded to many provinces in the roman empire. Christianity taught obedience to authority, and the more converts thereof, would mean less rebellion to rome's authority. Christ's death on the cross as a total means of salvation is rejected by roman catholicism, as only a partial means of salvation, and that church "tradition" (roman catholic tradition is NOT the same as early church traditions) and the magisterium (which is NOT supported by scripture). the mass is a wicked ceremony, which rejects Christ's death on the cross as the sole means of salvation. your roman catholic priesthood was NOT fully established until the 12 century. purgatory is weakly supported by several referances in the n.t. and 2nd macabees which is correctly defined as apocrypha by luther, because there were no prophets at that time (prophets were the authors of the o.t., and the actors in that work, the jews reject the work itself. prayers to the dead are also based on 2nd macabees.@@TheCordialCatholic

Where does the Roman Catholic Church deny Christ as the sole means of salvation?

Sorry, but in Matt 16:16 Christ states that the Church would be built on Peter. "Blessed on you Simon son of Jonah...For I say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church. And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bond in heaven and whatever you lose on earth shall be loosed in heaven". Jesus didn't tell all the apostles that they were all to receive the keys of heaven, only Peter. It's evident that Peter had a special position in the eyes of Christ. In John 21:14 Jesus asks Peter if he loves him and in reply to Peter stating yes Jesus states "Feed my Sheep".Peter clearly had a predominant role to play and Peter was the founder of the Roman Church and the first Pope. You can disagree with that premise, but to teach that Peter is not the Rock on which Christ built his church is unbiblical and ahistorical.

@@jeffreyworthington2772 what does Ephesians 2:19-22 say? What does 1 Peter 2:4-9 say? Two different passages, one Paul, the other PETER BOTH CLARIFY that ALL CHRISTIANS ARE ROCKS OF THE CHURCH!!!! So the individual occasion in Matt 16 is relevant to all Christians, it's a generalized statement. So my position has clear scriptural evidence, your fake church took centuries to invent. Catholicism is no better off than the protestants, you are all man made religions who overrule the apostolic authority.