After 43 years Catholic, I was drawn to scripture. We were just confirmed in the LCMS Lutheran tradition. My experience is the Church uses scripture when it backs up a teaching. Disregards it when it doesn’t. I’d rather error on the side of scripture. No longer need to care what a pope or bishop says. Kinda refreshing. There are many disgruntled Catholics and I don’t blame them. Anyhow, scripture has the answers if you take the time to look

@blizzardblaise

2 жыл бұрын

Welcome home!

@blizzardblaise

2 жыл бұрын

@@invaderzimrocksify Orthodoxy would be your best bet to look into if you are doubting Lutheranism. I'm Lutheran but spent many years practicing and studying Orthodoxy. I love it, but it has the same problems as Protestantism (and more). All in all, pray to God about it.

@virgopotens226

Жыл бұрын

You sadly were poorly teach the Catholic tradition because if you would, you wouldn’t left.

@SUPERHEAVYBOOSTER

Жыл бұрын

Totally agree! My interpretation of scripture is the correct interpretation.

@Calebe311

Жыл бұрын

Blessed

I'm a Catholic and just getting started on this debate. While I differ, I respect still your scholarship and intelligence--two most admirable values. God bless you, Doc!

@Endtime-dh9lk

Жыл бұрын

*Did you know that 2 Popes considered the Assuption of Mary a heresy* ❓ In the list of apocryphal writings which are to be rejected Gelasius signifies the following work: Liber qui apellatur Transitus, id est Assumptio Sanctae Mariae, Apocryphus (Pope Gelasius 1, Epistle 42, Migne Series, M.P.L. vol. 59, Col. 162). Pope Gelasius explicitly condemns the authors as well as their writings and the teachings which they promote and all who follow them. And significantly, this entire decree and its condemnation was reaffirmed by Pope Hormisdas in the sixth century around A.D. 520. (Migne Vol. 62. Col. 537-542). These facts prove that the early Church viewed the assumption teaching, not as a legitimate expression of the pious belief of the faithful but as a heresy worthy of condemnation. While the Gelasian decree may be questioned by some, the decree of Pope Hormisdas reaffirming the Gelasian decree in the early sixth century has not been questioned. Decree of Pope Hormisdas on Canonical and Noncanonical Books (A.D. 520) Liber qui appellatur Transitus, id est Assumptio sanctae Mariae, apocryphus.

@thomasfolio7931

Жыл бұрын

@@Endtime-dh9lk You bring up some interesting quotes, the question I have is what sources you used and which of the Decrees you are purporting as authentic. The problem is there are several different sets of these decretals, including the one's that Fr. Migne (known by the appellation of "God's Plagiarist") Published in his monumental sets of Theology, the Fathers, Scripture in Latin Greek and French. Migne, was a great advance for parish priests, and a cost effective way to obtain many if not most could not afford. He was the first to publish just about every ancient text he could get his hands on, but reprinted at such a rate that often what he published was done so simply because he could publish it, not because it was authentic. He did as is the case in what you quote not have a keen understanding of what texts were authentic, and like the texts you are promoting. Nor does he explain how he came to determine when there are (as is the case of the texts attributed to Pope Hormisdas, which are of disputed authorship and do not show up for at least a century later) which of the various works, he is using. In the case of these Directorial they exist in two, three, four and five chapter recensions, having sometimes similar and other times different information. What current scholarship does agree on is that they are later sets of documents of unknown authorship. I treasure the sets of Migne I picked up, in my youth. But like any set of Fathers and Early Church documents, published by Catholic or non-Catholic sources, am careful to try and research what the scholars throughout the ages of the Church say regarding their authorship and translation.

@edwardlucas3575

11 ай бұрын

@@Endtime-dh9lk I hate to burst your bubble, but neither pope considered the Assumption of Mary to be heresy. The two documents you refer to make no such assertion. The documents only provide a list of accepted books of the Bible, followed by a list of books not accepted. That’s all. Some Protestants (e.g., James White and William Webster) jumped to the erroneous conclusion that these documents condemned as untrue the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary. But they did not. As a matter of history, these documents do not condemn any doctrines in the books they list. They declare which books are accepted and which are not accepted in the canon of the Bible. Because a book is not accepted as part of the canon of the Bible does not mean it does not contain truth. The Assumption of Moses and The Book of Enoch are not accepted as part of the canon of the Bible. The fact that these works are not accepted in the canon does not preclude St. Jude (9; 14) from quoting both. You would be well advised to read the documents instead of cutting and pasting the results of faulty research.

@nemoexnuqual3643

10 ай бұрын

@@edwardlucas3575there is plenty to question about changes in doctrine throughout the history of the Roman Catholic Church. They change the teaching about our unchanging like most people change underwear. The current pope seems to be all about condoning unrepentant sin that a few hundred years ago a different pope would have burned people over.

@KnightFel

3 ай бұрын

Take all the Marian dogmas and the doctrine (not yet dogma) of comediatrix, and it’s just another Christ. It’s wild and totally heretical.

"Do not go beyond what is written"

@duncescotus2342

Жыл бұрын

Yeah, but you do. That scripture is "alone" and not dependent for its creation and upholding by the church which comes before it and who authored it by the inspiration of the Spirit is not found in the scripture, and therefore you are the ones who are guilty. While certainly paradoxical, this is unsurprising, as the Pharisees are your model. They thought in the scriptures was life.

@yellowblackbird9000

8 ай бұрын

​@duncescotus2342 what infallible authority told a Jew one hundred years before Christ was born what the canon was?

@tomtemple69

6 ай бұрын

@@duncescotus2342 lol you know nothing about the Pharisees if that is what you think was the problem with the Pharisees in fact, the people who argue against sola scriptura are the true pharisees

@tomtemple69

6 ай бұрын

@@yellowblackbird9000 people know who the prophets and moses and david and solomon were...

@yellowblackbird9000

6 ай бұрын

@@tomtemple69 so David told people what the canon was long after he was dead?

I'm an Anglican (occasional lurker) who often finds myself agreeing with much of what you say. A really helpful way of distinguishing between the Reformed understanding of Sola Scriptura and that of Lutherans and Anglicans lies in the distinction between what is called a "regulative" and a "normative' hermeneutic of Scriptural interpretation. (This was the crucial issue of disagreement between Anglican Richard Hooker and his Puritan opponents.) For a "regulative" hermeneutic, anything not specifically commanded in Scripture is forbidden. For a "normative" hermeneutic, anything not specifically forbidden by Scripture is allowed -- as long as it is consistent with the positive teaching of Scripture. This plays itself out in such differences as hymn-singing, liturgical worship, creeds, councils, and bishops. For example, historically, the Reformed did not write hymns, but based church music exclusively on the Psalms. Thus, the importance of the Genevan Psalter. (Some Reformed churches still follow this practice.) Anglicans (and Lutherans) have traditions of hymnody, liturgical worship, consider themselves bound by the ecumenical councils of the undivided church, and, at least in theory, affirm episcopal polity. It is the last on which there is some disagreement between (some) Lutherans and (some) Anglicans. Some Anglicans affirm that bishops ordained in the apostolic succession are necessary (of the esse of the church), while the traditional Anglican stance (as formulated by writers like Hooker) is that bishops are of the bene esse of the church -- preferable, and in accord with the church's historic tradition, but not absolutely necessary.

@vincentsheridan284

4 жыл бұрын

Thanks for reminding me why I am happy that I am Roman Catholic :)

@vincentsheridan284

4 жыл бұрын

LOL says Prophet @Asaph Vapor

@vincentsheridan284

4 жыл бұрын

@Asaph Vapor you don't know the truth, nor what your typing in this 1-15 list. :) lets look at item 1 and 2 to start..... Yes the Mother of God was sinless, she is the new Eve. Luke 1:28, and yes she was also humble, so indeed would give thanks and praise to God. 2. It is well known Peter was married.. but he too on celibacy when called to be Jesus Apostle. Most of the Apostles were married the catholic church does not dispute this.

@vincentsheridan284

4 жыл бұрын

@Asaph Vapor And you got an upvote LOL... Luke 1:28 " Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women." The greek used for " Full of Grace" is-Kecharitomene means "having been" or "have already been" graced. lets consult a leading Greek commentary -Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament).- "It is permissible, on Greek grammatical and linguistic grounds, to paraphrase kecharitomene as completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace."

@vincentsheridan284

4 жыл бұрын

@Asaph Vapor celibacy does not mean " cannot be married" ....... a married couple can enter in a agreement of celibacy

Please do a video rebuttal on Trent Horn's arguments against Sola Scriptura

You should make a rebuttal response video to ‘How to be a Christian’ on sola scriptura

@leonardu6094

2 жыл бұрын

He can't because Sola scriptura is not taught in the bible as the guy from 'How to be Christian' masterfully demonstrated.

@TYY727

Жыл бұрын

@@leonardu6094 did you even watch the video?

@leonardu6094

Жыл бұрын

@@TYY727 i did.

@KnightFel

3 ай бұрын

@@leonardu6094neither is purgatory yet you still believe it. Double standard. “Sola scriptura isn’t true because the Bible doesn’t say that” The Bible doesn’t say purgatory, and Catholics be like “it’s in the Bible! It doesn’t need to use the word purgatory!”

@leonardu6094

3 ай бұрын

@@KnightFel I'm not catholic, so I don't believe in purgatory. You embarrassingly let your bias get the best of you by assuming I must be catholic simply because I reject the doctrine of _sola scriptura_ I reject both concepts for the same reason.

Concerning the question of whether 2 Timothy 3:16 refers to the NT as well as to the OT - 2 Peter 3:16 (can't help but notice the numerical coincidence even though it doesn't matter) includes the epistles of Paul in reference to those scriptures wrested by the unlearned and by the unstable. So if Scripture does not contain or define anything corresponding precisely to an explicit "Doctrine of Sola Scriptura", it does at least contain a definition of itself which includes the Pauline epistles. This would exclude an understanding of 2 Timothy 3:16 as pertaining only to the Old Testament books.

Even if Sola Scrptura were explicitly and undeniably taught in scripture it wouldn't convince people. They would demand more proof and disregard it as a circular argument.

@vincentsheridan284

4 жыл бұрын

The fact is Sola Scrptura is not taught in scripture, never was in both the old and new testaments..... Protestantism falls on both of its two pillars Sola Scriptura & Sola Fide..

@vincentsheridan284

4 жыл бұрын

thats kinda funny.... " even if it was taught in the bible, it wouldn't convince people.... the reason SS is not convincing, is because its not taught in the book protestants hold as the Sola rule of authority. And what is the fruit if Sola Scriptura? Thousands of divisions and contradictory interpretation by the protestants. Luther fell into a huge depression when he found that he was not considered the Protestant pope..... denominations sprang up all around him.....

@vincentsheridan284

4 жыл бұрын

@Asaph Vapor Did the Holy Ghost reveal that to you? I am not here to define your false teachings.

@vincentsheridan284

4 жыл бұрын

@Asaph Vapor you are doing more ranting... it still does not make any sense.......

@simontemplar3359

4 жыл бұрын

@Asaph Vapor let's please remember Christ's teaching, as laid out in Matthew 7:12 and treat @Vincent Sheridan as we would like to be treated. I'm not trying to start a debate. Let's follow Christ and repent where we err. peace be with you both.

From an anglican perspective: sure, scripture places itself as authority, but you need reason and tradition as authorities if you want to claim that any historical text is actually scripture, and you need tradition and reason to interpret scripture. They're not equal authorities, but they are authorities

@filiusvivam4315

3 жыл бұрын

Scripture is not self interpreting How do you know what books go in the Bible??

@internetenjoyer1044

3 жыл бұрын

@@filiusvivam4315 I agree with that. What's Scripture has to be decided by reason and tradition (Reason rules out the gnostic gospels for example, tradition can't do it alone becuase what if tradition allows a book in that says "God is a big poo poo pants", you need reason to correct tradition in that instance).

@Chulama-qk9fo

7 ай бұрын

​@@filiusvivam4315it was largely based on what the early church considered authoritative, as well as when it was written

2 Timothy 3:16-17 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. Notice how verse 16 says ALL Scriptures is given by the INSPIRATION of God, it is profitable for Doctrine, reproof, correction etc. And here comes the important part verse 17 that a man of God may be COMPLETE COMPLETE COMPLETE, THOROUGHLY EQUIPPED, for EVERY good work. This Scripture makes me COMPLETE, and THOROUGHLY equipped for EVERY GOOD WORK. I don't need any more doctrine because this one make me complete, and aslo helps me to perform EVERY GOOD WORK.

@d.rey5743

Жыл бұрын

Verse 17 means that scripture is necessary for someone to be perfect and fully equipped for all good works. It doesn’t say that ONLY scripture is necessary to equip someone for all good works. 2 Timothy 2:21 and James 1:4 talk about other things that equip us for “every good work” and uses identical language used in 2 timothy 2:17. I understand why you interpreted like that though, I did for a while as well, but it just doesn’t prove sola scriptura. Also, non-protestants believe that *all* scripture is the word of God, inspired by him. Just not all that we need

@Phil-bm4xo

15 күн бұрын

Interestingly many bishops will say something different than Paul on divorce and remarriage. Who has authority, bishops or Paul? Paul says this: “If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.” ‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭14‬:‭37‬ So who am I gonna believe? Bishops were the apostle Paul, who speaks the Commandments of the Lord? It is with a leap of faith that one has to believe that Bishops have the the same, if not more authority than the apostle Paul. If someone wants to believe that that’s on them, but it’s in contrast to what Paul is saying.

Thank you Rev. Dr. Cooper for this video. While I am not Lutheran, I am proudly Protestant & I believe all of us should be able to defend Sola Scriptura against critics.

@voltape

4 жыл бұрын

the big problem is: where in the Bible says that of Sola Scriptura - Defendind Sola Scriptura is unbiblical.

@reformedcatholic457

4 жыл бұрын

@@voltape First, can you define what Sola Scriptura is?

@voltape

4 жыл бұрын

@@reformedcatholic457 Sure thing - for you, I assume it means basing your faith in the Word of God, not in the words of men. Sounds gorgeous, doesn’t it? But now, where is God’s Word? You’ll say: “In the Bible”. What Bible?? You’ll answer: “In my Bible, of course” . Well, what is your Bible??? The King James?, the New World Translation of the JW’s? the Roman Catholic New Jerusalem Bible? The Mormon Bible plus the Book of Mormon? Sola Scriptura is so vague a term!

@reformedcatholic457

4 жыл бұрын

@@voltape You don't know what Sola Scriptura is.

@michael7144

2 жыл бұрын

We can all be thankful that jesus relied on scripture and didn't adhere to corruption in his "religious authorities"

I got through the Timothy reference. I’m just curious: what’s keeping you from Rome? You seem to be trying very hard to defend Solo Scriptura but why? If you’ve studied Luther you know he first came up with it as a defense (not some positive divine revelation) during a debate. I’m honestly curious. I’m assuming you love Jesus and want to be in His Church. Why stay away from the Sacraments? God bless!

@ronobvious1785

5 жыл бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/i4aA0K9pntfZlNo.html

@ernestperryjr

5 жыл бұрын

Just so I understand/for clarification: I'm pretty sure this is a defense of solA scriptura, not solO-he explains that in this and another video about what Sola Scriptura is. He's a Lutheran (I'm not...yet...😅); he has a high view of the Sacraments as a result and I'm sure partakes of them on the regular. If that's where you stopped in the video, the rest of his video (and his other one about what Sola Scriptura is) I bet would prove beneficial, even if you ultimately disagree with the conclusions made (I know my Reformedish self have found these videos a blessing!) So...yeah, maybe that helps explain things? Idk lol, but God bless you! 😄

@pierreschiffer3180

5 жыл бұрын

Nice response, Laura. A man like this will come home, eventually, I tend to believe. One remark: this man does not love Jesus: he loves the Messiah of Luther, created by himself.

@WhatLauraLikes2018

5 жыл бұрын

Asaph Vapor Wow. That’s a lot. But the New Testament didn’t exist with the Apostles. *That* Church, the one Jesus started, had to use Tradition to carry its message throughout the world, as they could. Orally. Paul says to “hear and speak”, not to read. He was still writing his Epistles. I’m no expert so I’ll end it there. I really don’t think Sola Scriptura (which honestly, read history bc Luther made it up at a debate when his back was against the wall ...) is the issue anyway. The true issue is: is Jesus truly present in the tabernacle, in the Eucharist? What did He mean in John 6? Why did so many turn away? Read John 6 with fresh eyes!!

@WhatLauraLikes2018

5 жыл бұрын

Asaph Vapor So what did Jesus mean when he said “you are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church?”

Against Heresies 3.1, Irenaeus writes this: We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.

@letrewiarz

2 жыл бұрын

He also writes "But, again, when we refer them [heretics] to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles" and "Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?"

@gamerjj777

2 жыл бұрын

@@letrewiarz giving references would be nice. Is he talking of mere human traditions or teachings of apostles.

@letrewiarz

2 жыл бұрын

@@gamerjj777 The first quote is from Against Heresies 3.2 and the second one is from AH 3.4. I think it's clear that he's talking about teaching of apostles, since he writes about "tradition which originates from the apostles".

@gamerjj777

2 жыл бұрын

@@letrewiarz yes he was taking it as helpful in interpreting the scriptures. But the major split between churches are not about apostolic teaching but later developed trafitions.

@ZEN_180

Жыл бұрын

@@letrewiarz That Tradtion revolves around Scripture, it makes perfect sense to say that Thr Tradition was orally tradition aka Into scripture.

Its not just Roman Catholics that say this. Also Orthodox, Catholic (Non-Roman) also say this. Paul persecuted christian's before the NT existed. So how did Christian's worship before the NT? Where they not valid Christians?

@voltape

4 жыл бұрын

well said

@anthonycalipjo8669

3 жыл бұрын

@Alex Lancaster where did you get the idea that the early Christians used the old testament??? Please don't use the term strawman if you dont know what it means. Actually that word is the best to describe you...♥️🤣♥️

Great argument. Thanks for the video!

Hi Dr. Cooper. I want you to know that I appreciate your channel and being exposed to the Lutheran tradition. It’s refreshing to find a Protestant channel that isn’t in some form or another Reformed or non-denominational. I’ve really come to respect the Lutheran tradition, especially on the Eucharist, because of your work here. However, as someone who is drawn to the Catholic Church, I did notice some arguments in your defense on which I’d like some clarification. I actually agree with your point that Catholic apologists tend to use that “gotcha” argument against Protestants to subvert the doctrine of sola Scriptura, but then also affirm Scripture doesn’t need to explicitly teach doctrines (like the Trinity) for it to be true. It is a kind of double-standard and probably needs to be re-evaluated how it’s defended. However, I’ve come to understand the exegesis of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 differently. It seems like most translations of that verse do not translate the Greek to mean Scripture makes “sufficient” the man of God, but rather something more like “perfect”, “adequate”, or “complete”. As you pointed out, something about the nature of Scripture makes perfect, makes adequate, or complete the man of God, but as far as I can see, concluding that Scripture is the sole infallible authority for a Christian from this verse, which is the best evidence of sola Scriptura, is like saying Revelation 12 proves the Queenship and Assumption of Mary. For something can complete another thing but not be sufficient. For instance, a hammer can complete a carpenter’s materials to build a dresser, but a hammer isn’t sufficient for a carpenter to build a dresser. So, in my understanding of 2 Tim. 3:16-17, taking those Greek words to mean “sufficient” (artios and exartizo, I think?) either proves too much or too little. For if it does mean the man of God is sufficient, sufficient for every good work, does that mean that all that’s needed is a belief that one is a man of God and a Bible, without faith, hope, and love, or others, or God? Or if Scripture “completes” the man, how does the completeness of man prove that the Bible is sufficient as the sole infallible authority for all Christians? Then, regarding Matthew 15, I think you raise a good point regarding how one determines the difference between human traditions and divine traditions, and I’m curious to read Geerhart? And the other person you quoted who attempt to trace historical inconsistencies in the Catholic Church’s teaching. Yet, how do you reconcile your view of tradition as being tempered by Scripture in light of Jesus commanding the apostles to listen to the Pharisee’s teaching on account of their authority being on Moses’ seat? Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; 3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice. To me, for Jesus to teach his chosen twelve apostles to submit to and do the teaching of the Pharisees by virtue of their office ([they] sit on Moses’ seat) and because their teaching is true (for Christ wouldn’t command his disciples to follow un-truth) gives at least some clout to the Catholic dogmas about apostolic offices and the Petrine primacy claims. Obviously, this passage doesn't prove those claims, but at least makes them more reasonable. What do you think? Thank you for what you do!

@k.schmidt2740

4 жыл бұрын

Thank you for taking the time and investing the energy in this comment!

@jzak5723

4 жыл бұрын

YOU: To me, for Jesus to teach his chosen twelve apostles to submit to and do the teaching of the Pharisees by virtue of their office ([they] sit on Moses’ seat) and because their teaching is true (for Christ wouldn’t command his disciples to follow un-truth) gives at least some clout to the Catholic dogmas about apostolic offices and the Petrine primacy claims. ME: YES!

@Mygoalwogel

4 жыл бұрын

The Disciples did not obey the Pharisees to the point of contradicting the Gospel. The Pharisees attacked the disciples for picking grain to nibble on the Sabbath and for eating with unwashed hands. The disciples did not apologize, but continued in the freedom Jesus gave. After the resurrection, the Pharisees suppressed the gospel, and the disciples did submit to the Pharisees' punishments, but not to their lies. Today, Rabbis have zero authority over Christians. As Dr. Cooper pointed out, the situation was very similar in Luther's Europe. Jan Hus submitted to burning, but would not refuse the Cup of the New Testament to the laity despite Pope calling this heresy. (Leo X anathematized anyone who moderately called this schismatic rather than heretical!) So, yes, we must submit to God-given authority. Over time, all authorities have proven fallible except for scripture. We forgive and obey fallible authorities if they repent. But when the stubbornly insist on error over centuries, they lose their authority, as the Popes and Pharisees have.

@vincentsheridan284

4 жыл бұрын

Are you aware the Catholic Church also holds the Bible as the inspired Written word of God i.e. God-breathed? Also, Moses seat is not outlined in the bible , yet Jesus mentions it as a teaching office to be respected and followed.

@juliancuratolo8928

4 жыл бұрын

@@Mygoalwogel how do you consider if they have become fallible?

Hi Dr. Cooper. I appreciate your channel 9o 9

@dylanakers7272

4 жыл бұрын

Woops! That's embarrassing. I think I accidentally butt-posted. I have an actual comment on the video. Thank you for the work you do!

Just want to say thanks for posting! These videos have really helped me to understand my faith better.

Hello, It seems a large part of your argument hinges on scripture being "God breathed." Im curious how you would respond to John 20:21 where Jesus, in telling his disciples that He is sending them just as the Father sent Him. And then He "breathes" on them and tells them to recieve the Holy Spirit and have the authority to forgive/retain sins... Is their "God breathed" authority/sending a lesser authority than scripture is said to have in 2 Tim 3? If so, what is the basis given that theopneustos is not used anywhere else in scripture? Thank you:)

@Mygoalwogel

2 жыл бұрын

Lutherans maintain that those verses are to be taken literally. We preserve the Absolution, Baptism, the Supper, and Spiritual Preaching as God's word to me. When the bishop forgives my sins, I'm to take it as the word of God. When I was baptized, God's word baptized me in God's Name. When I eat the Supper, God's word guarantees that it is Christ's true body and blood for the forgiveness of my sins. When the sermon convicts my sins or comforts my soul, that is God's word, (whether I feel it subjectively or not). That's why Scripture says these two Scripture and Minister, Word and Sacrament are God breathed.

I have realized how different evangelicals and more historical reformed christians are.

@Liminalplace1

4 жыл бұрын

But Lutheran arent part of "Reformed " .see Dr.Justin Coopers videos on "why I'm not reformed"

@kurtjensen1790

4 жыл бұрын

@@Liminalplace1 you're right. My terminology was bad. I realized that a while ago.

@thatguys4341

3 жыл бұрын

Kurt Jensen yee no problem, it’s Evangelical and Mainline. Those are sub breakdowns of Protestantism.

Greetings Dr. Cooper - I appreciate your work and actually found this video as the first hit on an internet search on defending sola scriptura. I wanted to let you know I did a response video to it on my channel. No response required or requested - just a courtesy. :) God bless.

@Mygoalwogel

Жыл бұрын

No response would be accepted by you either. You block people who demonstrate your fallacies.

@4jgarner

Жыл бұрын

@@Mygoalwogel i pointed out a few blatantly dishonest things on his channel and minimal replies that had no substance at all.

2 Tim 3 doesn't say anything about the bible being sufficient by itself. Dr. Cooper is reading that into the text.

@d.rey5743

Жыл бұрын

It just says that scripture is necessary to make someone fully perfect and equipped for all good works. It doesnt say only scripture is necessary to equip someone for all good works

God also breathed on the apostles, not just the bible (john 20:22)

@rgiardelli

4 жыл бұрын

Did he breathe on the the individuals who made up traditions that are unbiblical after the Apostles were dead? The majority of RC teachings come from men who came long after the Apostles, so that argument you used doesnt hold up.

@james-ch

4 жыл бұрын

@@rgiardelli indirectly yes, since the apostles appoint their successors through laying on of hands. Tradition and scripture don't contradict each other since scripture is a product of tradition. And the word 'biblical' is subjective and has no meaning, i would say your tradition is unbiblical instead

@jzak5723

4 жыл бұрын

@@rgiardelli The Church didn't end with the last Apostle. So this "breathing on them" had to continue, thus we have Apostolic Succession.

@Liminalplace1

4 жыл бұрын

Is John 20:22 even refering to inspiration? Its a big stretch in interpretation.

@calson814

3 жыл бұрын

@Asaph Vapor The Fact is the Apostles are the ONLY people commissioned BY JESUS CHRIST to carry HIS WORD . The Apostles then commissioned their Successors, called Bishops (Episcope) to carry on the True teachings. Protestants (including you) has NO such COMMISSION .

Masterfully said, Dr. Cooper! Thank you. Sola Scriptura is a reasonable conviction based on the unique nature of Scripture. The burden of proof is on those who claim that something else has the same status. From a historical perspective I would add that the Holy Scriptures are also uniquely defined, sure, and able to be referenced. The content of the Protocanon is attested to with higher agreement than just about any other Christian doctrine including formulations of the Trinity. The sheer number of extant manuscripts of these works, and therefore certainty and completeness of text, is unparalleled by anything else we have from antiquity. Given this sureness of content, which books belong and what those books say, the Scriptures can be pointed to and therefore referenced in a way that more nebulous Tradition(s) cannot. Nature aside, Tradition simply does not have the same mode of existence as the Holy Scriptures.

Don't mind me.....I'm just hanging with Dr. Cooper.

Dr. J Cooper, there at at least seven scriptures where God said you can't ADD to His word. Why didn't you give those seven scriptures to prove the defense of Sola Scriptura.

How do we respond to groups that claim there are books that have been removed from the Bible? Eastern Orthodox church claims that reformers removed 7 books from the new testament and 3 books from the old testament.

Thanks for the great video, here are a few concerns or at least thoughts I have on the matter. My main concern is less that Sola Scriptura is not being thaught within the Bible, which becomes also evident by the need that people even have to argue for it, but rather it seems that the Bible teaches against Sola Scriptura, and so wonder, what are we to make out of that. First, when we read that all scripture is God breathed, it carried a different meaning in the days it was written. "God-Breathed" or "inspired" originated from the greek word "theopneustos", and was used anciently in the sense of things being livening. We also see the same word being used in reference to springs of water, ointments and even sandals. So the meaning we impose upon the Bible today simply was different back then. Personally I agree that people can gaing understanding from the Bible about Savlavtion, but, I also believe that this understanding does not come merely from learning "about God", but rather comes by "knowing God". The Bible certainly is a great source to learn about God, but the question is, where does it state that it is the only infallible source we are to rely on? It seems that the more we allow the Bible to speak on its own termns, we have to agree that the Bible does contain many errors, contradictions and mistakes. We get authors disagree on doctrine, and we even get a Jesus teaching three different doctrines on hell, for example.. There would be many examples I could bring in.. So that being said, people can always pick and choose whaterve verse they need to back up their claim, which means that unless people use a proper spiritual discernment, there is no way people will obtain the understanding needed. Now there are a few things, first, Paul clearly teaches that even "the knowing and understanding of all things" is worth nothing, if not rooted in charity. That means, even if people know everything about God, that does not mean they know God.. At the same time we are thaught that to love, is the means by which we are to "know God".. And to "love", is not something we are exclivvely thaught within the Bible (often times, actuaklly, rather the opposite). So spiritual discernment stands above scripture, charity stands above scripture, and knowing God is independant from scripture. Also, why would Jesus teach us how to discern true from false Prophets in these latter days, if there were not any Prophets around? Why did Jesus teach that his church will be built upon the rock of revelation, if revelation has always to submit to the scriptures? I dont see how his church is built upon artificial authority, but rather upon spiritual revelation and the good fruits of charity

To say scripture is 'God breathed' is subject to interpretation. To interpret this as meaning scriptural infallibility is to apply a speculative judgment outside of scripture. Adam was also God breathed, but what's your point? By that logic, the mystical life within us is as equally valid as scripture. Then we have two authorities that should be weighed against each other equally. What does Timothy say exactly after claiming scripture is God breathed? That it is *useful*. It is definitely good for teaching and training. It does *not* suggest the meaning of 'God breathed' is infallibility- pedagogical utility does not imply infallibility. Sola Scriptura is so blind to its own presuppositions.

Okay, but how do we know what is Scripture and what is not? How can we defend Scripture is God-breathed until we can know what the canon is and why? You don't even touch this. It's kind of important. 😁

@CaseyCovenant

5 жыл бұрын

See Michael Krugers work on the Canon

@alexanderparker764

5 жыл бұрын

His podcast on this same subject touches on it, and like Casey Sandberg says, Dr. Cooper points to Michael Kruger for a more in-depth discussion

@WhatLauraLikes2018

5 жыл бұрын

Brad D The Canon you’re looking for is the 73 books complied by the early Church around 300AD. 😉 I love Sirach.

@pierreschiffer3180

5 жыл бұрын

@@WhatLauraLikes2018 Nice response again, Laura :) Indeed the councils of the 3-hundreds are the ones that they are looking for. The canon established by some kind of authority...:)

@slarkel506

4 жыл бұрын

Holy men spake as they were moved by the holy ghost. Every single bit of the Bible is perfect and on time

Hey dr jordan, A catholic friend once said to me if scripture claims to be infallible within the scripture itself that wouldnt be sufficient evidence to prove its infallibility. The claim should come from the outside to justify what the scripture says(like tradition). He gave example of the apostles saying they declared the scripture to be "God breathed" and there claim was backed by them knowing Jesus and the work they carried out. Which is outside the bible. What can i reply back??

@johnmartin1335

4 жыл бұрын

The reply is the catholic objection is correct. There is no way to establish 2 Tim 3:16, or the entire letter of 1 Tim, or 2 Tim, or Romans is authored by the holy spirit. So there is no way to verify any truth claims made by the NT within the framework of sola scriptora (SS). Jordan's arguments are fallacious for the scriptures as the sole infallible authority, because they assume the very text is inspired to conclude to the infallibility of the scriptures. A text is infallible because it is inspired. But a text that claims to be inspired is not known to be inspired from the text alone. Therefore the text is not known to be infallible either. SS always fails to get off the ground, because it never provides any sufficient means to determine the canon of scripture, or tell us what God breathed means from the text. A text may say all scripture is inspired, but never establishes that any scripture exists at all. That is yet another problem with SS.

@Mygoalwogel

4 жыл бұрын

Process of elimination. St. Peter told Simon Magus that his succession is not for sale. The Canons of the Ecumenical councils all agree that simoniacs must be deposed. Pope Benedict IX both bought and sold the papacy. He was not deposed. All Popes since are successors of an illegitimate Pope. *Therefore, the Roman papacy is fallible.* Cyprian is correct. All bishops are successors of Peter. Rome is not special. Pope Leo X published a bull that giving the blood of the Lord's Supper to the laity is not merely schismatic but heretical. Even before that there was a long-standing tradition in the papist church that the laity should not receive the blood. Today they do. *Therefore, tradition is fallible.* The papists church would not dare say anything in Scripture is doctrinally fallible. Process of elimination.

@TheThreatenedSwan

Жыл бұрын

@@Mygoalwogel The Bible itself is a tradition that needs defining from outside itself. It's like all reasoning goes out the window with you people when it comes to these arguments

@Mygoalwogel

Жыл бұрын

@@TheThreatenedSwan You didn't address what I actually said. Did you write under the wrong comment, perhaps? If you're going to be insulting, don't present yourself as more worthy of your own insult than the person you're insulting.

@TheThreatenedSwan

Жыл бұрын

@@Mygoalwogel lol

It's hard to defend Sola Scripture. We do not see the early Church operating with a Sola Scripture premise. The only reason the reformers came up with this idea is because they lacked any authority to start new Churches and make up new Bible Canons. So yes, they had to make this idea up because otherwise they would be held accountable to God's judgment for disobeying God approved authority in the form of the Bishop's and the Pope.

"Scripture over tradition, where there is a conflict." OK. But that still leaves us with the problem of whose understanding of scripture we follow and what the criteria are that regulate such an understanding.

@Mygoalwogel

4 жыл бұрын

Would you agree that when someone interprets a Biblical statement with the verbatim opposite of that very statement, something is wrong? For example, "This is my body; this is my blood" means "This is not Jesus body or blood." "Baptism now saves you ... the assurance of a clean conscience before God" means "Baptism doesn't save and gives no assurance." "By Grace you have been saved through faith ... not by works" means "Salvation is by faith and works."

@k.schmidt2740

4 жыл бұрын

@@Mygoalwogel : 1) That something is wrong, yes, I agree. It just depends on what is "wrong". For instance, when we use the word "believe", does that just mean "to take something literally", even if that, in turn, means defying Jesus' commandment of love? 2) One thing I think is wrong is your interpretation of baptism. There is no word of the Lord that sounds anything like that. 3) I agree with what you say about "saved by grace", but I am relatively certain that we do not mean the same thing with the exact same words.

@Mygoalwogel

4 жыл бұрын

@@k.schmidt2740 1 Peter 3:21 Baptism now *saves you! Baptism = assurance* of a good conscience before God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

@Mygoalwogel

4 жыл бұрын

@@k.schmidt2740 By dismissing one extreme I was not affirming the opposite. There are many ways to understand the Lord's Supper even in confessional Lutheranism. But if the only time a pastor ever says "This is my body," is when he's reading from the Bible, and if he would never say, "This is Christ's body," in a sermon or conversation for any reason or context, then he clearly isn't right. I have family members who would never say those four simple words about the Supper, and immediately want to argue when anyone else does. The first thing to jump out whenever the topic arises is, "It's not his body!" And as for baptism, "It doesn't save us! It's just a commandment!" "Then why does the Bible say, 'For baptism now saves...'" "Context!" "What context contradicts that?" "We're saved by faith alone." "Our faith says the Bible is the word of God. So isn't that verse the word of God?" "Shut up!"

@Dave85262

2 жыл бұрын

@@Mygoalwogel "We are saved by faith alone," appears nowhere in the Bible.

Dr. Cooper, I have alot of respect for you and your ministry but I feel like I must point out a few things that may seem as problematic for your defence of Sola scriptura. 1. Scripture isn't the only thing that is God breathed. See (John 20:21-23) Jesus (God) breathed on the disciples and gave them his mission "As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you." Furthermore this can also be demonstrated in Luke 10:16 "The one who hears you hears me, and the one who rejects you rejects me, and the one who rejects me rejects him who sent me." We can clearly see here that there is a sacred oral Tradition alongside scripture that is God breathed. 2. Scripture makes the man of God perfect (2 Timothy 3:17). This is true, but notice that scripture also teaches that the church also does the exact same thing in Ephesians 4:11-15 "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: 14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; 15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:" This passage seems to parallel 2 Timothy 3:16-17 showing that Both scripture interpteted and taught Via the church is the perfect combination to make the man perfect and complete. Notice that the church prevents people from being tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine. Therefore you can't put scripture above the church nor the church above scripture, they both need each other. 3. In Matthew 15 Jesus condemns the Corban Tradition. Specifically a tradition that violates scripture because the Corban Tradition violated the 4th commandment "honour thy father & Mother." Thus it was a tradition of men. But Rome's traditions don't violate scripture, rather they Interpret scripture and compliment scripture. That's what seperated sacred Tradition (2 Thessalonians 2:15, 3:6 & 1 Corinthians 11:2) from Traditions of men mentioned in Matthew 15.

@williamtyndale3472

3 жыл бұрын

Greetings young man! Believe it or not i actually know everything the Bible says and the eucharist is in violation of Leviticus 17:10 ¶ Likewise whosoever he be of the house of Israel: or of the strangers that sojourn among them, that eateth any blood, I will even set my face against that person that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people. 11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it unto you to offer upon the altar, to make an atonement for your souls: for this blood shall make an atonement for the soul. 12 Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, None of you shall eat blood: neither the stranger that sojourneth among you, shall eat blood. and also during the Last Passover while Jesus was establishing communion He never said that this is actually My body and neither does Paul in 1 Cor 11. i look forward to hearing your thoughts young man...

@joelscott3087

3 жыл бұрын

@@williamtyndale3472 Sure! But you'll have to get circumcised, eat only Kosher and hold to the other 900+ levitical laws and be a Judaizer, then the prohibition against blood stands. But we know st paul says in Colossians 2:14 "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;" and furthermore in verse 16 "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days." We're no longer under the old ceremonial & judicial Jewish law, as a protestant I would have assumed you would have been well versed in that. But furthermore to drive this home, in leviticus 17:11 we're told "For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul." This is directly fulfilled in Christ in john 6:53 "Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you." You see the reason the Jews were prohibited to drink blood was because the life of the animal was in the blood. But the reason Jesus fulfills this and that we are to drink his glorified blood is for that exact reason, we receive the life of Christ in us, We become partakers of the divine life (2 Peter 1:4)

@williamtyndale3472

3 жыл бұрын

@@joelscott3087 Greetings again, not sure if i am going to hear from you again but would like to offer a little more Scripture to you on God's stance on the "no blood" commandment...God is very stern on this issue. God commanded Noah (Genesis 9:4) Isreal and the Church (Acts 15:20&29) not to consume blood. So it was commanded during 3 different dispensations in Scripture and still stands. Therefore Jesus is figurative in His teaching. Just like when He said to hate your father and mother. You don't take that one literal do you? 1 Samuel 14:24-15:29 is a great lesson for us to learn about what happens when people consume the blood and God cuts them off. It's when Saul is removed as king right after he causes the people to eat the meat with the blood. (there is also a whole lesson in there on the Bible being the ultimate authority for the church but we'll save that for another time). So if you are partaking in holy communion and believe that you are drinking the actual blood of Christ i hope that you are able to see God's word plainly and repent of this... take care

@joelscott3087

3 жыл бұрын

@@williamtyndale3472 First, any divine command that comes later modifies divine commands that came earlier. When Jesus declared all foods clean (Mk 7:19), his command superseded the earlier command that certain foods be regarded as unclean (Lv 11:1-8). If Jesus today commands us to drink his blood, his command supersedes any prior command concerning drinking blood. Second, the command against drinking blood, like all of the Old Testament dietary regulations, has passed away, for “These are only a shadow of what is to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink” (Col 2:17, 16). The mention of not eating blood in Acts 15:20, 29 was a pastoral provision suggested by James to keep Jews from being scandalized by the conduct of Gentile Christians. We know that these pastoral provisions were only temporary. One concerned abstaining from idol meat, yet later Paul says eating idol meat is okay so long as it doesn’t scandalize others (Rom 14:1-14, 1 Cor 8:1-13). Jesus was asked (Mk 7:5) why his disciples ate with unwashed hands. He replied, “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him unclean? For it doesn’t go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body” (7:18-19)

2 Peter 3:15-16 says that Paul's writings are Scripture. 2 Timothy 3:16 affirms that all Scripture is inspired by God etc. Only ten books of the Old Testament and the thirteen letters of Paul are identifiable as divine Scripture on the sole authority of Christ or an Apostle. So on what authority do we accept anything further as Scripture?

What is your thought on Acts 15:28 when Luke says about the Council at Jerusalem, "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things."

@kilemyers784

3 жыл бұрын

I think we are asking the wrong question... here is a comment I made above Why do both protestants and Catholics just read 2 Timothy 3:16-17 this text is explained in the verses above. 2 Timothy 3:1-17 NKJV [1] But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: [2] For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, [3] unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, [4] traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, [5] having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away! [6] For of this sort are those who creep into households and make captives of gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts, [7] always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. [8] Now as Jannes and Jambres resisted Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, disapproved concerning the faith; [9] but they will progress no further, for their folly will be manifest to all, as theirs also was. [10] But you have carefully followed my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, love, perseverance, [11] persecutions, afflictions, which happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra-what persecutions I endured. And out of them all the Lord delivered me. [12] Yes, and all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution. [13] But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. [14] But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, [15] and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. [16] All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, [17] that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. Paul in verse 14 tells timothy to remember what he has learned and to remember WHO TAUGHT HIM. Why do we tend to forget this crucial aspect of the faith? There must always be a teacher. This is according to the will of the Holy Spirit Himself. John 14:26 NKJV But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you. 1 Corinthians 12:1-11,27-31 NKJV [1] Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I do not want you to be ignorant: [2] You know that you were Gentiles, carried away to these dumb idols, however you were led. [3] Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed, and no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit. [4] There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. [5] There are differences of ministries, but the same Lord. [6] And there are diversities of activities, but it is the same God who works all in all. [7] But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all: [8] for to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, to another the word of knowledge through the same Spirit, [9] to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healings by the same Spirit, [10] to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another different kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. [11] But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills. [27] Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually. [28] And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues. [29] Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all workers of miracles? [30] Do all have gifts of healings? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? [31] But earnestly desire the best gifts. And yet I show you a more excellent way. The Holy Spirit set up these gifts, and has set up a method to how He distributes these gifts. One of these such gifts is the gift of teaching. Another is knowledge and wisdom, the Spirit according to Paul and the Holy Spirit speaking through Paul does not give these gifts to everyone meaning there has to be an interpretor who has one or all of these gifts. This if we say Amen to what the scriptures say kind of crushes the idea of sola scriptura and the idea thst anyone can just pick up the bible, read it and understand the doctrine given by the Holy Spirit through the prophets and Apostles. The schismatic nature of Protestantism kind of proves this idea.

@rjdez3589

2 жыл бұрын

@@kilemyers784 right because the Holy Spirit wants us to make icons and bow down to Mary and a million other saints. The prophets, apostles and disciples all preached and worshipped God and God alone. They couldn't even bow down to angels and I've seen Catholics pray to them. Face it, Catholics have added many pagan elements to their dogma.

@markquioas6097

Жыл бұрын

@@kilemyers784 You might as well see 2 Tim.1:4,5 just who taught Timothy from his childhood( 3:15).Not Priest or Bishop but simply his godly mother and grandmother who love the Scriptures.

@bairfreedom

Жыл бұрын

​​@@kilemyers784ith your post, you assume that the RCC teaches the same thing as the church from the 1st century. It CLEARLY does not. Therfore you have a reformation. The RCC institution GOT AWAY from original tradition and teaching and Luther and many others called her to "go back" to the patrisric Era . If the RCC did that, the vast majority of her dogmas would be wiped down to the basics that even the protestants believe. The Gospel and faith in that gospel.

Lutheranism recognise saints like John from Damasc or other orthodox saints from Greece , Siria etc o this means that if they becaome saints if they are in Paradise so their way and ideas are good..like , monasteryes and monks , icons, etc

@kkdoc7864

3 жыл бұрын

The Bible calls ALL believers “saints”. It is not a state of being or title given to some of us who are somehow special and voted into a type of hall of fame.

Thanks for making the video. I thought you said some interesting things. You say that the burden of proof is on Catholics to prove that Tradition has the same infallible authority as Scripture, so this is what I will address. I may address a little on Matthew 15 also. The clearest reference to the apostles communicating doctrine through Sacred Tradition and not just Scripture alone is 2 Thessalonians 2:15: “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” In his prior letter to the Thessalonians, Paul referred to the time when his hearers “received the word of God which you heard from us” and how they “accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God” (1 Thess. 2:13). Now he instructs this same community to “stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” So, clearly the Scriptures teach that the spoken Word of God (Sacred Tradition) is infallibly authoritative because it is the Word of God (1 Thess. 2:13). Now on Matthew 15. Catholics agree that if a tradition contradicts Scripture, then that tradition does come from men rather than from God and shouldn’t be followed. In this passage Jesus said that the Pharisees nullified or made void the written word of God through their application of the korban tradition. But Jesus didn’t teach that Scripture must corroborate tradition; he only taught that tradition couldn’t contradict Scripture. Neither did Jesus teach that Scripture always has a higher authority than tradition just because traditions that falsely claim to be of divine origin are exposed with Scripture. The early Church relied on apostolic tradition to distinguish Gospels that have a divine origin from those like the Gospel of Thomas that do not, but this wouldn’t show that Scripture has less authority than tradition just because Scripture is judged by tradition. (The Case for Catholicism; Trent Horn; pg. 38, 40-42)

@Habackuk24

5 жыл бұрын

You bring up some important things. 1. Yes, the teachings of the apostles was binding, both the oral and the written teaching. The question is: Where do we find the teachings of the apostles today? 2. In Matthew 15 Jesus is showing that the Pharisees taught traditions that contradicted the Word of God, and by this He makes that His disciples do not even have to follow the traditions that do not contradict the Word of God. Washing your hands before you eat (for ceremonial or hygienic reasons) is not prohibited in the Word of God. But the disciples were still free to ignore that tradition. Which shows that it is not enough for a tradition not to contradict Scripture in order to be binding. 3. Yes, we do have the question how we identify what is Scripture. And the early church would be best qualified to do that. But that does not put the early church on the same level as Scripture. If you identify an authority, that does not make you an equally high authority.

@TheTrustingGamer

5 жыл бұрын

@@Habackuk24 1. Well we find these teachings/traditions in the Church. You see, the word tradition in Greek is paradosis. It means to “hand down,” this means that it wouldn’t be a tradition if it wasn’t handed down, and of course who was it handed down to? The Church of course! We can also see this in the early Church Fathers. Also, if you say that we don’t have the oral traditions anymore and we only have Scripture, then that would contradict Jesus. If these oral traditions are the word of God as Paul says it is in 1 Thess. 2:13 then that means it will never cease to exist. "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away" (Matthew 23:35). 2. I agree that if a tradition contradicts Scripture then it is a mere human tradition. I wouldn’t go so far to say that we can ignore tradition though. This would completely contradict Paul (2 Thess. 2:15; 1 Cor. 11:2). 3. Sure I agree that the early Church Fathers are not equal to Scripture, but they did have the Apostolic Tradition that is equal with Scripture to determine the Canon.

@JP-rf8rr

5 жыл бұрын

@@TheTrustingGamer I wouldn't say that the apostolic tradition is equal with scripture unless you mean specifically to determine the canon, if so that is a weird way of phrasing it. My main comment would be that different apostolic fathers and texts have different traditions. like the proper form of baptism for instance. I view the apostolic fathers and tradition the way most historians would, that it is a window into the apostolic age and the world of the apostles. I don't think 1 Thess 2:13 contradicts the idea that the oral message or word is now to be observed by writings of scripture "And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is indeed at work in you who believe." nothing there seems to even imply that the word would be maintained orally. In fact it would seem that oral tradition wasn't perfectly maintained and both catholic and orthodox churches keep seeming to add new traditions. Catholics with things like purgatory and orthodox with toll houses. also are you sure you're quoting matthew 23:35? because when I looked it up it said this. "And so, upon you shall come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the Temple and the altar."

@TheTrustingGamer

5 жыл бұрын

@@JP-rf8rrHow is Apostolic Tradition not equal with Scripture? Scripture is the written word of God and Apostolic Tradition is the oral word of God. Scripture clearly teaches this (1 Thess. 2:13; 2 Thess. 2:15). I’m not saying that 1 Thess. 2:13 contradicts what you are saying. All I’m saying on that verse is that the oral tradition the Apostles spoke is the word of God. Now I do believe that 2 Thessalonians 2:15 contradicts the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. I believe that this oral tradition will be maintained in the Church because it is the word of God. Nothing in Scripture says that oral tradition will go away and only Scripture will have the word of God. That’s a silly argument. I don’t believe Catholics add new traditions, now they do give names to certain traditions. Like for example, a place of purification after death has always been taught in Scripture and the early Church Fathers but it wasn’t named Purgatory until 1274. So, you might have some confusion there, but Catholics have never added to apostolic tradition, this would be sinful. You are correct, I gave the wrong verse. It’s Matthew 24:35 not chapter 23. Thanks for the correction .

@JP-rf8rr

5 жыл бұрын

@@TheTrustingGamer "How is Apostolic Tradition not equal with Scripture? Scripture is the written word of God and Apostolic Tradition is the oral word of God. Scripture clearly teaches this (1 Thess. 2:13; 2 Thess. 2:15)." 1 Thess 2:13 "And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is indeed at work in you who believe." 1 Thess 2:15 "It was the Jews who killed the Lord Jesus and the early preachers. The Jews made it hard for us and made us leave. They do not please God and are working against all men." I don't see how either of these passages teaches that apostolic tradition is equal with scripture. I can see how you can interpret Thess 2:13 in that way but it seems to me that when it talks about the "word of God" it is probably referring to the message of the gospel in general rather than specifically apostolic tradition. "Now I do believe that 2 Thessalonians 2:15 contradicts the doctrine of Sola Scriptura." how do you figure that? Thess 2:15 is just talking about Christian persecution by Jewish religious leaders. "I believe that this oral tradition will be maintained in the Church because it is the word of God. Nothing in Scripture says that oral tradition will go away and only Scripture will have the word of God." well I always figured it was common sense to place a higher authority to written records than oral tradition (not saying oral tradition is bad, but one is self evidently more reliable than the other). And though nothing in scripture says that oral tradition won't be maintained, Isaiah and Jesus both warn people not to value tradition over scripture. And the orthodox Jews also believe their oral tradition is cannon (Talmud) yet I think you and I can both agree that their oral tradition is theological (for the most part) wrong. "I don’t believe Catholics add new traditions" what to call the papacy and selling of indulgences? "You are correct, I gave the wrong verse. It’s Matthew 24:35 not chapter 23. Thanks for the correction" no problem, happens to the best of us.

The problem with the idea of sola scriptura is that practically it doesn't work. If scripture is all you need then we would all understand it the same way and everyone would be in agreement on their interpretation.

@wilsonw.t.6878

2 жыл бұрын

And tradition helps with this how? Do the EO, Catholics, Armenian, Coptic, Mormon (yes they claim apostolic succession), Ancient Church of the East, Eastern Protestants believe exactly the same thing?

@Mygoalwogel

2 жыл бұрын

@@wilsonw.t.6878 Yup! Thanks for not forgetting the good old Church of the East. They never did teach radical dyotheletism but that got branded "Nestorian" just because Cyril had a personal feud with him.

Your ilk take for granted that the Church so thoroughly established what the New Testament Canon is that no one could even imagine other books competing. But just as you anachronistically read the New Testament without considering that it was first taught authoritatively by the apostles and men they appointed and then continued in written form, you don't put yourself in the shoes of ancient Christians who might have considered Clement's epistles or the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas, or even semi-gnostic and gnostic gospels to be scripture while not considering some Canonical books, like Revelation, Hebrews, 2 Peter, etc, to be scripture. You have no reason without the Church to assume you have the correct scripture

@Mygoalwogel

Жыл бұрын

That argument only works on denominations that count 66 books and 66 only. Lutherans are not bothered. The Corinthian Church knew that 1 and 2 Corinthians (for example) were canonical as soon as the Holy Spirit and the human author wrote them. The same is true for all Churches that received Books and Epistles from Apostles. Other books not of the Holy Spirit and true human author were rejected by their intended audiences in the primitive Church. For example the Peshittas, which have no relationship to papism or even later councils, do not include the "gospel" of Thomas. St. Thomas and his immediate disciples did evangelize the Assyrian Church of the East, but he didn't author any "gospel" to them. The Tawahedo Canon, the Peshitta Canon, the Greco-Russian Canon, The Papal Canon, and the Protestant Canon all differ. They all share the Homologoumena books and all have discrepancies among Antilegomena books to this very day. Luther did not remove books. He merely preserved the historic distinction between universally received books and disputed books. So we can dismiss the exaggerated claim that a couple of councils magically created one definitive canon one day. Homologoumena has always been accepted by Assyrian Church of the East, Miaphysites, Palamists, Protestants, and Papists from the time of the Apostles until today. Even the Popes don't fret that Byzantine Catholics chant the portions of their longer canon in their Holy Liturgy. Antilegomena books do not present a challenge to Anglican or Lutheran protestants because they don't contradict their doctrines anywhere.

This is funny saying 'solascriptura defended' without having a debate with Catholic apologetics...to look wise is different than to be a meaningful....keep a debate with Trent horn, Jimmy Akin, Patrick madrid, tim staple than we'll believe sola scriptura is defended....

@michaelharrington6698

3 жыл бұрын

@Alex Lancaster Example?

@4emrys

2 жыл бұрын

Catholic answers lol

If you are teaching "by scripture alone," and yet cannot give evidence of this teaching "by scripture alone," then yes, I think that greatly undermines your argument. Orthodox Christians can point to scripture and to the historical Church and show where the Apostles and the Church Fathers used tradition, so YES, if you are attempting to justify your belief in Sola Scriptura, the burden of proof is absolutely on you because you cannot follow your own guidelines and they can.

@joachimjustinmorgan4851

3 жыл бұрын

@Ναζωραῖος neither Christ, the Apostles, the church’s founded by the Apostles, nor the Jewish tradition from which Christ and the apostles came taught anything remotely as heretical and contrary to the church of the living God as sola scripture. In fact among both Rabbinical Orthodox Jews and all Orthodox Christians someone that rejects the authority of the Church for Christians, or the Oral law for Judaism is considered a heretic and a false teacher. The New Testament is among the things that came from our Orthodox tradition which was worked out between us and the Proto Catholic Church. If you reject the authority of the Church (which is what sola scriptura means, “by scripture alone”) and truly believe in sola scriptura then you should also be keeping the Sabbath, keeping the holidays outlined in the Torah, not keeping Christmas or any other Holy Day of the Church. In fact, if Christ and the Apostles truly taught sola scripture then there shouldn’t be a New Testament at all. Which there wasn’t until the 4th century. I think you falsely believe that by opposing sola scriptura that I’m somehow denying the authority of scripture, but it is quite the opposite that is true. Orthodox Christians accept the authority of scripture, and the canons and decrees of the Church with the first council being held in Jerusalem and recorded in scripture in Acts 15. By denying the Canons and decrees of the Church and the teachings of the Church fathers you indirectly deny both the authority of the Church as well as that of scripture because you deny the authority of the Church that canonized scripture in the first place.

@joachimjustinmorgan4851

3 жыл бұрын

@Ναζωραῖος I really like your screen name though.

@ljss6805

3 жыл бұрын

LOL

3:20 the table of contents would be one, The verse you are talking about was written before the canon as you know it was compiled, or contained some of the Scripture you take as God-breathed, who proclaimed that Scripture God-breathed? and how can you have certainty that it's an infallible proclamation if it comes from an unauthoritative source.

@Mygoalwogel

2 жыл бұрын

1 Corinthians 14:37 If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he must acknowledge that the things Paul wrote to us are a command of the Lord. Paul ratifies himself. Either you believe him or you don't.

I like your mention of 2 Timothy 3:16 because it says that scripture furnishes the man of God Completely. That alone is proof that scripture is a sufficient authority. Roman tradition cannot be trusted as quoted by Luther who said Popes and councils do err as they contradict themselves. Another issue is some of the late Marian doctrines are claimed to be from the 1st century, (Apostolic tradition ) when in fact they are modern novelties.

The psalms and proverbs paint a pretty good picture within the Old Testament as well. There is also an argument from silence. We don’t find an appeal to any other magisterium of traditions or literature in relation to the texts we find concerning settled scriptures. I think we can find in the Jerusalem council, that it was the texts of the OT and the experiences of the Apostles that resolved the consensus they reached. They did not see themselves as coming away with anything ‘new’ but rather discovering something that was already true. It’s not mentioned enough that in proverbs there are anathema’s pronounced on anyone who would add or take away from the word of God. This in itself, seems to imply that it holds a unique infallible authority that nothing else possesses. This is where the burden of proof to show that something possesses these characteristics is not on us, but on anyone else who lays claims to it. And there is atleast one book we can say is self-defined as “sola scriptura” with anathema’s attached to it, for anyone of whom would add or take away from it. That is the book of Revelation, which is the final book in the canon.

@TheThreatenedSwan

Жыл бұрын

If you don't think the apostles in the early Church taught with authority, ie the Magisterium, you're going against the Bible. There is no such thing as an uninterpreted authority, and no, nowhere does any part of the Bible define itself as Sola scriptura. How would you even know what the scriptures are without an authority outside the scripture...

I'm no doctor. Or scholar of any note. But it seems to me that you are assuming sola scriptura in your response. If I was an alien from another planet and I'm trying to evaluate these claims (either Jesus established a church or he gave us a book that each Christian needs to read and interpret for themselves) I would have liked to hear a positive case for why you think sola scripura is true. I don't think you do that.

My starting point is that Scripture wasn't codified until the Council of Rome 382AD (by the Catholic Church). So, if the Bible (Scripture) didn't exist for almost 400 years, what did the early Christians believe, they couldn't have believed what Scripture teaches if Scripture didn't exist. Of course, Sola ScripturS has to discard or at least disregard Paul in his writing to the Church in Thessalonica (2 Thess: 2:15) " "Therefore, brothers, STAND FIRM AND HOLD FAST TO THE TRADITIONS THAT YOU WERE TAUGHT, EITHR BY AN ORAL STATEMENT OR BY A LETTER OF OURS."

How would you (or anyone) respond to claims like that of Josiah Trenham in his argument that we in Sola Scriptura have only a few chapters in two letters to show for his many years in Thessaloniki and that is all we can hold ourselves to?

@mkbr1992

4 ай бұрын

The fact that he doesn't have a clue what Paul taught orally at Thessaloniki.

@KnightFel

3 ай бұрын

Don’t you think Paul spent his time exegeting the OT to them to show them that Christ was the one the OT was pointing to and not making up the Eastern Orthodox traditions? The fact is, he has absolutely no idea what Paul was saying outside of his writings. However, whatever Paul taught orally must confirm to all his other writings. He’s not going to contradict himself. He’s consistent in the preaching of the gospel in all his epistles, are you telling me what he taught orally was totally different? Absurd.

There's also the need to rebut material sufficiency vs. formal sufficiency in 2 Tim 3:16. Catholics affirm the Material sufficiency of Scripture.

@fireflames3639

Жыл бұрын

Some*** Catholics hold to material sufficiency

@amaledward2147

3 ай бұрын

@@fireflames3639wrong, The Church has one dogma, we are not Protestants who pick and choose

How do you which books to include ?

@calson814

3 жыл бұрын

George, they must appeal to Tradition in order to answer your question.

@aGoyforJesus

3 жыл бұрын

Eric Calson how did Jews know what Scripture was without an infallible church pronouncement or infallible Magisterium?

@JamesBrady7c4

3 жыл бұрын

Yep. Translate it into Latin so it sounds fancy and don't ask questions.

@Joshuasmirror

3 жыл бұрын

@@calson814 Tradition comes out of the Bible, if it doesn't then it is a fallible subjective institution. Therefore show me what the oral traditions of the Apostles was that isnt in the scriptures already.

@calson814

3 жыл бұрын

@@Joshuasmirror the historical fact is that the Bible comes out of the Apostolic Tradition. You wrote " Therefore show me what the oral traditions of the Apostles was that isnt in the Scriptures already." well, 2 Thessalonians 2:15 " Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold to the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or our epistle."

Love the beard, brother!

Some Philosophy here: Epistemological vs. Metaphysical - how we know the presence of something is different what that thing essentially is, e.g. a gold detector is not the gold detected , etc.

Regarding whether any other authority is "God-breathed," John 20:21-23, when Christ breaths on the Apostles and gives them the authority to forgive sins.

@reformedcatholic457

4 жыл бұрын

Thomas, Christ breathes on them to recieve the Holy Spirit, so anyone who has the Spirit is infallible? If you say the church is infallible from the passage you have given it's not clear, is there other verses that back this belief of yours?

@mariasoniamoreno3433

4 жыл бұрын

@@reformedcatholic457 You may want to define "infallible" before you pose your argument. The concept of infallibility in Catholicism is related to an infallible faith. "Luke 22:31-34 King James Version (KJV) 31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: 32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren."

@JohnBrown-of4pw

4 жыл бұрын

Biblical Theology All the people in Acts 2 receive the gift of the Holy Spirit

@jehielmutia1744

4 жыл бұрын

@@JohnBrown-of4pw and we 𝙘𝙖𝙣 access it too ➪ Ephesians 2:18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father

@vincentsheridan284

4 жыл бұрын

Yes, Jesus confirmed them as bishops and gave them the power to forgive sins in his name.

"ophelimos" in 2 Tim 3:16 does not mean 'sufficient', but 'useful' or 'beneficial' (maybe even 'necessary'). Paul commends the tradition of 'what [Timothy] has learned' (v. 14) (presumably from Paul) in equal measure as the scriptures Timothy has known from his youth (v. 15). The tradition which the apostles handed on are not the 'traditions of men' since they _are_ from a kind of inspiration by which Peter was able to make his confession (Mt 16:17-18), and so the apostles (and their successors) are able to speak with the same authority as Jesus (Mt 18: 18; Lk 10:16).

@jehielmutia1744

4 жыл бұрын

Jesus clenched to the Scriptures alone like when he was tempted coz He did not use traditions and church authority to combat the devil but only what was written and it proved effectively. So what He teaches was based on that and of course so was His disciples because they followed Him and that was meant by Luke 10:16

@ljss6805

3 жыл бұрын

And Paul didn't even write 2 Tim

With all my respect, I have questions about Sola Scriptura whose answers have yet to be adequately supplied to me. In summary, they are as follows: Paul died in AD 67. He wrote in 1 Timothy 3:15: “…if I am delayed, you will know how people are to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth. He did not say that the Bible is the pillar and foundation of the Church because there was no "Bible." The initial effort to assemble a Bible was in AD 200 with the Muratorian Canon. It was not until the AD 382, at the (local) Council of Rome, that all the different churches came to a basic agreement on a Biblical canon. If Christ intended the Church to be guided by Sola Scriptura, what were the faithful to do until AD 382? And why is there no recorded idea of Sola Scriptura until the 14th century? Moreover, it is not a random accident that placed into Jn. 21:25 the guiding words, “... many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book.” Well, if not written here, where else are the rest of these thaumaturgies and words of eternal life deposited and how do we act on Christ’s words which were not written down? Saint Paul addresses this in the above cited 1 Timothy 3:15. Now, for me here is an overlooked point: Martin Luther allowed that every Bible reader is his “own pope” (his words), Therefore, he ought not have balked at the Catholic Church for Her definitions. Would not the Fathers of the Magisterium and elsewhere have their rightful interpretation, just as does one’s neighbor? And where does self-interpretation begin and end? Often, I talk to a supporter that insists on sola scriptura. However, when I point to things in the Bible that are as literal as daylight, they either express amazement at having missed it or at never before seeing it that way, or, sadly, it’s shaken off. Christ left a Church, not a book, and certainly not a handbook. What lies outside the Book is far more than the Book can hold. Christ left a Church and this He did well-before the compilation of a scribal New Testament.

@FishermensCorner

Жыл бұрын

Paul literally said "do not go beyond what is written." Paul was literally compared against the Scriptures. All the NT does is confirm that Jesus fulfilled the law and the prophets.

Sola scriptura is a tradition of men that is not taught in scripture. Dr. Cooper is saying that if scripture is at odds with tradition, then we should reject the tradition. Good, thats why we should reject sola scriptura.

After the coming of the Holy Spirit the apostles went to preach to all the world - They created churches everywhere and ordained Bishops, Priests and Deacons - they celebrated the Holy Communion on the Lord's Day - But... did they sold Bibles everywhere?? No - the Bible as we know it was completed only in early 2nd century - besides, a complete Bible was handwritten in many parchments and getting one Bible would cost a fortune. Bibles, as we know it only appeared well after Gutenberg so people had no Bibles for some 15 centuries. So "Sola Scriptura" is out of the question. For 15 centuries the word of God was preached by the clerics - Bishops, Priests and Deacons - that it, the Magisterium of the Church, the only and true Church, the Roman Catholic Church. Peter was the Pope and the Apostles the first Bishops. See Galatians 1:18 “Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days - See? Bishop Paul of Tarsis went to Pope Peter to check if what he (Paul) was preaching was all right. And he saw no other apostle but James, as of course, James was the bishop of Jerusalem. So, good-by sola scriptura

@cainmorano4956

4 жыл бұрын

Yes. It's almost like sola scriptura is the early emergence of modernism (indifference and relativism anyway).

@voltape

4 жыл бұрын

@4u soul surely the title Pope did not exist at that time but the office did. Peter has the keys of the kingdom and Jesus promised him to back him in whatever Pete did. So read again your Bible

@voltape

4 жыл бұрын

@4u soul do you know how many apocryphal gospels and epistles and Revelations were written?? a lot more than those that are in the Bibile - with your Sola Scriptura thesis a lot of poor people would believe they were the Bibile - Now, calm down. You want to uphold your clumsy Sola Scriptura thesis by citing passages from Scripture. That's circular reasoning. Peter was never called Pope but nevetheless his duties were those of a Pope, the CEO, the General Manager of Jesus organization in the world - The name does not matter . Besides Bishops are named in the epistles - who were they? the original apostles and those bishops appointed by His Holines Pope Peter - with the full powers given to him by Jesus. Like Mattias in replacement of Judas, and Tito, Timothy...

@alhilford2345

4 жыл бұрын

@4u soul Why are you so angry? Jose is only telling you the tuth!

@bradenglass4753

4 жыл бұрын

Retarded reply

John 20.22 says that Jesus breathed on his disciples. Jesus is God so his disciples are God breathed!! So scripture isn't the only thing God breathed.

@angelinebui2562

3 жыл бұрын

Those apostles are also the authors of half the New Testament (in books not words). I don't think there is a connection between Jesus breathing on his apostles and God breathing out Scripture. God didn't literally breathe it out anyways since it was written down, but those words came from him.

Scripture Primacy is quite a bit different than Sola Scriptura and how most would come into this debate. If this truly is the Lutheran position, it's not Sola Scriptura at all. As for scripture itself, how did the Lutheran Church determine what is and what isn't scripture? You threw out the Septuagint which is referenced all throughout the NT and would have been considered "scripture" according to Paul in his letter to Timothy. And Luther would have thrown out more books from the NT if he hadn't been stopped by saner individuals.

It seems to me that advocates of Sola Scriptura hold "reason" to be the proximate normative authority (of course God is the Ultimate normative authority): : The Bible means X and we determine this by reason. If this is true then how do you get the doctrine that the judgment of the church has no greater normativity than that of our reason? And do the truths of your faith derive their normativity from reason? If so, how can they transcend reason?

I’m a convert to Catholicism, two things: 1) I agree that the Bible doesn’t claim that it is the sole authority…in fact it calls out Tradition as valid inspiration in addition to written letters. This validation of Tradition is key. The Bible itself is a Tradition of the Church. It took 60 years for the NT to be written, then 300 years for agreement on the TOC. The church created the Bible, not the other way around. 2) the Bible is not self interpreting. If it was, we’d all agree on baptismal regeneration, apostolic succession, Trinity (unfortunately Mormans and JW read our Bible and deny the Trinity), etc. The reality of 30,000+ Protestant denominations, so many disagreements on fundamental theology, show the Bible needs an interpreter. Why trust men 1,500 years after Christ (most of whom you also disagree with) instead of the Church that was there from the beginning?

@wilsonw.t.6878

2 жыл бұрын

so you converted to RC but you believe in the 30000 argument still? someone didnt do any research :D

@billmartin3561

Жыл бұрын

@@wilsonw.t.6878 30,000 independent churches is a real thing.

Where is the table of content of the Bible? And who made it?

@filiusvivam4315

3 жыл бұрын

You know who bound the table of contents! ----> the Universal Church founded by Jesus Christ: The One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

@kkdoc7864

3 жыл бұрын

@@filiusvivam4315 the RCC is not the same church that Christ founded unfortunately

@ljss6805

3 жыл бұрын

@@kkdoc7864 Sort of is, though, along with the other apostolic traditions.

Since Protestantism has no central authority, it is everyman his own Pope. This applies espcially to churches though part of the whole denommination are run as individial churches. So you can get as many versions as there are pastors. Protestantism has and continues to splinter to the point where you have become a Sunday entertainment center. Sola Scriptura is a bloody joke. Martin Luther late in life wrote: “There are almost as many sects, division and factions and beliefs as there are heads. This one will not admit baptism. This one rejects the Sacrament of the Altar. Some teach that Jesus Christ is not God. There is not an individual however clownish he maybe, does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Spirit and who does not put forth his prophecy to his own ravings and dreams.”

Yes Dr. Cooper does have the burden if proof to demonstrate sola scriptura in scripture. He is making the positive claim that scripture is the highest authority, so he must demonstrate that in scripture. His argument is a giant shifting the burden of proof fallacy. Anyone who makes a positive claim has a burden of proof.

"Do we have to find a particular scripture that says, 'Scripture is the only authority?'" (~1:40) "Scripture places itself as this authority that is so connected to God Himself that He breathed it out that the burden of proof is on [Catholic apologists] to prove that anything else has those characteristics, [i.e., some kind of divine authority]." (~3:28, 4:28)) So, even if the burden of proof is on Catholics to demonstrate that anything else has the unique characteristic of having the authority of God, we can easily find that simply because the Apostles were given the authority of Christ, who is God: -"Whoever listens to you listens to me." Luke 10:16 -There's also Matt 18:18, Matt 16:18-19, and 1 Thes 2:13. In addition to the Apostles being given the authority of Christ who is God, it seemed the Apostles placed some kind of divine authority on the Church: -"I am writing you about these matters, although I hope to visit you soon. But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, _which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth_ ." 1 Tim 3:14-15 So do you Protestants _have_ to find a particular scripture that says, "Scripture is the _only_ authority"? Yes, it would seem like you do, especially since these scripture passages ultimately refute Luther when he said, "The true rule is this: God's Word shall establish articles of faith, and no one else, not even an angel can do so."

@kevint7288

3 жыл бұрын

@Kile In response to all of the OT quotes you cited: What's ironic about posting OT quotes in defense of sola scriptura is that not even the Jews who read these verses in the time before our Lord would have defended an equivalent to sola scriptura. The Pharisees and scribes sat, as even Christ himself put it, in the seat of Moses (Matt 23:1-3), showing that they had interpretive authority over the Scriptures-take note here that Moses interpreted the word God gave him, and his interpretation is itself a book of the Bible, Deuteronomy. In response to your NT references: Half of these don't even reference the Scriptures (such as Rev 12 and James 1), and if they do, don't support _sola_ scriptura at all. Actually, the irony is that you quoted the one passage that I use *against* sola scriptura: Acts 8:27-38. In this story, it's evident that the eunich *cannot interpret the Scriptures on his own.* He needed the Apostle Philip to interpret it for him. As awesome and amazing and authoritative the Scriptures are, one wrong interpretation sends a person into all kinds of heresy, etc. So it becomes evident that we need someone to not only interpret the Scriptures with authority (such as an Apostle like Philip), but we need someone to defend that proper interpretation from mistakes, error, and malice. This means that the Scriptures _alone_ are not enough for the means of salvation. In response to 1 Tim 3:16-17: This is probably the strongest verse for sola scriptura....only it doesn't actually say anything about sola scriptura. Here, it says that the Scriptures are profitable, yes, but it does not say that _only_ the Scriptures are profitable. For example: Lots of things are profitable for me to watching my favorite show. A television is profitable for watching my show; a computer is also profitable for watching my show. But it's not the case that _only_ a TV is profitable or _only_ my computer is profitable; it's only the case that having either/or is profitable. To go back to the verse: The Scriptures are profitable, but that doesn't exclude a teacher/mentor, that doesn't exclude a church service/Mass, that doesn't exclude the authority of the Church to whom Christ himself gave his own authority.

@kevint7288

3 жыл бұрын

@Kile I mean, I have no problem saying, "The Trinity isn't in the Bible, but I still profess it," as a Catholic because we Catholics hold that Tradition and the Magisterium are authorities given to us by Christ as part of the Deposit of Faith. I have no problem saying that Theophilus of Antioch was the first to use the word Trinity in the late 2nd century; I have no problem saying that the Council of Nicaea finalized and codified the Trinity as doctrine; I have no problem with either of these precisely because I don't hold sola scriptura. I also have no problem saying, "Sola scriptura isn't biblical," even though the Trinity isn't explicitly mentioned either because never in the first 1500 years of the Church did anyone-even the early heretics-ever propose such a doctrine.

@kevint7288

3 жыл бұрын

@Kile Maybe you didn't read Matt 23, but literally the third verse has our Lord saying, "Listen to what they preach," meaning _they interpreted correctly._ The problem was simply that they weren't doing as they preached. Also, nice deflection going into Mary haha. Y'know a Prot is mad when he starts bringing up Mary ;) By the way, none of those prayers reference her as a source of salvation outside of Christ. The key word you're looking for there is "pray for us." I see no problems asking people for prayers, unless you're one of those Prots who don't believe that people can go to heaven when they die

@kevint7288

3 жыл бұрын

@Kile See, I could throw the same questions right back at you, except about the authority Christ gave to his Apostles (as noted in my OP) and in the earlier mentioned Matt 23 wherein Christ mentioned the Seat of Moses. If Christ knew that the Seat of Moses had been necessary after the prophet's passing, why wouldn't he, the New Moses, have established an authoritative seat on earth knowing he would leave? Yes, he sent the Holy Spirit, and I'd never discount God (the Holy Spirit) Himself, but Christ also gave the keys of his kingdom to Peter, which a king does to symbolically give his authority to that servant. The Apostle Philip taught the eunuch; the Apostles conferred in Jerusalem, and they listened to Peter; Peter and Paul mention each other in their letters. It seems that even though the Holy Spirit is among us, He wants us to also listen to the foundation of the Apostles which Christ established.

@rjdez3589

2 жыл бұрын

@@kevint7288 so Peter went around praying to statues and Mary?. Peter was a Jew, he knew it was forbidden to make idols . Ths man preached Jesus and worshipped the Jewish God ,yet Catholics have added a bunch of other stuff due to your " traditions". Heck, he didn't even liked being revered.

Great video! Thank you, although I would even add that the way men knew that the scriptures were from God was that each prophet and spokesperson of God validated his claims through miraculous signs and deeds. Rome is quick to point at the traditions and authority of the apostles, but fail to realize that such an authority was authenticated in Acts as a unique authority of the Holy Spirit. This was a practice throughout the entire Bible-claiming authority and then validating it. After the apostles, no such validated authority exists, which leads to your point that they need to prove that the Roman authority or any other further revelation is from the Lord, the same way virtually every Biblical author did.

@Alfredo8059

4 жыл бұрын

Every Protestant leader thinks his/her own theology is right and the Early Church was wrong. They should prove both , that they have the authority to interpret the Bible for others (remember that their doctrines will almost always be drawn from interpretations of the sacred text rather than the words themselves) and that their interpretations will always be accurate. Protestants usually claim that 2 Timothy 3:16-17 claims Scripture is sufficient as a rule of faith. But an examination of the verse in context shows that it doesn’t claim that at all; it only claims Scripture is “profitable” (Greek: ophelimos), that is, helpful. The passage nowhere even hints that Scripture is “sufficient”-which is, of course, exactly what Protestants think the passage means. the context of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is Paul laying down a guideline for Timothy to make use of Scripture and tradition in his ministry as a bishop. Paul says, “But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; and that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.In verse 14, Timothy is initially exhorted to hold to the oral teachings-the traditions-that he received from the apostle Paul. This echoes Paul’s reminder of the value of oral tradition in 1:13-14, “Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us” , and “what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2:2). Here Paul refers exclusively to oral teaching and reminds Timothy to follow that as the “pattern” for his own teaching (1:13). Only after this is Scripture mentioned as “profitable” for Timothy’s ministry. Protestants should believe the Bible, according to Apostle Paul, the Church is the pillar and ground of true (2 Tim. 3:15).

@solascriptura5980

4 жыл бұрын

1) The part of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 that speaks of sufficiency is not the first part, which does say it is “profitable” for teaching, but the next part which says “so the man of God may be COMPLETE, equipped for every good work.” 2) Notice the next passage you quote says that scriptures “are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus”. The scriptures are able to make us wise unto salvation through faith, not wise unto salvation through church tradition. 3. If Paul is referring to oral traditions, we don’t have access to those. All we have are those that have been scripturally preserved. The claim is that the oral teachings have been passed down through succession, but this is an assumption, and a basic understanding of Church history proves that certain beliefs weren’t canonized until even the 20th century. How am I to assume that nothing has been changed over the centuries? The scriptures have never been changed, and we can prove this through manuscript evidence, so it is our only reliable authority. 4. “The early church” is often a misunderstanding. There was never one, single church structure, at least not until the 4th century . There were always several churches, which is why Paul wrote epistles to many of them. When someone like myself says “the early church”, he is usually referring to the beginning of the construction of Christ’s people, as seen in Acts. Just some things to think about. God bless.

@alfredod.1029

4 жыл бұрын

@@solascriptura5980 1- In 2 Tim.2:21 Paul says that if Timothy keeps himself from bad influences " he will be...ready for any good work". The Greek phrase " every good work" (pan ergon agathon) is identical, but no Protestant would claim that a Christian only needs to stay away from bad influences in order to live the Christian life. James 1:4 says endurance makes one perfect and "complete", but of course our faith does not rest on the virtue of patience alone. 2- Salvation through faith. The Church's faith. One Lord, one faith (Eph.4:5-7). Luther's faith? Calvin's faith? Charles Russel's faith, Ellen White's faith? Etc, Etc. All of them claim to be in line with the Bible about salvation but all of them seriously disagree . 3-Paul is referring to keep oral traditions. The Scriptures do not teach that the Bible is the pillar of truth; rather the Church is called the "pillar and bulwark of the truth" (1Tim.3:15). Since we have none of the original NT writings ( the autographa) our entire NT tradition is based on trust and tradition. In the end to trust in the Bible is to trust in the Church that compiled it. 4-Jesus established only one Church ( which Paul called " pillar and bulwark of the truth") .That Church was promised never to fail (Matt 16:18;Jn16;1Tim 3:14-15). The basic problem is one of authority. If Christians have a sincere disagreement who decides? Whose interpretation of Scripture? If we read Acts 15 we find they are solving it the Catholic way, a Church Council in communion with Peter. They did not resort to SOLA( my private interpretation of )Scripture.Something to think ...Blessings

@solascriptura5980

4 жыл бұрын

Asaph Vapor We should be careful not to ridicule others, but your point about the many churches really resonates with me. Jesus said that his kingdom is not of this world, and the word for church in Greek refers to a congregation of believers, not an institution. When Paul speaks of church discipline and eldership, the structure of the Roman system is absent.

@solascriptura5980

4 жыл бұрын

Asaph Vapor oh i see 😂

To answer your question of where in scripture does it say that anything else is “god breathed”? What about when it says that Jesus breathed on them in John 20:21-23? “21 Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” The apostles were “god breathed” and established the Church of Christ. They carried on His ministry, His Word, His Tradition. Just a thought.

What I’d like to know is when Protestants think the Catholic Church started. Is it not built on apostolic succession?

@Mygoalwogel

Жыл бұрын

What I'd like to know is when Roman Catholics think the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian Church of the East started. They are certainly built on apostolic succession. I'd argue that the Roman church ceased to be Catholic at the time of Pope Celestine I, following the Council of Ephesus. Cyril began the council without waiting for the Persian Empire Church and Antiochians to arrive. He set up a straw man to condemn Nestorius. Theodoret and others easily recognized that Cyril was not representing Nestorius accurately, and that Nestorius was not teaching the heresy that Cyril accused him of. Since a massive section of the Church had not yet arrived, Ephesus was NOT ecumenical. But Celestine I sided with Cyril, and excommunicated the entire Persian Church (Assyrian Church of the East) when they protested. Cyril's Christology is perfect. No question. Cyril's strawmanning of Nestorius was sin, and led to TWO Schisms that STILL exist to this day.

The bible explicitly says that scripture is not the only word of God. It says that the oral teachings of the apostles is the word if God also (1 thess 2:13)

@rjdez3589

2 жыл бұрын

The problem is, alot of these oral traditions contradict the scriptures. The Jews had the same problem. Jesus always quoted the scriptures and not traditions of men. And I doubt the apostles said to use icons and pray to Mary.

@bairfreedom

Жыл бұрын

And those teachings were then written down into scripture.

1) Dr. Cooper defines the Catholic argument as “because Scripture does not explicitly teach sola scriptura, you’re going outside of Scripture to prove your doctrine, which is self-contradictory”; but this is not accurate in its representation of Catholic concerns. We believe Scripture explicitly teaches that we should uphold God’s Word, as passed down in oral as well as written Tradition (2 Thessalonians 2:15), while the Bible itself never uses the word “alone” when teaching about Scripture. Our argument is that Sacred Scripture and Tradition together comprise the Word of God: that is, it has been passed down in a written and oral manner. We support the belief in sola verbum Dei, but object to the exclusivity of written Tradition. In short, Dr. Cooper set up a straw man at the beginning by misconstruing our core objections to the doctrine. 2) I understand that sola scriptura has several iterations within the world of Protestantism: ranging from prima scriptura to variations of sola scriptura: Calvin taught that we must approach the Scriptures using sound reason, for example, and didn’t teach that perspicuity could exist outside of rational thought. I say that because it’s not as simple as “only the Bible and nothing else.” We Catholics should be careful to distinguish this when we address such matters. Such distinctions are helpful and important. 3) Around the 1:50 minute marker, Dr. Cooper asks whether we have to find sola scriptura in Scripture for it to be true. I would answer that, while I would *expect* something that is the foundational doctrine for Protestant authority to be found in Scripture, I agree it isn’t *necessary* from an epistemological standpoint - I believe its absence would be conspicuous, however, due to its centrality in Protestant thought. Again, though, this fails to account for the fact that the Scriptures and the early Church fathers both seem to support the Catholic and/or Orthodox beliefs in contrast to sola scriptura. It then becomes a matter of weighing evidence for/against the claims. 4) Regarding the unique role Scripture plays (around 2:30), we Catholics agree that it is God breathed and, of course, uphold the Pauline belief that it is useful for teaching and the like. It is God’s Word and must be treated with the utmost respect. We do not believe that oral Tradition supersedes Scripture; rather, we believe (as Paul teaches) that we must follow God’s Word whether it was written or passed down orally through apostolic Tradition. 5) Around 4:08, I believe this is convoluting and muddling the discussion by a) granting that Dr. Cooper’s own interpretation of a single passage is clearly understood as he understands it (which is untenable, or at least very difficult to prove, historically speaking) while b) failing to acknowledge that there are passages in Scripture that not only teach that oral traditions should be followed, but also that in Acts the apostles clearly leveraged this authority in many different situations, perhaps most notably (but not exclusively) at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. He may be right that he doesn’t have some sort of special burden of proof: but we’re not saying that. We’re simply asking that Protestants revisit this topic without inserting their preexisting interpretations (an example of eisegesis) so that we can then weigh the cumulative evidence fairly. 6) Around 4:20, this is an egregious example of reducing the opposition’s argument to the most absurd application possible. We are not defending wild cult leaders or the like, nor does a Catholic/Orthodox understanding of Tradition support this claim. Ironically, albeit sadly, sola scriptura has facilitated many a cult as a direct result of its introduction. This was not the Reformers’ intention, of course, but I think it’s a historically sound observation in terms of the post-Reformation shift in interpretive authority. 7) Regarding the sufficiency of Scripture, Catholics uphold the *material* sufficiency of Scripture (i.e., that all the necessary pieces for sound doctrine are present), but that doesn’t mean the same as *formal* sufficiency, which is the position that the Reformers took (i.e., that everything necessary for the Christian faith could be clearly understood by individuals reading Scripture: this is what the concept of perspicuity touches on). It is the latter position that we reject. 8) Around the 13:00 minute marker, he uses the phrase “Scripture alone” - but this isn’t what the Bible says. The operative word “alone” is absent. While perhaps well-intentioned, this is a misleading way to present it as he treats it as an indisputable fact, when the reality is that the vast majority of Christians through the entire history of the Church would not agree. I’m not suggesting that the majority is automatically correct, of course; but I don’t think it’s fair to claim his position as the obvious starting point for several reasons, not least of which is the fact that the canon of Scripture was not fixed at the time of Paul’s writing, in addition to the troubling fact that Luther tried to have James removed from the NT. These points don’t disprove sola scriptura, but they give serious reasons to doubt that there was a clearly understood concept of what Scripture actually comprised. 9) Around 14:19, he correctly elevates Scripture above the traditions of men, but he fails to distinguish between the traditions of men and Sacred Tradition, which is God’s Word handed down orally. We too reject supplanting God’s Word with worldly traditions, but that’s not a defense of his position: it’s a mischaracterization of ours. 10) He addresses my rebuttal in #9, and then asks, how do you know? This is a great question: we Catholics judge the credibility of a belief based on whether it’s in line with the deposit of faith, as passed down through the apostles and as guided by the Holy Spirit working through the Magisterium. I would ask Dr. Cooper the same question: how does he judge whether it’s true? By comparing it to Scripture, I imagine the response would be. And then I would ask: why don’t the major Protestant camps come to the same conclusions if they are applying this technique … how can they know they are not in error when in disagreement with one another? 11) Finally, he anachronistically assumes Jesus is operating on a sola scriptura basis, while failing to address the fact that Paul does in fact explain this further. Cherry-picking single passages to “prove” comprehensive points is a dangerous mode of Scriptural interpretation. I believe this is another example of eisegesis.

@jonnbobo

Жыл бұрын

"Do not go beyond what is written" is alone

@palabraviva5840

3 ай бұрын

El

@konkoor881

Ай бұрын

🤓

I have made an in-depth reply to this video from a Catholic perspective: "Is Sola Scriptura Biblical?" (4-25-22) It's posted at my blog, "Biblical Evidence for Catholicism".

I accept Apostolic oral tradition in the early centuries as 'points of interest' but once the NT canon was decided upon, it is much safer to rely only on the Inspired Word of God, particularly as many Early Church Fathers disagreed with each other. This weakness can also be seen in some of the doctrines and dogmas literally 'made up' by the Catholic Church - ludicrous at best, dangerous at worst (I'm thinking specifically of all the Marian dogmas and how they have 'normalised' idol veneration). Plus, the Pope's infallibility along with the idea that you will be in a state of mortal sin, if you willingly don't attend Mass and therefore ear-marked for hell if you don't attend reconciliation, is what ultimately controls the Cult. Sola Scriptura it has to be because man is most definitely not infallible, whether he's spouting dogma or not.

Yes you're right. Sola scriptura is not biblical. If a Protestant affirms Sola scriptura he should apply this for himself this "faith". There is no other thing to do. You could circumvent if you wish but honestly you could not affirm sola scriptura.

@frankmullenis6933

4 жыл бұрын

@Asaph Vapor Sola scriptura is not biblical. You will not find in the bible that you should only based your faith only on the scripture. The bible contradict sola scuptura. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brothers, stand firm, and hold the traditions which you were taught by us, whether by word, or by letter. You see by WORD or by letter. Not only by the letter. By WORD, this is what Catholics call the apostolic tradition.

@frankmullenis6933

4 жыл бұрын

@Asaph Vapor Sola Scriptura is a theological doctrine that the Bible scriptures are the sole source of authority for Christian faith and practice.

@frankmullenis6933

4 жыл бұрын

​@Asaph Vapor How can you say that you accept the tradition of the apostles and reject what the Catholic Church teaches? The apostles told us, for example, that bread and wine (Eucharist) are really the body and blood of Christ. Saint Ignatius of Antioch, disciple of Saint John wrote many letters to confirm this ... You can not tell me that you accept the tradition of the apostles and that you reject the Eucharistic principle as taught by the Catholic Church. You can't have both.

@frankmullenis6933

4 жыл бұрын

@Asaph Vapor David A. Barrett's book, World Christian Encyclopedia (2001). 30 000 in 2001. But you missed the point, my brother. There is only one truth, not 30,000+. The Bible exists because Catholics created it, not Protestants. Protestants do not follow the apostolic tradition. Protestants left the Catholic Church around 1500.

@frankmullenis6933

4 жыл бұрын

​@Asaph Vapor Hi brother, The Church is the assembly of believers but not only that. The BIBLE doesn’t tell JUST that. The Church is also the institution founded by Jesus Christ (the Catholic Church) with Peter the first Pope. As I have already written. Our authority is the apostle’s tradition... what is yours?

You jump to sola scriptura without defining what your sola scriptura is made up of. That’s the problem.

@ljss6805

3 жыл бұрын

LOOOOOL!

@rickdockery9620

2 жыл бұрын

Earlier video

Protestantism is contradictory and self refuting. Dr JBC said there are no verses in the Bible that teach the doctrine of Sola Scriptura but we have to rest our salvaton on a doctrine that is not taught in the Bible.

The issue, is not whether the scriptures are sufficient. We both agree. The problem is that if scripture is the only infallible rule of faith for doctrine and morals, then scripture must contain the doctrine of sola scriptura implicitly or explicitly. And it doesn’t, in fact Scripture says keep the tradition whether by word of mouth, or written.

@MulunaLewi

5 ай бұрын

Whether Scripture is or is not the only infallible rule of faith for doctrine and regardless of who put the final stamp of approval on the Canon, if your traditions clearly contradict or go far beyond the words of the Prophets, Apostles, and Christ himself, I will side with them over your traditions.

When you realize the first proposed Canon was by Marcion of Pontus. It had 1 gospel (Luke) and a few letters from Paul.

"Sola Scriptura" falls completely apart when you realize that you only know what counts as "Scripture" because of Church Tradition in the first place. None of the Gospels name their authors, the New Testament does not say how many Gospel accounts there are, and nowhere in the New Testament does it list which books and letters are canonical. Every single one of those things has been given to you by the Church, so appealing to Scripture to "prove" Sola Scriptura is an entirely self-defeating argument. Orthodoxy is the Church planted by Christ and the Apostles.

@TMPSpodcast

2 жыл бұрын

I agree and this is what keeps me Catholic. No Devine Table of Contents. Some authority had to decide which books are inspired. And that authority was the Catholic Church. Come on home!

@uzomaobasi3767

2 жыл бұрын

@@TMPSpodcast recognizing authority is not the same as imbuing authority. And if I’m not mistaken, it’s not like the scripture was put together willy nilly but rather through a methodical approach involving rubrics to asses books of scripture as to whether they were veridical or not. All through out this process, authority as scripture is being recognized not imbued, in certain books and not in others. So, I think this specifically (if it’s the only reason) is not a very good reason to remain catholic, just my respectful thoughts. I could be mistaken ofcourse. God bless

@samename5875

2 жыл бұрын

Recognition of a particular thing doesn't give you authority over it. Recognising Scripture as Scripture is good. But you have to adhere to Scripture. Which, for the most part, the modern orthodox and catholic Church do not do. Sadly.

@veekee75

2 жыл бұрын

@@TMPSpodcast you don't decide which book is inspired. If it's inspired, it is, even if you decided it's not. The Church merely discovers or recognizes it. It's the same as gravity, we don't decide that gravity is there or not, we merely discover that there's gravity.

@veekee75

2 жыл бұрын

@Yuri Boechat so which Church are you referring to? The Roman Catholic? The most corrupted system in the world?

And it came to pass in this way. Firstly, Luther came up with the novel doctrine of justification by faith alone. Secondly the Catholic Church rejected this novel doctrine. Thirdly, Luther, as a result, rejected that authority of the Catholic Church. If the Church did not agree with him then the Church must be wrong. And if the Church was wrong on this doctrine then it had no infallible authority. Which left Luther with a problem. If the Church did not have authority then who or what did? His solution was to say that authority lay in the Bible alone. Thus the doctrine of the Bible alone did not come around as a result of Luther reading his Bible and suddenly deciding that the Bible was the only authority. On the contrary, the doctrine came about as a result of necessity. The next step, of course, was that Luther and his followers tried to find verses in the Bible to support this doctrine. And, as we know, 500 years later, they are still looking.

Jordan B. Cooper perhaps you should check out "How to be Christian" and see how what you are saying has difficulties that must be answered.

Protestant: 'You Catholics believe a lot of things not found in the Bible.' Catholic: 'Well, is Sola Scriptura found in the Bible?' Protestant: 'No, doesn't have to be.'

@BrianGondo

4 жыл бұрын

@Asaph Vapor I'm not Catholic. Why the assumption?

@BrianGondo

4 жыл бұрын

@Asaph Vapor Thank for your Christian charity

@ljss6805

3 жыл бұрын

LOL!

@BrianGondo

3 жыл бұрын

@CALEB ALVAREZ except it isn't

@BrianGondo

3 жыл бұрын

@CALEB ALVAREZ did you listen to the video?!?

Orthodoxy for the win!

Is man not God breathed as well? Or is there a central difference between the breath that inspires scripture the breath of life in Genesis? As the Word of God is living and breathing, is not man’s living soul born of the same means?

@andrew-elkins

4 жыл бұрын

The only other thing I could thing of that was God breathed was when Jesus, who was God, breathed on his disciples. So the scriptures and the apostles were God breathed. "And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.”" John 20:22‭-‬23 NABRE Which I guess is why Paul would write, "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter." 2 Thessalonians 2:15 ESV Just a thought on how the Word of God is communicated during that time before it's all tangibly written down.

@delbertclement2115

4 жыл бұрын

YoboyAndre But then wouldn’t it be just as reasonable to conclude that just as the Scriptures are inspired, so is the traditions established by the apostles? Certainly it’s logical and reasonable then for denominations such as Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, and Catholicism to conclude that there is a Holy Tradition one could speak of that is inspired in the same light as Holy Scripture?

@andrew-elkins

4 жыл бұрын

@@delbertclement2115 I think so. That's why I'm converting to Catholicism it seems very reasonable and logical compared to the non-denominational tradition I'm currently a part of.

@delbertclement2115

4 жыл бұрын

For this same reason I am about to be catechized into the Orthodox Church this coming Sunday! 🙌🏻. So my next question for you is why Catholicism and not Orthodoxy?

@andrew-elkins

4 жыл бұрын

@@delbertclement2115 That's awesome congrats man I'm happy for you. Do you have anything you would recommend I read from the Othodox point of view before I'm Catholic? I'll be received in April 11th this year. I in no way want to discourage you from joining the othodox church because you have all 7 sacraments that are valid in Rome's eyes we just aren't in communion with each other on all doctrines so we cant receive the Eucharist from each other's churches that being said for me from what I've seen there is good evidence for the papacy. In Matthew 16 "And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Matthew 16:17‭-‬19 ESV That is where Peter is given a new office and is to be the head of the church in Jesus' absence. This parallels the office given to the chief steward from from the Davidic Court who while the king was traveling or away acted on behalf of the king with his authority. Isaiah 22:15-25 Thus says the Lord God of hosts, "Come, go to this steward, to Shebna, who is over the household, and say to him: What have you to do here, and whom have you here, that you have cut out here a tomb for yourself, you who cut out a tomb on the height and carve a dwelling for yourself in the rock? Behold, the Lord will hurl you away violently, O you strong man. He will seize firm hold on you and whirl you around and around, and throw you like a ball into a wide land. There you shall die, and there shall be your glorious chariots, you shame of your master's house. I will thrust you from your office, and you will be pulled down from your station. In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your sash on him, and will commit your authority to his hand. And he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David. He shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. And I will fasten him like a peg in a secure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father's house. And they will hang on him the whole honor of his father's house, the offspring and issue, every small vessel, from the cups to all the flagons. In that day, declares the Lord of hosts, the peg that was fastened in a secure place will give way, and it will be cut down and fall, and the load that was on it will be cut off, for the Lord has spoken. There are also numerous versus about Peter leading the apostles, feeding and caring for Jesus' metaphorical sheep, who are Christians and Peter is also mentioned first among the disciples while Judas is last. I think the practically of having one leader allows someone to call ecumenical council's so the church can address issues in the church today. And from what I've read the Othodox churches haven't had a council since 787 AD so I feel like they're not able to continue to teach and develop doctrine in the same way the Roman Catholic church does if that makes sense. All that being said I would like to be Byzantine Catholic which falls under the umbrella of Roman but has all the style and liturgy of the Eastern churches but there aren't any parishes in town. Hopefully that makes sense.

But a foundational issue for sola scriptura is even knowing what the canon of scripture is. Protestants have the NT only because the Catholic Chuch (Latin and Eastern) already had it. And if you think about, if any Protestant sect has traditional orthodox teachings, it’s only because the Catholic Church has already defined them in councils ect. So if sola scriptura is true, then where in scripture do we find the canon? Since councils, and THE Church can error on sacred tradition and doctrine, then the supposed canon must have it, but this also can’t be proved since Protestantism relies on Catholic Tradition to tell us what is canon. Protestantism cannot account for the scriptures in the first place. They stand on borrowed capital, turn around and say “we don’t need that tradition that gave us what we have,” It truly inconsistent.

@DrJordanBCooper

7 ай бұрын

Wow. Never heard that one before.

@user-iw5ff9um9f

3 ай бұрын

the catholic curch DID NOT provide the christians with the Bible.

Sorry, but this “defense” is no defense at all. Please know that I love the Bible with all my heart and that I believe it is inspired and inerrant. But I don’t subscribe to sola scriptura; it is an unscriptural and indefensible doctrine. I believe Dr. Cooper is sincere and is trying his best, but there are so many holes in his arguments, and his explanations are not at all convincing. At times, I get the impression that he is just mumbling his words, as if even he is not convinced by the soundness of his logic. At the outset (in 1:42 onward), Dr. Cooper concedes that one cannot find in scripture any passage showing that scripture is the sole authority. Then he argues, using scripture, that scripture is God-breathed, and that this is enough to prove the sufficiency of scripture, of sola scriptura. Dr. Cooper primarily bases his arguments supporting sola scriptura on the uniqueness and sufficiency of scripture. In 5:41 he says, “The unique authority of scripture in that it is God-breathed gives it its sufficiency, and so it is sufficient to equip one in good works that include teaching because of its unique character.” Although, it is hard to see from his arguments how sufficiency flows from uniqueness which flows from its being God-breathed, let us assume for a moment that this is a logical flow. This reasoning, that being God-breathed gives sufficiency, leads to an absurd conclusion. We know that each book of Scripture is God-breathed from inception to completion. Does that mean then that each one God-breathed book, including in the Old Testament, was a sufficient rule of faith as soon as it was completed? Of course not. Besides, this reasoning begs a lot of questions: What are the standards for determining that a book is God-breathed? Who determines those standards? What authority does this person possess to decide for all Christians which books should be part of the Bible? (We know that many books purporting to be inspired were circulating during the time the canon of the Bible was being discerned.) In 14:24 Dr. Cooper says, “It is in that context that Jesus does set up some principles …and the principle is that there can be indeed opposition between tradition and scripture, and when scripture and tradition are at odds, it is scripture that is the thing that gets the final say. Scripture has this overriding power over tradition.” The problem with that argument is that Jesus never taught that at all. Otherwise, the Gentiles would have been circumcised because that was what scripture was saying at the time when the apostles disputed about the issue. I’m afraid Dr. Cooper here is inventing a doctrine never taught by Christ. Dr. Cooper argues that ”[w]hat these infallible traditions do is interpret scripture.” However this statement begs the questions “What makes tradition infallible?” and “Who decides which tradition is infallible?" It seems that interpretation of scripture seems to reside on a final determining authority outside of scripture. Besides, that statement seems to contradict his earlier assertion on the overriding power of scripture over tradition. Peace with you and God bless.

@tristankramer4636

3 жыл бұрын

Why believe manmade doctrines when you can fully rely on what Jesus said

@declare9125

3 жыл бұрын

Tristan Kramer I fully agree with you. Sola scriptura and sola fide are man-made doctrines. Jesus never taught them at all. Also, Jesus used an Old Testament “canon,” the Septuagint, that had 46 books. Then someone unfortunately decided to reduce that number to 39 OT books, deviating from Jesus’s example. That’s another man-made doctrine. This is why many Christians today have only 66 books (39 OT and 27 NT) in their bible. You’re right. We ought to preserve Jesus’s teachings. Peace be with you and God bless.

@guilhermesartori7456

3 жыл бұрын

@@tristankramer4636 because what Jesus said in some lines has a lot of interpretations and you probably will choose the wrong if you try tô understand it by yourself

@guilhermesartori7456

3 жыл бұрын

@@tristankramer4636 the tradition of the catholic church is the belief that the church chose the right way.

To those who are too lazy to watch the whole 17 minute video, I will summarize what he said in one sentence "I can't find sola scriptura in the scriptures, therefore, I don't have to defend it."

@ljss6805

3 жыл бұрын

LOL. How does this only have 4 likes?

@DM-vt9xb

2 жыл бұрын

Neither is the trinity but we preach it

@rjdez3589

2 жыл бұрын

@@DM-vt9xb even though the word trinity isn't in the scriptures , we believe God the Father , Son and Holy Spirit. I rather make it short and say trinity than Father, Son and Holy Spirit every time I talk about God. And no sola scriptura isn't mentioned in the bible but quote me anything that Jesus said outside of what it's written, I bet you can't . Jesus couldn't just proclaim he was the Christ, he used the scriptures to show the people that he was who he claimed to be. Everything the prophets saw or did , they or someone who knew them, wrote about it.

FANTASTIC.

My favorite argument is that the Ethiopian eunuch didn’t understand Old Testament prophecy about Jesus who he knew nothing about

you would need a inspired book to have the list of canonical books so that sola scriptura be true...

@LeoRegum

3 жыл бұрын

Sola Scriptura is a distinct issue from the question of canon. Stay on topic.

@jamescam04

3 жыл бұрын

The canon of Scripture can - *without violating Scriptura Sola* - be gathered from Tradition. Scriptura Sola does not exclude Tradition. What it *does* exclude, very decidedly, *is the doctrine that Tradition is a twin or co-ordinate source of Divine Revelation alongside, and co-equal in authority and dignity with* , Holy Scripture. There is absolutely no reason why Protestant theology cannot refer to, make use of, value, and love the works of the Fathers, Councils, Doctors, theologians, other Church authors. So they do exactly that. But when they find anything in Tradition that is opposed to Scripture, they correct it by Scripture.

Sola fide is not biblical.

@njohn6995

5 жыл бұрын

Asaph Vapor "Faith without works is dead," (James 2:26)

@morelmaster

5 жыл бұрын

@Asaph Vapor YOU: Nowhere says works save. ME: Certainly works don't save on their own, but look at what James says; "What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?" So James is asking if you can be saved without works even though you have faith, is he not? You cannot get a much clearer answer than this by James. By James question, "Can that faith save him?" he is actually implying that you cannot be saved without good works. That is why James concludes by saying; "So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is DEAD." So I ask you, can you be saved if you have DEAD FAITH???

@Mygoalwogel

4 жыл бұрын

*Athanasius:* One day when he [St. Anthony of the desert] had gone forth because all the monks had assembled to him and asked to hear words from him, he spoke to them in the Egyptian tongue as follows: *'The Scriptures are enough for instruction,* but it is a good thing to encourage one another in the faith, and to stir up with words. www.newadvent.org/fathers/2811.htm *Tertullian:* Take away, indeed, from the heretics the wisdom which they share with the heathen, and let them support their inquiries from the Scriptures alone: they will then be unable to keep their ground. www.newadvent.org/fathers/0316.htm *Theodoret* _Orth.-_ Do not, I beg you, bring in human reason. I shall yield to scripture alone. _Eran.-_ You shall receive no argument unconfirmed by Holy Scripture, and if you bring me any solution of the question deduced from Holy Scripture I will receive it, and will in no wise gainsay it. www.newadvent.org/fathers/27031.htm *Augustine* www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102082.htm *1 Cor 4:6* Brothers, I turned these things into a lesson using myself and Apollos as examples. I did this for your benefit, so that you may *learn from us not to go beyond what is written.* Then you will not be arrogant, favoring one person over the other. *2 Tim **3:15**-17* from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are *able to make you wise for salvation* through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, and for training in righteousness, *so that the man of God may be complete, well equipped for every good work.*

The phrase sola scriptura is from the Latin: sola having the idea of “alone,” “ground,” “base,” and the word scriptura meaning “writings”-referring to the Scriptures. Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian. The Bible is complete, authoritative, and true. “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16). Sola scriptura was the rallying cry of the Protestant Reformation. For centuries the Roman Catholic Church had made its traditions superior in authority to the Bible. This resulted in many practices that were in fact contradictory to the Bible. Some examples are prayer to saints and/or Mary, the immaculate conception, transubstantiation, indulgences, and papal authority. Martin Luther, the founder of the Lutheran Church and father of the Protestant Reformation, was publicly rebuking the Catholic Church for its unbiblical teachings. The Catholic Church threatened Martin Luther with excommunication (and death) if he did not recant. Martin Luther’s reply was, “Unless therefore I am convinced by the testimony of Scripture, or by the clearest reasoning, unless I am persuaded by means of the passages I have quoted, and unless they thus render my conscience bound by the Word of God, I cannot and will not retract, for it is unsafe for a Christian to speak against his conscience. Here I stand, I can do no other; may God help me! Amen!” The primary Catholic argument against sola scriptura is that the Bible does not explicitly teach sola scriptura. Catholics argue that the Bible nowhere states that it is the only authoritative guide for faith and practice. However, this is only true in the shallowest sense. The principle is strongly indicated by verses such as Acts 17:11, which commends the Bereans for testing doctrine-taught by an apostle, no less-to the written Word. Sola scriptura is all-but-explicitly indicated in 1 Corinthians 4:6, where Paul warns not to “go beyond what is written.” Jesus Himself criticized those who allowed traditions to override the explicit commands of God in Mark 7:6-9. Whether sola scriptura is overtly mentioned in the Bible or not, Catholicism fails to recognize a crucially important issue. We know that the Bible is the Word of God. The Bible declares itself to be God-breathed, inerrant, and authoritative. We also know that God does not change His mind or contradict Himself. So, while the Bible itself may not explicitly argue for sola scriptura, it most definitely does not allow for traditions that contradict its message. Sola scriptura is not as much of an argument against tradition as it is an argument against unbiblical, extra-biblical and/or anti-biblical doctrines. The only way to know for sure what God expects of us is to stay true to what we know He has revealed-the Bible. We can know, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that Scripture is true, authoritative, and reliable. The same cannot be said of tradition. The Word of God is the ultimate and only infallible authority for the Christian faith. Traditions are valid only when they conform with Scripture. Traditions that contradict the Bible are not of God and are not a valid aspect of the Christian faith. Sola scriptura is the only way to avoid subjectivity and keep personal opinion from taking priority over the teachings of the Bible. The essence of sola scriptura is basing one’s spiritual life on the Bible alone and rejecting any tradition or teaching that is not in full agreement with the Bible. Second Timothy 2:15 declares, “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.” Sola scriptura does not nullify the concept of church traditions. Rather, sola scriptura gives us a solid foundation on which to base church traditions. There are many practices, in both Catholic and Protestant churches, that are the result of traditions, not the explicit teaching of Scripture. It is good, and even necessary, for the church to have traditions. Traditions play an important role in clarifying and organizing Christian practice. At the same time, in order for these traditions to be valid, they must not be in disagreement with God’s Word. They must be based on the solid foundation of the teaching of Scripture. The problem with the Roman Catholic Church, and many other churches, is that they base traditions on traditions which are based on traditions which are based on traditions, often with the initial tradition not being in full harmony with the Scriptures. That is why Christians must always go back to sola scriptura, the authoritative Word of God, as the only solid basis for faith and practice. On a practical matter, a frequent objection to the concept of sola scriptura is the fact that the canon of the Bible was not officially agreed upon for at least 250 years after the church was founded. Further, the Scriptures were not available to the masses for over 1500 years after the church was founded. How, then, were early Christians to use sola scriptura, when they did not even have the full Scriptures? And how were Christians who lived before the invention of the printing press supposed to base their faith and practice on Scripture alone if there was no way for them to have a complete copy of the Scriptures? This issue is further compounded by the very high rates of illiteracy throughout history. How does the concept of sola scriptura handle these issues? The problem with this argument is that it essentially says that Scripture’s authority is based on its availability. This is not the case. Scripture’s authority is universal; because it is God’s Word, it is His authority. The fact that Scripture was not readily available, or that people could not read it, does not change the fact that Scripture is God’s Word. Further, rather than this being an argument against sola scriptura, it is actually an argument for what the church should have done, instead of what it did. The early church should have made producing copies of the Scriptures a high priority. While it was unrealistic for every Christian to possess a complete copy of the Bible, it was possible that every church could have some, most, or all of the Scriptures available to it. Early church leaders should have made studying the Scriptures their highest priority so they could accurately teach it. Even if the Scriptures could not be made available to the masses, at least church leaders could be well-trained in the Word of God. Instead of building traditions upon traditions and passing them on from generation to generation, the church should have copied the Scriptures and taught the Scriptures (2 Timothy 4:2). Again, traditions are not the problem. Unbiblical traditions are the problem. The availability of the Scriptures throughout the centuries is not the determining factor. The Scriptures themselves are the determining factor. We now have the Scriptures readily available to us. Through the careful study of God’s Word, it is clear that many church traditions which have developed over the centuries are in fact contradictory to the Word of God. This is where sola scriptura applies. Traditions that are based on, and in agreement with, God’s Word can be maintained. Traditions that are not based on, and/or disagree with, God’s Word must be rejected. Sola scriptura points us back to what God has revealed to us in His Word. Sola scriptura ultimately points us back to the God who always speaks the truth, never contradicts Himself, and always proves Himself to be dependable.

I’ve stopped this discussion with my Catholic friends. I was Catholic for 43 years. Theology trumps scripture. No way around that. That’s cool if that’s what you believe. I personally believe God’s word stands on its own. I understand the need for more and more and more. Human nature. Whatever gets you to Christ and the salvation entrusted in Him.

@StAnthonyPaduaRadTrad

Жыл бұрын

But the Protestants are lacking 7 books of the Bible. This doesn’t concern you? There is theology in those books you are lacking

@bairfreedom

Жыл бұрын

​@@StAnthonyPaduaRadTrad Fun fact ! None of those 7 books actually claims to be authoritive but the others innthe OT do. Another problem is that you have to have a prophet on the scene to create scripture. The 7 books do not have that and never did.The 7 books have contradictions in them and failed prophesy. Lots of reasons to reject them. According to the standards placed on the rest of the OT, the 7 books added by the RCC are a fail.

@StAnthonyPaduaRadTrad

Жыл бұрын

@@bairfreedom the book of Ruth doesn’t make such claim. And just because a book makes such a claim doesn’t mean it is a true claim. A proper authority has to determine if such a claim is true. That is the role of Christ’s Holy Catholic Church (which determined the books of the Bible both OT and NT) Contradictions 🙄. Atheist and other non believer would say the same about the books we both recognize. We first must determine if they are the word of God, then we can understand any apparent contradictions. The RCC did not add these books, they were always recognized by Christians until the Protestant came along. They rejected them. Therefore they “removed” them from what they determined is the bible

the New Testament doesn't support Sola Scriptura and the early Church Fathers heard of and practiced no such thing.If Sola scriptura was true then everybody who adhered to it would be Lutheran since he invented the doctrine.Instead thousands of other sects with contradicting interpretations of that same exact scripture popped up.

Using SOLA SCRIPTURA........why do I see such a big difference between a Lutheran and a Baptist? Every game needs a referee; every gathering of people needs a "leader" for the sake of KEEPING ORDER. Otherwise one has a free-for-all. SCRIPTURE FIRST and the other SOLAS makes the most sense to me. The USA a has the Constitution and two houses of Congress and it needs the "referee"..... the SUPREME COURT

@Mygoalwogel

Жыл бұрын

Who's your referee?

Either Scripture CAN accomplish it's purpose to CORRECT.....or can NOT.

@d.rey5743

Жыл бұрын

It does, but how does that prove sola scriptura

Whether Scripture is or is not the only infallible rule of faith for doctrine and regardless of who put the final stamp of approval on the Canon, if your traditions clearly contradict or go far beyond the words of the Prophets, Apostles, and Christ himself, I will side with them over your traditions.

Regarding 2Tim3:15-17, i noticed Prots stress the qualifiers attributed to the man of God ("complete" and "fully" and "every") but fail to stress the qualifer attributed to Scripture which was "All". The qualifier "All" leaves open the possibility of other things being inspired of God. Stressing the qualities of the man of God does not teach Sola Scriptura. Let me give you an example: All military documents and manuals are useful/profiitable for making a soldier complete, fully equiped for every military duty. The above does not mean Sola Manual. Soldiers need Military leadership, training, battle field Intel and much more. Prots only source of Truth is Scripture and yet they don't even understand basic grammatical logic. No wonder Protestantism is full of man made beliefs. 2 Pet 3:16 "as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures."

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

What sola scriptura means to most, "I say, it's scripture" no more discussion. Solo scriptura. Meanwhile a book is slapped and no effort is made to proper apologetics. I still cannot get any logical sense that tradition is followed by relying on church fathers alone. They mean Sola traditionale! While pretending It's not orthodox dogma

Even if I agreed that 2 Timothy 3:16 proved, or supports, the concept of sola scriptura (which I don't), it leaves unanswered the problem of how to interpret scripture because it is manifestly not perspicuous. Dr Cooper believes in the real presence of the eucharist and the baptism of infants, but most other Protestants don't. What about soteriology? Did Jesus die only for the elect or for everyone? To our reformed friends scripture clearly teaches limited atonement. But, every other Protestant denomination believes differently. Dr Cooper said that Scripture is sufficient, it is all the we need for doctrine. If that were the case then Protestants could agree on doctrine, which they don't. Luther, Zwingli and Calvin all disagreed. The consensus of the early church fathers is that baptism is salvific and Christ is really present in the eucharist. Where is the consensus amongst the reformers, if scripture is perspicuous you get consensus right? Why don't the fathers teach Sola Scripture or Sola Fide. If these doctrines are so fundamental to Christian faith why did Athanasius or Irenaeus or any other father not teach us about them?