The (Rare) Word That Refutes Sola Scriptura 

Thanks! I actually do edit them myself and yes it can take some time to find all of them.

Nice work sir

Yes we like short clips

@GospelSimplicity - Looking forward to your Canon show brother! Hope you found a Catholic representative.

@@TheCounselofTrent. More muppet clips please. And/ or let’s get ourselves a Catholic Apologetics muppet 🤓🤓

Welcome home. God bless you.

US, Mexico, Brazil, Italy, Spain, Columbia, France, Poland, and the Philippines, are countries with a large Catholic population. Protestants are looking particularly the Philippines to convert the ripe pickings in this country.

only someone who doesn't study church history will make that claim.

Welcome Home !!!

​@jamesrey3221 let us press forward to teach our protestant brothers and sisters the truth which is the Holy catholic and Apostolic church. The Pilar of truth . The church Jesus Christ established himself in 33 AD .

If you read the Bible, Catholicism is not according to the scripture and the doctrine of Christ.

It's so nice to see so many Protestants learning from these videos and leaving Protestantism. May God bless them all. 😊

_"It was one of the biggest reasons I converted to Catholicism..."_ So you chose to literally worship cannibalism and ritual human sacrifice?

​@@twitherspoon8954"Worship cannibalism" ??? 😂

It's easier to pilot a submarine to see the Titanic than it is to defend sola scriptura. ⚓️

Careful, friend. Nothing new under the sun.

yeah, learn something wrong lol

@@ProtestantKing7 as opposed to the Protestant approach: thousands different 'churches' all claiming the correct interpretation of the Bible.

Correct. Sola scriptura is a doctrine from hell. It's honestly embarrassing when you see 10 Prots in a room with an atheist and all the Prots are fighting over their heresies.

​@@adamsynowiec9864Protestantism is a pathway to agnosticism and atheism.

As Trent Horn once admitted in his debate with Gavin Ortlund on Sola Scriptura: "Catholics have a fallible list of infallible Magisterial teachings." Roman Catholics face the same proposed issue that Protestants do when having to interpret the RC Magisterium: the Magidterium doesn't provide an appendix of all infallibly defined teachings. There's a reason why faithful Roman Catholics like Trent Horn and Ed Feser disagree on whether or not the righteousness of the death penalty for certain crimes is an infallibly defined teaching of the Roman Catholic Church or not. This is the same reason why different Roman Catholic Theologians and apologists have different numbers of Bible verses that they believe the RC Magisterium has infallibly interpreted. Rome has no infallible list of infallible magisterial teachings.

@@adamsynowiec9864 This is the reason many Protestants leave their heresies and convert to proper Christianity. I know many Christians who were former Protestants.

Or spend thousands of dollars going to a Protestant Seminary just to try and figure out which denomination has it right.

There is a paperback ed. that is about 25 dollars (I say this as someone who dropped about 100 on the hardback when it first came out)

What book?

​@@landomt8138that's what I was thinking lol, but Im about to watch the video now to find out...

@@landomt8138 it's in his sources under the notes of the video

Exactly! “As it is written” or close to that is used around 90 times in the NT. I don’t believe Jesus ever says “as it was said” or “how tradition used to be” etc

I like and respect your open mindedness regarding the topic. 👍

To which of the Torah schools did God give the Holy Spirit in order to lead them to all truth. To which of the Rabbis did He give the keys to the kingdom? The magesterium has been necessary to defend the faith from heresy. Where does the Bible use the word Trinity or where does the word homoousios appear? Where are the two natures of Christ explicitly laid out in scripture to prevent Arianism, Nestorianism, Manachesim, and on and on? An ongoing, living Church, guided by the Holy Spirit is necessary to defend the true faith from contemporary heresy. “Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.” (Mat 28:20, DRC)

@@StanleyPinchak God made a covenant with Abraham and Moses, that the Jews were God's chosen people. God promised David that David's "throne would be established forever". Did this mean that God lied when He allowed the Assyrians and Babylonians to crush the kingdoms of Israel and Judah? Or when Jesus did not establish a Messianic Earthly Kingdom? No. It means that God's promises are not always held to their absolute most straightforward interpretations. Just because I believe that Abraham, David, and Moses were guided by God, it does not follow that I believe that all who sit in their seat are thus guided by God. I believe 100% that the Church of those days were guided by God to ground those heresies into dust, but it does not follow that I believe that the Roman-Catholic church of today is similarly guided by God to ground Protestantism into dust. The exploitative and abusive practices of the medieval Roman-Catholic church were rightfully repudiated by Luther/Calvin/Zwingli and subsequently the Roman-Catholic church amended some of those practices. The fruit of the Reformation has not only reached millions of believers in Christ, but also has made the Church of Rome better. Heresies do not last; they are always relegated to the fringes of history and die out eventually. They sometimes come back in different forms (Jehovah's Witnesses might be considered heirs to the Arian heresy, for example, and "Progressive" Christianity might be the modern version of Marcionism) but they do not endure. Protestantism is alive 500 years later; it has endured. "Everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die."

@@AttackDog0500 That is an interesting take. It reasons similarly to Gamaliel in Acts 5. Jesus had a different measure. “Either make the tree good and its fruit good: or make the tree evil, and its fruit evil. For by the fruit the tree is known.” (Mat 12:33, DRC) Protestantism has produced fruit that runs counter to Jesus express wish in His high priestly prayer in John 17. “And now I am not in the world, and these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name whom thou hast given me: that they may be one, as we also are.” (Joh 17:11, DRC) Could there not be a better way to have one body than by fracturing that body into 40000 denominations? “One body and one Spirit: as you are called in one hope of your calling.” (Eph 4:4, DRC) “One Lord, one faith, one baptism.” (Eph 4:5, DRC)

Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox define the Tradition of the Apostles and of the Church Fathers differently -- and yet, they both lay claim to it. Can priests be clean-shaven or must they have beards? Can we use unleavened bread for the Lord's Supper or must the bread always have leaven in order for the eucharist to be valid? Does the Spirit proceed from the Son also or just from the Father? All of these are issues that these 2 claimants to the same, extra-biblical "deposit of faith" differ on and anathematize each other over -- and there's a ton of other churches with claims to Antiquity that differ on way more than just that.

Allie isn’t even an apologist and James and Gavin define it the same. Nice try

@@javierperd2604 I could pick two prot "churches" at random and they would have FAR more differences in practice and belief than Catholic/Orthodox/Coptics. Real Apostolic Churches recognize each other's Apostolic succession, baptize infants, have seven sacraments, have the deuterocanonical books, and are liturgical. I could walk into one prot church and see snakes and people speaking gobbly gook, another and find a rock concert happening, and another and see them using wonder bread and grape juice for "communion"....absolute clown show.

​​​@@user-pb4go2sf9ywhat does not being an apologist have to do with anything? She's a Christian right?

​@@javierperd2604duh, hence the Schism. There is still only one Catholic Church led by the successor of Saint Peter, so what exactly is your point?

Hope you find your way to Catholicism brother. We’d love to have you! Trust in Christ!

No, you haven’t. Without sola scriptura it’s a free-for-all or anything goes hence the never-ending dogmas.

@@genebaker6964 Update: I am still Lutheran. I am utterly unconvinced of the Catholic Church’s claim that it’s the one, true church and just using the words “church Catholic” doesn’t really prove anything that explains away major doctrinal issues. That being said, I think my understanding of sola scriptura was a bit off and I suppose I’m still learning but there is of course a tension in Christianity that always exists. We are saints and sinners. We need both law and gospel. Scripture and tradition to help us interpret scripture are indeed both important. Scripture, however, is the only source which we are promised has authority and the church cannot take away from that or it becomes opposed to Christ. That being said, on a practical level I think sometimes it is a difficult concept to explain or debate upon without a very thorough understanding so I can see why people get confused on the issue but after all these months of speaking to my own pastor (LCMS) and to both an Eastern and Roman Catholic priest, I do believe Lutheranism is doctrinally in-line with scripture in a way the Catholic Church can’t be in part because of the church’s own authority structure.

@@user-kb7sl6cz6s You might find fellow Lutheran Dr Jordan B Copper of interest. Admittedly being a reformed Baptist I’ve only listened to small excerpts of his channel. He has a video on sola scriptura.

@@user-kb7sl6cz6sinterested to hear how you came to that conclusion!or rather point in the journey. What do you reject regarding the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church? (I’m a convert from Baptist, non-denom, agnostic atheist background)

Try that with the Trinity

In fairness to the Protestant side, why does every interpretation have to be infallible? Clearly the Jews did not have infallible teachings on Old Testament scripture before Jesus came and clarified. God seems to intentionally leave aspects of his word vague so that the believers can struggle through interpretation as part of the faith. A better question to ask Protestants is "What makes you a believing Christian?" and is _"That_ interpretation infallible?" There you start to get into muddy territory

​@sivad1025 excellent way to form the question 👏🏽

So...is your belief in the infallibility of the magisterium's teaching on the interpretation of scripture infallible? You're chasing a level of certitude that is impossible in this life.

Or how about what is scripture? And how do we know ?

​@@ProtestantKing7 and are any variations of Sola Scriptura true and/or are any variations of no salvation outside the Church true?

​@@ProtestantKing7 but you're right it doesn't matter if people claim differing definitions. I should've led with that.

​@@ProtestantKing7 Except Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus doesn't even rise to the level of being a foundational doctrine of the Church. Without Sola Scriptura protestantism has no foundation to stand on. Thus your comparison fails.

​@@ProtestantKing7you may get a bunch of different answers, but the difference is, there is a "right" answer as per Catholicism. The same cannot be said for sola scriptura as per Protestantism per se. Not by any stretch of the imagination. Keep trying.

That’s like Papal infallibility though.

The burden of the proof is on YOU that that is the case. 😆

Jesus breated on the Apostles when He ordained then as priests and gave then the power to absolve and retain sin

Thanks for pointing that out

@@jbchocbut its proven that Jesus had a copy of the bible where he breathed on 😂😂.

​@@jbchoc The proof of the claim is it's recorded as such in the Bible. He's directly quoting. You're asking for more, I think, which is not necessary.

I think this is a good idea.

Yeah, keep justifying why catholics hate the bible.

@@peterzinya1 why would we hate something we wrote?

@@haronsmith8974 you wrote the bible. you catholics are hysterical.

@@peterzinya1the inspired writers were Catholic!

Show me how scripture led you to Catholicism. Thanks.

@DudeNamedDuncan because of" how do others not see this". What others don't see?

​@oc301 I would say to read John 6. Then to begin to study what the Early Church believed it meant because they were taught by the Apostles themselves. Would you die for a lie? The Early Church believed in the Real Presence.

@@crisgon9552 Tell me what John 6 means?

@@Olc... I would really urge you to read it yourself. I will give you the same advice a lot of great Protestant pastor have told me, read the Bible with an open heart and pray. Pray that God leads you and for His will be done. God Bless.

And the Divine Inspiration of the Church Fathers like Jerome who compiled it.

With magisterial authority, how do you determine whose authority is valid? There are all sorts of groups that claim descent from the Apostles, not just the bishop of Rome. It's almost as if ultimate authorities are self-attesting, otherwise they wouldn't be ultimate.

This is a shallow and fallacious argument that Catholics just cant get enough of. The canon defining itself logically impossible; because even if it did, we could then argue on what authority does X book or author define the whole canon of scripture? It came too early, it came too late, it was written by so-and-so, etc. The canon was discerned, divinely, by the early church. God's hand was absolutely present there, but the canonization of the Bible was a discovery, like an archeologist unearthing a fossil, rather than a council of men simply asserting tradition. Even if we look at the canon today alongside contemporary apostolic-era writings, it is *evident* why it is scripture. The internal consistency, the supporting scholarship, the corroboration of other sources, the number of manuscripts., etc. It's more than pure tradition, it's self-attesting.

That's great to hear! While we can't promise any specific topics on upcoming videos, I can direct you to some good resources. First, I'd recommend looking into crossthetiber.org if you're looking for a community that's dedicated to answering questions about Catholicism. - Kyle

@@TheCounselofTrent thanks Kyle! Love the work you guys do. Trent's work has played a huge roll in how I got to where I am.

@drjanitor3747 lol! Interesting, you dont feel the need to provide supporting evidence for your accusations. Basic decency would require that of someone.

@@TheCounselofTrent Church revelation is not contained simply in scripture. scripture is the only God breathed source that is infallible and any extra biblical revelation must be filtered through scripture. That is the truth sola Scriptura doctrin. An example would be the very obvious Holy Spirit, derived tradition that keeps the church in the same service every day. I could have a conversation with someone all the way across the world over the same readings each day. That is clearly an extra biblical practice that was clearly influence by the Holy Spirit because it’s exemplified by scripture in the harmony of the church. My issue with the criticism that scripture is not made plain within its own self is that scripture itself describes the mind of those who believe versus those who don’t believe. And through scripture we can gather that when someone is in unbelief they’re completely blind and isolated from the truth of God. And if the truth of God is found only in the infallible Scriptures, then we can assume that those who believe are far less challenged to the Scriptures by comparison. I’ll demonstrate. The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. "For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ. Clearly, when you have the mind of Christ, you have the understanding of Christ so there’s some understanding here that a spirit indwells the believer. So then one must ask, what is the benefit of the spirit? To answer this, we have to understand the disadvantages of not having the spirit. The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. So, without the spirit, there’s clearly a type of antagonism from the unbeliever. Even though they “know” the truth, they’re not only antagonistic, but they purposefully suppress the truth of God with malice. They’re blind. They suppress the truth. So let’s look at the traits of those with the spirit. No one speaking in the Spirit of God ever says "Jesus is accursed!" and no one can say "Jesus is Lord" except in the Holy Spirit. So, if we are driven by the spirit when we believe, then the benefits of the spirit is having the mind of God, and basically being unable to profess anything but belief in God. The implication of this is that once one is sealed and renewed by the radical transformation of salvation they’re completely unable to undo this action. In the same action, the unbeliever cannot choose righteousness. They’re incapable of choosing God by themselves. We must understand the extreme contrast and the label of intensity on both sides. If the unbeliever is unable to approach God on their own and the believer is unable to renounce God, then this is the action of a spirit within vs spirit without. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it CANNOT. So here’s the assurance of those who are truly radically transformed by the renewing of the mind. The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God The spirit also groans and intercedes for us by leading us out of Temptations, sin, and towards obedience, and overcoming the world the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we should, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. We know the spirit works in this way, because we are promised a completion in Christ by an action that is independent of human will. And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you/us will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ. (Death) And because of this wonderful truth, we have a certainty that we cannot lose the gift of the spirit of God. Not even created things which includes YOU can undo this gift. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. Without the Holy Spirit, no one can understand scripture not even Rome. This is one of the key benefits of true belief. It’s not just the fact that you’re going to heaven, but it’s the fact that you possess a quality of understanding that is supernatural. It’s a revealed truth that’s given to us overtime as were obedient and diligently, read the scriptures and pray for understanding. The natural man can’t do this. Only the believer in Christ into work by the Holy Spirit who has experience the radical transformation of the renewed mind can make any sense of scripture by themselves. Does this mean that they will interpret scripture perfectly? Nope. But it says that they possess a spiritual understanding that they did not possess as unbelievers. If they weren’t saved, they wouldn’t get it at all. If you’ve gotten this far, I have purposefully withheld the scriptural book, chapter and verse callouts to prove how easy it is to understand scripture for those who challenge the contrary. If you got this far and you understood every ounce of this, then the idea that you can’t understand scripture is completely bogus. And if you didn’t understand it, then you lack the inner Holy Spirit and need to resolve that with Christ immediately.

You are correct, it actually does. Quite interesting, and I take Trent's apologetics classes and this makes perfect sense.

@@tfr2602 Cool, thank you! It's cool that when you watch a bunch of videos over time on apologetics you really start to pick certain things up. The Catholic faith really is the total and complete truth!!!

Wow, that's a really good point. You still need someone to have the authority to later say which scripture is theopneustos, including the very letter in which this word appears.

His strawman argument rests on a very post-modernist view that the scriptures have infinite subjective interpretations. One does not need a Magisterium to conclude objective truth from them. And like you say, Sola Scriptura just means the scriptures are infallible and can not be overruled by traditions or decrees of men.

I think restorationists are the most consistent Protestants.

@catholic_bible_studies It's puzzling to see Protestants claim sola scriptura when their principal distinction (faith alone) is not even explicitly taught in Scripture. A Restoration church is the most consistent place for me to be, but I'm sympathetic to Catholic theology. Hard not to be if one reads the early fathers.

@@ChipKempston In all fairness, Martin Luther added the word 'alone' to Romans 3:28 and I still see some Protestants quoting translations with that addition.

@@ChipKempston , It is not that faith alone is not even explicitly taught in Scriptute; it is that faith alone contradicts Scripture itself: " and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing" 1 Cor. 13:2; " If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha." 1 Cor. 16:22; " Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him." Jn 14:23; " Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father;" 1 Thess 1:3; " Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." James 2: 24, etc, etc

@@ChipKempston even if we grant Trent's definition of "theopneustos" for the sake of argument, Trent's argument is still problematic for the following reasons: 1. The case for Sola Scriptura doesnt rely *only* on 2 Tim. The Biblical data as a whole *still* indicates that scripture is the *speech of God* (Acts 1:16, John 10:35, Psalm 119:11, etc) And this is all the Protestant needs to make a case for Sola Scriptura. 2. Trent's own church says that scripture is "inspired" and that "God is the author" of scripture. You see this said in the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church and it uses 2 Tim 3:16 to support this. The RCC does not use this "life-giving" definition. So its odd how Trent is contradicting his own Catechism just to make an argument against Protestants.

This is precisely what I ask Protestants. Why are the Church Fathers fallible in some areas but not others? For example Jerome, calls people who are part of break away churches formed in the name of men (e.g. Luther-ans, Calvin-ists) as part of the "synagogue of antichrist" (Jerome's letter to the Luciferians 379AD). But the same Jerome is enormously responsible for compilation of the first Bible, started in 382AD. So the Holy Spirit fills Jerome only when he's compiling the Bible and at no other time? But some dude comes along 1500 years later and has divine inspiration over the Bible...horse manure....

@@alisterrebelo9013 People are fallible, scripture us not. A scientist can discover gravity or another planet but cheat on his wife. The faith comes in when we believe God guides fallible people to record truth without error. Protestants believe thar revelation stopped coming after the 1st century. So do Catholics. The difference, however, is that Cstholics believe their church orthodoxy is error free in their interpretation. Interpretation and revelation are two different things. Regardless, the Protestant is asking for sufficient grounds to trust the interpretation of another. We are simply not convinced that the Catholic Church has this power. Hypothetically, God could establish an infallible magisterium we just have no grounds to believe it exists. We are not convinced.

@@gideondavid30 can you please go and read Jerome's specific writing that I quoted before responding to my claim about the Chruch Fathers? I'm looking for a refutation for that specific writing, not a general refutation of the Church Fathers. Thanks. You also didnt get the point i was making. How can Jerome be inspired when compiling the Bible (was he not reading the text before deciding what to do with it?) be a nonsequiter to his understanding of it? You haven't shown a clearly objectionable point he's made theologically to dismiss him entirety out of hand. Which would still not be sufficient, but baby step me through this. I'm not saying they were inspired in the same way as a public revelation, don't strawman me. Inspired enough to compile the Bible. You'd be wise not to challenge this one, because then you have to explain why Luther is greater than the Church Fathers when deciding which books go into the Bible being 1500 years away in time, corresponding geography and cessation of public revelation.

@@gideondavid30 ,It's puzzling to see Protestants claim sola scriptura when their principal distinction (faith alone) is not even explicitly taught in Scripture. " and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing" 1 Cor. 13:2; " If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha." 1 Cor. 16:22; " Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him." Jn 14:23; " Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father;" 1 Thess 1:3; " Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." James 2: 24, etc, etc

@@gideondavid30 I say this from experience in online apologetics and with great charity. I won't be surprised if you don't engage with anything I ask you to look at. In general, Protestants, like Muslims and atheists have a strong tendency to put on blinkers and remain within their echo chambers. You're Protestant #5 to ignore the reference to Jerome. I'll quote his writing section here in the hope that I get some sort of defense from you. "We ought to remain in that Church which was founded by the Apostles and continues to this day. If ever you hear of any that are called Christians taking their name not from the Lord Jesus Christ, but from some other, for instance, Marcionites, Valentinians, Men of the mountain or the plain (or LUTHER-ANS, CALVIN-ISTS etc), you may be sure that you have there not the Church of Christ, but the synagogue of Antichrist. For the fact that they took their rise after the foundation of the Church is proof that they are those whose coming the Apostle foretold. And let them not flatter themselves if they think they have Scripture authority for their assertions, since the devil himself quoted Scripture, and the essence of the Scriptures is not the letter, but the meaning. Otherwise, if we follow the letter, we too can concoct a new dogma and assert that such persons as wear shoes and have two coats must not be received into the Church."

James white doesn't read or watch materials that doesn't agree with his interpretations. Hence why he's still caught in his misrepresentations from 40 years ago

@@PatrickInCayman He's going to watch clips at the very least. Someone will let him know about this video. Just too much for him to not to react to it.

@@tonyl3762 Precicely

James White should've taken the cues from Madrid back in the early 90's where he could never truthfully answer Madrid's issue of Scripture's material and formal sufficiency to show why certain Biblical passages do indeed not prove Sola Scriptura. Ck out the debate, and you will see.

Let him call these ppl to debate. The first to bring his case seems right...

Church revelation is not contained simply in scripture. scripture is the only God breathed source that is infallible and any extra biblical revelation must be filtered through scripture. That is the truth sola Scriptura doctrin. An example would be the very obvious Holy Spirit, derived tradition that keeps the church in the same service every day. I could have a conversation with someone all the way across the world over the same readings each day. That is clearly an extra biblical practice that was clearly influence by the Holy Spirit because it’s exemplified by scripture in the harmony of the church. My issue with the criticism that scripture is not made plain within its own self is that scripture itself describes the mind of those who believe versus those who don’t believe. And through scripture we can gather that when someone is in unbelief they’re completely blind and isolated from the truth of God. And if the truth of God is found only in the infallible Scriptures, then we can assume that those who believe are far less challenged to the Scriptures by comparison. I’ll demonstrate. The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. "For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ. Clearly, when you have the mind of Christ, you have the understanding of Christ so there’s some understanding here that a spirit indwells the believer. So then one must ask, what is the benefit of the spirit? To answer this, we have to understand the disadvantages of not having the spirit. The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. So, without the spirit, there’s clearly a type of antagonism from the unbeliever. Even though they “know” the truth, they’re not only antagonistic, but they purposefully suppress the truth of God with malice. They’re blind. They suppress the truth. So let’s look at the traits of those with the spirit. No one speaking in the Spirit of God ever says "Jesus is accursed!" and no one can say "Jesus is Lord" except in the Holy Spirit. So, if we are driven by the spirit when we believe, then the benefits of the spirit is having the mind of God, and basically being unable to profess anything but belief in God. The implication of this is that once one is sealed and renewed by the radical transformation of salvation they’re completely unable to undo this action. In the same action, the unbeliever cannot choose righteousness. They’re incapable of choosing God by themselves. We must understand the extreme contrast and the label of intensity on both sides. If the unbeliever is unable to approach God on their own and the believer is unable to renounce God, then this is the action of a spirit within vs spirit without. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it CANNOT. So here’s the assurance of those who are truly radically transformed by the renewing of the mind. The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God The spirit also groans and intercedes for us by leading us out of Temptations, sin, and towards obedience, and overcoming the world the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we should, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. We know the spirit works in this way, because we are promised a completion in Christ by an action that is independent of human will. And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you/us will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ. (Death) And because of this wonderful truth, we have a certainty that we cannot lose the gift of the spirit of God. Not even created things which includes YOU can undo this gift. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. Without the Holy Spirit, no one can understand scripture not even Rome. This is one of the key benefits of true belief. It’s not just the fact that you’re going to heaven, but it’s the fact that you possess a quality of understanding that is supernatural. It’s a revealed truth that’s given to us overtime as were obedient and diligently, read the scriptures and pray for understanding. The natural man can’t do this. Only the believer in Christ into work by the Holy Spirit who has experience the radical transformation of the renewed mind can make any sense of scripture by themselves. Does this mean that they will interpret scripture perfectly? Nope. But it says that they possess a spiritual understanding that they did not possess as unbelievers. If they weren’t saved, they wouldn’t get it at all. If you’ve gotten this far, I have purposefully withheld the scriptural book, chapter and verse callouts to prove how easy it is to understand scripture for those who challenge the contrary. If you got this far and you understood every ounce of this, then the idea that you can’t understand scripture is completely bogus. And if you didn’t understand it, then you lack the inner Holy Spirit and need to resolve that with Christ immediately.

The basic reason that there are many denominations ( with the exception of the C of E ) is that over time more man made traditions become more important than god's word and so a new denomination forms to get back to scripture and god's word .Sadly over time the cycle repeats itself .When I initially became a Christian in my 40s the holy spirits mane message that was continually reinforced was ( BELIEVE MY WORD ) It could not have been made any more clear .Anyone who undermines or contradicts scripture is calling Jesus a Liar.I trust god's word and if I misunderstand or mis interpret something I am happy to apologize to god and ask discernment to see what god wants me to see .god bless

@@davidmccarroll8274 amen it is not the will of human ability that we are made alive and new, but rather we are made alive and knew by God alone. Colossians 2:13 ESV And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, Ephesians 2:5 ESV even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ-by grace you have been saved- Who made you alive??? Jesus said John 14:15 "If you love me, you WILL keep my commandments. Did he say you can keep? Is it optional? No, he said you WILL keep. Look further… John 14:23 Jesus answered him, "If anyone loves me, he WILL keep my word, and my Father WILL love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. Christ reconciles us to the Father for this benefit. Even when we were dead in our trespasses, he made us alive together with Christ-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.

@@masinaverde901 Buddy, I’m a fan of exegesis and context, rather than taking a single passage and exploding it out of context. compare John 6:40 with John 6:54. beholding and believing (v.40) are equated with eating and drinking Christ’s flesh (v.54). This is further paralleled by verse 35: (Jn. 6:35) I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst. (Jn. 6:54) “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” To “hunger” and “thirst” and parallel to the one who “eats” and “drinks.” But note what Jesus says satisfies our hunger: “He who comes to Me… he who believes in Me.” Jesus isn’t speaking about his literal flesh and blood any more than he is speaking about literal bread (Jn. 6:35) or literal water (Jn. 4:10-14). Indeed, Jesus uses the term sarx for his “body,” rather than the common term sōma (which was the common term used in the Lord’s Supper). Indeed, the “term ‘flesh’ is never used in the NT to refer to the Lord’s Supper.”[4] Hence, this seems “to caution against a sacramental or eucharistic understand of these verses.”[5] This is why Augustine of Hippo wrote regarding this passage: “Believe, and you have eaten.”

@@masinaverde901 anything that I say that I believe from scripture, I believe is not me interpreting through my brain, rather the app flowing of the inner spirit. I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. Therefore, I can rely on nothing else but the spirit within. Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. So, how can we trust anything we read? First, do you ask God for revelation? And what does your conscience tell you inside? You can trust your conscience if you’re guided by the Holy Spirit.

When Jimmy Akin debated TOP, TOP admitted Irenaeus did not hold to sola scriptura.

No it isn’t. When he used it in the debate I smirked because I knew that, and that is not « Why he said it ».

And yes. Ireneaus definitely believes in the same thing as Sola Scriptura.

​@@isaakleillhikar8311 ​​ "When, therefore, we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek among others the truth which is easily obtained from the Church. For the apostles, like a rich man in a bank, deposited with her most copiously everything which pertains to the truth; and everyone whoever wishes draws from her the drink of life. . . . What, then? If there should be a dispute over some kind of question, ought we not have recourse to the most ancient churches in which the Apostles were familiar, and draw from them what is clear and certain in regard to that question? What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?" (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies)

@@djo-dji6018 You made me smirk againe. Becaus eIve read Against Hereises. And book three in particular, which that quote is in too.

Some great points. Plus, 95% of modern day Prots don't even define sola scriptura anymore the way Ortlund does. Even during the 16th century, the Prots themselves debated what sola scriptura actually entailed. One of Ortlund's major moves is to create the impression Protestantism is monolithic in its understanding and use of sola scriptura. Many are now seeing through this.

I'm still protestant. I would say I believe in the infallibility of scripture and sacred tradition, though I don't entirely know what that encompasses. I would deny the ongoing infallibility of the magisterium. Catholics make their best point when they say that we can't know the scripture is infallible without tradition. I agree, we need to accept the infallibility of sacred tradition to even begin understanding scripture. My problem with the magisterium is not that they merely have authority (I would be fine with that), but that they claim perpetual infallibility centuries removed from the apostles. I cannot accept transubstantiation as the Catholic church puts it because it is so foreign to the fathers. I accept the doctrine of real presence, but there were many theories explaining the nature of real presence. The Catholic church had no need to step in and declare one correct. And frankly, I'm not sure how I can know that they chose the right one. That's the crux of my problem. When an issue has been debated for centuries, how can the leaders of the Catholic church possibly deduce which is true?

Most Protestants from my limited anecdotal experience don’t know exactly why they’re Protestant. Either born into it or because of a thousand false claims made against the Church that makes them keep it at arm’s length or even hate it.

This is where you must have faith that God means it when He said he'll lead the Church into all truth.

@@sivad1025 the answer to your last question lies in the authority of “binding and loosing” Matthew 16:19 (RSVCE): I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” The Church has always believed that this charism lives on in the successors of Peter the Popes and the Apostles the Bishops. Ascension Press has a great article “Where Did the Term ‘Transubstantiation’ Come From?”

What is the teaching on marriage in your own interpretation? This is an extremely important topic today and the Catholic Church has an answer. Also on salvation I feel your trying to make a problem.

You’re right - most Catholic apologists will tell you that the Church hasn’t enumerated infallible interpretations of a lot of scripture, but you can be sure that no one’s interpretation can be infallible apart from the Church’s … men and councils are, have been, and always will be fallible - can you say the same about the Word of God?

it doesn't matter if a teaching is infallible or not, all catholics must obey to it.

@@mortensimonsen1645 What do you mean, Church's teaching on marriage? You mean, can homosexuals marry or not? Well, if you look at fr. James Martin and plenty of other Catholics - both lay and priests, they would tell you that neither the Church, nor the Bible really prohibit the true homosexual marriages. That the old teachings are actually speaking about abusive relationships, and that modern science revealed that sexuality is something you do not choose... not a sin. Not something abusive. That it can be something beautiful, holy. They would bless homosexual marriages and say that the Church is going to change the teaching on that soon. Look at what happened in Germany. Dozens of bishops, a whole council of them and their best "Catholic" lay people, voted for the Church to BLESS homosexual marriages. So, you may be saying that Catholic Church has an answer to the problem of marriage, but not all Catholics would see eye to eye with you on that - and in the end, it is still up to you, to listen to them, and their bishops and priests, or to choose the "traditional" view. Exactly the same goes for Protestant, who, on the traditional side, have Scriptures clearly teaching against homosexuality, while the more liberal churches would say all of the pro-LGBT nonsense I've listed above as their arguments to change the traditions too. We're all in the same boat. They have the Scriptures, and people who try to convince them that they've got the Scripture's figured wrong, and we have our traditions, and people who try to convince us that we've got them wrong. Tell me again, how is the rejection of Sola Scriptura an advantage to us there? And as for Salvation, I really can't understand how is that a small issue... Is there any bigger issues in the Church at all? A bigger one than how do we get to heaven? Really?

You do realize we have pretty specific conditions for statements to be infallible correct?

No you. -Kyle

@@TheCounselofTrent id love to get you on my podcast soon! You’re like the only CA brother I haven’t interviewed yet!

Lousy protestants. They dont even make and bow befor graven images.

Church revelation is not contained simply in scripture. scripture is the only God breathed source that is infallible and any extra biblical revelation must be filtered through scripture. That is the truth sola Scriptura doctrin. An example would be the very obvious Holy Spirit, derived tradition that keeps the church in the same service every day. I could have a conversation with someone all the way across the world over the same readings each day. That is clearly an extra biblical practice that was clearly influence by the Holy Spirit because it’s exemplified by scripture in the harmony of the church. My issue with the criticism that scripture is not made plain within its own self is that scripture itself describes the mind of those who believe versus those who don’t believe. And through scripture we can gather that when someone is in unbelief they’re completely blind and isolated from the truth of God. And if the truth of God is found only in the infallible Scriptures, then we can assume that those who believe are far less challenged to the Scriptures by comparison. I’ll demonstrate. The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. "For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ. Clearly, when you have the mind of Christ, you have the understanding of Christ so there’s some understanding here that a spirit indwells the believer. So then one must ask, what is the benefit of the spirit? To answer this, we have to understand the disadvantages of not having the spirit. The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. So, without the spirit, there’s clearly a type of antagonism from the unbeliever. Even though they “know” the truth, they’re not only antagonistic, but they purposefully suppress the truth of God with malice. They’re blind. They suppress the truth. So let’s look at the traits of those with the spirit. No one speaking in the Spirit of God ever says "Jesus is accursed!" and no one can say "Jesus is Lord" except in the Holy Spirit. So, if we are driven by the spirit when we believe, then the benefits of the spirit is having the mind of God, and basically being unable to profess anything but belief in God. The implication of this is that once one is sealed and renewed by the radical transformation of salvation they’re completely unable to undo this action. In the same action, the unbeliever cannot choose righteousness. They’re incapable of choosing God by themselves. We must understand the extreme contrast and the label of intensity on both sides. If the unbeliever is unable to approach God on their own and the believer is unable to renounce God, then this is the action of a spirit within vs spirit without. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it CANNOT. So here’s the assurance of those who are truly radically transformed by the renewing of the mind. The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God The spirit also groans and intercedes for us by leading us out of Temptations, sin, and towards obedience, and overcoming the world the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we should, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. We know the spirit works in this way, because we are promised a completion in Christ by an action that is independent of human will. And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you/us will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ. (Death) And because of this wonderful truth, we have a certainty that we cannot lose the gift of the spirit of God. Not even created things which includes YOU can undo this gift. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. Without the Holy Spirit, no one can understand scripture not even Rome. This is one of the key benefits of true belief. It’s not just the fact that you’re going to heaven, but it’s the fact that you possess a quality of understanding that is supernatural. It’s a revealed truth that’s given to us overtime as were obedient and diligently, read the scriptures and pray for understanding. The natural man can’t do this. Only the believer in Christ into work by the Holy Spirit who has experience the radical transformation of the renewed mind can make any sense of scripture by themselves. Does this mean that they will interpret scripture perfectly? Nope. But it says that they possess a spiritual understanding that they did not possess as unbelievers. If they weren’t saved, they wouldn’t get it at all. If you’ve gotten this far, I have purposefully withheld the scriptural book, chapter and verse callouts to prove how easy it is to understand scripture for those who challenge the contrary. If you got this far and you understood every ounce of this, then the idea that you can’t understand scripture is completely bogus. And if you didn’t understand it, then you lack the inner Holy Spirit and need to resolve that with Christ immediately.

Trent, fair points on making sure we’re refraining from representing conservative tradition via liberal scholarship; we all need to be aware of that possibility as we rep other views

Pray for them my brother that they may leave Protestantism and becoming truly and authentically Christian.

​@@From_Protestant_to_Christian What is "truly Christian"?

@@gideondavid30 As a Catholic, we believe the true church is the Catholic church. The church founded by Christ. In the same way Protestants believe their way of thinking is the true way to be a Christian, we believe being Catholic is the true way to be a Christian.

What arguments?? "Then the Lord put forth his hand, and touched my mouth. And the Lord said unto me, Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth."- Jeremiah chapter 1 verse 9. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-TziZd7SflUA.html

It’s funny to me because from what I can tell, you don’t need a Bible verse to tell you that the most careful way to try to understand what the Apostles passed down to us is to hold the 27 writings that every church on the planet believes are from them (or derived from them directly) and weigh anything else trying to be pressed forward as “tradition” by those. Isn’t that just common sense?

That is also a good point that many seem to glance over. The passage itself doesn't ever specify that ONLY the scriptures are inspired. Even if we accept the Protestant interpretation of the root greek word as "God Breathed" (which trent points out is incorrect), It STILL doesn't prove what they are trying to say.

@@matthewoburke7202 This is the point, for sure!

@@anny19988 Actually not for me, no. The traditional Protestant view of Scripture is that the Holy Spirit was the authority that decided what books were scripture because He authored them and only them through man. There were councils of course to determine His will, but they were only necessary because men were attempting to raise other books to the level of scripture. There were no books left out or removed or lost according to that protestant view. The books that are considered extra biblical or Apocryphal are contradictory (according to that view), while the 66 book cannon of scripture is not. So the question remains, on what authority or basis is church tradition or leadership raised to the level of scripture? Thank you for your answer though, and I'm not here to argue, but I hope you understand there is a difference between God saying "these are my books" and man saying "these are God's books"

@@anny19988 thank you for your reply. From the protestant point of view Yes the Holy Spirit did shout to the world that these books and nothing else are scripture inspired by Him. But just like with Jesus, the world didnt listen and just like the woman with the yeast, we like to add things to scripture to make it more palatable. Surely you must understand that Paul likely wrote many other letters. I'm guessing Luke did too. None of the others were scripture and the authors likely knew that as well as the church at the time. This is a huge subject that neither of us know much about. My recommendation is that you do your own research if you are really wanting to learn. I will suggest to you that most of what you said is not supported by historical fact. For instance, Luthor did not remove books, he simply affirmed what others before him had, that while they were useful books - they were not scripture. This is a belief long held by the church since the beginning. The reasons they are called the Apocrypha are both external and internal. The reason protestants eventually removed them from their bibles in the 1800s - much later than Luther btw, is because they caused confusion within the church - as evidenced by our conversation here. Again if you want to research the Apocrypha, I encourage you to do so, but use a variety of sources - you wont benefit from just sitting in your echo chamber. My question still remains, on what authority does the Catholic church raise church tradition or magisterium to the level of scripture? I know you think you are helping by asking what man made authority determines what is scripture but as you can see my answer is, no man at all - which is why it's Holy (set apart) Scripture - above everything else.

@@anny19988 those that penned the words he shouted. I'm being poetic, but the point of scripture is that it is written by man, inspired by the Holy Spirit. It is the very quality of His authorship that makes it Holy/Set apart/Scripture.

@@anny19988 the same way that the early church did back then. I implore you to do some research around this. A lot of these books were apparently in question before Jesus even walked the earth and for good reasons evident back then as well as today. But if you are unwilling to look into it then I don't know what to tell you. I'm not looking for an endless debate online over the cannon of scripture so if you dont have anything to help me with my question I thank you for your time and pray that you will draw closer to God as you seek Him and hope you will pray the same for me.

@@anny19988 I have and will continue to do so. Now that we have moved past that, do you care to address my original question? I'm seriously curious - on what authority does the catholic church raise tradition and magisterium to the level of scripture?

Over the past year I researched myself into Anglicanism. I get these arguments, but this is just the negative case against sola scriptura. It does not immediately follow then that the Papacy is the correct remedy for this issue. So I guess I’d ask you this. What’s your positive case for the papacy existing in the first five-six centuries? I’ve heard a lot of arguments that just aren’t convincing, but I’d really like to know. I’m to the point where if someone convinced me that the papacy has clearly existed with the ability to interpret doctrine for the whole church since Jesus gave the keys over to Peter, I’d probably become Catholic.

@@danielkulju9836 I'm not the OP but I'll list a few examples: In the late 1st century Clement of Rome writes to the church in Corinth addressing their issues and requesting them to accept the teachings of Rome obediently. Irenaeus, disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of John the Apostle. Writes that Rome is of superior origin and that all the churches must agree because of its preeminent authority. (Against Heresies 3 3:2) This is actually quite significant, because later on in Irenaeus' career, Pope Victor I excommunicated all the churches in Asia Minor for not celebrating Easter on the correct date. Irenaeus visibly disagreed with the reasoning behind Victor's decision. But ultimately did not oppose the authority he had in it. He simply wrote to Victor negotiating the defense of those churches traditions and urged him to reverse his decision. In the 3rd century Cyprian of Carthage writes this: "On him (Peter) He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep, and although He assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet He founded a single chair (cathedra), and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity.... If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he (should) desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church) Augustine of Hippo: "Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear 'I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven.'" (Sermon 295) Finally the opening statements of the Council of Chalcedon (451): "Paschasinus, the most reverend bishop and legate of the Apostolic See, stood up in the midst with his most reverend colleagues and said: We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city, *which is the head of all the churches,* which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed a seat in this assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat he is to be cast out. This instruction we must carry out; if now your holiness so commands let him be expelled or else we leave."

@@danielkulju9836this is an insightful question, but there aren’t many alternatives outside of Sola Scriptura. If you believe that Sola Scriptura is false, and Christianity is true, and that it would be rash to write off 2000 years of belief in scriptural inerrancy, it comes down to running background checks on Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and a few Coptic sects.

If you think that sole scripture is disingenuous and stupid I would respectfully remind you that Jesus is the word made flesh and Jesus is god incarnate !!!

@@davidmccarroll8274 let me see if I understand you. Since Jesus is called “the Word made flesh” and people refer to scripture as “the Word of God” you think this means that Jesus is the living incarnation of the Bible?

@@stevenharder308 no not quit what I was saying .I was told that solar scripture is disingenuous .My response was that Jesus is the word made flesh and he is also god .Therefore to call solar scripture disingenuous is an insult both to Jesus and god .Anything that contradicts scripture is calling god a liar.

@@davidmccarroll8274 we agree on scripture and disagree on “scripture alone.” I’m contradicting the latter, mostly because I think it contradicts scripture.

@@stevenharder308 Given the hypothetical that someone of high authority in the Catholic church says something in direct contradiction to scripture which is right and why ?

Oral Sacred Tradition which St Paul refers to 2 Thess 2:15 has existed from the time of Jesus and before the Bible was codified in 382 thereby complementing the bible as not everything is in it Jn 21:25. The bible was not mass printed until the 15th century and in any event, few people were literate so oral tradition was the default

as a learner of latin and greek it for some reason irks me how scholars ignore learning pronunciation aren't we reading divine literature here? It's just infinitely more pleasant to the ears when reading as it was meant to me, at least

@@alonsoACRin-between pronunciation drives me up the wall. If you can’t pass it off as your native tongue, err on the side of your native accent. Otherwise, it becomes unintentional parody (e.g., choirs singing “hozonna” at every mass).

@@stevenharder308 I agree, I absolutely agree. One thing is an accent, which is nice, and another to not even bother at all.

😂😂😂 It's embarrassing watching the Prots try and prove sola scriptura.

​@@ProtestantKing7 lol that's an easy one. You could do it yourself in five minutes, but let me know if you want me to do it for you, because I don't want to leave you hanging.

@@ProtestantKing7 that's like asking someone to prove American traditions of baseball and apple pie..... a tradition just is. Read a history book. The Catholic Church has been here for 2,000 years, the prot churches just started a few hundred years ago. The question is should we believe the traditions of the Church that has been here since Jesus founded it 2,000 years ago, or the traditions of prots who start their own churches anytime they feel like it? Anyone with brain cells knows the answer to that question.

​@@ProtestantKing7 Demanding "proof" of Catholic Tradition is like demanding proof of a mathematician for the existence of the geometric plane. Principles of their own nature are axiomatic and don't require proof, or rather their "proof" is exhibited in how they shed light on and make intelligible the thing that exists in its sphere. Protestantism doesn't even go by a purely plain reading of the Bible. Your doctrines are patently unintelligible based solely on a plain reading of the text. Your doctrines require that the Protestant hermeneutic be imposed on the Bible before they can even become intelligible. You use your protestant tradition as a lens to read and interpret the Bible through. The problem with that is that the Protestant hermeneutic is purely a bi-product of 16th century Europe, not 1st century Judea. Catholic tradition frankly is a bi-product of 1st century Judea. And we have mountains of historical evidence that corroborates this, see the Patristic writers if you want to doubt this.

_Thr mental gymnastics needed from Protestants surprises me every time."_ LOL from someone who literally worship cannibalism and ritual human sacrifice based solely on a fictional character. You also believe, without any evidence, that God walked around town for thirty years and then died and became a zombie and then the graves opened and the corpses and skeletons rose out and "appeared to many" and all of that happened without any of the locals noticing.

You can either choose a church set up by a sinner with a 500 year tradition or else one set up by Jesus set up 2000 years ago. Come on scientist. It's not that difficult.

If sola scriptura is wrong then free will has to also be wrong under the same argument because neither is explicitly talked about in scripture. Nor is the sovereignty of god or the trinity with explicit titles. But if these elements do exist then we must admit that their titles are derived from scripture by evidence and definition rather than title. Then we can actually have a decent conversation.

And that you claim that Scripture is your sole authority when Scripture no where says that is hilarious. Hmmm, my only authority does not claim to be my only authority? I made it up? Seriously?

@@bridgefin what is Gods Truth? Is all scripture God breathed? Is scripture stored within us the means of keeping us from sinning against God? Is there another infallibly document of Gods word outside scripture?? If the church is infallible, like morality hoe does it justify self infallibility? What core document highlights this in church history? And last, if new revelations occur, perhaps in dreams, apparitions or visions, are they tested against an infallible source?

@@HillbillyBlack You: Is all scripture God breathed? Me: Is the CANON of Scripture God breathed? Without it there is no Scripture. You: Is there another infallibly document of Gods word outside scripture?? Me: Yes, God's immediate word to Moses, Abraham, Noah, and every word spoken by Jesus to his audience whether recording in writing or not. You: If the church is infallible, like morality hoe does it justify self infallibility? Me: Infallibility relates to teaching and not to living. All are sinners but not all are false teachers. You: And last, if new revelations occur, perhaps in dreams, apparitions or visions, are they tested against an infallible source? Me: They are private revelations and not compelling on the whole church.

You can support us at this link: www.patreon.com/counseloftrent

At least you wont find prots on their knees befor graven(carved,engraved) images. Jesus has 7 churches (Rev 1- 3). What Trent will never tell you is that none of Jesus churches are in Rome.

@@peterzinya1 those are not the only churches as recorded in the NT. What relevance does Rome have with these churches and how does your question pertain to the topic at hand?

@@glencoelho8242 you say prots are wrong and the CC at Rome is the true church. Too bad none of Jesus churches are in Rome. If prots are wrong, so is the CC.

@@peterzinya1 As we see in Acts of the Apostles, the Apostles moved about the world preaching the Gospel. In their travels, they formed particular Churches - referring to a territory. Of the many particular Churches that were formed by the apostles on their missionary trips, five became the predominant patriarchal sees. Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem were formed in the Greek East by Andrew, Mark, Peter, and James respectively. Peter also founded the Church of Rome in the Latin west. As the primacy was placed upon Peter by Christ Jesus, the Church in Rome, led by the Bishop in Rome, has always led the Catholic Church in doctrinal matters. The Pope, Pontifex Maximus, Holy Father, Bishop of Rome…the Bishop of Rome goes by many titles, as the primacy is his. He is at the top of the hierarchy, the supreme legislator, for the Catholic Church. If you were baptized into the rites, traditions, and customs of the Roman Catholic Church, that is the Latin Rite - you refer to yourself as Roman Catholic. You fall under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, whose territorial dioceses extend around the world. Whereas, for example, if you were born in Lebanon, you may have been baptized into the Maronite Rite of the Catholic Church - you profess the same creed, hierarchy, and sacraments as the Roman Catholics, but your traditions, customs, and liturgical practice will differ. You would fall under the jurisdiction of the patriarch of the Maronite rite and the Code of Canons of the Eastern Church (CCEO). Saint Ambrose, speaking on the differing liturgical practices of the Catholic Church throughout the world, coined the phrase that was later rendered into, “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.” While less eloquent, today it may be better to follow, “When a Roman Catholic, follow the Code of Canon Law.” That’s the abbreviated version of why we’re “Roman” Catholic. You wouldn't have figured this out from Scripture Alone, we need the Sacred Traditions as St. Paul says - stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter (2 Thessalonians 2:15).

No it doesn’t. Jesus tells the Pharisees and saducees over and over, it is written. Not once does Jesus hold up tradition, he actually tells them that tradition is keeping people away from God. The NT over and over tells us to check with the scriptures. The principle is well established by Jesus and the apostles.

@@coloradodutch7480 Incorrect. Jesus tells his disciples in John 15: 10 that if they love Him they will keep his commandments (His Tradition). Many times Jesus referred to the Mosaic law (Scripture) by stating “It is written (graphe)….” Then he would say, “But I say unto you (new tradition)…” such and so. Jesus also accepted the title of “rabbi” which confirms that he was an inspired teacher of “tradition.” And Jesus also confirmed that not the smallest part of the Mosaic law would pass away until he had fulfilled everything, including the Seat of Moses. The fact is that Jesus left no written document of any kind. Instead he left a “Church” (Matthew 16: 18-19) imbued with apostolic tradition which Sacred Scripture is a part of. 😊

Thank you Trent, for telling people that the bible isnt enough and not to bother reading it because we cant understand it.

Church revelation is not contained simply in scripture. scripture is the only God breathed source that is infallible and any extra biblical revelation must be filtered through scripture. That is the truth sola Scriptura doctrin. An example would be the very obvious Holy Spirit, derived tradition that keeps the church in the same service every day. I could have a conversation with someone all the way across the world over the same readings each day. That is clearly an extra biblical practice that was clearly influence by the Holy Spirit because it’s exemplified by scripture in the harmony of the church. My issue with the criticism that scripture is not made plain within its own self is that scripture itself describes the mind of those who believe versus those who don’t believe. And through scripture we can gather that when someone is in unbelief they’re completely blind and isolated from the truth of God. And if the truth of God is found only in the infallible Scriptures, then we can assume that those who believe are far less challenged to the Scriptures by comparison. I’ll demonstrate. The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. "For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ. Clearly, when you have the mind of Christ, you have the understanding of Christ so there’s some understanding here that a spirit indwells the believer. So then one must ask, what is the benefit of the spirit? To answer this, we have to understand the disadvantages of not having the spirit. The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. So, without the spirit, there’s clearly a type of antagonism from the unbeliever. Even though they “know” the truth, they’re not only antagonistic, but they purposefully suppress the truth of God with malice. They’re blind. They suppress the truth. So let’s look at the traits of those with the spirit. No one speaking in the Spirit of God ever says "Jesus is accursed!" and no one can say "Jesus is Lord" except in the Holy Spirit. So, if we are driven by the spirit when we believe, then the benefits of the spirit is having the mind of God, and basically being unable to profess anything but belief in God. The implication of this is that once one is sealed and renewed by the radical transformation of salvation they’re completely unable to undo this action. In the same action, the unbeliever cannot choose righteousness. They’re incapable of choosing God by themselves. We must understand the extreme contrast and the label of intensity on both sides. If the unbeliever is unable to approach God on their own and the believer is unable to renounce God, then this is the action of a spirit within vs spirit without. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it CANNOT. So here’s the assurance of those who are truly radically transformed by the renewing of the mind. The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God The spirit also groans and intercedes for us by leading us out of Temptations, sin, and towards obedience, and overcoming the world the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we should, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. We know the spirit works in this way, because we are promised a completion in Christ by an action that is independent of human will. And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you/us will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ. (Death) And because of this wonderful truth, we have a certainty that we cannot lose the gift of the spirit of God. Not even created things which includes YOU can undo this gift. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. Without the Holy Spirit, no one can understand scripture not even Rome. This is one of the key benefits of true belief. It’s not just the fact that you’re going to heaven, but it’s the fact that you possess a quality of understanding that is supernatural. It’s a revealed truth that’s given to us overtime as were obedient and diligently, read the scriptures and pray for understanding. The natural man can’t do this. Only the believer in Christ into work by the Holy Spirit who has experience the radical transformation of the renewed mind can make any sense of scripture by themselves. Does this mean that they will interpret scripture perfectly? Nope. But it says that they possess a spiritual understanding that they did not possess as unbelievers. If they weren’t saved, they wouldn’t get it at all. If you’ve gotten this far, I have purposefully withheld the scriptural book, chapter and verse callouts to prove how easy it is to understand scripture for those who challenge the contrary. If you got this far and you understood every ounce of this, then the idea that you can’t understand scripture is completely bogus. And if you didn’t understand it, then you lack the inner Holy Spirit and need to resolve that with Christ immediately.

Well…to be fair Ortlund is a very nice guy.

SAINT ATHANASIO OF ALEXANDRIA (+373) “But our faith is correct, beginning with the teaching of the apostles and the Tradition of the priests, being confirmed by both Testaments.” (Epis 60). This great Father of the Church also said: “But after the devil, and with him, come all those who invent illegal heresies, which, although they refer to Scripture, do not maintain the same opinions that the Saints transmitted, and, not knowing them or to their power they receive traditions of men falling into error.” (Festal Letter 2) “We agree that this is not the teaching of the Catholic Church, nor do the parents hold to it.” (St. Athanasius, Epicletus, Epistle 59,3). As can be seen, Saint Athanasius not only preserved Tradition but also believed in the Magisterium of the Church. He further said: “The confession reached at Nicaea was, we affirm, most sufficient and sufficient in itself for the subversion of all heresy contrary to religion, and for the security and development of the doctrine of Christ.” (Ad Afros 1) “But the Word of God that came through the Ecumenical Synod of Nicaea remains forever.” (Ad Afros 2) “Do they not commit a crime in thinking that they can contradict such a great and universal Council?” (From decretis 4) And the Council stated: “I believe in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.” See this further: “But what is also important, let us note that the very Tradition, teaching and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which was given by the Lord, was preached by the apostles and preserved by the Fathers. On this the Church was founded; if anyone departs from this, he is not and should no longer be called a Christian.” (Saint Athanasius, Letters to Serapion of Thmuis, 1,28-).

Peter said the ignorant and unstable wrest the scriptures to their own destruction. Who are the ignorant? They are those who are ignorant of the apostles' teaching, those who haven't already been taught the Christian faith. Therefore it is not our responsibility to understand, because we have already been taught, and it is by means of that teaching we know what Jesus said. Scripture is meant to be understood by insiders, not outsiders.

Remember the Tower of Babel. They tried to work their way to heaven and were scattered. "Then the Lord put forth his hand, and touched my mouth. And the Lord said unto me, Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth."- Jeremiah chapter 1 verse 9. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-TziZd7SflUA.html

Hi oldmovieman, hope you and your family are well. I am sorry to hear that you have left the church, this truly saddens me. As a former Catholic I assume you have an understanding of Papal authority regarding our lord temporarily handing the keys to heaven until his return. This does not infer a higher authority than scripture but does state a definitive interpretation and deposit of the faith. A pope does not have authority to change Dogma , only to define correct teachings that may come into question as is the case with councils throughout history to correct heretical ideas. For example, the question of Christs divinity was defined in the council of Nicea to counter argue Arianism in the fourth century. That is , Christ divinity was always Catholic belief, unfortunately it had to be defined due to false teachings creeping into the Church. If this problem arose within a Protestant Church I not sure we would of had the same outcome? I hope that one day you will return to Gods holy Church, God bless you and your family.

Not really. The fact is that there would always be moments when controversies would arise among christians over the correct interpretation of a particular passage in the Bible. At such moments, it is the responsibility of the CHURCH (i.e the leadership/hierarchy of the church) to step in and settle the matter by giving the TRUE interpretation of the Bible passage in question. This is because God has ensured that the CHURCH would ALWAYS uphold the TRUTH (that is why Paul referred to the CHURCH as the pillar and foundation of the TRUTH. 1 Timothy 3:15) In this way, the church is not placing itself ABOVE scripture but at the SERVICE of scripture.

Me too Former Catholic to evangelical Christian.

I do think that is the hang up. Especially when you read something that you think the Catholic church does that contradict scripture. Unfortunately whether something contradicts scripture or not is a matter of personal reading comprehension. For instance the commandment to have no graven images. People either understand the Catholic position in the 10 commandments or they read the 10 commandments differently. As a Catholic I look to understand the churches interpretation and see how it harmonizes with scripture.

In a sense, the Church IS above Scripture, because it is the Church that defines what Scripture is. And the Bible itself points to the Church being the pillar and foundation of truth in 1 Timothy 3:15.

You’re not Christian. Mary isn’t sinless talk about false teachings

​@@user-pb4go2sf9yI am Christian now. I used to be Protestant.

@@user-pb4go2sf9y Of course she's sinless. Your Church was started by some random guy, the Catholic Church was founded by Christ. Catholic Church = Fullness of truth. Protestantism = Heresy.

​@@ProtestantKing7You're not understanding my brother.

​@@jacobrodriguez7771SOLA SCRIPTURA = 666 × 666 Prot denominations 😂😂😂