The One Argument that Just Annihilates Protestantism 

God bless you for standing for the truth. One has to choose either to follow one's feelings and opinions or the truth. Catholics have chosen to follow the truth.

Joe Heschmeyer just did a video "Is the bible self-attesting" which is a great discussion on this topic as well.

Thanks for this. My invincible argument is Matthew 18:15-19. Have you heard of St Francis De Sales? Have you read Catholic Controversy? After listening to this I think you would love that book.

Excellent job as usual, Hugh. It's unreal how Luther and his heirs turned everything upside down and created false churches with myriads of different beliefs. Bible Only simply doesn't work. Indeed it can't. It was never ever even a thing before Luther.

Just had a friendly debate on this subject today at the Bible study that I attend in my Catholic Church. There are two Protestant gentlemen who come all the time because they love how knowledgeable the facilitator is when it comes to the scriptures. They also enjoy how in depth we go when studying the word. Right now we are in the book of Acts. There is absolutely no escaping the reality that early church was established by Christ Himself and that the Apostles were given authority by our Lord. There arguments come up short in these debates because they will only stay in the scriptures and use interpretations that have been passed down to them by others. They cling to their own faith traditions and refuse to see what the scriptures clearly reveal.

What's astounding to me is that, in the early church, the multitude was illiterate and yet, when i was young i had many catholic friends and attended mass with them however, the mass was in latin and no one knew what had been said. Also, the catholic families didn't own bibles. I was happy that i was brought up protestant because we had bibles and i loved to read. The first time i read the bible i was 10 years old and read it cover to cover. What drew me in was, 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth and the earth was without form, and void.' Awesome, simply awesome is our Lord. TY for the videos. I am enjoying them.

Bamm Bamm Rubble. You have exhausted and nuked Sola Scriptura. I often wonder what it would have been like to live as my ancestors, illiterate, and praying for food during the Great Hunger. Fratelli tutti para 15

The Catholic council excommunicated Nestorius for his false beliefs. How many priests did the Catholic Church excommunicate for the violent beastly carnal unforgivable ravaging of young boys?

The Council of Rome canonized scripture in 382 AD. Martin Luther's 95 Theses were posted over 1000 years later in 1517 AD. Catholics and Protestants share the same history prior to the Protestant Reformation, therefore, Catholics and Protestants get their cannon of scripture from the very same place.

I will say that archeologists are feeling confident that bits of the NT can be dated to within 100 years of the resurrection. But as you say, even with limited copies of epistles and gospels, most of peoples' knowledge came verbally. But reading Acts makes it clear the Holy Spirit was very instrumental, and surely He presrves His word throughout time. I'd like to see how many of those other competing books/epistles date to a time that would even make them candidates. Jesus did tell the Apostles they would have what they needed to brought to mind by the Spirit. And when the canon wss set, it was the Holy Spirit leading the Church in the decision. Is the Spirit still leading the current Pope and Magesterium in their leading of the Church? I want to see the infallible Catholic interpretation of Books of the Bible.

Do you even know why protestaism began?

As a former Baptist, now Catholic, I totally share your views. Deciding which books are in the Bible, preserving them over the centuries, studying them and interpreting them can only be a collective enterprise. Besides, the books of the New Covenant were written within the Church, by the Church and for the Church, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The Church established the biblical canon with the authority vested by Jesus Christ on Peter and the Apostles, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I will eat the Lamb in communion with the sucessors of Peter and the Apostles.

Don't feel bad for the drive by anti catholic comments. They almost never watch the videos. If they did they'd interact with your points or at least know what your video was about. I just found out protestants didn't remove the dueterocanon from scripture until 1825 and they did it to save money. I think it was this channel... learning so much.

The Jews never said definitively what was true scripture or not from what was available before and during the life’s of Jesus and his apostles,they read Enoch,Maccabee,jubilees,etc etc and believed it and Enoch is quoted by James l think 🙂 this was about 3 hundred years later, and they played god by rewriting the meanings of certain words and disposed of anything that prompted the catholic faith. The church was built on the oral tradition because the majority of the known world was illiterate, but there was over 90 gospels being preached in the church and so the church defined what was scripture and put it in a book form the bible which means the book, and the church got rid of the false gospels and the false shepherds promoting them the heretics, the Gnostics etc etc. The Protestants play god to this day interpreting the bible to suit their will and views and opinions and add in what is not there just like the original false prophets. Every Protestant is his own pope and council, just like Luther announced when excommunicated from the church he said l am my own pope and council, and this is how it is to this present day with over 40 thousand Protestant denominations and counting, because they are all there own pope and council and can form their own individual church, they are not part of the church the Catholic and apostolic church ,and are righteous rebels. God bless

In my country, when a preacher calls on people to go and confess Christ as their personal lord and saviour, they tell them to go to a "Bible believing church for nourishment" if indeed that church sprang from the 1517 martin Luther insipired reformation, it is not the one Jesus said he will build on peter in Mathew 16:18

Hugh really appreciate the substantive and knowledgeable talks that totally belie the click bait titles. Good stuff.

That's a cool start, Hugh!😂😊 Luv it!❤🎉

Sola Scriptora is Quasi Humanism Based Upon an Invented Oral Tradition The entire bible is based upon a received oral tradition from the OT prophets, and later, Christ and the apostles. The apriori existence of an inspired oral tradition implies the bible is a written tradition founded upon an oral tradition(s). Similarly, the biblical canon including the doctrines of biblical inspiration, inerrancy and infallibility are oral traditions not included within the bilical text. To hold a sola scriptora position is to acknowledge the biblical texts historical dependence upon oral tradition with doctrinally framed formulation of the biblical canon by revealed oral traditions. Noting the dependence of the biblical text upon revealed oral traditions and holding to the position of the biblical text as the sole infallible rule of faith and morals presumes the prior oral traditions were infallible as divine revelation granted orally and transmitted orally. When the oral traditions were selectively written down as inspired texts, and after the apostolic age, according to sola scriptora, the prior oral traditions are not longer existing and binding. And yet, the written text being dependent upon oral tradition is an ongoing, historical witness to inscripturated, oral tradition, making the original oral traditions continue to be infallible and binding. The prior oral traditions presumed to not longer exist and bind the believer are actually always partially contained within the biblical text, which bind the believer. By correctly presuming a prior revealed oral tradition and an inspired text documenting the oral traidtion, oral tradition is both denied as a current source of divine revelation and yet always included within the biblical text. Everything inscripturated was from an oral tradition and represents an oral tradition in written form. The entire biblical text is in principle and in fact, an integration of oral tradition and written tradition forming the biblical text. To hold a sola scriptora position is to preusme upon a two fold source of divine revelation within the biblical text by the oral and written tradition's particpation within each other. Similarly, the oral traditions on the biblical canon and the nature of inspiration, infallibility and inerrancy are always contemporaneous with the biblical text and presumed to be normatively binding to hold a sola scriptora position. The lack of biblical witness to the canon's extent and the nature of biblical inspiration presumes an ongoing, normatively binding oral tradition with a sola scrptura doctrine of the biblical texts infallibility. Therefore, oral tradition both permeates the biblical text and defines the biblical canon. Ironically, a sola scriptora doctrine must deny the value of revealed oral and written tradition by affirming the scriptures as the singular infallible source of divine revelation currently operative, when the exclusivity of the inspired text is not taught within the biblical text, nor within any oral tradition located in church history. By sola scriptora affirming the divine authority of oral tradition prior to inscripturation and framing the biblical canon and nature of inspiration, the sola scriptura avocate affirms the binding nature of oral traidtion. And yet the doctrine of biblical inspiration singularity and biblical infallibility singularity are both human traditions not found in divinely revealed oral tradition, nor the biblical text. A human tradition of the biblical texts singularity invented at the reformation is a relatively recent human oral tradition euqalt to, or superior to the divine oral and written traditions presumed by sola scriptura. Therefore, by affirming oral and written tradition with an invented human tradition, sola scriptura both affirms and denies the binding nature of divine revelation as the supreme rule for faith and morals. Inevitably, sola scriptura affirms at least one human oral tradition contemporaneous with divine revelation, implicitly equating the binding value of divine revelation with a human oral tradition of - scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith and morals. Human tradition is therefore presumed to be nromatively binding and directive of divine revelation, dictating the extent of divine revelation. In doing so, sola scriptura inevitably reduces divine revelation down to a form of quasi humanism, having divine revelation subordinated to a human oral tradition.

The disciples quoted Jesus and the Old Testament to show Jesus is the messiah and the fulfilment of the Old Testament, New Testament was compiled later in the Latin vulgate, but still the common man was illiterate and only now in the 20th century we see the common man literate, education and books and the bible were for for the rich. And so primarily the catholic faithful learned the Catholic faith orally.

I have gone through all you videos on the defects of protestantism. You have have urged well so I will comment on all of them here. Jesus did not write the bible and he did not direct that it be written. Even the apostles did not direct so. It was the Catholic Church which compiled the bible towards the end of the forth century in the councils of Carthage, Hippo and Rome.The church continued to adopt sacred tradition as the basis of interpreting the Bible. Sacred tradition was the interpretation of the teachings of Jesus Christ and the apostles passed over to the early church fathers or the successors of the Apostles. The church fathers wrote these interpretations in the book of Didache or the teachings of the 12 apostles defining sixteenth topic including the Eucharist as the body and blood of Jesus christ and baptism as regeneration of souls. Adoption of sacred tradition was in accordance to Hebrews 13:7-9 and in summary says we should remember the leaders who brought us the faith and imitate them and their teachings and we should not be taken away by Strange teachings as Jesus Christ is the same yesterday to day and forever. This has enabled the Catholic Church to maintain a stable doctrine. The Orthodox Church has also adopted sacred tradition and also maintained a stable doctrine. Equally important is interpretation of the bible. The bible does not provide methodology for its interpretation. It is only a collection of books. Martin Luther and Calvin as well as all protestants interpret the bible freely as they wish and hence the prevalence of more than 45 000 denominations over a period of 500 years. Peter in 2Peter1: 20-21 says the bible is the word of God and should not be interpreted freely or privately. Actually protestants intepret the Bible by trial and error methodology that is in Greek or Armeic or in Exegesis. Where does the bible say so. By adopting a trial and error methodology has resulted in many different denominations 45,000 as mentioned above. Everyone is preaching a different doctrine to the extent that many Christians have become disillusioned with christianity and have or are leaving the Christian faith or are agnostic or are now atheists to the extent that one third of the American population is no longer Christian Worse still the existence of so many denominations each preaching different doctrines has been difficult to present a united front against the evils consuming the society now such as same sex marriages false teachings and fake miracles, abortion, oppressive policy against the poor and unsound social and economic policies. Christianity should be the❤front runner in supporting these olicies but in some cases some denominations are actually supporting policies which suppress the poor. No wonder therefore Christianity is becoming somewhat irrelevant to the aspirations of many people in USA. Jesus established a church and gave it powers to bind and unbind and that the gates of hell would not overcome it, see Mathew 16: 13-18. The church mentioned here is the one mentioned by Bishop Ignatius of Antiok in one of his letters to his fellow Bishops and congregations in the latter part of the first century: that where there was the eucharist there was Jesus and there is the Catholic Church. Protestants have been hiding information from their believers by shortening the history of Christianity as starting in tin the 16 century after the reformation and that the Catholic Church died immediately after the death of the Apostles This is a false allegations as Jesus Christ asserted his church will never faulter. Listen to the video here in the Utube on 'Four Witnesses brought me home ' by Rod Bennett a former Baptist. The Catholic Church is run by fallible men who make mistakes even the apostles made mistakes but Jesus will always save and guide his church It is important that we read the history of the church from reliable and independent sources such as Google, the Book of Didache and the writings of the early fathers by various church fathers such as Ignatius of Antiok, Policarp of Smyrna, Clement of Rome and Justin Martyr available on Amazon. You will find out that if you are an Evangelical you doctrine is very rifferrent from what the early church fathers preached and practised. Furthermore I invite you to search in Google which is a universal and independent sources of true information and you will be surprised to find out that you denomination is a breakaway from another denomination which broke away from others and that your doctrine is not similar to what you will find in Google. Also you will find out the reformers such as Martin Luther, Calvin and others are not real heroes as your denomination points but were people who committed a lot of atrocities in the name of religion and preached doctrines different from those of the early churb. I think everyone of us would wish to follow the trueth and this is only possible if we due the following. 1. Pray to God to lead us to the trueth and read again. Hebrews13; 7-9 2. Search for the trueth by reading independent sources on Early church including the Didache and On early church fathers. 3. The Utube is very in formative on various topics such as conversion stories where we are informed of Pastors, professionals and businesses executives converting to the Catholic Church on being convinced and are ready to sacrify their high incomes and positions for the trueth. You should not fear the words Catholic Church it is this church which underwent brutal and sustained prosecution under the Roman emperors and thousands of its followers including most of the Apostles and succeeding Bishops died as Martyrs but still managed to preserve the gospels to produce the bible you are now reading in the forth century and spread christianity to the entire Europe and beyond. May God bless you let us keep in touch as Christians.

Really good points! And those Jewish Breans accepted St Paul's oral Sacred Tradition teachings. The didache gives us a picture of the ancient liturgy.

Oh dear! I've just finished reading through all of the comments. Would you all talk to Jesus that way? Does this discussion enhance Jesus's life and his gift of saving grace?

“I just know Jesus and the Church are one.” St Joan of Arc

Hi Hugh, you are right about history of canon of NT. I noticed when Bible were written in fourth century AD. They didn’t books into chapters and verses til late Middle Ages when Catholic Church do that to make it easier for people to find specific writing.

Ok, let me try to summarize your point as I understood it: - We know and agree that the Bible is the word of God, which means it is true and infallible. - We know the Bible is a compilation of several books. - There is the section called the Old Testament, which has books that the jews read, just like Jesus Himself did, and the other section called the New Testament, which has books, some are called letters/epistles. So the heart of the issue that you are pointing out would be this question: Who decided which books/letters were inspired by God and thus would be put together as the compilation of what we call The Bible? And this is, I suppose, what puts Protestantism in the hot seat. The "killer" answer would have to be that the Church was the one that had the authority to decide and put the books together, which would reveal the issue of the right or authority of the Church. Is this your point?

Great video 👍

Well said, Hugh!

Hi Hugh. Were the men that wrote the NT, not members of the early church?

that's your mega super ultra argument that destroy protestants? weak!

24:45 very good question and response to the infallible word argument.

26:51 Thank the Lord, I have found the silver bullet that silences and embarrasses Bible-alone anti-Catholics. Various anti-Catholic commentators on Catholic channels, who debate me, argue vainly that Jesus says in John 6:63 that “the flesh profits not”, therefore, at 6:53 where Jesus said: “I tell you most solemnly, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you will not have life in you,” Jesus is speaking figuratively, symbolically, not literally. I then reply, “Our Lord refers to men thinking carnally in the flesh, not in the Spirit, who are unable to grapple with this shocking revelation. If Christ’s flesh profits not, then what was the benefit of Jesus sacrificing His own flesh on the cross at Golgotha?” I have asked this question about 10 times and curiously, on every occasion, my opponent offered the reply of SILENCE, because they dare not admit that 6:63 refers to the flesh of men, not His own flesh. As per other anti-Catholics, @_ready_ offers the SILENCE argument. Whereas @EPH-re2xj hopes his embarrassed bluster will convince me that I am wrong. They both fail miserably.

You speak so plainly and what you say is easily understood, l would have loved to have found this channel years ago, because l understand the Catholic Church as you do it just took a lot of research to get to the same understanding you are preaching here on your channel, lm looking forward to listening to more from you. God bless you 🙂

We just keep saying the same things to each other. I hear you but still disagree on much. You don't appear to understand what I am saying based on your responses. This most recent video is filled with what I've been hearing you say for quite some time. My response would be much like many of my past responses. Here is a post I just finished. It's on faith alone vs faith + works. It's actually a response to Catholic criticism of Luther's adding "alone". It is too long even after I have edited it down considerably. Not much content from me, and lots of scripture references and Early Church Father quotes. I hope you will read it and respond if you like. But with this post, I am going to break from commenting on your channel. Will still watch. You must be tired of me and need a break as well. So here is my post. I'm not interested in winning a debate, but sincerely believe that this is what scripture proclaims and expects a Christian to believe. Luther shouldn't have added "alone" but I can understand the temptation since there's sufficient evidence for doing so. James read in it's entirety and taken in context shows how he is making the distinction between a said or empty proclamation of faith and real faith which always results in good works. Luther said that works are always the result of having saving faith. The good works don't save because (Hebrews 11:6) faith must first be present before any work can be pleasing to God. We do work out salvation with fear and trembling, but that is the the ongoing life of a Christian, sanctification, not an unbeliever working towards becoming saved, or a Christian actively helping with his/her own forgiveness of sins and salvation. Romans 3:28 "For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law." Faith APART FROM works of the law. Ephesians 2:8-9 "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast." So that no one may boast. That excludes us having any contribution to our salvation. Romans 5:1 "Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." Justified by faith, no mention of anything else. Romans 10:10 "With the heart one believes and is justified." Justified by belief, nothing more. Gal 2:16 "yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified." Justified through faith in Jesus Christ, not by works of the law. John 1:12 "But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God," What else is believing in Jesus' name than putting belief and faith in Him, and therefore we become God's children. John 3:14-15 "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in him may have eternal life." Belief in Jesus bestows eternal life, not belief plus works. 1 Cor 15:56-57 ". . . God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." No mention of a contribution by us. Romans 5:2 "Through him(Jesus) we have also obtained access by faith", no mention of works or our contribution, "into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God." Hebrews 4:14&16 "Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession." . . . " 16 Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need." It is because of Jesus we can confess that we receive mercy, no mention of our earning mercy in any way. Acts 10:43 " To him all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.” We are forgiven by our belief(faith) in Jesus, no mention of works. Romans 4:16 "That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring-not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all," Forgiveness/salvation depends on faith, not works, because is must be the gracious free gift dependent entirely on Jesus for it to be guaranteed. If it were dependent upon us in any way at all, there would be no guarantee. Gal 3:22 "But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe." Again, faith is the essential, no mention of anything else. Romans 3:26 "It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus." God alone saves and is both just and justifier of any who have faith in Jesus. No mention of works or cooperation on our part. Habakkuk 2:4 "The righteous shall live by faith." Isaiah 53:11 "By His knowledge shall the righteous one, My servant, make many to be accounted righteous." Jesus makes us righteous, we don't and can't. It's easy to get into a battle of dueling Church Fathers, because they were fallible human beings just as we are, very often right and sometimes wrong. Nevertheless, here is what some early Church Fathers wrote: From Augustine's Letter to a certain Irenaeus: " . . . according to the command of the Law, all are indicted. And yet, by the works of the Law, no one is justified. . . . But when the Lord Jesus Christ came, He forgave to all people the sin, which no one could avoid. . . But he who is righteous has righteousness given to him because he was justified from the washing of Baptism. Faith, therefore, is that which frees through the blood of Christ, because he is blessed "Whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered "(Psalm 32:1)" From Augustine's book On the Spirit and the Letter. "These matters, having been considered and treated, according to the ability that the Lord has thought worthy to give us, we conclude that a person is not justified by the precepts of a good life, but by faith in Jesus Christ." . . . "In a justified person, there is no right work by which he who does that work may live. But justification is received by faith." From St. Basil the Great: "Indeed, this is the perfect and complete glorification of God, when one does not exult in his own righteousness, but recognizing oneself as lacking true righteousness to be justified by faith alone in Christ. (Homily on Humility, PG 31.532; The Fathers of the Church, vol. 9, p. 479) From St. Hilary of Poitiers: "Because faith alone justifies [quia fides sola iustificat]...publicans and prostitutes will be first in the kingdom of heaven." (Commentary on Matthew XXI.15) From St. John Chrysostom: "But what is the “law of faith?” It is, being saved by grace. Here he shows God's power, in that He has not only saved, but has even justified, and led them to boasting, and this too without needing works, but looking for faith only." (Homilies on Romans 3) From St. John Chrysostom: "They said that he who adhered to faith alone was cursed; but he, Paul, shows that he who adhered to faith alone is blessed." (Homily on Galatians 3) From St. John Chrysostom: "Here he shows God's power, in that He has not only saved, but has even justified, and led them to boasting, and this too without needing works, but looking for faith only." (Homily 7 on Romans) From St. John Chrysostom: "For you believe the faith; why then do you add other things, as if faith were not sufficient to justify? You make yourselves captive, and you subject yourself to the law." (Epistle to Titus, Homily 3, PG 62.651) From St. John Chrysostom: "Let us see, however, whether the brigand gave evidence of effort and upright deeds and a good yield. Far from his being able to claim even this, he made his way into paradise before the apostles with a mere word, on the basis of faith alone, the intention being for you to learn that it was not so much a case of his sound values prevailing as the Lord's lovingkindness being completely responsible." (Sermon 7 on Genesis, in St. John Chrysostom, Eight Sermons on the Book of Genesis, p. 123, Robert C. Hill translator) From St. John Chrysostom: "What then was it that was thought incredible? That those who were enemies, and sinners, neither justified by the law, nor by works, should immediately through faith alone be advanced to the highest favor. Upon this head accordingly Paul has discoursed at length in his Epistle to the Romans, and here again at length. (Homily 4 on 1 Timothy) From St. John Chrysostom: "We need none of those legal observances, he says; faith suffices to obtain for us the Spirit, and by Him righteousness, and many and great benefits." (Homilies on Galatians 4) I believe faith alone stands on it's own in the scriptures even should the verse Luther slightly added to be stricken entirely from the Bible.

If people want to argue then why waste your time with them?

Hmmmm…. You are assuming that the Roman Catholic Church (as it exists today) is the only true expression of the original church. The Orthodox Church leaders would disagree with you. No one would (should) deny that “the church” (as represented by recognized, geographical leaders at that time) gathered together to affirm which books were recognized as “inspired” by their respective congregations. Such leaders did not GIVE the books their authority, they simply RECOGNIZED the intrinsic authority of those books/letters. This recognized list evolved over the years until it settled in today’s form. This is a fact of ancient church history. However, this is not an argument for (or proof of) the truth of the teaching, or authority of the existing Roman Catholic church.

How about the several arguments that destroy Catholicism? Gonna talk about those?

Sir, How would a religious Jew living in 50 BC know which Jewish books were canonical and which were not? Did the people of God during the intertestimonial period have an inerrant and infallible majestarium? Jesus did not think so. Props to Dr. James White Jim

A Protestant response to the question, who chose the books of the New Testament canon? This particular framing of the question has a number of built-in assumptions that need to be recognized. Most notably, there is a problem with the word “chose”. It assumes that the church proactively, overtly “decided” which books belonged in the canon. This usually conjures images of some meeting, or council, where people voted on books-some books making the cut, and others left out. Moreover, the word “chose” also gives the impression that there would not be a canon unless the church acted. It’s almost as if a group of people got together and an individual said, “Hey everyone, don’t you think we need a canon of books?” Then, after everyone nods their head in agreement, the individual says, “Ok then, let’s go find the ones we like the best!” But, as you might imagine, the problems with this whole scenario are legion. For one, the earliest Christians did not view themselves as choosing books, nor did they view themselves as having the right/power to do such a thing. Instead, they viewed themselves as receiving the books that had been handed down to them by the apostles. It would not have dawned on them that they could just pick whatever books they happened to prefer. If you had lived in the second century and asked the average Christian on the street, “Why did you guys pick Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?,” I think you would have received some very strange looks. Indeed, I don’t think the question would have made any sense to the average Christian. They didn’t view themselves as choosing anything. Asking Christians why they chose the Gospels would be akin to asking someone why they chose their parents. No one chooses their parents. They were just kind of “there” from as far back as they can remember. In a sense, one might say that the Gospels, and the rest of the New Testament, chose themselves. What I mean by this is that they were recognized as the books bearing the voice of Christ by the earliest believers. Of course, this idea is fundamentally at odds with the common cultural perceptions of the way religion works, and the way religious power is utilized. The reason most people use the word “choose” is because they assume (even if they don’t realize it) that religious books are ultimately man-made enterprises. It’s always a group of humans somewhere that are imposing their religious views on others. And if the canon is merely the (arbitrary) choice of a bunch of humans, then it can be edited, reworked, rewritten, or even just ignored. Now, it is true that in later centuries there were church councils that made declarations about the canon (e.g. Hippo, Carthage, Laodicea). But these councils did not view themselves as creating or deciding the canon, but merely affirming what they believed the canon had always been. Info source: Dr. Michael Kruger. Note: It goes without saying that Protestants reject the claim made by our Roman Catholic friends that the church of the first four centuries is synonymous with Roman Catholicism. The two are not one and the same.

My friends, the attack and assault against Scripture Alone is very evident by the Papal Antichrist and her adherents. For 1,260 YEARS the Papal Antichrist persecuted the Church of Christ with its false doctrines and dogmas. She committed "fornication with the kings of the earth". And, she got people to "drink of the wine of her fornication" as well. Indeed, the "man of sin, son of perdition" sits in the Church ("temple"), of 2 Thes. 2. "Come out of her my people (the Scarlet Harlot of Rev. 17), lest you partake in her sins" (Rev. 18:4). See how all of Western History reflects the workings of Satan in the False, Apostate Papal church? (Dan. 7, the "little horn"; 2 Thes. 2, the "man of sin, son of perdition"; Rev. 13:1-10, the "sea beast"; Rev. 17, the "Scarlet Harlot"). *Soli Deo Gloria*

"The One Argument...." Okay, what argument? You didn't present a coherent argument. You presented a 48-minute rambling word salad centered around a rhetorical question: "How do I know which books should be in the Bible?" Obviously, you presume that everyone should accept that the only way to know what books should be in the Bible is the Church of Rome, but anyone who has studied this with any depth whatsoever knows that this is just transparently false. The reality is that various different authentic Christian churches have their own canons. Rome can determine the canon for the Church of Rome. The Greek Orthodox decide for the GOC. The Church of Ethiopia decides for the COE. And so on. The universal Church of Christ does not look to Rome for a unilateral determination of what constitutes Scripture, and there has not been any ecumenical council that addresses the question. Apart from Rome, the various churches aren't so delusional as to believe that theirs is the only right one. Indeed there probably isn't any such thing as one right canon. Rather, each geographical church selects those texts that they find central and inspiration to their respective groups. You then spiral into the whole infallibility question, and then what appears to be some kind of stream-of-consciousness ranting. This is just a horrible mess. The reality is that the witness of history and the Church of Christ does not present us with a clear answer on the matter of the complete canon. The canon embraced by most Protestant Evangelicals has good historical backing. Every text there is held to be canonical by all other apostolic churches, some of which add other texts, too. I think that some who desire a level of certainty and uniformity that is neither real nor realistic (I empathize strongly here) often impute such powers to Rome. This leads to messes such as the video before us. In any event, go ahead and present your "argument" as a formal, symbolic argument. I suspect that you will be unable to do so... or unwilling. That being the case, I ask you to state the truth here -- that you are actually unable to produce such an argument. However, to be fair, if you can produce a demonstrably sound formal argument on this topic (that employs the question of canon in order to "annihilate Protestantism") I will send a donation of $100 to the Roman Catholic parish of your choosing.

Another great video. Keep up the good work.