Sola Scriptura: why I believe it and how it works 

When he speaks about Catholicism he is almost always wrong. Not so much grace there.

​@@bridgefingive an example of something he is wrong about on catholicism, reference a video so I can look into it

@@eleazarfernandez9369You’re going to be waiting a loooong time. They love to make claims but never cite evidence.

@@bridgefin An example being?

@@ladosdominik1506 At 7:20 he says that he knows of no other authority that is equal to Scripture. He fails to mention that Jesus, who is not scripture, but who is God also had authority. So he is not explaining SS with grace but with his own errors. Around 35 30 he tries to build a canon without the church. He falsely says that ALL of Paul's writings were Scripture. We know that not all of his letters are included. When I made my point about Mike and Catholicism I was refuting the poster's claim that Mike was always right. He always gets Catholicism wrong and I gave some links to show how,. He has a series of talks where he attacks Catholic doctrine and where is ignorance is front and center....not so much here.

I am in the rabbit hole. Where did you land if I may ask?

My opinion: The Catholic arguments I’ve heard miss the point of what the Protestants are talking about and undermine their own position. I see a lot of posturing to come off superior instead of making clear arguments, too. I’m definitely biased to favor sola scriptura, but a lot of issues seem to boil down too man centered thinking vs God centered thinking, whether or not those arguing realize it.

@@trialbyicecream yup, that rabbit hole is very deep with many chambers. The most asked question is, where in the Bible does it say the Bible alone? Would love a concrete response to this. Any suggestions?

@@Notevenone I think if we look at the record of Jesus’s ministry we can see his heart on this matter. He repeatedly references scripture as the ultimate authority. “Have you not read…” is how he starts a lot of his teaching. Then he’ll pull the “you’ve heard it said,” then pull a “…but I tell you…” etc.

@@trialbyicecream this is true but those that oppose sola scriptura will disagree with this completely. He does have a way with words doesn’t He?

But sola scriptura is contradicted by 2 Thessalonians 2:15.

@CALEB ALVAREZ what about other non canon books like enoch and stuff

@CALEB ALVAREZ but they kinda make sense tho

How do you know which books belong in the bible relying on sola scriptura since the bible contains no list of the books which should be in it?

@@veritasmuy2407 No. There is nothing to indicate that once the canon was finished it was to have sole authority in the church. Because there is no listing of which books belong in the Bible and which do not, sola scriptura is an impossibility. If there is an authority outside scripture which tells us which books belong inside scripture and which do not, scripture is not the only infallible authority for Christians. You can no longer have sola. But if the authority which assembled the cannon is not infallible, you can no longer be sure that the books in it are inspired or that excluded books are not. You then no longer have scriptura. By the time the canon of scripture was assembled by the church, you have already had the three-fold ministry of bishop, priest and deacon for centuries. The liturgy had already taken shape. Indeed, if the liturgy bearing St. Basil's name was written or used by him, that liturgy predates the canon. The church which gave the world the New Testament canon was nothing like any church which teaches sola scriptura today.

Cornac, glad to see your amiable comment. Most Catholics cannot contain their animus towards the Reformation.

Debunking catholicism I'm more blessed than mary Proof = Luke 11:27-28 27 And it happened, as He spoke these things, that a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed You!” 28 But He said, “More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!” In Luke 11:27 that random woman LITERALLY said Jesus your mother is Blessed, but are Lord Jesus LITERALLY said Believers are more Blessed than mary. Amen and Amen _________________________ CHRIST alone John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. Hebrew 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. Acts 4:12 Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus _________________________ Work of God = John 6:28 Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” 29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.” _________________________ 1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach Paul allows bishops to get marry, but catholic church goes against paul. Now these catholic will give a Verses from 1 Corinthians7 to say that paul gave the advice to stay unmarried. But they will not tell you that the same chapter they quote says 1 Corinthians 7:28 "even if you do marry, you have not SINNED". The passage literally says "young women, young men" and a bishop is supposed to be a Church ELDER. Mic drop _________________________ Jesus said Matthew 23:9 9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. And also said Holy Father to Heavenly Father= John 17:11 11 Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are. Jesus said call no one Father but still catholics call *pope holy father. Sad _________________________ Whenever a catholic argue about mary being the mother of God Use this to defeat the argument. Luke 8:21 But He answered and said to them, “My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.” Matthew 12:46-50 46 While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. 47 Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.” 48 But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49 And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”. Mark 3:35 For whoever does the will of God is My brother and My sister and mother.” John 19:26-27 26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” 27 Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home. ( Jesus basically said John is the son of mary, and mary is the mother of John from that time onwards). By the way sarah is the mother of all proof=Galatians 4:21-26. _________________________ We should not pray to apostles Romans 1:25 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Acts 10:25-26 25 As Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. 26 But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I myself am also a man.” Acts 14:15 15 and saying, “Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you, and preach to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them, Revelation 19:10 10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, “See that you do not do that! I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren who have the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” Revelation 22:8-9 8 Now I, John, saw and heard these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel who showed me these things. 9 Then he said to me, “See that you do not do that. For I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren the prophets, and of those who keep the words of this book. Worship God." Colossians 2:18 18 Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, You cannot go to Father through saints nor mary, you can only go to the Father through Lord Jesus Christ= John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. Ephesians 2:18 For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father. Holy Spirit intercedes for us=Romans 8:26 26 Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. And CHRIST as well=Romans 8:34 34 Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us. Hebrews 7:25 25 Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. It's Christ and Holy Spirit who intercedes for us not apostles _________________________ There is only one Mediator between God and men LORD Jesus Christ= 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus. Hebrew 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. Hebrew 12:24 to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel. Hebrew 8:6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises. _________________________ Apostles are allowed to marry, 1 Corinthians 9:1-5 1 Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? 2 If I am not an apostle to others, yet doubtless I am to you. For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord. 3 My defense to those who examine me is this: 4 Do we have no right to eat and drink? 5 Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas? If Peter (peter is cephas read John 1:42) the so called "first pope" was married, why does the catholic church doesn't allow "pope" to marry? _________________________ The so called vicar of christ/ pope/holy father Peter called himself a fellow elder in 1 Peter 5:1, and as per the qualifications of elder in Titus 1:5-9 the elder is allowed to get married; then why does the "pope" is required to be celibate and catholic? ( when Peter was neither celibate nor catholic). 1)Peter was not perfect human nor was he a perfect disciple 2)He sank down while walking on water 3)Our Lord said to peter get behind me satan 4)Peter reject our Lord 3 times 5)Our Lord rebuked Peter for calling fire from heaven 6)Our Lord rebuked Peter when he cut of the soilders ear 7)Paul rebuked Peter for being hypocrite because he was acting different in front of Jews and different in front of gentiles. 8) Moses messed up, and he was a important part of Bible ( that's why he never entered the promised land), 9)David messed up ( and he has the Holy Spirit), 10)King Soloman messed up, 11) Saul messed up and God regretted the decision (1 Samuel 15:10-11). Hatrick (Saul then David then Soloman back to back messed up) 12)The apostles run away a day before Lord Jesus got locked up. 13)The early church messed up Rev 2:18-20 14) Apostle John when receiving Revelation worshiped an angel and the angel said "see you do not do that. Worship GOD" Revelation 22:8-9 If these great people could mess up, why do you think the catholic church wouldn't mess up. _ Galatians 4:21-26 21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar- 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children- 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all. Sarah is mother of all, Not mary Also the Church has many name like Christians, Evangelists, Children of God, Believers, servents of God, bride of Christ, but not once the Church is called catholics Changed the 10 commandments by deleting 2nd commandment, and dividing the 10th into 2 commandments. Also changing the real Saturday Sabbath to fake sunday sabbath.

@@mynameis......23 this is great love all this information. Thanks

​@@mynameis......23 Whew, wow 👏 Good job! This is wonderful. Thank you for this and God bless 🙏

The truth always offends.Jesus offended many.god bless.

fighterxaos Exactly! Paul mentioned how we must test spirits to see if they are of God.

Believe 316 Lol my mistake, thanks for correcting me 🙏🏽

@Dominus Vobiscum Yes, and even if it wasn't so what, so long as the scriptures back a doctrine it's fine.

@Dominus Vobiscum I see you're using the Muslims strategy, and yeah the Bible makes it clear that the spirit is a device person, I wouldn't believe in the trinity if it wasn't at least slightly backed in the Bible.

Joseph Smith could have took few a lessons from you lol

I'm anathema as well. 👍 I just want to say you stated the case clearly and truthfully. Blessings 🙏

Jesus started Catholic church.

@@RandomTChance right here anathematized by Roman Catholicism alongside you. It's awesome that Jesus said, "Don't fear the one who can kill the body, but fear the one who can kill both body and spirit." The Roman Catholic use of anathema is "damned to hell." It's the sin of pride that the RCC equates itself to God in having the power to destroy my spirit through condemnation - simply because I publicly disagree with their teachings.

@@francisgoin3112 🕊️🙏🕊️🙏🕊️

It's the human condition, we all suck 😂 and we *all* need Jesus

Does this mean that you accept Ephesians 2:8-9 AND 10 James 2:22-26 That Salvation is by Faith AND Works TOGETHER & NOT by Faith alone AND that you accept John 6:52-60 That the Eucharist is not symbolic but the true presence?

@@Archangelatis Nice question. I appreciate your intelligence. You see the folly of Sola Scriptura as a hopeless doctrine.

@@Archangelatis : I'm waiting to see how he will answer you.😊

@@alhilford2345 He's probably gone to his Pastor to try get an answer and if their faith is greater than their pride, they'll see the Truth by the grace of God.

@Asaph Vapor Sola Scriptura not being a Roman Catholic doctrine or teaching, where is the question of defining it by me or the Catholic Church? It is the doctrine of Protestants who should define it. The role of the Catholic Church and every Catholic is to show how false and hopeless this doctrine is. Why Sola Scriptura is hopeless? Hope is built on truth and not falsehood. Here are three reasons why this doctrine is false: 1. The Bible did not fall directly from heaven into your hand or lap. If it did, you can believe in Sola Scriptura. You don’t need anything else but the Bible alone. 2. Neither the term nor the concept of Sola Scriptura is found in the Bible. 3. Neither Jesus nor the Apostles taught or believed in Sola Scriptura.

There is also the additional belief that Mary dropped her sash down as she was being taken up to heaven, and it fell in the hands of Thomas the apostle. I am not sure if he brought it with him when he came to India, but apparently he got the sash when the Theotokos was taken up to heaven (if ever such a thing happened). The whole story of the Assumption, along with the idea that Mary was a “spiritual participant” in the sufferings of Jesus, seems to be based on the attachment humans have to their mothers. I am sure Jesus and His mother were very close, perhaps in a way most of us could envy, but as far as Jesus was concerned, His family goes far beyond mere blood relations.

People never want to look at the logic behind sola scriptura, bc when we go in depth with scripture there is no inspired index of the cannon. We see in history there were other books being read in the church, then we have all the gnostic forgeries. If sola scriptura is biblical then how do u kno what books go in the bible, since theres no inspired index of the canon? Who to tells us what books go in the bible alone. And then we got the fact that the bible wasn't canonized until the late 4th century after 380AD So if everything is coming down from polycarp, to Ignatius written down on what are the exact books of the Bible Then where's your evidence @? you're just going to make an argument from silence and create a fallacy, to say oh it must have been passed down orally with no historical evidence to back it up. Its called Apostolic succession my friends. And the catholic church was thee only church in 382AD when the bible was being canonized during the late 4th century. So Protestants trust the Catholic Church to kno the true inspired books of the Bible, but dnt trust the church for any else. And then use that same book that was given by the Catholic Church to refute that their of False Church🤔 and they do that by removing 7 books out the canon. Wow thats the exact logic in protestantism💯

This is a good point

You don't even realize with that argument, you just confirmed Apostolic succession that the Catholic church teaches, which protestantism denies. Bc scripture was entrusted to certain faithful men, who are entrusted to the church, the same men who copied and preserved the books the Bible, & protected them with their lives, the Church Fathers were the very same faithful men who passed them down. Which = 2 Timothy 2:2; & 2 Thessalonians 2:15. Bc it is the church that is the pillar & ground of all truth 1 Timothy 3:15. So this is correct that it was passed down. But the problem is there were other books that were being read also, that did not make it into the canon. So the problem is prots don't even ask is who were these men, what were their names, & what was their theology. So prots fail to realize what did St. Polycarp, & St. Ignatius teach... Bc I could give u a hint they did not teach protestantism theology. Especially St. Ignatius & St. Irenaeus, Who taught the Eucharist was the true presence of Christ, confession ur sins to priest's, Bishop's, baptismal regeneration and infant baptism... Just go read them for yourself, bc that's the problem with Protestants today, they don't want to actually read the early Apostolic church fathers for themselves. They just want to parrot arguments they hear from their pastor's . Please follow Proverbs 18:13-17; bc there's always two sides of the story. Not just the stories prot Pastors tell.

​@@onlylove556can you share what St Ignatius and St Policarp said about blessed Mary's perpetual virginity without quoting Jerome??

Well done, you.

Just because Protestantism is simpler than Catholicism doesn't make it true.

@@GeorgePenton-np9rh who said anything about protestantism?

@@johnsmallberries3476 lol you’re not Protestant? And please don’t give me this I’m a follower of Christ cop out

@@kang7348Saying you only follow the Bible is a cop out? You have quite a bit to repent from.

He pretty much is my pastor at this point. In effect anyways.

He's my second favorite...only my home church wins out. He's awesome!

@@contendforthefaith1178 Understandable💯💯💯

@@contendforthefaith1178 understandable. But I'm congregationally homeless right now so... This will have to do till I find a church.

@@DESTRUCTIONKATCHUP He's an awesome pastor! I'll be praying you find a home church soon, though. There's nothing like that family and worship together. I can't get enough of mine.

Hezekiah Domowski The Bible says the Church is the final authority. Specifically the Bishops of the Church. Matthew 18:17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the Church; and if he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 1 Timothy 3:15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and said to them, " All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. John 20:21-23 21 Jesus said to them again, " Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you." 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."

Edward Russell So then let’s play this out,... I’ll say “you are misunderstanding scripture” and you say something to the effect of “I assure you that you are”. Then I say by what authority do you interpret scripture and you say “the Holy Spirit” and I say “but I am guided by the Holy Spirit(although I wouldn’t claim this, but for the sake of the discussion). And now here we are two modern people 2000 years removed from the authors of the Bible both claiming to interpret the Bible by the direction of the Holy Spirit. Who then is right? Well you say you are, then I say I am. But what is actually happening is it is not the Holy Spirit but ourselves (our interpretations) we claim as authority. This is not biblical. The apostles (first bishops) spoke and wrote with authority over the Church, they anointed others to succeed them in authority. This is biblical and historical.

Where do you find in the bible that everything should have to be in the bible?...Bible alone is so wrong and unbiblical.. It created 50K plus and increasing denominations with conflict, different beliefs and translation. It created division. Early christians does not have the bible or written tradition for centuries until catholics church compiled the Bible from different books.

@@benjamin3631 Fact, weak catholics become protestant, and good protestant become Catholics. There were lots of senior pastors that became catholics after they deeply studied catholism and the history of the church. SOLA SCRIPTURA IS VERY UNBIBLICAL.

@@benjamin3631 Jesus' conferral of special authority on the hierarchy of the Church fit the Catholic model perfectly, not the Protestant one.

I would agree. Sola Scripura is not really possible, because Pastors always have to "interpret" the scripture. They end up interpreting scripture differently from one another and disagreeing with each other. And since there is no authority on scripture in Protestantism, they end up breaking off and starting new churches.

​@@volleyballvideos6426 I think what Mike was saying was that perhaps placing salvation-related importance on certain traditions and/or extra-Biblical beliefs is the cause for all the various denominations. Sola Scriptura IS possible for two reasons: 1) the Holy Spirit is our helper on interpretation, and 2) you can claim that scripture is the authority on all matters, no matter what denomination you are. The point here I think is that Catholics don't make that claim, which is a (pretty serious) problem. That said, I would love to find a comprehensive list of how many denominations were created through extra-Biblical beliefs, extra-Biblical traditions, and differing interpretations of passages, etc!

@4u soul so true about all the unbiblical things Catholics believe. Hopefully someone will listen, read the bible, and research it for themselves. Keep planting those seeds brother/sister in Christ. : )

The majority a Christian. They are those who are not, but that being said, the majority of Christian denominations agree of the foundation , there are small doctrinal differences, but the foundation tenets of Christianity are the same

@@veritasmuy2407 I assume that you're talking about the Catholic church. What you're saying about Redemption/Salvation also being through Mary is false. The title of co-redeemer is based on the fact that by Mary's fully submission to God's will, she participated (co-operated) in God's mission to redeem humanity through Jesus Christ. I've been a Catholic my whole life and was never taught this and never heard this even preached.

@@veritasmuy2407 Jesus' descendance is not from Mary's side, but from Joseph's (see both Matthew and Luke's genealogy). Point is that Mary said yes and there the coöperation started. If you read the annunciation by the angel to Mary, he states in Luke 1:28; "Hail, full of grace. The Lord is with you. Blessed are you among women." The angel said "Hail", not hello... Hail is a royal title. "Full of grace" states that Mary was already in a state of grace and this is later confirmed in verse 30 where the angel says; "Don't be afraid, Mary, for you have found grace with God". That sounds as a solid and divine plan before Mary was born. So Mary's yes was just a formality. Mary was not just anyone, but the sinless one and here I refer to the Gen. 3:15: I will put emnities between and the woman, between your offspring and her offspring." As you know, Jesus quoted the old testament to hint who He was, but not only Him, but also His mother. At the wedding of Cana Jesus called his mother "Woman", and there He was linking Mary to the woman (before the fall) mentioned in genesis 3:15. Note that after the fall the woman was named Eve in verse 20. This is one of the reasons why we as Catholics hold the doctrine of Mary conceived without sin and was therefore prepared to be the mother of God, Theotokos: God bearer. (Council of Ephesus 431AD) Why mother of God? Because Jesus was 100% human and 100% God (Council of Nicea 325AD).

@@veritasmuy2407 Again, Mary is not a direct descendant of King David. Joseph was! All the people you mentioned certainly had their own role in salvation history, but the role of Mary was to be the mother of God. Mary's role was active as the bearer, the care taker, the initiator of Jesus' mission and the sufferer. No one suffers like the mother at a childs death. This is totally a different role than an ancestor like David or Abraham. I can elaborate more on the virgin Mary, but I'll leave it here...

@@veritasmuy2407 Thanks for bringing that awareness, makes me appreciate Mary more. However, if there were no roman empire at that time, most probably Joseph would have had the kingship instead of Herod (as Herod was a puppet)... Thanks again for bringing that information...

@@veritasmuy2407 The basic question is this: Who is Jesus? 50% God 50% man? 100% man? What do you say? YOU quoted: GOD is a Righteous HOLY Spirit (John 4:24) and can not be a physical Man born under the Sin/Curse of Adam (Hosea 11:9, Romans 5:12). I say: Exactly, that's why we as cathoics believe in the immaculate conception of Mary. Early on I mentioned the connection of the identity of Mary as the "Woman" in genesis before the fall. Don't get me nor the Catholic church wrong. Mary is NOT divine and NOT worthy of worship. The catholic church NEVER teaches that! But we love and honor her in a very special way (veneration), as the mother of Christ (the rest I will explain as soon as I get your answers). OK, then we come to the very theme of this video, "Sola Scriptura". Where is "Sola scriptura" or "bible alone" mentioned in the bible? Above all, did the church cease to exist after the book of revelation? Was there silence between the prophets and the NT? Did Jesus give us the Bible or did He give us the Church? I ask these questions to see where we're on the same page and where we differ. Roman traditions? What do you mean by Roman traditions? Never heard of that... There is a Roman Catholic church that represents the western catholic church and the eastern catholics. But they all fall under the vatican where the Catholic church is located. By God's grace emperor Constantine converted to Christianity and made christianity the main religion of the roman empire in order for it to be practiced freely and continue to spread through out the world. But I'll wait for your answers...

Th indwelling of the Holy Spirit has the authority, which lives in you. 1st Corinthians 2:10-12 "but God has revealed it to us by His Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thought of God except the Spirit of God. We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. "

@@jeremiahunderwood6536 Many people have different, exclusive views. How can you know who’s right and who’s wrong?

@@michaelhoelscher5079 When it comes down to it those who are filled with the Holy Spirit agree on everything. Those who don't you can find that they have beliefs against scripture. When Gods spirit leads the truth is revealed. When the teachings all align with no contradiction or confusion then you know its truth

It is not a subjective determination. It’s linguistics and internal consistency within the whole of Scripture. The analysis by those living or passed who have dedicated their lives to study can be very helpful too.

Jesus started Catholic church….so the Catholic church is the one true church of Jesus.

John Smith I have watched so many, but recently been catching up on all of Mike Winger’s, Justin Peters, (2 other favorites not on UTUBe), I also like Ron Carpenter, apologia studios. It’s funny the more I learn, the more my sermon palate changes. When I first started watching sermons, I listened to a lot of those prosperity preachers. But, quickly enough the Holy Spirit started revealing all the holes in their preaching. I guess I am trying to find my perfect niche... I really love my church, but I am really afraid to outgrow it. I really wish they had mid-week services. I am in their discipleship class, but I feel I am learning more from people like Mike. I wish I had a good spiritual mentor, praying I’ll find one.

John Smith You are welcome, I hope you like them.

John Smith Thanks for letting me know. It is so amazing how the Holy Spirit slowly reveals these things to us. The jury is still out on Jenzten Franklin, I was listening a lot to him, but I started to see hints of prosperity gospel in him. If like the preachers I suggested, I can send you links to some churches not on UTUBe that so far have shown solid teaching.

Jerry Thank you Jerry for your feedback, I grew up Catholic and transitioned out fully about 1.5 years ago. Leaving the Catholic Church was actually the best decision I have ever made in my life, I have never been closer to God than I am now. As a Catholic, I never saw a bible read except for a small excerpt the priest would read in mass. I felt a lack of community in the Catholic Church. Mass never filled me and didn’t leave me with a thirst for more knowledge. Regurgitating prayers is not as powerful as talking intimately to God, Jesus, or Holy Spirit directly. Also, I feel that I should be able to repent and pick up my cross daily vs waiting for a priest to hear my sins. Another pro, I had never felt like I had been filled by the Holy Spirit until I left the Catholic Church. I also disagree with the purgatory, I have never seen it in the Bible. Also, being in a Christian non-denominational bible based church creates disciples and empowers them in their daily lives to bring others to Christ and save them from an eternity in hell. My parents, especially my dad was really disgruntled when I told him of the decision I had made to no longer be Catholic. When they came to visit, I convinced to go to church with me and my dad really ended up liking it. Speaking from my own experience coming from the rigid Catholic Church that I had to search many churches because I did not want one of those circus churches. You should do a little research and then go visit a Christian church with good sound doctrine, and see if it changes your perspective. Again thank you for your feedback, I really appreciate it. Hopefully nothing I said sounded harsh, and if I did my apologies. God bless!

Jerry Thank you Jerry. Yes, I was confirmed. Unfortunately the Parrish I attended, was huge and they only put people 50 and above in the very competitive positions of reading. I did one summer that I spent at a convent in New York. In my Catholic Church small groups did not exist. There was ccd for kids. Every once in a while they would do a fish fry or something. Yes, unfortunately I did not find a niche in my Catholic Church, as most of the other Catholics that I know that go to mass and leave. In the Catholic Church, I did not feel like the men were the spiritual head of the household either. That is one of the main traits that I’ll be looking for in a future husband, since I am trying to catch up on so much and I’ll expect God to be in the center of my marriage. I say this with all the respect in the world, someone could try to pay me $300K a year for giving up my non-denominational Christian Church to go back to Catholicism, and I would say “no thank you!” There is no price for the relationship that I have developed with God after leaving the Catholic Church. God has slowly been revealing to me, how he shaped me for his purpose and I am excited to have many opportunities to glorify him. Also, I disagree with the direction that Pope Francis has taken on homosexuality. It is ok to love people, but hate the sin. God has not changed his views on immorality, and never will. This is a corrupt world, so we need people to be BOLD and speak the truth in love. His job is to save people from going to Hell, so by being soft he is not going to accomplish that. In my discipleship class, we have bigger testimonies...a guy in my class gave up homosexuality, people give up drug addictions...I am seeing so many people being freed by sound doctrine, and community. I am blessed beyond measure, all glory to God! Amen Maybe, my experience as a Catholic was not a good one because it was not the journey that God had picked out for me. Again thank you for your time Jerry, I am glad that you have had a positive experience in your Parrish. May God continue to bless you!

I appreciate your longing for your Catholic friend to be saved, but ultimately, there are giant misunderstandings on the part of many Protestants when it comes to Catholic theology. We can certainly have a conversation about what the Bible does or doesn't say, which is what most Catholic vs. Protestant discussions come down to, and I believe there's a rational Biblical explanation for Catholic doctrine such as the Marian dogmas, Purgatory, or the Eucharist, but ultimately that isn't the key issue. Protestants have an equally, and much greater burden of proof when it comes to the canon of Scripture. The problem with Sola Scriptura is that it rejects tradition as fallible, yet it was only through tradition that the canon of the NT was formed, so Sola Scriptura is self-refuting. If you reject the Catholic teaching on Mary, the Pope, Eucharist, etc, but say the Catholic tradition's judgments on what goes into the Bible are correct, then you have a fatal double standard. The early Christians didn't have a Bible yet, they held the Church established by Christ himself as their authority. It's only a matter of time after realizing this that people convert. I was a Protestant up until this past Easter when I was baptized and confirmed into the Catholic Church, and it has been the best decision I've ever made. I feel closer to God than I've ever felt, especially since I get to partake of him in the Holy Eucharist every Sunday.

God established a Church to which He gave authority, and He only established one Church not 40,000 churches, and that Church is the Catholic Church. Saint Ignatius of Antioch who was a direct disciple of John the Apostle called it the Catholic Church in 107 Ad on his way to be eaten by lions in Rome. Since he was a direct disciple of John he knew what he was talking about when he called it the Catholic Church. Jesus gave authority to the Catholic Church which was the only Church He founded and said it would be guided by the Holy Spirit until the end of time. So it can make pronouncements about dogma like it did about the assumption of Mary. If you say it isn’t found in the Bible, who says it has to be found in the Bible, the Bible makes no such claim that anything has to be found in the Bible, that is the claim of those who subscribe to Sola Scriptura which is itself unscriptural. Protestants hang their hat on 2nd Timothy 3:16 “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.” It in no way implies that Sacred Scripture is the soul authority for Christians. It just says it is helpful or profitable for these things. The word of God is Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition which is equal to Sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium. Paul says in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, NIV: "So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter." He didn’t say only Sacred Scripture he also said by “word of Mouth” besides there was only the Old Testament to go by since the New Testament hadn’t been written yet. There was nothing to go by but oral tradition until the Catholic Church set the canon of Scripture in the late 4th century. There is no inspired table of contents. So you can’t say which books even belong in the Bible. There were over 80 gospels floating around when the Holy Spirit guided His Church on which writings to include. It determined 27 books were inspired by God. You accept the authority of the Catholic Church on the canon of Scripture but for some bizarre reason you reject it on everything else. People were mostly illiterate from the time of the early Catholic Church and couldn’t read the Bible even if they wanted to. Every copy of the Bible had to be hand copied which took 3 years and each Bible cost three years wages. It took 1000 sheep to produce enough vellum to make a single Bible. Each Bible was hand copied by Catholic monks until the advent of the printing press which coincided with the Protestant revolt started by a heretic Augustinian priest named Martin Luther. That began the heresy of the Bible alone and the splintering of Protestant Churches into 40,000 and none of them agree with each other except about the unscriptural doctrines of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. 2nd Peter 1:20 “Above all, you must realize that no prophecy in Scripture ever came from the prophet’s own understanding,” This is why Protestants get so much wrong because they reject the authority of Jesus which He gave to the Catholic Church. Each Protestant is their own Pope and lives by their own rules. Jesus was obedient to the Father unto death, and He expects the same obedience to Him from us. By being outside of the Church He established you are disobedient. You have so many unscriptural man made traditions like thinking that you are saved by saying the sinners prayer “Lord Jesus I invite you into my heart as my personal lord and savior”. Thats not in the Bible. To be saved the Bible way is to be Baptized by water and Spirit as Jesus told Nicodemus. Peter said “Baptism now saves us.” You have alter calls which never happened in the early Church. That is a very recent Protestant invention. You believe in Sola Fide and the Bible only uses the words “faith alone” in James 2:26 ”For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.” That’s why Martin Luther attempted to remove the book of James from the Bible along with the book of Revelation, Hebrews, and Jude. He also removed the Deuterocanonical’s so Protestants have incomplete Bibles. Protestants accuse Catholics of having man made traditions but you yourselves have seemingly nothing but man made traditions a few of which I pointed out. I have no idea why you think you have things right when you follow 40000 different churches started 1500 years after the time of Christ. You have even departed from Luther and Calvin in many things over the last century. They didn’t even believe half of the things you have recently invented. You have services with rock bands, drink coffee during your services which would never be allowed in Jesus Catholic Church because it’s too irreverent. You don’t have alters like the Jews and Catholics. The main thing above everything else is you don’t have the Eucharist. Without that you have nothing. I pray you find your way to the Catholic Church before you die.

@@veritasmuy2407 God's church is not just spiritual but physical. Proof of this is Matthew 18 where Jesus says the final straw for unrepentant sinners is the church. If they refuse to repent when the church tells them to, they are excommunicated from the body of christ. What Jesus describes there is a visible church that has the ability to speak in one voice on what's right and wrong. Therefore, the church is not made up of all 30-40,000 denominations that may hold to different doctrines on essential things like baptism, freewill, Eucharist, Trinity, contraception, abortion, etc.

Saying “But that isn’t biblical.” isn’t a good argument seeing as Catholics don’t believe in sola scriptura. Kinda like a when a Catholic says to a Protestant “But the church teaches…” and the Protestant stops listening bc Protestants don’t believe in the teaching authority of the church.

I tried to convert my aunt, but I think she and her husband are just too proud of the Catholic label to be anything but. *Sigh.* Well, Lord knows, I tried.

Jesus guarantees that the Church’s definitive decisions would be backed up by the authority of heaven itself. So radical is this authority that he would also say of his Church, “If they receive you they receive me; if they reject you, they reject me” (Matt. 10:40; cf. Luke 10:16; 1 Tim. 3:15; Eph. 3:10; 4:11-15, etc.). This does not mean just some kind of authority, but an infallible authority, i.e., the authority of Christ himself. The blessings of this infallible Church are manifold. But one very important reason for its establishment concerns the nature of faith itself. Without an infallible spokesman for Christ, the follower of Christ cannot have faith in the sense that God wills for him, because without that infallible spokesman he is forced to trust in some man’s private and fallible interpretation of the word of God rather than the word of God itself. Whether he places his faith in his own interpretation or in another fallible person’s really doesn’t matter. He is trusting in a fallible source rather than in that of God’s spokesman who speaks infallibly. In 1 Thessalonians 2:13, St. Paul explains this principle succinctly: And we thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God. Perhaps the plainest example of Our Lord’s teaching on the establishment of an authoritative and infallible authority on Earth-namely, the Church-can be found in Matthew 18:15-18. Here, Jesus gives definitive instruction as to how matters of dispute would be settled among the people of God for all time: If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the Church; and if he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. The Protestant idea that Jesus did not give us an infallible Church-that, instead, we are to get our Bibles out and argue verses and then start our own churches if we cannot agree-as has been the practice of Protestantism for 500 years with no end in sight, or indeed possible. It is also completely alien to the New Testament, which condemns the practice of private interpretation of Scripture: First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God (2 Pet. 1:20-21). Protestants will claim that this text does not condemn private interpretation at all. It is, they will say, only speaking of the inspiration and authority of Scripture- that the text of Scripture itself is not a matter of “private interpretation.” It has nothing to do with the man interpreting Scripture. But this is manifestly false. The next verse (2 Peter 2:1) informs us that Peter was concerned with more than just the actual text of Scripture. He warned of “false teachers” who would teach “heresies,” not just false teachers who would write apocryphal works and claim them to be Scripture: But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies. In 2:10 he describes these false teachers as “despising authority,” and then, in 3:16, he tells us they “twist the scriptures to their own destruction.” The context of Peter’s letter leaves no room to doubt that our first pope was condemning the private interpretation of Scripture, the foundation of the Protestant movement.

@@Guzmudgeon That's a lot of words. We can conclude: When God speaks it's inherently authoritative, because God is authoritative. I think we can agree on that. As 2 Tim 3:16 says "all Scripture is God-breathed", which means it carries this authority. I know of no other authority that is equal to Scripture, and Scripture itself doesn't mention one. The Bible affirms its own authority but does not give us affirmations about the authority of anyone else, let alone some pope. In fact the entire concept of a pope does not exist in Scripture, neither Old nor New Testament.

@@Guzmudgeon it's funny that you used a scripture that shows Jesus giving the binding and loosing power to all his disciples and those who they disciple would receive the same all the way to today

@@lucianbane2170 Yes it is interesting because it indicates not a one time authority that only the apostles were given,but an unending line of succession. The powers to bind and loose were not simply dispensed to every believer though. The apostles were the closest of Jesus's followers. He had thousands of followers in his time. They were not all given the same authority. If that were so there would have been no need for the elders of the church to exist as we read about in James for example:14 Are any among you sick? They should call for the elders of the church and have them pray over them, anointing them with oil in the name of the Lord. 15 The prayer of faith will save the sick, We read to have elders of the church anoint and pray over the sick. These same elders received the authority to bind and loose, and to also dispense of that authority to those who reasonably met certain criteria as outlined in scripture.

@@friedrichrubinstein2346 Matthew 18:15 “If another member of the church[d] sins against you,[e] go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one.[f] 16 But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Here scripture tells us how to handle a situation in which the church is the final authority. Ultimately we need the bible for reference but the institution of the church must be recognized as an authority. Not the bible alone.

Type on your computer how many verses say "saved by grace not by works". You will get over 50 hits. For you to be correct you will have to harmonize all of them. Scripture can not contradict itself.

His false. Prima Scriptura is Scripture is primary. Not the final authority and only infallible source

@@jenex5608 Scripture supports neither "Prima" nor "Sola". Imagine Paul saying "If you like this talk, stick around a few hundred years until there is a New Testament which will be actually authoritative, unlike my talk today.

​@@bridgefinthe gospel is authoritative because it is eye witness accounts of Jesus and it didn't need to be written down until later because the eye witnesses were alive

@@christianmoore7932 Great. Then eye witness accounts are authoritative and, THEREFORE, NOT ONLY Scripture is authoritative. Thanks for the assist.

If by religious authorities, you mean the Apostles, then yes.

@@SoundEngraver there just isn't anything in the Bible about the apostles establishing the catholic church?

@@da2hampton Christ established Peter as the apostle to found His Church, after He renamed him, when Peter recognized Jesus as his Christ.

@@da2hampton of course not. Jesus established the Catholic Church

@vaMukanya Gudoguru yeah...about that. Can't find anything even close to resembling the complex over-bloated exhaustive teachings of the Catholic religion in the Bible. Nor to your statement that Jesus established it. You have to go outside of the Bible. I will stay in just the Bible. If it proves the Catholic church as the true authority then I will follow it.

I kind of see what you mean but I don't think I necessarily understand it well enough. Maybe you can explain because I truly am interested. The claim that because throughout Christian history not everyone had a Bible of their own seems somewhat irrelevant to me with this topic. I mean wouldn't the past absence of scripture just affirm Sola Scriptura?

@@JusticeDivineAllah Yes sir!! The Roman Catholic Church has always wanted control. Listening to the way they speak about Christians. They like to use the word authority too much. That is why I believe the Rcc is the woman on the scarlet beast mentioned in revelation.

@@JusticeDivineAllah they preach another gospel!! They comprise the scriptures with man made traditions.

@Dominus Vobiscum re read what I put.

liturgical tool is not a common criterion the order is: apostolic authority, inspiration, apostolic content (rule of faith) and used in wide circulation/universal acceptance. Liturgical use is secondary criteria.

Michelle Timbrook That was Paul talking to the Galatians. It has nothing to do with an angel called MoronI. Moroni not in the Scriptures anywhere. That is a Mormon only belief.

Michelle Timbrook You did realize that your point is moot right? Bringing another Gospel is still wrong and false, be it a another Gospel or Testament, if it goes against the Bible (I mean the real Bible not Mormon or JW Bibles) hen it is false. Btw Moroni doesn’t exist and isn’t mention in the Bible, as mentioned by @aerodave1 this is a false made up teaching of the Mormon Church, and not to mention Paul was telling the Galatians to rebuke anyone bringing a new Gospel, or to take the principle of his message, anyone telling you something contrary to the 4 Gospels rebuke them.

aerodave1 Good looking out! To be honest I never heard of Moroni 😂 I can’t believe this heretic got any likes.

Does this mean that you accept Ephesians 2:8-9 AND 10 James 2:22-26 That Salvation is by Faith AND Works TOGETHER & NOT by Faith alone AND that you accept John 6:52-60 That the Eucharist is not symbolic but the true presence?

​@@Archangelatis What I love about youtube is you can reply to people who wrote something years ago. Here's a breakdown of James 2: 14: What use to is my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?" "Says he has faith." The question is of the faith. James is not arguing if faith saves, we know it does. James is questioning if this person actually has faith. The difference between real belief and intellectual belief. And/or, The difference between real faith and fake faith. The people James is writing to are probably similar to the people talked about in Jude 1:4...pertaining to the former part of the verse. These people in James are not denying Jesus as savior, but are in fact perverting the gospel as a license to sin. 15-17 is an example and then a statement that faith without works is dead faith 18: "But someone may well say, 'you have faith and I have works, show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works." Clearly states that faith is shown by works. This is where you get the common saying that works is a result of faith. This is because works show faith to be genuine 19-20:You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe and shudder. But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless?" "They shudder"...in fear of judgment (Matthew 8:29). The demons know their wrath is coming, but they have no repentance (inner turning from evil) or outward works to show that they have repentance. A simple acknowledgment of who God is is not the same as faith. Such is said of the belief that the demons have. Faith and intellectual belief are not the same. A heart transformation needs to take place. This. is why Jesus says to "repent and believe" and not just believe. This is also a reason John came preparing the way for Jesus through repentance. True belief and repentance are either the same thing, or they are so close together that you cannot have one without the other. Note that the definition of repentance is an inner turning away from sin and towards God. It is not an outward action, by definition. Faith=Salvation by the blood of Christ Belief+ repentance=Salvation by the blood of Christ. Therefore, Belief+repentance= Faith 21: "Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar." Justified can mean the theological sense of being made righteous. However, in this context, it means to prove true. That is, proving Abrahams's faith to be true. Since in verse 14, the question is if this person actually has faith, or saving faith. We know that Justified in this verse cannot mean justified to be righteousness before God by because of Ephesians 2:8-9 and Romans 11:6. Indeed, Romans 11:6 clearly show that faith and works are mutually exclusive. Instead, his faith was what was justified. You read this in the next verse. 22: "You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of works, faith was perfected." Perfected here means in some sense to be proven true. It cannot mean that his works did something that his faith could not do. Contrarily, we see that faith accomplishes what works cannot do (Romans 8:3, which says "For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh") 23: "And the scripture was fulfilled which says, 'And Abraham Believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,' and he was called the friend of God." Fulfilled: 1. The fulfillment was of his belief, not his righteousness. Again I say: his belief in God is being fulfilled, not his reckoning to God. His reckoning to God is clearly shown to be a result of his belief. "Abraham believed God, and it [his belief] was reckoned to him as righteousness." 2. We see in this example that his faith is proven to be true by his works, as in verse 18 3. Abraham did not have to perfectly live out his life. He failed many times to believe in God's promise, such as when he lied about his wife being his sister, in fear that she would be killed. He doubted God's promise 4. "Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness" all the way back in Genesis 15. This fulfillment is in Genesis 22, long after he was saved. -Note that each time we do a work that is in compliance with God, it fulfills our belief in God and shows it to be true. It's not one event. It's simply the evidence of our faith lived out in our lives. 24: "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone." This verse by itself separated from the rest of the context of scripture would say that you are saved by works and faith. But if you simply read in the context of the whole chapter, James is not arguing this at all. Romans 11:6 makes it clear that faith and works are mutually exclusive. If you think that you can be justified by works. James himself says in James 2:11-12 "For he who said, 'Do not commit adultery,' also said 'do not commit murder.' But if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty." -James shows you cannot be justified by the law because you have broken the whole law already by being a sinner. (1 John 1:8, Romans 3:23, 6:23) -The law of liberty is not the law of Moses, but the law of grace. It cannot mean anything else. (Romans 6:14) If it were the law of Moses, you will be condemned in your sins, for God will judge the world by their works, and you're a sinner (Read Romans chapters 1-3) If you still think that you can be justified by works, you come into direct opposition to Ephesians 2:8-9 and Romans 11:6 Verse 25: Rahab demonstrates her works just as Abraham did. Her faith is counted to her as righteousness, not her works. James is laboring to show that works must accompany faith to prove it genuine. 26: This hits the nail in the coffin for anyone who seeks faith without anything to show for it. Compare this verse to Jude 1:4 In conclusion, James is writing to people who are falling into the idea that faith means believing with not repentance (inner turning from sin, not outer works) If you believe you must have worked for salvation in addition to your faith, a special letter was written just for you. It's called Galatians.

@@JosephLachh 'James is laboring to show that works must accompany faith to prove it genuine.' Exactly!!! You got it! That's all you need. 'You see that his faith and his actions were working TOGETHER and his faith was made complete by what he did. ... And the scripture was fulfilled that says......'considered righteous by what they do and NOT by faith alone'. When I started debating Protestants when YT first got started, they didn't know James 2:22-26 was in the bible. Now they try to juggle square verses to fit round man made teachings of Sola Scriptura' (That's why Martin Luther tried to remove the book of James) when the truth is self evident. Don't over complicate it, just focus on TOGETHER.

And scripture was fulfilled that said what? Abraham believed God. How do we see that we believed him? His works. Did his works account to him righteousness? No. It says that be Believed God and his belief was accounted to him as righteousness, not his works.

@@JosephLachh Abraham believed God but his faith was not enough . . . . 'You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and NOT by faith alone. . . . . . ' As As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith WITHOUT Works is dead'. His Faith AND his Works TOGETHER. Ephesians, Romans & Hebrews and James is right by the grace of God. Sola Fida is a man made contradiction.

Prima simply means “first”. Sola mean “alone”. You won’t find the Catholic or Orthodox condemning “Prima scriptura” because both of these ancient churches know it’s a valid and necessary doctrine. Catholics and Orthodox hold to what is known as the material sufficiency of scripture. This means that every doctrine of the church can be found either implicitly or explicitly in scripture, however not every doctrine is plainly stated and solid exegesis needs to tease out the doctrine from it. Formal sufficiency is the idea that all doctrine is found scripture explicitly and is made clear and apparent on a surface reading of the text. Formal sufficiency along with sola scriptura are both new and novel in the church. The view of material sufficiency is the historic and consistent view of scripture, especially when coupled with tradition. In fact, scripture literally comes from tradition. Every adherent of sola scriptura automatically negates that doctrine when they read the Bible and assume it contains all the inspired texts that God intended us to have. If it weren’t for tradition, we wouldn’t even have the canon of scripture.

@@IAMFISH92 Thank you for your reply. I do appreciate it. That does help, though the way these are taught seem to be a distinction with out a difference. Thank you for again, kind regards. john.

My understanding is that those who subscribe to Prima Scriptura allow for many methods of teaching the faith: scripture, oral traditions, church documents, experiences, and reason, but that scripture is primary -everything must sync with scripture to be considered truth. Catholics don't have a problem with this. Those who subscribe to Sola Scriptura, say that we can't trust or use anything but scripture to determine truths of the faith. The thing I am trying to wrap my brain around, though, is as soon as a pastor is teaching the Bible, isn't he or she now stepping outside of sola scripture, since he or she is now trying to pass on historical interpretations of scripture? In my mind, the doctrine of sola scriptura contradicts itself.

Does this mean that you accept Ephesians 2:8-9 AND 10 James 2:22-26 That Salvation is by Faith AND Works TOGETHER & NOT by Faith alone AND that you accept John 6:52-60 That the Eucharist is not symbolic but the true presence?

​@@Archangelatis John 6:47-48 47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that *believeth* on me hath everlasting life. 48 I am that bread of life. in verse 63, It is the *spirit* that quickeneth; the flesh *profiteth* *nothing:* (only ends up in the toilet) the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

@@jehielmutia1744 John 6:52-60 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” (Martin Luther believed in the true presence in the Eucharist, then why don't you?) Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum. Martin Luther believed in the true presence in the Eucharist, then why don't you?

​@@Archangelatis True presence is not the issue the issue is whether it is literal or spiritual/symbolic that Jesus is talking about. John 6:47-48 47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that *believeth* on me (bread) hath everlasting life. 48 I am that bread of life. Matthew 4:4 4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. John 6:63 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. John 6:47 47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath EVERLASTING LIFE. that verse and verse 35 explains it isn't literal; John 6:35 35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall NEVER THIRST Matthew 4:4 4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every *word* that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. John 1:1 In the beginning was the *Word,* and the *Word* was with God, and the *Word* was God. Conclusion: Jesus was basically saying that if you believe in Him for Salvation that is "eating Him" as the Bread of Life and "drinking" His blood. Now, John 6:60 says Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? --> because normally a human would conclude the claim in John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eats of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. And in John 6:35 "And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst." to be literal right? That's why after murmuring, Jesus immediately explains clearly what He meant by those claim in v63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. so common sense would tell you it is spiritual "eating" Him for Salvation because if you interpret that literally, you'll see in 1 Corinthians 10:17 "For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread." that we will be eating each other and if you still insist literally you'll gonna violate the command in all dispensations in the Bible; Before the law: Genesis 9:4 "But flesh with the life thereof, which is the *blood* thereof, shall ye *not* *eat." * During the law: Leviticus 17:11-14 "Leviticus 17:11-14 11 For the life of the flesh is in the *blood:* and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the *blood* that maketh an atonement for the soul. 12 Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, *No* *soul* of you shall *eat* *blood,* *neither* shall any stranger that sojourneth among you *eat* *blood. * 13 And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, which hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust. 14 For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off." After the law: Acts 15:20 "20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood." And look at Hebrews 10:10-12,14,18 10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. 18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin."(which confirms the Lord's supper is only symbolic) ...and the heck I care about Martin Luther. He isn't the Messiah and we Baptists did not come from him the Protestants. We weren't Reformers FYI. *Not* *all* *non-Catholic* *Christian* *denominations* *are* *Protestants*

@@jehielmutia1744 John 6:30 begins a colloquy that took place in the synagogue at Capernaum. The Jews asked Jesus what sign he could perform so that they might believe in him. As a challenge, they noted that “our ancestors ate manna in the desert.” Could Jesus top that? He told them the real bread from heaven comes from the Father. “Give us this bread always,” they said. Jesus replied, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst.” At this point the Jews understood him to be speaking metaphorically. Again and Again Jesus first repeated what he said, then summarized: “‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’” (John 6:51-52). His listeners were stupefied because now they understood Jesus literally-and correctly. He again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis, and introduced the statement about drinking his blood: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him” (John 6:53-56). No Corrections Notice that Jesus made no attempt to soften what he said, no attempt to correct “misunderstandings,” for there were none. Our Lord’s listeners understood him perfectly well. They no longer thought he was speaking metaphorically. In John 6:60 we read: “Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’” (It is here, in the rejection of the Eucharist, that Judas fell away; look at John 6:64.) “After this, many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him” (John 6:66). This is the only record we have of any of Christ’s followers forsaking him for purely doctrinal reasons. If they erred in taking a metaphor in a literal sense, why didn’t he call them back and straighten things out? Both the Jews, who were suspicious of him, and his disciples, who had accepted everything up to this point, would have remained with him had he said he was speaking only symbolically. But he did not correct these protesters. Twelve times he said he was the bread that came down from heaven; four times he said they would have “to eat my flesh and drink my blood.” John 6 was an extended promise of what would be instituted at the Last Supper-and it was a promise that could not be more explicit. Or so it would seem to a Catholic. But what do Fundamentalists say? Merely Figurative? They say that in John 6 Jesus was not talking about physical food and drink, but about spiritual food and drink. They quote John 6:35: “Jesus said to them, ‘I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.’” They claim that coming to him is bread, having faith in him is drink. Thus, eating his flesh and blood merely means believing in Christ. But there is a problem with that interpretation. As Fr. John A. O’Brien explains, “The phrase ‘to eat the flesh and drink the blood,’ when used figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon a person some serious injury, especially by calumny or by false accusation. To interpret the phrase figuratively then would be to make our Lord promise life everlasting to the culprit for slandering and hating him, which would reduce the whole passage to utter nonsense” (O’Brien, The Faith of Millions, 215). For an example of this use, see Micah 3:3. Fundamentalist writers who comment on John 6 also assert that one can show Christ was speaking only metaphorically by comparing verses like John 10:9 (“I am the door”) and John 15:1 (“I am the true vine”). The problem is that there is not a connection to John 6:35, “I am the bread of life.” “I am the door” and “I am the vine” make sense as metaphors because Christ is like a door-we go to heaven through him-and he is also like a vine-we get our spiritual sap through him. But Christ takes John 6:35 far beyond symbolism by saying, “For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed” (John 6:55). He continues: “As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me” (John 6:57). The Greek word used for “eats” (trogon) is very blunt and has the sense of “chewing” or “gnawing.” This is not the language of metaphor. Their Main Argument For Fundamentalist writers, the scriptural argument is capped by an appeal to John 6:63: “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” They say this means that eating real flesh is a waste. But does this make sense? Are we to understand that Christ had just commanded his disciples to eat his flesh, then said their doing so would be pointless? Is that what “the flesh is of no avail” means? “Eat my flesh, but you’ll find it’s a waste of time”-is that what he was saying? Hardly. The fact is that Christ’s flesh avails much! If it profits us nothing, so that the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ are of no avail, then “your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished” (1 Cor. 15:17b-18). In John 6:63 “flesh profits nothing” refers to mankind’s inclination to think using only what their natural human reason would tell them rather than what God would tell them. Thus in John 8:15-16 Jesus tells his opponents: “You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone that judge, but I and he who sent me.” So natural human judgment, unaided by God’s grace, is unreliable; but God’s judgment is always true. Also in John 6:63, “The words I have spoken to you are spirit” does not mean “What I have just said is symbolic.” The word “spirit” is never used that way in the Bible. The line means that what Christ has said will be understood only through faith; only by the power of the Spirit and the drawing of the Father (cf. John 6:37, 44-45, 65). Paul Confirms This Paul wrote to the Corinthians: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” (1 Cor. 10:16). So when we receive Communion, we actually participate in the body and blood of Christ, not just eat symbols of them. Paul also said, “Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). “To answer for the body and blood” of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine “unworthily” be so serious? Paul’s comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ. What Did the First Christians Say? Anti-Catholics also claim the early Church took this chapter symbolically. Is that so? Let’s see what some early Christians thought, keeping in mind that we can learn much about how Scripture should be interpreted by examining the writings of early Christians. Ignatius of Antioch, who had been a disciple of the apostle John and who wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans about A.D. 110, said, referring to “those who hold heterodox opinions,” that “they abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again” (6:2, 7:1). Forty years later, Justin Martyr, wrote, “Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, . . . is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66:1-20). Unanimous Testimony Whatever else might be said, the early Church took John 6 literally. In fact, there is no record from the early centuries in which the literal interpretation is opposed and only the metaphorical accepted.

@Lena he has a really good and thorough video on the different translations of the bible. I have a mcarthur study bible that I truly enjoy , but I've been incorporating ESV as well to strengthen my understanding. Hope that helps.

I love the KJV. After the grace of reading Greek for 26 years, I bear my testimony, the English Standard Version & New American Standard Bible say in English what the original Greek says as far as the New Testament.

@@christophiluslovingchristb5441 how awesome that you know Greek!

He is presently using the ESV

4u soul I disagree very very strongly with brother Winger’s view on the ATONEMENT ie THE PENAL THEORY. My view is THE SUBSTITUTIONARY ATONEMENT model ie Sacrifice/blood.

Robert Rodrigues those are the same thing

Adam Johnson Exactly

I bought some LED strip lights and put them in my book shelves. They don’t seem to be available now but other brands would work too. Just check to see if they cause LED flicker if you’re using them on video.

@@MikeWinger Thanks so much! Nice touch with the bulb on the desk too you really refined things since the days with your red LEDs, those were too Satanic. ;D

Volleyball Videos if you watch the video you will see where I address this verse and how it’s anachronistic and equivocating to say it refers to Catholic Tradition.

@@MikeWinger I was late and didn't catch the whole thing, I'll go back and watch it. I just wanted to point out that scripture refers to something beyond itself that we are supposed to stand firm and hold fast to. Thank you and God Bless.

Consider that 2 Thes. was not the last thing written in the NT, so you could reasonably expect that many (maybe even most) of those "oral statements" would have been reduced to writing before the canon was closed. Consider also that it refers to the traditions they "were taught"--past tense. The apostles--the Twelve plus Paul--simply did not teach the immaculate conception, the perpetual virginity, or the bodily assumption, of Mary. Rome knows this and doesn't dispute it. Neither did any of them believe (or teach) that there was personal succession of apostles, nor that the Bishop of Rome was in any way the head of the church catholic. None of these beliefs can be shown to have been believed by anyone for hundreds of years (demonstrating that they were not part of the traditions that the Thessalonians had been taught).

@@danbrown586 Good points. I guess my short answer, since youtube is not the best place for long answers, is that Catholics believe everything was revealed with Christ, but over time the church has come to greater understandings of the truths of revelation. The church also has the function to apply the truths of revelation to the current times, so its expected that teachings/doctrines will develop over time; I believe this is why Jesus founded a church with a teaching authority, rather than just dropping a Bible from the sky and letting us try to interpret scripture correctly on our own without making errors. I would disagree that these teachings you referred to were not believed by anyone for hundreds of years though. There were councils to define church doctrines, but that doesn't mean no one believed them before the councils. As for the Thessalonians, you may be right that these specific teachings about Mary were not part of the oral traditions, but I don't think we can be sure either way. In general, I just think scripture is teaching us here that there are oral traditions and they are important.

@Volleyball Videos Scripture quoted out of context is good for nothing IMO.

I bought his book about the Bible It’s very good

Jesus Luna I’m sorry mike didn’t respond. But as a Christian who is very passionate about Sola scriptura, I would have to say no. This verse doesn’t really help the arguments

​@@joneill3dgI disagree with the previous commentor. That verse absolutely supports holding scripture as primary to spoken preaching.

Free?😊

I have watched Dr. Reeves also. I bought his book about the Bible. Small excellent book

Logos

That what Jesus taught and that's what Catholics follow. Some people follow sinners instead of Jesus because it's easier until they get to judgment.

A, B and D: Jesus referred to himself as a door, which isn't found in the OT. So what's your point? C: The passage says clearly that the Rock is a spiritual Rock and the Rock was Christ. (For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.) Jesus is God. God/Jesus was the cloud, was the rock that Moses split, was the water from the rock, was the pillar of fire and so on.

@@MrHPT3 I think what Jesse is saying is THE INSPIRED New Testament writers are all referring to TRADITION; something pastor Mike does not acknowledge as a source of truth.

@@mikelopez8564 In the very same breath, Jesus condemns traditions. Traditions are fallible ad malleable: Jesus answered them, “Isaiah prophesied correctly about you hypocrites, as it is written: ‘These people honor Me with their lips, but their hearts are far from Me. They worship Me in vain; they teach as doctrine the precepts of men.’c You have disregarded the commandment of God to keep the tradition of men. - Mark 7:6-8 ------ so since Catholics are analogous to Jewish according toyou, and Jesus condemns them, then Catholics would be in the wrong and worthy of condmenation

@@duckymomo7935 Where in the bible does Jesus condemn the Jews? Jesus was a Jew. Does he condemn himself?

Jesus was an Israelite, of the tribe of Judah, living in Galilee. Do you know what a Jew is?

Good point, but the fruits of Protestantism prove that it is heretical

_"If sola scriptura were true every individual Protestant would read the Bible independently from one another and come to the exact same conclusions."_ No. It wouldn't. All this means is you don't know what Sola Scriptura means.

​@@Mic1904You are incorrect.

@@auxiliarylens3876 Now, would that be your individual personal interpretation of the matter?

No. Because everyone still has their own bias.

Jesus started Catholic church.

@@johnyang1420 No doubts about it

The Catholic Church can never lose its spirit because its spirit is the Holy Spirit, and Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would be with the Church until "the consummation of the age" (the return of Jesus).

Perhaps that's because the human mind was damaged by the fall (initial sin), and is therefore unable to understand the Holy texts without the presence of a Holy Spirit. Who has a purified mind and is able to understated inspired by the God Himself? Those who proved their faith with their lives, by their good works.

With Mike you're pretty safe, but keep studying the Bible yourself. So far I haven't heard anything from Mike that didn't match the Bible (one big reason for this might be that Mike actually says "I don't know" when he doesn't know for sure).

@@friedrichrubinstein2346 yeah it seems so to me as well. 😁 Very grateful for Mike! And yes of course. Personal bible study is so important. God bless us all to continue studying his word and protect us from lies and lead us in his truth. :)

Kent is fun to listen to, but don't get caught up in the KJO stuff.

King james bible the only bible that don't have verses removed

@@douglasmcnay644 I don't. I prefer the King James & recognize some versions have gotten verses wrong but I don't advocate that the KJV is the only word of God. Many have gotten saved out of other versions. I, personally, believe the KJV is the most accurate & it's the version I'm most familiar with. I like how you can tell if Jesus/God is talking to a specific person, an entire group or humanity as a whole by simply using one word. So I prefer the King James but I'm not afraid of other versions. I've a NKJV & an NLT bible as well.

@@TragedysHalo I mean the KJV is objectively not the best translation. I don't care if people use it or people prefer it but there's really no way you can defend it as the most accurate when looking at the ancient manuscripts. I would also recommend to question what Hovind says because he's a well-known liar and charlatan. He believes heresy regarding the Trinity and teaches an unbiblical interpretation of Genesis. I'm also not sure how familiar you are with Mike winger because Mike doesn't think that the flood had to be global and that would be definitely something Hovind would disagree with him on.

@@austinapologetics2023 If you believe the critical text you're under the assumption that earlier manuscripts are more accurate than later written manuscripts. While I understand the reasoning behind this assumption, realize it is an assumption & not a fact. Earlier manuscripts are necessary more or less reliable. I prefer the KJV because it's very clear in what it says if you can handle learning a handful of archaic words. Based on the majority text, the KJV would be the most accurate bible to date. Again, that's an assumption. Just because a majority of the manuscripts say the same thing, doesn't mean it's accurate. I believe it's the most reasonable assumption, though. Idk what heretical beliefs you believe Dr. Hovind to have. He clearly teaches the same concept of the Trinity that Mike holds; one God, three separate & distinct persons who are all co-equal. Mike would agree, I've listened to a video of his ab the Trinity. As for a global vs local flood, I'm not sure you can defend a local flood. I'm sure there are arguments out there just like there are flat earth arguments out there & arguments how 2+2=5. The Bible is clear it was global & has many scientific implications in regards to how oil is made & fossils are formed as well as accounting for vast valleys, canyons, & fault lines. Also, if it was a local flood, why did God tell Noah to build an Ark? Why didn't He tell Noah to just move?! Anyways, Dr. Hovind & Mr. Winger would def disagree on some things. However they both believe that it's the gospel (faith in Christ) that saves & that's what's important. They wouldn't agree on bible versions but I feel like a discussion between them would be very interesting to watch. Dr. Hovind is very firm ab what he believes while Mike is maliable & open in his beliefs. Neither are bad & both have shifted their views in regards to what they believe due to their own research. Both are open to discussions & understanding others beliefs. I enjoy the scientific side of how the Bible can explain things, as well as the theological & philosophical side.

Jesus started Catholic church. Retake RCIA. You should come back!!!

Agreed. I’ve heard Mike say he just hasn’t had the time yet to do into EO, so he doesn’t say too much about them. I would definitely like more on that subject as well. It seems like once someone believes that “we are the true church & anything we say goes because it’s our tradition,” then it’s very hard to reason with them from the Scriptures.

@micaiahweaver1346 *Scriptures is the final authority. Not men. Even early Church splinter into many churches. APostles did not mind.* you said As a Protestant, I agree with you, but I also kind of understand what they're saying in that if we are the ones who get to interpret scripture, then we are in some way given authority which results in the massive splintering of Protestant denominations.

Jesus started Catholic church.

​ @johnyang1420 *That's why Roman Catholicism only attracts all the diminished wits. We have witzeroJohnnyYang going around repeating the same old ns with no proof. And asking people to take Roman pagan RCIA which contradicts the Scriptures in every possible ways.* *Stop making claims you cannot prove witzeroJohnnyYang. Bible and real history totally did not say Roman religion = the Universal Church or Christ's Church". Your empty claims is NOT A PROOF for doctrines. Not RC could prove this. None.*

​ @johnyang1420 *That's why Roman Catholicism only attracts all the diminished wits. We have witszeroJohnnyYang going around repeating the same old ns with no proof. And asking people to take Roman pagan RCIA which contradicts the Scriptures in every possible ways.* *Stop making claims you cannot prove witszeroJohnnyYang. Bible and real history totally did not say Roman religion = the Universal Church or Christ's Church". Your empty claims is NOT A PROOF for doctrines. Not RC could prove this. None.*

​ @johnyang1420 *That's why Roman Catholicism only attracts all the diminished. We have RC going around repeating the same old ns with no proof. And asking people to take RC RCIA which contradicts the Scriptures in every possible ways.* *Stop making claims you cannot prove RC. Bible and real history totally did not say Roman religion = the Universal Church or Christ's Church". Your empty claims is NOT A PROOF for doctrines. Not RC could prove this. None.* you said Jesus started Catholic church.

​ @johnyang1420 *That's why Roman Catholicism only attracts all the diminished. We have RC going around repeating the same old ns with no proof. And asking people to take RC RCIA which contradicts the Scriptures in every possible ways.* *Stop making claims you cannot prove RC. Bible and real history totally did not say Roman religion = the Universal Church or Christ's Church". Your empty claims is NOT A PROOF for doctrines. Not RC could prove this. None.*

By Protestant do you mean those who have confessions, cathecisms, and creeds of faith?

I would probably be Catholic, if they didn't change the original creed. Look at John 15:26 “But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me." They stated the Holy Spirit comes from the Father and Son, therefore reducing the importance of the Holy Spirit, which is God Himself. The great schism of 1054...

​@@mariogagliardi8491you just don't know the real Gospel because if you did you would never stoop to being a Catholic..... EVER

But the Catholic dogmas are also based on everyone's interpretation too, but everyone in this case are the selected ones. Converting in a Catholic just means subjecting yourself to others opinions. I am not saying Catholicism is wrong because of it though, since I have common sense reasons to reject it.

Go Catholic because Jesus started the Catholic church.

larry sergent amen

Juan Parra yeah mike says near the end “ after discernment, wait for wisdom..”. Love that. God never contradicts himself...

Juan Parra I thot of your question. How did you know my interpretation to say it’s wrong? When did I give you my interpretation? I was a missionary in Rome for 2 years as an evangelical. I understand how entrenched Catholic beliefs are...

Dominus Vobiscum don’t know but there are Scriptures in how to interpret..

Dominus Vobiscum are you talking between catholic or other??

@Dominus Vobiscum I agree completely. I mean, how did 'Song of Solomon' make the cut but Enoch got the axe? What about the rest of the Apocrypha? If there was a letter verifiably written by Paul that said we should put hats on our cats, but the people compiling the Bible decided they didn't want to do that and hid the letter or destroyed it instead of including it in the Bible, how would we know?

I'm convinced the Holy Spirit took care of, that all needed scripture would be known and present when being compiled. I mean it's GOD, the ALMIGHTY. OF COURSE he is able to protect his word and to let it just be at the right time in the right place, not hundreds of years later.

So if you know already that they are false, what do you want Mike to say?🤔

I think you've answered your own question..

PEACE BE WITH YOU. Why would you follow the doctrine of Martin Luther who at first he said that jews were not converting to Christianism because the catholics had corrupted the Gospel, and when he saw that jews were not converting he called for harsh persecution of jews, which gave justification to the nazis to kill jews. If he hated jews, he would then also hate Jesus, Mary, Joseph and all the apostles and disciples who were jews. Why would you follow the doctrines of someone who hated jews? The doctrine of Scripture Alone taught by Luther and Calvin has brought many evil in this world. Think about the christian slave owners or the KKK who justified their actions by interpreting scriptures on their own. They said that black people were not our “neighbors” since they did not consider them to be humans. Why in heavens would you follow that doctrine of Scripture Alone? Did Jesus promise a book? Absolutely not. He promised one Church (Matthew 16:18-19 “And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.” Matthew 18:15-17 "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”)-see also Acts 15 about the church council to declare on a matter that needed to be settled. In John 21:25 we see that “There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.” In 2 Thessalonians 2:15 we see that Paul tells us “Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.”; Did Jesus tell His disciples to bring scriptures with them? Absolutely not. Jesus told them “Take nothing for the journey, neither walking stick, nor sack, nor food, nor money, and let no one take a second tunic.” (Luke 9:3). Most people at the time of Jesus were illiterate, they did not need to read scripture for their salvation but scripture would be embedded in the liturgy of the Word. Luke 24:13-35 is an example of what Jesus did the first day after he rose from the dead. (Road to Emmaus). He brought the two strangers that were going the wrong way (away from Jerusalem) to the point of eucharistic revelation. Are the Books of the New Testament “Self-Authenticating” or was the Catholic Church Necessary to Define the Canon of Scripture? If you believe in every word in the Bible, then you must believe in the authority that has chosen which books belong in the Bible - the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Catholic faith is not a religion of the “book”, it is a religion of the Word. The Word that was made flesh to dwell among us to teach us, to heal us, and to die and rise for our salvation. If our protestant brothers say that anyone can interpret the bible by just reading it and be inspired by the Holy Spirit, then anyone’s interpretation of the bible can be fallible according to protestant theology. There is also only one Holy Spirit, so how can the Holy Spirit inspire different interpretations to each one of us? Could you imagine if any one in our government would be allowed to interpret the US constitution by himself? That would be an absolute nightmare. That’s why we need an authority to interpret the US Constitution. That’s why we have the US Supreme Court to do that job for us. We are all people of traditions from the time we are born. We have both, human and sacred traditions. Even our protestant brothers have their own theological traditions, they go to school to learn their traditions and to learn the history behind scriptures, they teach traditions at their services, they tell their protestant brothers to buy books to learn about their theology. It doesn’t make any sense to say that you only need Sacred Scriptures. The best we as catholics can do is the teachings of the infallible Church founded by Jesus Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit. That Church founded by Jesus Christ needs to be infallible. All christians do so much good work in this world. Hopefully one day all christians can be united again in one church, the Catholic Church that our Lord Jesus Christ founded. GOD BLESS YOU ALL.

Sacred Cowtipper Mike has done a video on translations you might want to check out!

Hi Adam, I have about ten years of looking into this stuff. YLT is almost unreadable as it is probably really the only truly word for word English translation and is why it reads funny. Occassionaly there is a nugget in there you won't get in the KJB or NKJB. NKJB of course is the closest thing to the KJB and easier to read but had about 1,200 changes where they watered down stuff like REPENT 44 TIMES. I'm aware of that and know the attributes of God so it really doesn't affect me but it will affect others to only know God's love, mercy and grace and possibly never understand fully God's holiness, and justice and why He does pour out his wrath. Westcott and Hort admittted to changing the greek in their letters to one another that came out years after their death that their sons published. they were very, very Catholic, into the occult to some degree and worshiped Mary (Mariology). I am not going to read something that came from men like that who didn't even sound like believers and almost all modern English translations have a lot of their doctrine from that Greek and not the other. One word can change a whole passage. I will have to send you something on that. So what versions do you like and why? And why do they keep changing all these new versions if they are so good? No one wants to answer that.

Sacred Cowtipper I totally agree on the importance of unbiased translation. I generally read the NASB and ESV. But I will read several other translations if I’m doing an in depth study as some online software for the original Greek and Hebrew.

Does your favorite Bible versions have Easter or passover in Acts 12:4? Man I just spent an hour giving you some good stuff as why I hold to KJB mainly and it somehow just got all erased right when I hit reply but this one sentence.

Sacred Cowtipper I’m not sure what you’re getting at brother

DedClicks “Have a good Mike night Mike.” Mikes mike (microphone) is hidden ..a😀😄😀

@@billhildebrand5053 ?

DedClicks it’s a play on words..😀

Where in Church History is this preaching of Paul to the Thessalonians?

​@@HisLivingStone241 It is in the Bible, dear.

​@@mariogagliardi8491please pray for me. For yrs I been spiritually living as a hypocrite. Born again and back in lies deception. I didn't mean this I want back esp my hair gifts I didn't think or take this all seriously .... CURSES.. I need help. All I had was some depression. I had a good life And the HOLY GHOST NOT MARRIED BACK IN CIRCLES This is nasty

@@HisLivingStone241, the OP is one verse off. It is II Thessalonians 2:15.

@tryingnottobeasmartass757 I know. And my question still remains.

Maria PR Roman Catholicism & Christianity aren’t the same, the Roman Catholic Church has many beliefs that aren’t Biblical, and even some heretical beliefs.

Dickheads Rebuked Yes, I thank God I am out of there.

Maria PR Glad for you bro! May the blessed Virgin forgive you 😂

FaithHopeGrace I’ll answer later I didn’t even know I got replies, but where did I say that I forgive? Of course only God can forgive sins.

Dominus Vobiscum Well praying to saints is a good place to start.

@Dominus Vobiscum : Catholic theologians, in the fourth century.

The Bible isn’t the authority, the Catholic Church is. Where in the Bible does it say the Bible is the authority?

By keys to the Kingdom, Jesus meant that Peter proclaimed the Gospel to the Jews, the Samaritans, and then to the Gentiles. He was present for the first preaching in each of these areas, thus opening the Kingdom to not just the Jews but to all people.

Yep, and that authority died with him. It didn’t extend to others who came after him.

@@AChampagneGlass Thank you. What stands out for me here, is this "binding power" that Jesus gave to Peter, and the Apostles.

the common roman catholic argument that justify their church being led by the apostle peter appointed by Jesus Christ. why would Jesus do that? He even saw and called "satan" in peter if one will read on the following verses of the gospel.

@@whyistheskyblue5515 I would kindly disagree. Jesus said "the gates of the netherworld will not prevail", to me that means Jesus is saying the authority will be protected -it won't be rooted out by the devil.

@Dominus Vobiscum The Holy Scriptures.

@Dominus Vobiscum Ultimately 2 Tim 3:16-17. Many others as well such as Psalms 19:7, 119 etc.. Scripture teaches the sufficiency of God's Word. You just have to prove something else is infallible apart from Holy Scripture and the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is refuted.

@@reformedcatholic457 Apologies for jumping in, and late at that, but it's worth pointing out that Sola Scriptura itself points us to something infallible outside of Scripture. The doctrine presupposes you know exactly what Scripture is, which is nowhere stated in Scripture itself. Whether Protestants realize it or not, they're relying on extra-Biblical tradition to know what the canon is, and they're also acknowledging that this tradition is authoritative (or infallible, as you put it), otherwise it couldn't emphatically inform us as to what the canon is. This extra-Biblical tradition also had a lot to say beyond just the canon of the Bible. I'd encourage you to study the early Church in-depth, and see if what the Fathers taught aligns with modern Evangelicalism.

@@thelesserkilian Noway does modern Evangelicalism reflect the early fathers, but the Evangelicalism of the Reformers, yes I see a reflection. I can show you quotes from both the fathers and Holy Scripture that Sola Scriptura is taught since only and all Scripture is God breathed therefore infallible which includes both the Jewish OT ( which is same as Proestant canon) and NT canons.

@@reformedcatholic457 The Fathers didn't teach Sola Scriptura. We need to be careful when quote mining, which is a trap Catholics fall into with the Papacy, and Protestants fall into with Sola Scriptura. Speaking highly of something does not mean they viewed said thing in the way you do currently. We can know this by looking at everything else they said. The Fathers should be read and understood in their entirety, as opposed to select quotes lacking context. I know St. Irenaeus is a favourite among Protestants for this, but it serves well to read all of what he wrote, as he taught many things not in line with Protestantism. As for the Masoretic OT, adopting that was largely the decision of Martin Luther. It was not the OT of the Fathers, nor was it the OT of Christ & the Apostles. None of this gets around the issue of the formation of the canon, though. The canon of Scripture is known through tradition. The question the adherent of Sola Scriptura needs to ask is if this tradition is authoritative or not. If it is, there now exists something outside of the Bible with authority. If it's not authoritative, we can't define what Scripture even is.

Asking nicely...how do see those verses changing Sola scriptura?

Volleyball Videos He evidently didn’t think everything had to be included in His Word, but what He gave us is sufficient.

@@bellalugosi5853 I agree that not all things need to be written. My reason for posting this is to show there were more things to understand about Jesus and salvation than what's in the Bible. Luckily, Jesus also also gave us a church, which later determined which scriptures were inspired and which were not. Heard of the Gnostic gospels? How would anyone know they were not the inspired word of God without the authority of the church?

Catholics use that verse to refute that verse which is honestly hilarious to use if you would encounter one give them Deuteronomy 29:29

@@jehielmutia1744 You are referring to this verse? "The hidden things belong to the LORD our God, but the revealed things are for us and for our children forever, to observe all the words of this law." Can you explain the connection?

@@volleyballvideos6426 well, John 21:25 says not all things about Jesus' biography are recorded because it can't because again no library can't contain it (you see, Jesus teenage life is not written up to age 30) and not just Jesus' life and works anything that God did not record according to Deut. 29:29 says those things belong to Him so we gotta stick to what's revealed

So when Jesus said to St Peter in Matthew 16:18-19 "You are Peter and on this rock I shall build by Church and the gates of Hell shall not overcome it, I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." Tell me how that is NOT establishing the one true Church on the Authority of Christ himself bestowed on Peter.

​@@sethapex9670 it is so easy to make a doctrine out of one verse Jesus is pointing to Himself and it is not weird to believe that because He did that before John 2:18-21 18 Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things? 19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. 20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? 21 But he spake of the temple of his body. Now, how do you know the same thing happened at Matthew 16? Because Peter himself said it; 1 Peter 2:5-8 5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by *Jesus* *Christ.* 6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. 7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, 8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. Paul said 1 Corinthians 10:4 4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. both of them says "hey Catholics with Phd's and doctorate, Jesus is the Rock not Peter!"

@Asaph Vapor Catholics don't believe scripture is inspired after compilation that is you protestants lying about us. We believe The Spirit of Truth inspires people continuously until the end of time. When the bible was compiled many already inspired writings were looked at and put in the 73 book bible by the church. So you have to realise that If many more had been put in the bible you hold today would be too big. Compilation is just that compilation stop assuming things that are not true about Catholics please.

@Asaph Vapor 1.those 7 books are inspired. Are you really interested in knowing why they are or are you just so convinced? If you are interested I can point you in a direction. 2. OK simple test show me *from the bible* where God says "write down a bible and put only 66 books in it"

@Asaph Vapor you Assumed Catholics believe that scripture is inspired by compilation. You were wrong about that just swallow your pride and admit it.

Good question, but I don't think the bible is vague when it talks symbolically. If you gave me an example verse I could try and answer in Mike's place. But as a surface example, when Jesus says "I am the door" we don't think Jesus has hinges. Often Symbolic vs will say something like " like a" or "as it were". These are words showing a comparison to something else, but not necessarily being the same thing.

@@BoyKagome I'm referring to the verse that says("This is my body broken for you, and this cup is my blood shed for you in the new covenant") I think he's pretty clear there. He clearly said("This is") not ("this represents") Of Course Christ is present in the Eucharist.

@@bradleyhoyt3188 In this case, it's one where it's obvious he's being symbolic. Hes not saying "I am this specific bread" but rather, I am the bread life.

@@BoyKagome(" This Is") NOT ("This Represents") seems pretty straightforward to me. Christ is present in the Eucharist. BODY, BLOOD, SOUL, AND DIVINITY!

@@bradleyhoyt3188 He was saying how he wanted them to perceive it.

The books of the Bible were completely written down and circled around among the churches before the last apostle died. So no, the main authority zntil the 4th century was not the oral tradition and succession of the apostles. It was the gospels and letters written down in the 1st century.

The last book of the New Testament was written by end of first century. The early Christians used the circulation of the New Testament documents

That is absolutely cap. Full Bibles were in circulation long before the 4th century, the Codex Sinaticus or anything else. Many early church fathers makes comphrehensive lists very similar to the 27 books we have today, and the Muratorian fragment dating to as early as 170 AD lists a New Testament astonishingly similar to what we have today. The early church wasn't blind or stupid, more often that not, they got the right Gospels and the right Epistles from the right people.

Where can we find that?

John Rimmon Taquiso look up “Historical Theology by Nathan Busenitz” there is a playlist on RU-vid :)

@@taylormietzner3348 If it’s an alternate history to the actual History of the Catholic Church which is real history, I’ll pass.