I always have an automatic distrust of anyone who doesn't proport Sola Scriptura since coming back to the faith. It is exactly the kind of people who attacked Sola Scriptura (specifically in regards to Creationism) who caused me to walk away from the Faith Originally. I suffered so much because of my choices during that dark period. Sola Scriptura was the reason I came to the Lutherans, even many of the Protestants totally deny it these days.
Pastor Wolf, I'm telling you, I was this close to turning Eastern Orthodox because of this issue. Thank you for shedding light for the power of God's Word to keep me on the right path. Tetelestai!
The only issue is all these guys celebrated the Divine Liturgy and believed in real presence. So they can’t be sola scriptura. Unless you can show me the Divine Liturgy in scripture. I’m Orthodox.
The Divine Liturgy is based on Scriptures-- but it doesn't save you. (Correction: This last phrase is incorrect: It's sacraments DO save, but they are not the only way to be saved.) The Divine Liturgy delivers the Word and Sacraments, but it's specific form certainly is not sacrosanct. Water, Word, Bread, and Wine, combined with Christ Jesus' promises, received in faith, become delivery systems of His saving trust and His forgiveness of Sins, life, and therefore, salvation. So, yes, the sacraments, do save.
Literally just today I was looking at the history of the Canon and concerned about how valid sola scriptura is. This video has been a great gift of God to me and I am sure to all who watch it. May God give you the joy of endurance and of a whole family that loves and worships you together all your days and then forevermore!
@@EricAlHarb That's kinda weird cause I'm a Sola Scriptura guy and I celebrate the divine liturgy and believe in the Real Presence. Do we have to do the liturgy? No. However, I think it's a cool format for Sunday service. I only believe the Real Presence because of Scripture. You probably disagree with my interpretation of all the times the Scriptures record "this is my body" and "this is my blood". Fun fact: People actually believe in the Real Presence and still remember Jesus' finished work on the cross. The very same way anyone eating any sacrifice ever remembered that a sacrifice was made for them. Practicing the liturgy and believing the Real Presence doesn't mean someone rejects Sola Scriptura. Your church also has traditions, even if they're only a month old. How you do your church service is your liturgy, by definition. Everyone has traditions, and as long as you don't think your traditions are binding or anywhere close to being equal to Scripture, then that's fine.
Sola scriptura is blatantly false: 1) if the Bible was all we needed, why are there 30,000 denominations with different Biblical interpretations? Why do Protestants protest Protestants? For example, why don’t Baptists accept Lutheran infant baptism? Why do Pentecostals think Baptists are not going to heaven unless they speak in tongues? Because fallen men, including Luther, when interpreting the Bible as individuals are often wrong. The Bible needs a sacred INTERPRETER. Without that, each individual becomes their own pope, and Christ’s church is divided. 2) where in the Bible does it say the Bible is the only source of authority? It doesn’t. It says it will equip us, making us complete for good works, but that is NOT the same as saying the Bible is the only source of truth and that it doesn’t need an authoritative interpreter. 3) tradition came well before scripture. Several biblical passages require us to follow tradition. The oral stories of Christ preceded the Gospels. Paul founded many churches with tradition, not a written owners manual. His epistles were written to correct or support the churches, against the traditions that he taught them. 4) the Bible TOC wasn’t official until 350+ years after Christ. Sure, most of the Bible was widely circulated, but several other books almost made the Bible (letter of Clement, Shepherd of Hermas), and several books in the Bible almost didn’t make it (Revelation, Peter, etc). The Bible TOC was NOT as clear as Protestants think. The CHURCH, inspired by the Holy Spirit, chose the books of the Bible. 5) the Sacraments of the Catholic Church, such as Baptism, Eucharist, Holy Orders, etc. were instituted by early church fathers before the Bible was canonized. If their decisions were true on the canon, they were also true on other church matters (trinity, liturgy, sacraments, date of Easter, apostolic succession, priest celibacy, etc). 6) Christ hand picked 12 men as Apostles. He breathed on them, giving them the power to forgive sins. The Bible (Acts) describes the Apostles choosing their own successors (Apostolic succession). The Bible (Acts) describes them holding a council to define doctrine not yet in scripture (Council of Jerusalem, on circumcision). Acts is describing these traditions that already took place. This validates the polity of Apostolic Succession (Bishops as leaders, choosing their successors), and the CHURCH being able to define doctrine that is not in scripture. This is biblical evidence for extra-biblical authority. If you defend sola scriptura, how can you defend any of your Lutheran interpretations over any other church’s interpretation? Oneness Pentecostals use the same Bible and deny the Trinity. Sola scriptura has created serious heresy. Add Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons to that list. Similar heresies were there in the early church, and were squashed because of the authority of the Catholic Church. I challenge you to name one Catholic doctrine or dogma that is anti-biblical. Not EXTRA-biblical, but ANTI-biblical (contradicts the Bible). Dogmas about Mary are extra-biblical, not anti-biblical. Face it, sola scriptura has led to a fractured and weakened Church. Christ wants us to be united, not divided. This doctrine is divisive, and blatantly wrong.
@@billmartin3561 If tradition prevent schisms, turn why do the Eastern Orthodox, Ethiopian, Donatist, Montanist, and Nestorian churches exist? Whose tradition do we follow? I'll tell you one thing the Catholic Church did that was anti-Biblical: Pope Gregory VII banned all clerical marriages, which is against what is written, "men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude; for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer" (1 Timothy 4:3-5). Additionally Paul wrote, "My defense to those who examine me is this: Do we not have a right to eat and drink? Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?" (1 Corinthians 9:3-5). However the Catholic Church ordered clerical celibacy on the basis that the priests of old had to refrain from sexual intercourse before performing their temple duties and handling the sacrifice. However, Christ was sacrificed only once, as it is written, "Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time onward until His enemies be made a footstool for His feet. For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. (Hebrews 10:11-14). Christ was offered once, but the benefits of this sacrifice are infinitely conveyed through the sacraments. Rather than going into detail on the Roman sacrifice of the Mass, it is sufficient to say that according to Paul, he and the other apostles can be married without giving offense to God by the freedom in Christ, just as they can eat and drink without sinning. If the holy Apostles lived in such matter and were certainly administering the Eucharist, then official Catholic doctrine has, contrary to Scripture, barred men of God from marriage, a sure mark of false teachers and of men of lawlessness, who take their seat in the temple of God and display themselves as being God (2 Thes. 2:3-5), and it is these men who trample down God's decrees in favor of their own, forbidding marriage. It is these Popes of yours who call themselves the visible head of the Church, taking Christ's place in the body for themselves. So that's something I find to be contrary to Scripture that is an official teaching of the Catholic Church.
@@gerrardthemagnificent5960 if u wana look at the history of the canon, watch Gary Michuta on youtube (the apocrypha apocalypse), or read Gary's books.
Sola scriptura is blatantly false: 1) if the Bible was all we needed, why are there 30,000 denominations with different Biblical interpretations? Why do Protestants protest Protestants? For example, why don’t Baptists accept Lutheran infant baptism? Why do Pentecostals think Baptists are not going to heaven unless they speak in tongues? Because fallen men, including Luther, when interpreting the Bible as individuals are often wrong. The Bible needs a sacred INTERPRETER. Without that, each individual becomes their own pope, and Christ’s church is divided. 2) where in the Bible does it say the Bible is the only source of authority? It doesn’t. It says it will equip us, making us complete for good works, but that is NOT the same as saying the Bible is the only source of truth and that it doesn’t need an authoritative interpreter. 3) tradition came well before scripture. Several biblical passages require us to follow tradition. The oral stories of Christ preceded the Gospels. Paul founded many churches with tradition, not a written owners manual. His epistles were written to correct or support the churches, against the traditions that he taught them. 4) the Bible TOC wasn’t official until 350+ years after Christ. Sure, most of the Bible was widely circulated, but several other books almost made the Bible (letter of Clement, Shepherd of Hermas), and several books in the Bible almost didn’t make it (Revelation, Peter, etc). The Bible TOC was NOT as clear as Protestants think. The CHURCH, inspired by the Holy Spirit, chose the books of the Bible. 5) the Sacraments of the Catholic Church, such as Baptism, Eucharist, Holy Orders, etc. were instituted by early church fathers before the Bible was canonized. If their decisions were true on the canon, they were also true on other church matters (trinity, liturgy, sacraments, date of Easter, apostolic succession, priest celibacy, etc). 6) Christ hand picked 12 men as Apostles. He breathed on them, giving them the power to forgive sins. The Bible (Acts) describes the Apostles choosing their own successors (Apostolic succession). The Bible (Acts) describes them holding a council to define doctrine not yet in scripture (Council of Jerusalem, on circumcision). Acts is describing these traditions that already took place. This validates the polity of Apostolic Succession (Bishops as leaders, choosing their successors), and the CHURCH being able to define doctrine that is not in scripture. This is biblical evidence for extra-biblical authority. If you defend sola scriptura, how can you defend any of your Lutheran interpretations over any other church’s interpretation? Oneness Pentecostals use the same Bible and deny the Trinity. Sola scriptura has created serious heresy. Add Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons to that list. Similar heresies were there in the early church, and were squashed because of the authority of the Catholic Church. I challenge you to name one Catholic doctrine or dogma that is anti-biblical. Not EXTRA-biblical, but ANTI-biblical (contradicts the Bible). Dogmas about Mary are extra-biblical, not anti-biblical. Face it, sola scriptura has led to a fractured and weakened Church. Christ wants us to be united, not divided. This doctrine is divisive, and blatantly wrong.
@@billmartin3561 the worst of the worst protestants deny sola scriptura too, I lump them in with romanists and so called "orthodox". You are all part of the problem.
Thank you so much for this podcast. This comes at a time, within my own family, where I needed the theology? And the Holy Spirit, to do, dare I say battle, against the devil and his ways. With the prayer of eternal salvation for those so very close to me, and who have strayed. Thank you. “God is good ALL THE TIME!!” Who knew I needed this at this very time? GOD DID!
Lutheran's believe in both the real presence and sola scriptura. The doctrine of Christ's presence in the Eucharist is pretty explicitly taught in the new testament.
@Eric Al Harb the liturgy itself is pretty much all from scripture but the act of liturgical worship is a tradition which does not contradict scripture. Jesus says, "This is my body, this is my blood. " We trust Jesus. Refuting restorationists is easy.
Okay, I confess to not being well read in the Fathers of the Church. That said, I saw nothing you said that would go against the Eastern Orthodox Christian faith. I saw when the 10 Minute Bible Hour talked to Pastor Weedon, and was impressed! His enthusiasm was contagious.
Hey, Pastor......I'm a lifelong practicing Roman Catholic layman......have an M. Rel. Ed......taught for 31 years.......and have followed you for years and profited GREATLY from your Lutheran insights. Gimme a break: I am NOT a "catholic troll." Them's fightin' words. I also think the world of Pastor J. B. Cooper. For your penance.........
I found the missing reference for the quote at time stamp 4:47 Here is the quote along with the reference: "Concerning the hearers: that those hearers who are instructed in the Scriptures should examine what is said by the teachers, receiving what is in conformity with the Scriptures and rejecting what is opposed to them; and that those who persist in teaching such doctrines should be strictly avoided." - St. Basil, The Morals, The Fathers for the Church, vol.9, Rule 72, pp. 185-186.
Yes, another Wolfmueller video! My sermons when my church can't preach an honest traditional sermon (I say this in joy over the resource, not bitterness).
Who says we dont believe in Real Presence? Even among Calvinists, they do believe in a spiritual but real presence. Futhermore, Let's remember that was against a non-occasional celebration of the Lord's Supper that the Reformers also stand for. You can see it from a video posted here at YT by Gavin Ortlund, where he points out all of these issues.
- Irenaeus (AD 180): 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. (Against Heresies, 3:1.1) - Athanasius (AD 296-373): The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth. (Against the Heathen, 1:3) - Augustine (AD 354-430): It is to the canonical Scriptures alone that I am bound to yield such implicit subjection as to follow their teaching, without admitting the slightest suspicion that in them any mistake or any statement intended to mislead could find a place. (Letters, 82.3) - Augustine (AD 354-430): He [God] also inspired the Scripture, which is regarded as canonical and of supreme authority and to which we give credence concerning all the truths we ought to know and yet, of ourselves, are unable to learn. (City of God, 11.3) - Cyril of Jerusalem (AD 310-386): For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures. (Catechetical Lectures, IV:17 in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers) - Gregory of Nyssa (AD 330-395): We are not entitled to such license, namely, of affirming whatever we please. For we make Sacred Scripture the rule and the norm of every doctrine. Upon that we are obliged to fix our eyes, and we approve only whatever can be brought into harmony with the intent of these writings. (On the Soul and the Resurrection, quoted in Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971], p. 50.) - Augustine of Hippo (AD 354-430): Let them show their church if they can, not by the speeches and mumblings of the Africans, not by the councils of their bishops, not by the writings of any of their champions, not by fraudulent signs and wonders, because we have been prepared and made cautious also against these things by the Word of the Lord. (On the Unity of the Church, 16) - John Chrysostom (AD 347-407): Wherefore I exhort and entreat you all, disregard what this man and that man thinks about these things, and inquire from the Scriptures all these things; and having learned what are the true riches, let us pursue after them that we may obtain also the eternal good things. (Homily 13 on 2 Corinthians) - Basil the Great (AD 329-379): Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the Word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth. (Letter 189 to Eustathius the physician) “The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.” This is why some apologist cant make heads or tails of scripture. Unless their interpretations are spirit deserned, they only have 2nd hand interpretive sources. We SHOULD listen to church interpretations but only so far as to test them against the word of God. The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.
So, first of all, Pastor Wolfmueller asks "what do you want me to believe that's not in the Scriptures?". Lutherans ask their people to believe a whole host of things that are not explicitly in the Bible. I'll give one example: Luther says, "“I did not invent [infant Baptism.] It came to me by tradition and I was persuaded by no word of Scripture that it was wrong.” [Martin Luther, “Concerning Rebaptism,” Luther’s Works: American Edition, Volume 40 “Church and Ministry II” (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1958), 254.] And if you read Luther's Large Catechism, his defense of infant baptism specifically, he does not produce one text from the Bible that demands it. Rather he says the best proof for regular people is that many who are baptized as infants received the Holy Spirit and persist in it. So, he appeals to the experience of the church as the best proof for justifying infant baptism. So, Lutherans demand and expect that their people and converts to Lutheranism must accept infant baptism and believe it is right, but Luther himself did not attempt to prove infant baptism from a clear passage of scripture - because there isn't one. So, here's one place Pastor Wolfmueller expects his people to believe something that isn't in Scripture. Second, a less cherry picked reading of these fathers, who allegedly testify to Sola Scriptura as Lutherans believe it, would reveal that these same fathers who supposedly appeal to Scripture as having the same final and ultimate authority for faith and practice in the church also taught things about justification, the cross, the role of the will in justification etc etc etc that Lutherans like Pastor Wolfmueller would say are false doctrine and are not the teaching of Scripture. In fact, the Formula of Concord rejects a teaching of Chrysostom as unsound for he says that "God draws, but He draws the willing." Quote me something from Augustine about the authority of the canon, he also taught that infants should not only be baptized but Communed! Third, let's grant for the moment that these father's appeal to the authority of Scripture means what Pastor Wolfmueller claims it means, that Sola Scriptura as Lutherans believe it is also the teaching of the Fathers. These same fathers disagree with the Lutheran Confessions at crucial points as to what it is that Scripture actually teaches. What good does the teaching of Sola Scriptura do as a doctrine if the effect of the doctrine is disagreement on essential matters of the faith and practice? Rather than safe guarding the purity of the Gospel it has opened up a subjective chaos into the life of the Christian church. The effect of the doctrine, as Pastor Wolfmueller presented it here, is that the individual's interpretation of the text, with all the presuppositions each person brings to the texts of the Bible, is the final authority. And no, I'm not a Catholic apologist. But this is a sloppy attempt to shoehorn the Fathers into the Lutheran Confession of Sola Scriptura. It used to be OK for Lutherans to admit that the Gospel and pure doctrine were lost shortly after the Apostles. However problematic that thought may be, at least it was honest that the Church Fathers ain't Lutheran and they didn't need them to be.
I watch a lot of these Catholic apologists. I think their primary pushback on these quotes would be that they don’t think their traditions contradict scripture. They would say it lines up with scripture, even if it isn’t directly addressed by it. So these quotes would be met with a “So what’s your point? I agree.” The difference is that they have to accept the magisterium’s tradition-friendly interpretation of scripture.
Agreed, I grew up Protestant and Sola Sctriptura is by far the biggest thing pushing me away. I do not really see the point being made here. Not one of these quotes turns me to believe that the Church does not have authority to tell us what the scriptues say. I think without that we become lost and fractured as can be seen in the countless Protestant denominations. The authority of the Church anchors us in confidence that we are reading the truth God has revealed to us through scripture and not the truth we as fallen humans see fit to derive from scripture.
Sola scriptura is blatantly false: 1) if the Bible was all we needed, why are there 30,000 denominations with different Biblical interpretations? Why do Protestants protest Protestants? For example, why don’t Baptists accept Lutheran infant baptism? Why do Pentecostals think Baptists are not going to heaven unless they speak in tongues? Because fallen men, including Luther, when interpreting the Bible as individuals are often wrong. The Bible needs a sacred INTERPRETER. Without that, each individual becomes their own pope, and Christ’s church is divided. 2) where in the Bible does it say the Bible is the only source of authority? It doesn’t. It says it will equip us, making us complete for good works, but that is NOT the same as saying the Bible is the only source of truth and that it doesn’t need an authoritative interpreter. 3) tradition came well before scripture. Several biblical passages require us to follow tradition. The oral stories of Christ preceded the Gospels. Paul founded many churches with tradition, not a written owners manual. His epistles were written to correct or support the churches, against the traditions that he taught them. 4) the Bible TOC wasn’t official until 350+ years after Christ. Sure, most of the Bible was widely circulated, but several other books almost made the Bible (letter of Clement, Shepherd of Hermas), and several books in the Bible almost didn’t make it (Revelation, Peter, etc). The Bible TOC was NOT as clear as Protestants think. The CHURCH, inspired by the Holy Spirit, chose the books of the Bible. 5) the Sacraments of the Catholic Church, such as Baptism, Eucharist, Holy Orders, etc. were instituted by early church fathers before the Bible was canonized. If their decisions were true on the canon, they were also true on other church matters (trinity, liturgy, sacraments, date of Easter, apostolic succession, priest celibacy, etc). 6) Christ hand picked 12 men as Apostles. He breathed on them, giving them the power to forgive sins. The Bible (Acts) describes the Apostles choosing their own successors (Apostolic succession). The Bible (Acts) describes them holding a council to define doctrine not yet in scripture (Council of Jerusalem, on circumcision). Acts is describing these traditions that already took place. This validates the polity of Apostolic Succession (Bishops as leaders, choosing their successors), and the CHURCH being able to define doctrine that is not in scripture. This is biblical evidence for extra-biblical authority. If you defend sola scriptura, how can you defend any of your Lutheran interpretations over any other church’s interpretation? Oneness Pentecostals use the same Bible and deny the Trinity. Sola scriptura has created serious heresy. Add Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons to that list. Similar heresies were there in the early church, and were squashed because of the authority of the Catholic Church. I challenge you to name one Catholic doctrine or dogma that is anti-biblical. Not EXTRA-biblical, but ANTI-biblical (contradicts the Bible). Dogmas about Mary are extra-biblical, not anti-biblical. Face it, sola scriptura has led to a fractured and weakened Church. Christ wants us to be united, not divided. This doctrine is divisive, and blatantly wrong.
@@billmartin3561 Dogmas about Mary are absolutely contradictory to scripture. Paul says plainly in Romans 3:23 that “... all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God... “ Marian Dogma says that Mary never sinned. This is a contradiction.
Great presentation Pastor Wolfmüller. I would add 2 further points . 1) Add a couple of quotes from Luther in order to demonstrate the true Catholicity of Luther and Lutheran doctrine as opposed to Roman Catholic apostasy from this tradition. It is clear that Luther is consistent with the position of the early church. 2) Show from 1 Peter 4:11, That "Sola Scriptural" IS taught in Scripture. We could teach it from 1 Corinthians 2:13 or Nehemiah 8:8 for that matter or Psalm 119, or Psalm 19 etc ...
Sola scriptura is blatantly false: 1) if the Bible was all we needed, why are there 30,000 denominations with different Biblical interpretations? Why do Protestants protest Protestants? For example, why don’t Baptists accept Lutheran infant baptism? Why do Pentecostals think Baptists are not going to heaven unless they speak in tongues? Because fallen men, including Luther, when interpreting the Bible as individuals are often wrong. The Bible needs a sacred INTERPRETER. Without that, each individual becomes their own pope, and Christ’s church is divided. 2) where in the Bible does it say the Bible is the only source of authority? It doesn’t. It says it will equip us, making us complete for good works, but that is NOT the same as saying the Bible is the only source of truth and that it doesn’t need an authoritative interpreter. 3) tradition came well before scripture. Several biblical passages require us to follow tradition. The oral stories of Christ preceded the Gospels. Paul founded many churches with tradition, not a written owners manual. His epistles were written to correct or support the churches, against the traditions that he taught them. 4) the Bible TOC wasn’t official until 350+ years after Christ. Sure, most of the Bible was widely circulated, but several other books almost made the Bible (letter of Clement, Shepherd of Hermas), and several books in the Bible almost didn’t make it (Revelation, Peter, etc). The Bible TOC was NOT as clear as Protestants think. The CHURCH, inspired by the Holy Spirit, chose the books of the Bible. 5) the Sacraments of the Catholic Church, such as Baptism, Eucharist, Holy Orders, etc. were instituted by early church fathers before the Bible was canonized. If their decisions were true on the canon, they were also true on other church matters (trinity, liturgy, sacraments, date of Easter, apostolic succession, priest celibacy, etc). 6) Christ hand picked 12 men as Apostles. He breathed on them, giving them the power to forgive sins. The Bible (Acts) describes the Apostles choosing their own successors (Apostolic succession). The Bible (Acts) describes them holding a council to define doctrine not yet in scripture (Council of Jerusalem, on circumcision). Acts is describing these traditions that already took place. This validates the polity of Apostolic Succession (Bishops as leaders, choosing their successors), and the CHURCH being able to define doctrine that is not in scripture. This is biblical evidence for extra-biblical authority. If you defend sola scriptura, how can you defend any of your Lutheran interpretations over any other church’s interpretation? Oneness Pentecostals use the same Bible and deny the Trinity. Sola scriptura has created serious heresy. Add Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons to that list. Similar heresies were there in the early church, and were squashed because of the authority of the Catholic Church. I challenge you to name one Catholic doctrine or dogma that is anti-biblical. Not EXTRA-biblical, but ANTI-biblical (contradicts the Bible). Dogmas about Mary are extra-biblical, not anti-biblical. Face it, sola scriptura has led to a fractured and weakened Church. Christ wants us to be united, not divided. This doctrine is divisive, and blatantly wrong.
@@billmartin3561 Reply Part 2 Rule 3# of Scripture exposition states: "NO prophecy of the Scripture is of ANY PRIVATE INTERPRETATION" By this Apostolic assertion, the Apostle makes it abundantly clear that each and every Scripture has only one correct Exposition. You complained earlier: "If the Bible was all we needed, why are there 30,000 denominations with different Biblical interpretations? ... Why don’t Baptists accept ... infant baptism? Because fallen men ...when interpreting the Bible as individuals are often wrong." By now you should be able to see from Scripture that your questions are self refuting. the principle of Scripture Alone puts an end to all sects, whether Roman Catholic, Greek Catholic, Anglo Catholic, Eastern Catholic, Baptist, Pentecostal and even so the called pseudo "Lutheran" sects. The Apostle Peter not only holds us to Sola Scriptura when he says "If anyone speak, LET IT BE AS THE WORDS of GOD" (1 Peter 4:11) But the Holy Apostle would hold us also to the Principle that there is only one correct exposition of each and every Scripture passage. " NO SCRIPTURE is of ANY PRIVATE INTERPRETATION" (2 Peter 1:20) It is ignorance of the Five Central Rules of Scripture Exposition and disobedience to the Lord who makes it conditional to be a disciple (see John 8:31) that leads to all sects in christendom. If we followed the Holy Apostle in these two Scriptural rules we would well and truly on the road to a recovery of the historical Catholic Faith. It was by aherence to these Rules that Luther remained Catholic whilst the Roman sect apostatized from it, by departing from the faith in these points. But to answer your complaint a little more succinctly, I will judge you out of your own mouth. You wrote: "Each individual becomes their own pope" By your own admission, you affirmed the Lutheran position that each sectarian is doing eaxctly what the popes have been doing all along! If you care to look up Dr Pieper's Christian Dogmatics, he deals with this very problem in great depth. What the popes and the eastern and western church had done for centuries before, was now introduced into the church by Ulrich Zwingli. And perpetuated by the Swiss Refomers and the various Anabaptist sects as well. And we should note that all other sects like the baptists and pentecostals of today are the spiritual disciples of the Swiss reformers, because they follow the principle of Scripture + Human reason. The popes' principle was: - Scripture + Tradition + Papal interpretation The Swiss reformers principle was - Scripture + Human Reason But in both the popes principle and the Swiss reformers principle, Scripture was reduced to no authority and human reason, whether papal or reformed, was asserted as supreme. Thus the legacy of the swiss reformers was indeed as you admitted, and army of so called "'protestant popes"! Instaed of one anti christ in Rome we now have 30000 litle antichrists all throug the world. So what is the remedy to all this ? Return to the Scriptural Principle SOLA SCRIPTURA Sola Scriptura admits no pope, and admits also of No human reasoning. No private Interpretations are admissible. Sola Scriptura does hold us, however to the VERY Rules of Scripture Exposition that Scripture ITSELF Lays down. And we have seen the first three. So what are the five rules of Scripture Exposition? 1) If anyone speak, let it be as the WORDS of GOD (1 Peter 4;11) 2) Speak ... in Words that the Holy Ghost Teaches, comparing Scripture with Scripture (1 Cor. 2:13) 3) No Scripture is on ANY Private Interpretation (2 Peter 1:20) 4) He that prophesies according to THE ANALOGY of THE FAITH (Romans 12:6) 5) RIGHTLY DIVIDING the Word of Truth (2 Timothy 2:15) Rules 4 and 5 need a little clarification here. Rule 4 is an ancient Rule and was certainly practiced in the historic Catholic church, and is Apostolic also, as given here by Paul. The Greek text reads: προφητείαν κατὰ τὴν ἀναλογίαν τῆς πίστεως Notice ἀναλογίαν (analogian = ""ANALOGY" , or "RULE") and τῆς πίστεως (tes pisteos = THE FAITH) Here the Apostle holds us once again to the principle of Sola Scriptura. But he is very broad. Whoever prophesies (preaches) must preach and expound in accord with "The RULE OF THE FAITH" Paul is referring of course to: "The Faith ONCE delivered to the saints" (Jude 3) and Jude also holds us to Sola Scriptura in that he holds us to contend earnestly for The Faith ONCE delivered. Jude teaches nothing of ongoing ""revelations" and private interpretations of both popes and reformed sectarians. And Paul in holding us to "Prophesy according to the RULE of THE FAITH" is affirming that there is "One Lord, ONE FAITH, One Baptism" (Ephesians 4:5) according to which we must prophesy. Not later new and private interpretations of men. So all our answers are indeed sourced in Scripture Alone. But this Rule in Romans 12:6 is highly specific. It means that all of our preaching and teaching and exposition ( i.e. our "prophesying") of any passage of Scripture, MUST be in accord with the clear and established passages of scripture, known as "THE RULE OF FAITH". This has this rule been practised already in the early Church. Rule 5 RIGHTLY DIVIDING the Word of Truth (2 Timothy 2:15) ὀρθοτομοῦντα τὸν λόγον τῆς ἀληθείας Many sectarians teach that this passages says we must rightly expound Scripture. And this is a noble sentiment, because indeed we must. But this is not THE SENSE (Nehemiah 8:8) of this passage at all. In the Greek it has to do with ""apportioning The Word of God" an is addressed to a Christian Pastor. The Greek word ὀρθοτομοῦντα (orthotomounta) has to do with cutting straightly. And elsewhere Paul explains that minsters are "Stewards of the mysteries of Go"" (1 Corinthians 4:1) The work of a steward was to apportion rightly what each member of the household needed. So here, as all through the entire Bible, the two great doctrines of scripture are in view. The LAW and The GOSPEL. To rightly Divide the Word of Truth is to correctly distinguish and cut straightly between these two doctrines in all preaching and teaching and writing. (I refer all readers to Dr CF Walthers "Law and Gospel" for further reading). So by these Scripture Rules of exposition, we are held to strict discipline in expounding Scripture by Scripture Alone and not by human reason. All sectarian thinking falls away and pure Christian doctrine results.
Catholic reasoning on Scripture and Authority is quite circular. The scriptures have authority because the church recognizes (and interprets) them. However, when you ask for proof that the RCC has authority, they will go to scripture to try to prove it (Peter, you are the Rock! - Matthew 16). So, you have authority because the scriptures say so, but the scriptures only have authority because you say they do and only you can properly interpret them? That's so silly! I used to be afraid of debating Catholics on this, but when you get down to it, they are so easily refuted.
Where are the church Father cards from? I would love to order a set for our homeschool and one for my seminary husband 😀
2 года назад+3
Material sufficiency is not Sola Scriptura. The Scriptures have been always read in the Apostolic Tradition of the Catholic Church. The heretics also used the Scriptures to validate their personal views, what to do there? The Church interpreted the Scriptures in the light of the Apostolic Tradition and solve the dispute.
I love that you’re using the church fathers here, many Protestants don’t even consider them worth reading, so thank you. However, nothing that was said here is out of line with the apostolic teaching of tradition and authority. It simply confirms that the authority of the church to carry on TRUE theology MUST come from scripture. Which is always has (not RC btw, I am Orthodox). Let’s examine scripture, what does it say in 1Tim 3:15? It says the CHURCH is the pillar and ground of truth. Why not scripture the pillar and ground of truth? Because scripture, logically, needs interpretation. Even in this comment section I see Protestants that are all using scripture to make a claim about their beliefs and coming to different conclusions about it. Very clearly in John 16 we see Christ explain that He will send His spirit to guide them into “all truth”. And Paul speaks to the Thesselonians and says to keep their traditions whether by ORAL teaching or by epistle. Therefore, the Church has and always will continue to deliver truth, including the decision around the final canon of WHAT IS HOLY SCRIPTURE! :) Ie. The Bible. This is why the scripture can only be *reliably* interpreted within the context of THE CHURCH. It does NOT mean that the church can make authoritative claims or doctrines OUTSIDE of what the scriptures say. (We call those historical claims… heresies 😎) God bless you all, it’s a tough subject, we’re all doing our best but I recommend looking into Orthodoxy! The great schism left RC to follow a (unfortunately) heretical teaching and “infaliable” pope that led the RCs into some bad places and doctrines. The Orthodox continued the tradition and SCRIPTURAL teaching of Christ and His apostles and continue to to this day :)
Sola scriptura is blatantly false: 1) if the Bible was all we needed, why are there 30,000 denominations with different Biblical interpretations? Why do Protestants protest Protestants? For example, why don’t Baptists accept Lutheran infant baptism? Why do Pentecostals think Baptists are not going to heaven unless they speak in tongues? Because fallen men, including Luther, when interpreting the Bible as individuals are often wrong. The Bible needs a sacred INTERPRETER. Without that, each individual becomes their own pope, and Christ’s church is divided. 2) where in the Bible does it say the Bible is the only source of authority? It doesn’t. It says it will equip us, making us complete for good works, but that is NOT the same as saying the Bible is the only source of truth and that it doesn’t need an authoritative interpreter. 3) tradition came well before scripture. Several biblical passages require us to follow tradition. The oral stories of Christ preceded the Gospels. Paul founded many churches with tradition, not a written owners manual. His epistles were written to correct or support the churches, against the traditions that he taught them. 4) the Bible TOC wasn’t official until 350+ years after Christ. Sure, most of the Bible was widely circulated, but several other books almost made the Bible (letter of Clement, Shepherd of Hermas), and several books in the Bible almost didn’t make it (Revelation, Peter, etc). The Bible TOC was NOT as clear as Protestants think. The CHURCH, inspired by the Holy Spirit, chose the books of the Bible. 5) the Sacraments of the Catholic Church, such as Baptism, Eucharist, Holy Orders, etc. were instituted by early church fathers before the Bible was canonized. If their decisions were true on the canon, they were also true on other church matters (trinity, liturgy, sacraments, date of Easter, apostolic succession, priest celibacy, etc). 6) Christ hand picked 12 men as Apostles. He breathed on them, giving them the power to forgive sins. The Bible (Acts) describes the Apostles choosing their own successors (Apostolic succession). The Bible (Acts) describes them holding a council to define doctrine not yet in scripture (Council of Jerusalem, on circumcision). Acts is describing these traditions that already took place. This validates the polity of Apostolic Succession (Bishops as leaders, choosing their successors), and the CHURCH being able to define doctrine that is not in scripture. This is biblical evidence for extra-biblical authority. If you defend sola scriptura, how can you defend any of your Lutheran interpretations over any other church’s interpretation? Oneness Pentecostals use the same Bible and deny the Trinity. Sola scriptura has created serious heresy. Add Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons to that list. Similar heresies were there in the early church, and were squashed because of the authority of the Catholic Church. I challenge you to name one Catholic doctrine or dogma that is anti-biblical. Not EXTRA-biblical, but ANTI-biblical (contradicts the Bible). Dogmas about Mary are extra-biblical, not anti-biblical. Face it, sola scriptura has led to a fractured and weakened Church. Christ wants us to be united, not divided. This doctrine is divisive, and blatantly wrong.
@@billmartin3561 Not looking to get into an obnoxiously complicated long debate, so I'll just give you some counter points. 1) The number from that study is debunked, and doesn't even mean each has different biblical interpretations; Many denominational differences are just because of history, location, administration, etc. (LCMS and AALC for example). I'd say there are bigger disagreements within the Roman church than there are between many denominations. 2) The language of that verse is very strong. Perfect, complete, fully equipped... doesn't really leave room for needing something else. 3) How do you tell which traditions are infallible? We'd say you have to check with Scripture, then at that point you're back to Scripture being the one infallible source. The Lutheran Sola Scriptura isn't the same as some protestants; We mean that the only infallible source is Scripture, not that nothing else matters/is useful. As you see in this video, we do and always have looked to the early church fathers. I'd say Rome is to blame for the Reformation and even earlier divisions. Over the centuries, Rome added more and more requirements and narrowing definitions for being in the church. That's not a recipe for unity.
@@billmartin3561 well done Bill, all true and good points. Sola scriptura is patently non sensical and a product of Luthers heresy and manifest hubris. It is plainly contrary to 1500 years of church history.
@@F7dJa But what you’re describing isn’t Sola Scriptura. It’s Prima Scriptura. Sola means sola. No other authority period, above or below. Scripture and absolutely nothing else. Prima means first. Scripture is the first authority but not the only one. Everyone who claims to be Sola Scriptura isn’t really because even their interpretation of scripture was learned from other people. This video is an exercise in that very principle! No one is only listening to Scripture. Everyone has a theological bent. Yes, even the Book of Concord. It’s unavoidable. But it’s okay as long as we keep our focus on obeying God’s word above all else.
This is like idk... this is a blessing from God. I'm in tears literally because the RCC wouldn't call me back. It was God wanting me to become Lutheran.
I think it’s also helpful to point out the fundamental distinction between reformed Protestants and Lutherans in their respective approaches to scripture. John Calvin says that faith and reason are not at odds and thus even matters of faith must stand to reason. Martin Luther said that reason is faith’s greatest enemy and more often than not finds itself fighting against the things of God rather than along side or with. The reform camp birthed Anglicanism, epiacopalianism, Methodism, baptists, Pentecostals, non-denominationals, puritans, and Presbyterians. The Lutheran camp gave birth to confessional Lutherans who believe the Bible is the word of God and non-confessional Lutherans who aren’t even Christian. You either believe scripture and set your thoughts beneath it or else you believe yourself, and filter scripture through your own ideas and biases.
It is baffling how some people don't want to accept their errors. I was raised Catholic. By the time I was ten I had more questions than answers from the church. I became a "protestant" at 24. It was so easy for me to see the error in the Catholic doctrine. When approached by other churches, Mormons, Jehova Witnesses and such I would ask them if God's plan for our salvation was not complete? To which they would answer yes. So, why do I need to read other books outside the Holy Bible? Scripture is all we need. Anything else you can discard.
One of the titles of the SON YESHUA HAMASHI- ACH is Head of the Church 🙏 ✝️ 👣 🕊 🧭 🛐 🤲 The PARACLETE is our Wonderful COUNSELOR.I Thank You Very Much Pastor Bryan Wolfmueller for your patience,equanimity,succinct transfer- ence of knowledge. Especially your visuals 🙃🤓🤭🙂😎
They are charging me with innovation, and base their charge on my confession of three hypostases, and blame me for asserting one Goodness, one Power, one Godhead. In this they are not wide of the truth, for I do so assert. Their complaint is that their custom does not accept this, and that Scripture does not agree. What is my reply? I do not consider it fair that the custom which obtains among them should be regarded as a law and rule of orthodoxy. If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the Word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth.[1] Basil the Great The letters Letter 189 To Eustathius the Physician
Brian, regarding that first Basil quote, do you know by any chance what he means by unwritten tradition? I only ask because I am working through Chemnitz’s examination of Trent and he proves that there is no single definition of the word tradition, and typically the fathers mean something quite different than Trent. Is it possible, for example, that the things unwritten that we must accept is the church consensus that these books are scripture? Because if so, we agree with Basil.
I would say that fits well with CS Lewis’s defense of the Scripture, which is something like this: you trust your mom’s medical advice as a child. But when your mom takes you to the doctor, you also trust her telling you this doctor is the higher authority than she herself. In this analogy by Lewis, your mom is the church, and scripture is the doctor
Interesting video, good points, and those are great quotes. I think you left out one of the best quotes though to support this, which I came across in research. This is an interesting argument for Sola Scriptura from scripture itself, it kind of summarizes the entire debate between churches, and overcomes the Catholic argument against Sola Scriptura. Christians should, "not to go beyond what is written." Here it is, "I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another." -1 Corinthians 4:6 ESV While this biblical quote supports Sola Scriptura, I don't see how it supports any specific selection of scriptures by Luther. How can anyone justify removing books counted as scripture? It seems such an awful thing to do. If you can, please make a video about this explaining why Luther made his choices, it would be appreciated. My concern is Luther took a preconceived notion about doctrine and shaped the bible to suit his prejudices. I am curious what you think, I am not trolling you. I am just an amateur non-denominational youtube theologian.
Luther kept the deuterocanon in his translation. Lutherans distinguish between homolegomena and antilegomena in Scripture. The Old Testament deuterocanon, the Ethiopic Old Testament expansion books, and the New Testament pseudepigrapha books are all Holy Scripture. But they were disputed at various points in history, and various Churches rejected or downplayed the authority of those books long before the Reformation. So it's objectively more universally Christian to make a distinction between homolegomena and antilegomena without entirely rejecting or absolutely insisting on antilegomena.
No he didn’t. This is a common misunderstanding. Luther wasn’t even the one who first disputed these books. Hilary, Jerome, rufinus, Augustine and athanasius all believed in a distinction between the ecclesiastical books and the canonical books that were fit for doctrinal disputation. Even after the supposed canonization of these books at hippo and Carthage, Gregory the great continued this distinction: With reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical, yet brought out for the edification of the Church, we bring forward testimony. Thus Eleazar in the battle smote and brought down an elephant, but fell under the very beast that he killed (1 Macc. 6.46). While Augustine concurred with the distinction Jerome made: (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, are counted by st Jerome out of the canonical books and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judg ment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial cound of Carthage. Even during the reformation Catholic theologians (like cardinal Cajetan cited above) continued to make this distinction quite comfortably in books dedicated to the Pope. Like in cardinal cajetans commentary on all the authentic books of the Old Testament.
@@4emrys so you are saying here that Luther was actually adhering more closely to the original church fathers by editing scripture? Would it be accurate to say it was the Catholics then who made changes they were not supposed to because they counted apocryphal books as scripture when they weren't supposed to?
Brilliant …. Can you address the Catholics that say you can’t take some of what they believed and deny the rest and take them out of context… I just read a comment like that and would love a solid response
Sola scriptura is blatantly false: 1) if the Bible was all we needed, why are there 30,000 denominations with different Biblical interpretations? Why do Protestants protest Protestants? For example, why don’t Baptists accept Lutheran infant baptism? Why do Pentecostals think Baptists are not going to heaven unless they speak in tongues? Because fallen men, including Luther, when interpreting the Bible as individuals are often wrong. The Bible needs a sacred INTERPRETER. Without that, each individual becomes their own pope, and Christ’s church is divided. 2) where in the Bible does it say the Bible is the only source of authority? It doesn’t. It says it will equip us, making us complete for good works, but that is NOT the same as saying the Bible is the only source of truth and that it doesn’t need an authoritative interpreter. 3) tradition came well before scripture. Several biblical passages require us to follow tradition. The oral stories of Christ preceded the Gospels. Paul founded many churches with tradition, not a written owners manual. His epistles were written to correct or support the churches, against the traditions that he taught them. 4) the Bible TOC wasn’t official until 350+ years after Christ. Sure, most of the Bible was widely circulated, but several other books almost made the Bible (letter of Clement, Shepherd of Hermas), and several books in the Bible almost didn’t make it (Revelation, Peter, etc). The Bible TOC was NOT as clear as Protestants think. The CHURCH, inspired by the Holy Spirit, chose the books of the Bible. 5) the Sacraments of the Catholic Church, such as Baptism, Eucharist, Holy Orders, etc. were instituted by early church fathers before the Bible was canonized. If their decisions were true on the canon, they were also true on other church matters (trinity, liturgy, sacraments, date of Easter, apostolic succession, priest celibacy, etc). 6) Christ hand picked 12 men as Apostles. He breathed on them, giving them the power to forgive sins. The Bible (Acts) describes the Apostles choosing their own successors (Apostolic succession). The Bible (Acts) describes them holding a council to define doctrine not yet in scripture (Council of Jerusalem, on circumcision). Acts is describing these traditions that already took place. This validates the polity of Apostolic Succession (Bishops as leaders, choosing their successors), and the CHURCH being able to define doctrine that is not in scripture. This is biblical evidence for extra-biblical authority. If you defend sola scriptura, how can you defend any of your Lutheran interpretations over any other church’s interpretation? Oneness Pentecostals use the same Bible and deny the Trinity. Sola scriptura has created serious heresy. Add Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons to that list. Similar heresies were there in the early church, and were squashed because of the authority of the Catholic Church. I challenge you to name one Catholic doctrine or dogma that is anti-biblical. Not EXTRA-biblical, but ANTI-biblical (contradicts the Bible). Dogmas about Mary are extra-biblical, not anti-biblical. Face it, sola scriptura has led to a fractured and weakened Church. Christ wants us to be united, not divided. This doctrine is divisive, and blatantly wrong.
@@billmartin3561 also… your pope has led to a weakened church … men, lead to sinful and corrupted churches the scriptures do not lead to weakened corrupted churches … the more a church exposits the word the more they will be in alignment with the Will of God… you check scripture against scripture… it’s infallible. It’s without error.
Bryan, I think you are a pretty cool guy. My problem with the Lutheran view( I was an ELCA Lutheran) is spoken of in the book by Trent Horn, Catholic apologist, called Why We’re Catholic. I wish you would contact him and have a debate on the subject. It might have the effect of clearing up the issue. I was a Lutheran for 44 years. The large majority of the folks I went to church with don’t know enough of the deep history of all this to have a clue.
ELCA is heretical. They reject any parts of the Bible they don't agree with. There was a lesbian bishop. Double unBiblical. They also think they can redefine Sodomite to mean opposed to accenting homosexuality as normal and proper. confessional Lutherans use the book of Concord, especially the Augsburg Confession as a statement of faith. One of its repeated statements is "Anything contrary to Scripture must be rejected ". Confessional Lutherans include LCMS, Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, WELS Wisconsin Evengelical Lutheran Synod, ALS American Lutheran Synod ( in fellowship with WELS) and AALC American Association of Lutheran Churches, in fellowship with LCMS. That I know of. I highly recommend the RUclips channels Lutheran Satire (Wil Weedon) Ken Kosar a WELS elder ( The Messed Up Church, Hit the Bar and other series), Saint &Sinner (Dr. Jordan Cooper AALC) and obviously this one. By the way AALC is a group of congregations who broke with ELCA when the ELCA got too liberal. Added I may have American and Association reversed in AALC and ALS may really be ALC. Also Dr. Cooper uses his middle initial.
@@markhorton3994 I apologize. I saw ELCA and read LCMS. The differences between the two are nothing new, and they have their origins all the back to the beginning of the Reformation, and arrived here based on what country you were from. Unfortunately the trend continues in that the more Ecumenical Lutherans become, the less confessional (traditional) they end up becoming.
@@markhorton3994 I know that this is outside my element, given this is a LCMS channel, but I implore you to have compassion for your brothers and sisters in Christ. I know social and theological liberalism is rejected in most faith circles, hell I rejected it for years as an Eastern Orthodox Christian disgusted with the “liberalism of the West”. But as I struggle with some important social issues, I see that the mainline liberal protestantism is just trying to reconcile difficult questions of daily life. Admittedly many go way too far (John Shelby Spong, for instance of the Episcopal Churcch) but Ive met many theologically sound liberals who really try to honor the Lutheran confessions. Is there cringe from the pulpits? Sure, but know that many of us acknowledge this
@@DeFyYing There are many liberal errors that do not damn. But accepting only the parts of God's Word that suit what they want to believe is not good. I will not associate with a female pastor, witb the acceptance of homosexuality as not a sin or anyone who says that God does not love homosexuals and will not forgive them. There is only one sin that is unforgivable and it is not homosexuality. It is trite but "hate the sin, love the sinner" is correct. One of the things that liberal "Christians" tend to discard from the Bible is the Trinity in particular that divinity of Jesus. Another is Christ's sacrificial atonement. Anyone who denies Christ or His death for my sins is not my brother in Christ. I cannot know who is saved or will be Jesus will judge.
The critical issue with Sola Scriptura has been that Papists and Palamists believe that tradition is allowed to directly contradict Scripture, and that the modern Papist and Palamist hierarchy is allowed to directly contradict older Tradition. Lateran Council 1 Canon 21: We absolutely forbid priests, deacons, subdeacons, and monks to have concubines or to contract marriage. Lateran Council 2 Canon 6: For since they should be and be called the temple of God, the vessel of the Lord, the abode of the Holy Spirit, it is *unbecoming* that they *indulge in marriage* and in *impurities.* 1 Timothy 4:1-3 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and *teachings of demons,* through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who *forbid marriage* 1 Corinthians 9:5 *Do we not have the right* to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? Canon 21 continued: We decree in accordance with the definitions of the sacred canons, that *marriages already contracted by such persons must be dissolved,* and that the persons be condemned to do penance. Matthew 19:6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate. Innocent III, 1204 "We destine specially to this, that the material sword may be sanctioned to supply the defect of the spiritual sword, and you, besides the temporal glory which you will attain from so pious and praiseworthy a work, may obtain that pardon for sins, which we grant as an indulgence for the remission of their sins, since we want those who faithfully shall have laboured against the heretics to rejoice in the same indulgence as we grant as an indulgence for those crossing the sea for the aid of the Holy Land." Lateran Council 4 Canon 3: Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, that as they wish to be esteemed and numbered among the faithful, so for the defense of the faith they ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and *to the best of their ability to exterminate* (pro viribus exterminare studebunt) in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church. _Ad extirpanda_ of Pope Innocent IV: We decree that the head of state [...] shall observe, both what is written herein, and other regulations and laws both ecclesiastical and civil, that are published against heretical wickedness. [...] No heretical man or woman may dwell, sojourn, or maintain a bare subsistence in the country, or any kind of jurisdiction or district belonging to it, whoever shall find the heretical man or woman shall boldly seize, with impunity, all his or their goods, and freely carry them off. [...] The head of state, or whatever ruler stands foremost in the public esteem, must cause the heretics who have been arrested in this manner to be taken to whatever jurisdiction the Diocesan, or his surrogate, is in, or whatever district, or city, or place the Diocesan bishop wishes to take them to. [...] *The head of state or ruler **_must force_** all the heretics whom he has in custody, provided he does so without killing them or breaking their arms or legs* to confess their errors and accuse other heretics whom they know. Patriarch Nikon I insisted that his liturgical innovations were “necessary for salvation,” and excommunicated and condemned the Old Orthodox churches for rejecting his public heresy. All other bishops accepted his heresy. The Russian Orthodox bishops today were all ordained by his invalidated succession.
@@Mygoalwogel your system doesn’t work, interpretation of scripture always has to come down to someone or some system. Protestantism has been frantically trying to undo the damage done of the reformation ever since because once you remove the authority of the church you remove all ability to rightly understand the scripture. Everyone thinks they have the right interpretation of scripture but not every church has the Holy Spirit via the laying on of hands through apostolic succession. I dont agree with Rome but the Orthodox church seems to be the only true church maintaining the tradition of the first millennia
@@Daciaforever95 That's simply untrue. The traditions of the Old Believers are actually older than the Nikonite Orthodox. The traditions of the Assyrian Church of the East are older still. The Eastern Orthodox introduced many innovations and excommunicated anyone who refused to submit to the novelties.
@@Mygoalwogel lol you’re talking about old calendarists? Your position is ridiculous. Everyone appeals to scripture, the Protestants try to use scripture to support scripture, the papists try to use scripture to support papal claims and the orthodox are the only ones who rightly balance both scripture and tradition. You’re welcome to debate Jay Dyer anytime he has open forums on his channel often I’d love to hear your perspective in debating with him
@@Daciaforever95 False. The Old Believers and Old Calendarists are two different movements each preserving the older traditions of the Church. Neither appeals to Scripture but to True Tradition. The Nikonites are mere pretenders. They're innovators just like Protestants.
I love how he misquoted St. Augustin even while having his quote right in front of his face. Yes, only those books which are "Canonical", pray tell who decided which were canonical, and which were not.
@@yeshuadvargas5552 The Holy Spirit doesn't speak through the Romanists, If He did, they would stop teaching a lot of the junk they added over the years
Minister, Ahh… you forget dear sir that what was “Divinely Inspired” and what was not was hotly debated for the first four centuries of the Christian Church. Most of your quotes are taken out of temporal, historic, and linguistic context. The quote by Basil alone should put paid to this
Explain the derivation of Sola Scriptoria. Was it commonly debated in the 5th Century, the 9th? How about in the 12th or 14th? Why did it first arise in the 16th and the Reformation? Surely it must have been some part, however small, in the myriad debates and writings in the fifteen centuries preceding. Surely! I sincerely doubt that labeling Catholics with whom you have mostly doctrinal agreement “trolls” advances your position. Please, sir, you are better that that. At least I pray that you are.
God is Spirit, and we must worship Him in Spirit and in Truth, Christ is the Truth, know one comes to the Father but by the Truth. Now then if we live by the flesh we shell die, but through the Spirit we deaden the flesh we shell live, but not that in the flesh will we live because all flesh will die, but in the Spirit we will live, know matter what way any man interprets, to keep sinning is the side of the goat's. Repeat which is to put away with sin, caz you know not when you cross turns to dust. Father, give us this day our daily needs, as meny Spiritual gifts as you see fit for us, the knowledge and strength of the whole armor but above all Father the love, so we may decern between
Going to scripture for doctrine is fine, but the problem is, scripture is the very battleground. All the different factions use scripture as support for their doctrines. Therefore, going to scripture does no good, because scripture is what the fight is about in the first place. This is even neglecting to say what writings are scripture to begin with.
The Holy Spirit spoke through the Prophets (2 Peter 1:21) and Apostles (John 16:13-14, see also 2 Peter 3:15). Peter's second encyclical covers this. Call me.
@@PastorBryanWolfmueller Thanks for providing some quotations, but you did not answer my question. 2 Pet 2:21 simply says that prophecy comes from the Holy Spirit not from man’s will. We all agree on this. How is this relevant to my question? John 16:13-14 reiterates that the Holy Spirit will lead the Jesus’ Church in all truth. We all agree on this. How is this relevant to my question? 2 Pet 3:15 testifies Paul to be inspired. I guess you know that Paul writings do not make up 100% of Scripture. So let me simplify the question for you: How do you know that the 27 books of the NT (and only those and not others) are inspired?
I've been waiting for more than 10 days now for a simple response to a basic question and, as expected, no credible answer was provided. The slogan of "sola scriptura" is meaningless unless you define first what Scripture is. And there is no way you can possibly define what Scripture is with no margin of error, without violating the principle of "sola scriptura." This is the tragedy of the doctrine of sola scriptura: the moment you impose it as an epistemological presupposition for the understanding of Scripture, you don't even know anymore what Scripture exactly is.
Sir - It is not eisegesis when, between 6:25 - 6:42 "Scripture alone" is read into the quotation? It is very clear, at least from the English translation of the quote, that the appearances of "that" prior to the word "alone" do not refer to Scripture but a point of faith that is in question. Additionally, "harmonize with the intention" strongly appears to imply a standard for judging a point of faith that is not specified in Scripture. No Catholic would disagree with that. I submit that "Sola Scriptura" is the intellectual equivalent of a one-sided object. It only exists in theory. An infallible rule without an infallible interpreter cannot not yield infallible guidance for faith and practice. If an infallible interpreter is required, then "Sola Scriptura" cannot be "sola," it must be paired with the infallible interpreter. What say you?
@@thefellowheirs it seem like the Holy Ghost gives varying interpretations to different people, then. Take infant baptism, for example. How do you reconcile those who believe that infant baptism is right with those who think it is wrong? Both sides justify their positions with Scripture.
@@thefellowheirs please reread my post. My point is not to debate about infant baptism. I am simply using infant baptism as an example of a theological dispute which is impossible to resolve without an authoritative interpreter of Scripture. Millions of devout Christians who ascribe to “Sola Scriptura” also believe that infant baptism is right and good. Millions of others, who also ascribe to “Sola Scriptura” disagree. My point is that simply saying, “The Holy Ghost is the interpreter” hasn’t yet created unity in doctrine and practice in the Protestant world. Is it reasonable to believe that such unity will ever happen among Protestants?
@@wjtruax that's what I'm saying though. You're claiming infant baptism is the big deep thought provoking controversial issue that we'll never know the answer to. It's the same as knowing the ressurection is real. It's in the Bible. No debate. No interpretation needed. Same with infant baptism. We know it's not real because it's not contained within. I'm not saying there's topics that will not be conclusive. But where's the debate of it? If I said I interpret the ressurection verses as Jesus actually didn't rise. Couldn't we just simply use scripture to disprove that? Or would we need an educated priest or scholar to break it down? I contend we don't need a proclaimed "professional" to understand the important topics in the Bible.
Hmm Strawman argument in the first minute... And The "Tradition" of "Sola Scriptura". That's a self defeating proposition. The test of Sola Scriptura is whether or not it's taught in Scripture. To appeal to Tradition, also, argues in favor of the Catholic position of Sacred Tradition.
As a ex Romanist, I can tell you this man is lying to you. The church has no authority whatsoever unless it is under the rule of the Holy Scriptures alone.
Black Patriot, thanks for commenting. Could you clarify? Are you saying that the Roman Catholic Church says that it has no authority apart from Scriptures, or that *you* believe that the chuch has no authority apart from the Scriptures? (I believe that as well, Sola Scriptura.)
Sloppy work here. If you think Cyril of Jerusalem taught Sola Scriptura, then why aren't you using his "Scriptura" which contained the Aprocrapha? And Basil literally tells you that there are two sources of authority: scripture and tradition. The second quote of Basil says that if anyone is going to tell you what scripture says, make sure what their saying is right. Yet here you are saying that Basil says any doctrine must be checked against scripture. Exactly what you would expect from a sola scriputra adherent: change the meaning until it fits what you want. Look, sola scriptura was invented by Martin Luther. Just admit it.
Luther included the deuterocanon in his translation. Papists and Nikonites often overlook the homolegomena antilegomena distinction and assume Lutherans dismiss deuterocanon and other antilegomena books.
The only issue is all these guys celebrated the Divine Liturgy and believed in real presence. So they can’t be sola scriptura. Unless you believe that the central worship of the church. Indeed even the Lutheran church is sola scriptura.
But what did those Church fathers believe? You can't take what they said about scriptural authority and leave the rest out. That's taking things out of context. Not one proves Sola Scriptura. I would implore that you discuss this with an apologist further.
@@BibleLovingLutheran There are so many instances of the church fathers speaking of the complete authority of Scripture. The church never canonized books by its own authority; instead, it recognized books’ inspiration and canonicity, and it had a functioning canon long before it attempted to define the canon.
@Dave that's false. Better go back. Instances compared to the rest of what they say? Isn't not scripture alone. The Catholic Church acknowledges the authority of scripture as the early fathers did. It's on you to research the rest. The burden of proof lies on your shoulders. May God guide you
@@dave1370 Sola scriptura is blatantly false: 1) if the Bible was all we needed, why are there 30,000 denominations with different Biblical interpretations? Why do Protestants protest Protestants? For example, why don’t Baptists accept Lutheran infant baptism? Why do Pentecostals think Baptists are not going to heaven unless they speak in tongues? Because fallen men, including Luther, when interpreting the Bible as individuals are often wrong. The Bible needs a sacred INTERPRETER. Without that, each individual becomes their own pope, and Christ’s church is divided. 2) where in the Bible does it say the Bible is the only source of authority? It doesn’t. It says it will equip us, making us complete for good works, but that is NOT the same as saying the Bible is the only source of truth and that it doesn’t need an authoritative interpreter. 3) tradition came well before scripture. Several biblical passages require us to follow tradition. The oral stories of Christ preceded the Gospels. Paul founded many churches with tradition, not a written owners manual. His epistles were written to correct or support the churches, against the traditions that he taught them. 4) the Bible TOC wasn’t official until 350+ years after Christ. Sure, most of the Bible was widely circulated, but several other books almost made the Bible (letter of Clement, Shepherd of Hermas), and several books in the Bible almost didn’t make it (Revelation, Peter, etc). The Bible TOC was NOT as clear as Protestants think. The CHURCH, inspired by the Holy Spirit, chose the books of the Bible. 5) the Sacraments of the Catholic Church, such as Baptism, Eucharist, Holy Orders, etc. were instituted by early church fathers before the Bible was canonized. If their decisions were true on the canon, they were also true on other church matters (trinity, liturgy, sacraments, date of Easter, apostolic succession, priest celibacy, etc). 6) Christ hand picked 12 men as Apostles. He breathed on them, giving them the power to forgive sins. The Bible (Acts) describes the Apostles choosing their own successors (Apostolic succession). The Bible (Acts) describes them holding a council to define doctrine not yet in scripture (Council of Jerusalem, on circumcision). Acts is describing these traditions that already took place. This validates the polity of Apostolic Succession (Bishops as leaders, choosing their successors), and the CHURCH being able to define doctrine that is not in scripture. This is biblical evidence for extra-biblical authority. If you defend sola scriptura, how can you defend any of your Lutheran interpretations over any other church’s interpretation? Oneness Pentecostals use the same Bible and deny the Trinity. Sola scriptura has created serious heresy. Add Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons to that list. Similar heresies were there in the early church, and were squashed because of the authority of the Catholic Church. I challenge you to name one Catholic doctrine or dogma that is anti-biblical. Not EXTRA-biblical, but ANTI-biblical (contradicts the Bible). Dogmas about Mary are extra-biblical, not anti-biblical. Face it, sola scriptura has led to a fractured and weakened Church. Christ wants us to be united, not divided. This doctrine is divisive, and blatantly wrong.
![Twenty One Pilots - “The Line” (from Arcane Season 2) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/E2Rj2gQAyPA/mqdefault.jpg)
Weedon and Wolfmueller make a fantastic team.
I'd enjoy listening to Weedon, Wolfmueller, and Cooper have a discussion.
@@Mygoalwogel definitely
Both are from LCMS, one of the true confessional Lutheran churches
I always have an automatic distrust of anyone who doesn't proport Sola Scriptura since coming back to the faith. It is exactly the kind of people who attacked Sola Scriptura (specifically in regards to Creationism) who caused me to walk away from the Faith Originally. I suffered so much because of my choices during that dark period. Sola Scriptura was the reason I came to the Lutherans, even many of the Protestants totally deny it these days.
Pastor Wolf,
I'm telling you, I was this close to turning Eastern Orthodox because of this issue.
Thank you for shedding light for the power of God's Word to keep me on the right path.
Tetelestai!
The only issue is all these guys celebrated the Divine Liturgy and believed in real presence. So they can’t be sola scriptura.
Unless you can show me the Divine Liturgy in scripture.
I’m Orthodox.
Still feel free to turn eastern orthodox ;)
@@EricAlHarb dunamis!!!
The Divine Liturgy is based on Scriptures-- but it doesn't save you. (Correction: This last phrase is incorrect: It's sacraments DO save, but they are not the only way to be saved.) The Divine Liturgy delivers the Word and Sacraments, but it's specific form certainly is not sacrosanct. Water, Word, Bread, and Wine, combined with Christ Jesus' promises, received in faith, become delivery systems of His saving trust and His forgiveness of Sins, life, and therefore, salvation. So, yes, the sacraments, do save.
@@travist7777 Bravo!
Literally just today I was looking at the history of the Canon and concerned about how valid sola scriptura is. This video has been a great gift of God to me and I am sure to all who watch it.
May God give you the joy of endurance and of a whole family that loves and worships you together all your days and then forevermore!
The only issue is all these guys celebrated the Divine Liturgy and believed in real presence. So they can’t be sola scriptura.
@@EricAlHarb That's kinda weird cause I'm a Sola Scriptura guy and I celebrate the divine liturgy and believe in the Real Presence. Do we have to do the liturgy? No. However, I think it's a cool format for Sunday service. I only believe the Real Presence because of Scripture. You probably disagree with my interpretation of all the times the Scriptures record "this is my body" and "this is my blood". Fun fact: People actually believe in the Real Presence and still remember Jesus' finished work on the cross. The very same way anyone eating any sacrifice ever remembered that a sacrifice was made for them. Practicing the liturgy and believing the Real Presence doesn't mean someone rejects Sola Scriptura. Your church also has traditions, even if they're only a month old. How you do your church service is your liturgy, by definition. Everyone has traditions, and as long as you don't think your traditions are binding or anywhere close to being equal to Scripture, then that's fine.
Sola scriptura is blatantly false:
1) if the Bible was all we needed, why are there 30,000 denominations with different Biblical interpretations? Why do Protestants protest Protestants? For example, why don’t Baptists accept Lutheran infant baptism? Why do Pentecostals think Baptists are not going to heaven unless they speak in tongues? Because fallen men, including Luther, when interpreting the Bible as individuals are often wrong. The Bible needs a sacred INTERPRETER. Without that, each individual becomes their own pope, and Christ’s church is divided.
2) where in the Bible does it say the Bible is the only source of authority? It doesn’t. It says it will equip us, making us complete for good works, but that is NOT the same as saying the Bible is the only source of truth and that it doesn’t need an authoritative interpreter.
3) tradition came well before scripture. Several biblical passages require us to follow tradition. The oral stories of Christ preceded the Gospels. Paul founded many churches with tradition, not a written owners manual. His epistles were written to correct or support the churches, against the traditions that he taught them.
4) the Bible TOC wasn’t official until 350+ years after Christ. Sure, most of the Bible was widely circulated, but several other books almost made the Bible (letter of Clement, Shepherd of Hermas), and several books in the Bible almost didn’t make it (Revelation, Peter, etc). The Bible TOC was NOT as clear as Protestants think. The CHURCH, inspired by the Holy Spirit, chose the books of the Bible.
5) the Sacraments of the Catholic Church, such as Baptism, Eucharist, Holy Orders, etc. were instituted by early church fathers before the Bible was canonized. If their decisions were true on the canon, they were also true on other church matters (trinity, liturgy, sacraments, date of Easter, apostolic succession, priest celibacy, etc).
6) Christ hand picked 12 men as Apostles. He breathed on them, giving them the power to forgive sins. The Bible (Acts) describes the Apostles choosing their own successors (Apostolic succession). The Bible (Acts) describes them holding a council to define doctrine not yet in scripture (Council of Jerusalem, on circumcision). Acts is describing these traditions that already took place. This validates the polity of Apostolic Succession (Bishops as leaders, choosing their successors), and the CHURCH being able to define doctrine that is not in scripture. This is biblical evidence for extra-biblical authority.
If you defend sola scriptura, how can you defend any of your Lutheran interpretations over any other church’s interpretation? Oneness Pentecostals use the same Bible and deny the Trinity. Sola scriptura has created serious heresy. Add Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons to that list. Similar heresies were there in the early church, and were squashed because of the authority of the Catholic Church.
I challenge you to name one Catholic doctrine or dogma that is anti-biblical. Not EXTRA-biblical, but ANTI-biblical (contradicts the Bible). Dogmas about Mary are extra-biblical, not anti-biblical.
Face it, sola scriptura has led to a fractured and weakened Church. Christ wants us to be united, not divided. This doctrine is divisive, and blatantly wrong.
@@billmartin3561 If tradition prevent schisms, turn why do the Eastern Orthodox, Ethiopian, Donatist, Montanist, and Nestorian churches exist? Whose tradition do we follow? I'll tell you one thing the Catholic Church did that was anti-Biblical: Pope Gregory VII banned all clerical marriages, which is against what is written, "men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude; for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer"
(1 Timothy 4:3-5). Additionally Paul wrote, "My defense to those who examine me is this: Do we not have a right to eat and drink? Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?" (1 Corinthians 9:3-5). However the Catholic Church ordered clerical celibacy on the basis that the priests of old had to refrain from sexual intercourse before performing their temple duties and handling the sacrifice. However, Christ was sacrificed only once, as it is written, "Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time onward until His enemies be made a footstool for His feet. For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.
(Hebrews 10:11-14). Christ was offered once, but the benefits of this sacrifice are infinitely conveyed through the sacraments. Rather than going into detail on the Roman sacrifice of the Mass, it is sufficient to say that according to Paul, he and the other apostles can be married without giving offense to God by the freedom in Christ, just as they can eat and drink without sinning. If the holy Apostles lived in such matter and were certainly administering the Eucharist, then official Catholic doctrine has, contrary to Scripture, barred men of God from marriage, a sure mark of false teachers and of men of lawlessness, who take their seat in the temple of God and display themselves as being God (2 Thes. 2:3-5), and it is these men who trample down God's decrees in favor of their own, forbidding marriage. It is these Popes of yours who call themselves the visible head of the Church, taking Christ's place in the body for themselves. So that's something I find to be contrary to Scripture that is an official teaching of the Catholic Church.
@@gerrardthemagnificent5960 if u wana look at the history of the canon, watch Gary Michuta on youtube (the apocrypha apocalypse), or read Gary's books.
Thank you
Literally exactly what I needed just now! God bless you!
Thank you. Scripture alone!
Sola scriptura is blatantly false:
1) if the Bible was all we needed, why are there 30,000 denominations with different Biblical interpretations? Why do Protestants protest Protestants? For example, why don’t Baptists accept Lutheran infant baptism? Why do Pentecostals think Baptists are not going to heaven unless they speak in tongues? Because fallen men, including Luther, when interpreting the Bible as individuals are often wrong. The Bible needs a sacred INTERPRETER. Without that, each individual becomes their own pope, and Christ’s church is divided.
2) where in the Bible does it say the Bible is the only source of authority? It doesn’t. It says it will equip us, making us complete for good works, but that is NOT the same as saying the Bible is the only source of truth and that it doesn’t need an authoritative interpreter.
3) tradition came well before scripture. Several biblical passages require us to follow tradition. The oral stories of Christ preceded the Gospels. Paul founded many churches with tradition, not a written owners manual. His epistles were written to correct or support the churches, against the traditions that he taught them.
4) the Bible TOC wasn’t official until 350+ years after Christ. Sure, most of the Bible was widely circulated, but several other books almost made the Bible (letter of Clement, Shepherd of Hermas), and several books in the Bible almost didn’t make it (Revelation, Peter, etc). The Bible TOC was NOT as clear as Protestants think. The CHURCH, inspired by the Holy Spirit, chose the books of the Bible.
5) the Sacraments of the Catholic Church, such as Baptism, Eucharist, Holy Orders, etc. were instituted by early church fathers before the Bible was canonized. If their decisions were true on the canon, they were also true on other church matters (trinity, liturgy, sacraments, date of Easter, apostolic succession, priest celibacy, etc).
6) Christ hand picked 12 men as Apostles. He breathed on them, giving them the power to forgive sins. The Bible (Acts) describes the Apostles choosing their own successors (Apostolic succession). The Bible (Acts) describes them holding a council to define doctrine not yet in scripture (Council of Jerusalem, on circumcision). Acts is describing these traditions that already took place. This validates the polity of Apostolic Succession (Bishops as leaders, choosing their successors), and the CHURCH being able to define doctrine that is not in scripture. This is biblical evidence for extra-biblical authority.
If you defend sola scriptura, how can you defend any of your Lutheran interpretations over any other church’s interpretation? Oneness Pentecostals use the same Bible and deny the Trinity. Sola scriptura has created serious heresy. Add Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons to that list. Similar heresies were there in the early church, and were squashed because of the authority of the Catholic Church.
I challenge you to name one Catholic doctrine or dogma that is anti-biblical. Not EXTRA-biblical, but ANTI-biblical (contradicts the Bible). Dogmas about Mary are extra-biblical, not anti-biblical.
Face it, sola scriptura has led to a fractured and weakened Church. Christ wants us to be united, not divided. This doctrine is divisive, and blatantly wrong.
@@billmartin3561 I disagree
@@billmartin3561 the worst of the worst protestants deny sola scriptura too, I lump them in with romanists and so called "orthodox". You are all part of the problem.
Thank you so much for this podcast. This comes at a time, within my own family, where I needed the theology? And the Holy Spirit, to do, dare I say battle, against the devil and his ways. With the prayer of eternal salvation for those so very close to me, and who have strayed. Thank you. “God is good ALL THE TIME!!” Who knew I needed this at this very time? GOD DID!
Church Father trading cards were a nice touch. Thanks to both you and Rev. Weedon.
Yeah, where can we get those? 😇
Church father trading cards?! pretty geeky Pastor. I love it. Love Pastor Weeden as well. Reading his "Coming Home" Lenten Devotions for 2022.
What would you have me believe that the Prophets and apostles haven't written is-- that's a Protestant mic drop right there! Well said, Pastor!
The only issue is all these guys celebrated the Divine Liturgy and believed in real presence. So they can’t be sola scriptura.
Lutheran's believe in both the real presence and sola scriptura. The doctrine of Christ's presence in the Eucharist is pretty explicitly taught in the new testament.
^^ so it seems as though you disagree on this as Protestants?…. Let’s take back that mic drop 😏 lol
@Eric Al Harb the liturgy itself is pretty much all from scripture but the act of liturgical worship is a tradition which does not contradict scripture.
Jesus says, "This is my body, this is my blood. " We trust Jesus.
Refuting restorationists is easy.
Okay, I confess to not being well read in the Fathers of the Church. That said, I saw nothing you said that would go against the Eastern Orthodox Christian faith.
I saw when the 10 Minute Bible Hour talked to Pastor Weedon, and was impressed! His enthusiasm was contagious.
Hey, Pastor......I'm a lifelong practicing Roman Catholic layman......have an M. Rel. Ed......taught for 31 years.......and have followed you for years and profited GREATLY from your Lutheran insights. Gimme a break: I am NOT a "catholic troll." Them's fightin' words. I also think the world of Pastor J. B. Cooper. For your penance.........
This is so very helpful. Thank you for breaking this down and presenting quotes from saints.
these are excellent cards
Very Nice video Pastor , God Bless !
I found the missing reference for the quote at time stamp 4:47
Here is the quote along with the reference:
"Concerning the hearers: that those hearers who are instructed in the Scriptures should examine what is said by the teachers, receiving what is in conformity with the Scriptures and rejecting what is opposed to them; and that those who persist in teaching such doctrines should be strictly avoided." - St. Basil, The Morals, The Fathers for the Church, vol.9, Rule 72, pp. 185-186.
Thanks for the needed quotations.
I like your simple props. Maybe I'm just old school. Thank you for your dedication to teaching. I enjoy watching and/or listening to your videos.
Yes, another Wolfmueller video! My sermons when my church can't preach an honest traditional sermon (I say this in joy over the resource, not bitterness).
Thank you.
Excelente, pastor Wolfmueller, excelente! Ótimo trabalho. Anotei todas as referências.
The only issue is all these guys celebrated the Divine Liturgy and believed in real presence. So they can’t be sola scriptura.
Who says we dont believe in Real Presence? Even among Calvinists, they do believe in a spiritual but real presence. Futhermore, Let's remember that was against a non-occasional celebration of the Lord's Supper that the Reformers also stand for. You can see it from a video posted here at YT by Gavin Ortlund, where he points out all of these issues.
@@josueinhan8436 too much to get into.
- Irenaeus (AD 180): 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. (Against Heresies, 3:1.1)
- Athanasius (AD 296-373): The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth. (Against the Heathen, 1:3)
- Augustine (AD 354-430): It is to the canonical Scriptures alone that I am bound to yield such implicit subjection as to follow their teaching, without admitting the slightest suspicion that in them any mistake or any statement intended to mislead could find a place. (Letters, 82.3)
- Augustine (AD 354-430): He [God] also inspired the Scripture, which is regarded as canonical and of supreme authority and to which we give credence concerning all the truths we ought to know and yet, of ourselves, are unable to learn. (City of God, 11.3)
- Cyril of Jerusalem (AD 310-386): For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures. (Catechetical Lectures, IV:17 in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers)
- Gregory of Nyssa (AD 330-395): We are not entitled to such license, namely, of affirming whatever we please. For we make Sacred Scripture the rule and the norm of every doctrine. Upon that we are obliged to fix our eyes, and we approve only whatever can be brought into harmony with the intent of these writings. (On the Soul and the Resurrection, quoted in Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971], p. 50.)
- Augustine of Hippo (AD 354-430): Let them show their church if they can, not by the speeches and mumblings of the Africans, not by the councils of their bishops, not by the writings of any of their champions, not by fraudulent signs and wonders, because we have been prepared and made cautious also against these things by the Word of the Lord. (On the Unity of the Church, 16)
- John Chrysostom (AD 347-407): Wherefore I exhort and entreat you all, disregard what this man and that man thinks about these things, and inquire from the Scriptures all these things; and having learned what are the true riches, let us pursue after them that we may obtain also the eternal good things. (Homily 13 on 2 Corinthians)
- Basil the Great (AD 329-379): Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the Word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth. (Letter 189 to Eustathius the physician)
“The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.”
This is why some apologist cant make heads or tails of scripture. Unless their interpretations are spirit deserned, they only have 2nd hand interpretive sources. We SHOULD listen to church interpretations but only so far as to test them against the word of God.
The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.
So, first of all, Pastor Wolfmueller asks "what do you want me to believe that's not in the Scriptures?". Lutherans ask their people to believe a whole host of things that are not explicitly in the Bible. I'll give one example: Luther says, "“I did not invent [infant Baptism.] It came to me by tradition and I was persuaded by no word of Scripture that it was wrong.” [Martin Luther, “Concerning Rebaptism,” Luther’s Works: American Edition, Volume 40 “Church and
Ministry II” (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1958), 254.] And if you read Luther's Large Catechism, his defense of infant baptism specifically, he does not produce one text from the Bible that demands it. Rather he says the best proof for regular people is that many who are baptized as infants received the Holy Spirit and persist in it. So, he appeals to the experience of the church as the best proof for justifying infant baptism. So, Lutherans demand and expect that their people and converts to Lutheranism must accept infant baptism and believe it is right, but Luther himself did not attempt to prove infant baptism from a clear passage of scripture - because there isn't one. So, here's one place Pastor Wolfmueller expects his people to believe something that isn't in Scripture.
Second, a less cherry picked reading of these fathers, who allegedly testify to Sola Scriptura as Lutherans believe it, would reveal that these same fathers who supposedly appeal to Scripture as having the same final and ultimate authority for faith and practice in the church also taught things about justification, the cross, the role of the will in justification etc etc etc that Lutherans like Pastor Wolfmueller would say are false doctrine and are not the teaching of Scripture. In fact, the Formula of Concord rejects a teaching of Chrysostom as unsound for he says that "God draws, but He draws the willing." Quote me something from Augustine about the authority of the canon, he also taught that infants should not only be baptized but Communed!
Third, let's grant for the moment that these father's appeal to the authority of Scripture means what Pastor Wolfmueller claims it means, that Sola Scriptura as Lutherans believe it is also the teaching of the Fathers. These same fathers disagree with the Lutheran Confessions at crucial points as to what it is that Scripture actually teaches. What good does the teaching of Sola Scriptura do as a doctrine if the effect of the doctrine is disagreement on essential matters of the faith and practice? Rather than safe guarding the purity of the Gospel it has opened up a subjective chaos into the life of the Christian church. The effect of the doctrine, as Pastor Wolfmueller presented it here, is that the individual's interpretation of the text, with all the presuppositions each person brings to the texts of the Bible, is the final authority.
And no, I'm not a Catholic apologist. But this is a sloppy attempt to shoehorn the Fathers into the Lutheran Confession of Sola Scriptura. It used to be OK for Lutherans to admit that the Gospel and pure doctrine were lost shortly after the Apostles. However problematic that thought may be, at least it was honest that the Church Fathers ain't Lutheran and they didn't need them to be.
I watch a lot of these Catholic apologists. I think their primary pushback on these quotes would be that they don’t think their traditions contradict scripture. They would say it lines up with scripture, even if it isn’t directly addressed by it. So these quotes would be met with a “So what’s your point? I agree.” The difference is that they have to accept the magisterium’s tradition-friendly interpretation of scripture.
Agreed, I grew up Protestant and Sola Sctriptura is by far the biggest thing pushing me away. I do not really see the point being made here. Not one of these quotes turns me to believe that the Church does not have authority to tell us what the scriptues say. I think without that we become lost and fractured as can be seen in the countless Protestant denominations. The authority of the Church anchors us in confidence that we are reading the truth God has revealed to us through scripture and not the truth we as fallen humans see fit to derive from scripture.
Thank you Fr. Wolfmueller! I appreciate this video. I Would love to see more videos dealing with the fathers on other doctrines.
Great video. Pastor Weedon and Pastor Galvin Ortland are the best at defending, Sola Scriptura
Sola scriptura is blatantly false:
1) if the Bible was all we needed, why are there 30,000 denominations with different Biblical interpretations? Why do Protestants protest Protestants? For example, why don’t Baptists accept Lutheran infant baptism? Why do Pentecostals think Baptists are not going to heaven unless they speak in tongues? Because fallen men, including Luther, when interpreting the Bible as individuals are often wrong. The Bible needs a sacred INTERPRETER. Without that, each individual becomes their own pope, and Christ’s church is divided.
2) where in the Bible does it say the Bible is the only source of authority? It doesn’t. It says it will equip us, making us complete for good works, but that is NOT the same as saying the Bible is the only source of truth and that it doesn’t need an authoritative interpreter.
3) tradition came well before scripture. Several biblical passages require us to follow tradition. The oral stories of Christ preceded the Gospels. Paul founded many churches with tradition, not a written owners manual. His epistles were written to correct or support the churches, against the traditions that he taught them.
4) the Bible TOC wasn’t official until 350+ years after Christ. Sure, most of the Bible was widely circulated, but several other books almost made the Bible (letter of Clement, Shepherd of Hermas), and several books in the Bible almost didn’t make it (Revelation, Peter, etc). The Bible TOC was NOT as clear as Protestants think. The CHURCH, inspired by the Holy Spirit, chose the books of the Bible.
5) the Sacraments of the Catholic Church, such as Baptism, Eucharist, Holy Orders, etc. were instituted by early church fathers before the Bible was canonized. If their decisions were true on the canon, they were also true on other church matters (trinity, liturgy, sacraments, date of Easter, apostolic succession, priest celibacy, etc).
6) Christ hand picked 12 men as Apostles. He breathed on them, giving them the power to forgive sins. The Bible (Acts) describes the Apostles choosing their own successors (Apostolic succession). The Bible (Acts) describes them holding a council to define doctrine not yet in scripture (Council of Jerusalem, on circumcision). Acts is describing these traditions that already took place. This validates the polity of Apostolic Succession (Bishops as leaders, choosing their successors), and the CHURCH being able to define doctrine that is not in scripture. This is biblical evidence for extra-biblical authority.
If you defend sola scriptura, how can you defend any of your Lutheran interpretations over any other church’s interpretation? Oneness Pentecostals use the same Bible and deny the Trinity. Sola scriptura has created serious heresy. Add Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons to that list. Similar heresies were there in the early church, and were squashed because of the authority of the Catholic Church.
I challenge you to name one Catholic doctrine or dogma that is anti-biblical. Not EXTRA-biblical, but ANTI-biblical (contradicts the Bible). Dogmas about Mary are extra-biblical, not anti-biblical.
Face it, sola scriptura has led to a fractured and weakened Church. Christ wants us to be united, not divided. This doctrine is divisive, and blatantly wrong.
@@billmartin3561 Dogmas about Mary are absolutely contradictory to scripture.
Paul says plainly in Romans 3:23 that “... all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God... “
Marian Dogma says that Mary never sinned.
This is a contradiction.
Amen. Thank you Pr. Wolfmueller. Sola Scriptura. Solus Christus. That Chrysostom quote sounds like it could have been uttered today.
alone (uh oh) / only (uh oh) both got me
Great presentation Pastor Wolfmüller. I would add 2 further points .
1) Add a couple of quotes from Luther in order to demonstrate the true Catholicity of Luther and Lutheran doctrine as opposed to Roman Catholic apostasy from this tradition. It is clear that Luther is consistent with the position of the early church.
2) Show from 1 Peter 4:11, That "Sola Scriptural" IS taught in Scripture. We could teach it from 1 Corinthians 2:13 or Nehemiah 8:8 for that matter or Psalm 119, or Psalm 19 etc ...
Sola scriptura is blatantly false:
1) if the Bible was all we needed, why are there 30,000 denominations with different Biblical interpretations? Why do Protestants protest Protestants? For example, why don’t Baptists accept Lutheran infant baptism? Why do Pentecostals think Baptists are not going to heaven unless they speak in tongues? Because fallen men, including Luther, when interpreting the Bible as individuals are often wrong. The Bible needs a sacred INTERPRETER. Without that, each individual becomes their own pope, and Christ’s church is divided.
2) where in the Bible does it say the Bible is the only source of authority? It doesn’t. It says it will equip us, making us complete for good works, but that is NOT the same as saying the Bible is the only source of truth and that it doesn’t need an authoritative interpreter.
3) tradition came well before scripture. Several biblical passages require us to follow tradition. The oral stories of Christ preceded the Gospels. Paul founded many churches with tradition, not a written owners manual. His epistles were written to correct or support the churches, against the traditions that he taught them.
4) the Bible TOC wasn’t official until 350+ years after Christ. Sure, most of the Bible was widely circulated, but several other books almost made the Bible (letter of Clement, Shepherd of Hermas), and several books in the Bible almost didn’t make it (Revelation, Peter, etc). The Bible TOC was NOT as clear as Protestants think. The CHURCH, inspired by the Holy Spirit, chose the books of the Bible.
5) the Sacraments of the Catholic Church, such as Baptism, Eucharist, Holy Orders, etc. were instituted by early church fathers before the Bible was canonized. If their decisions were true on the canon, they were also true on other church matters (trinity, liturgy, sacraments, date of Easter, apostolic succession, priest celibacy, etc).
6) Christ hand picked 12 men as Apostles. He breathed on them, giving them the power to forgive sins. The Bible (Acts) describes the Apostles choosing their own successors (Apostolic succession). The Bible (Acts) describes them holding a council to define doctrine not yet in scripture (Council of Jerusalem, on circumcision). Acts is describing these traditions that already took place. This validates the polity of Apostolic Succession (Bishops as leaders, choosing their successors), and the CHURCH being able to define doctrine that is not in scripture. This is biblical evidence for extra-biblical authority.
If you defend sola scriptura, how can you defend any of your Lutheran interpretations over any other church’s interpretation? Oneness Pentecostals use the same Bible and deny the Trinity. Sola scriptura has created serious heresy. Add Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons to that list. Similar heresies were there in the early church, and were squashed because of the authority of the Catholic Church.
I challenge you to name one Catholic doctrine or dogma that is anti-biblical. Not EXTRA-biblical, but ANTI-biblical (contradicts the Bible). Dogmas about Mary are extra-biblical, not anti-biblical.
Face it, sola scriptura has led to a fractured and weakened Church. Christ wants us to be united, not divided. This doctrine is divisive, and blatantly wrong.
@@billmartin3561 Reply Part 2
Rule 3# of Scripture exposition states:
"NO prophecy of the Scripture is of ANY PRIVATE INTERPRETATION"
By this Apostolic assertion, the Apostle makes it abundantly clear that each and every Scripture has only one correct Exposition.
You complained earlier:
"If the Bible was all we needed, why are there 30,000 denominations with different Biblical interpretations? ... Why don’t Baptists accept ... infant baptism? Because fallen men ...when interpreting the Bible as individuals are often wrong."
By now you should be able to see from Scripture that your questions are self refuting.
the principle of Scripture Alone puts an end to all sects, whether Roman Catholic, Greek Catholic, Anglo Catholic, Eastern Catholic, Baptist, Pentecostal and even so the called pseudo "Lutheran" sects.
The Apostle Peter not only holds us to Sola Scriptura when he says
"If anyone speak, LET IT BE AS THE WORDS of GOD" (1 Peter 4:11)
But the Holy Apostle would hold us also to the Principle that there is only one correct exposition of each and every Scripture passage.
" NO SCRIPTURE is of ANY PRIVATE INTERPRETATION" (2 Peter 1:20)
It is ignorance of the Five Central Rules of Scripture Exposition and disobedience to the Lord who makes it conditional to be a disciple (see John 8:31) that leads to all sects in christendom.
If we followed the Holy Apostle in these two Scriptural rules we would well and truly on the road to a recovery of the historical Catholic Faith. It was by aherence to these Rules that Luther remained Catholic whilst the Roman sect apostatized from it, by departing from the faith in these points.
But to answer your complaint a little more succinctly, I will judge you out of your own mouth. You wrote:
"Each individual becomes their own pope"
By your own admission, you affirmed the Lutheran position that each sectarian is doing eaxctly what the popes have been doing all along!
If you care to look up Dr Pieper's Christian Dogmatics, he deals with this very problem in great depth.
What the popes and the eastern and western church had done for centuries before, was now introduced into the church by Ulrich Zwingli. And perpetuated by the Swiss Refomers and the various Anabaptist sects as well. And we should note that all other sects like the baptists and pentecostals of today are the spiritual disciples of the Swiss reformers, because they follow the principle of Scripture + Human reason.
The popes' principle was:
- Scripture + Tradition + Papal interpretation
The Swiss reformers principle was
- Scripture + Human Reason
But in both the popes principle and the Swiss reformers principle, Scripture was reduced to no authority and human reason, whether papal or reformed, was asserted as supreme. Thus the legacy of the swiss reformers was indeed as you admitted, and army of so called "'protestant popes"! Instaed of one anti christ in Rome we now have 30000 litle antichrists all throug the world.
So what is the remedy to all this ? Return to the Scriptural Principle
SOLA SCRIPTURA
Sola Scriptura admits no pope, and admits also of No human reasoning. No private Interpretations are admissible.
Sola Scriptura does hold us, however to the VERY Rules of Scripture Exposition that Scripture ITSELF Lays down. And we have seen the first three. So what are the five rules of Scripture Exposition?
1) If anyone speak, let it be as the WORDS of GOD (1 Peter 4;11)
2) Speak ... in Words that the Holy Ghost Teaches, comparing Scripture with Scripture (1 Cor. 2:13)
3) No Scripture is on ANY Private Interpretation (2 Peter 1:20)
4) He that prophesies according to THE ANALOGY of THE FAITH (Romans 12:6)
5) RIGHTLY DIVIDING the Word of Truth (2 Timothy 2:15)
Rules 4 and 5 need a little clarification here.
Rule 4 is an ancient Rule and was certainly practiced in the historic Catholic church, and is Apostolic also, as given here by Paul. The Greek text reads:
προφητείαν κατὰ τὴν ἀναλογίαν τῆς πίστεως
Notice ἀναλογίαν (analogian = ""ANALOGY" , or "RULE") and τῆς πίστεως (tes pisteos = THE FAITH)
Here the Apostle holds us once again to the principle of Sola Scriptura. But he is very broad. Whoever prophesies (preaches) must preach and expound in accord with "The RULE OF THE FAITH"
Paul is referring of course to:
"The Faith ONCE delivered to the saints" (Jude 3)
and Jude also holds us to Sola Scriptura in that he holds us to contend earnestly for The Faith ONCE delivered. Jude teaches nothing of ongoing ""revelations" and private interpretations of both popes and reformed sectarians.
And Paul in holding us to "Prophesy according to the RULE of THE FAITH"
is affirming that there is "One Lord, ONE FAITH, One Baptism" (Ephesians 4:5) according to which we must prophesy. Not later new and private interpretations of men. So all our answers are indeed sourced in Scripture Alone.
But this Rule in Romans 12:6 is highly specific. It means that all of our preaching and teaching and exposition ( i.e. our "prophesying") of any passage of Scripture, MUST be in accord with the clear and established passages of scripture, known as "THE RULE OF FAITH". This has this rule been practised already in the early Church.
Rule 5
RIGHTLY DIVIDING the Word of Truth (2 Timothy 2:15)
ὀρθοτομοῦντα τὸν λόγον τῆς ἀληθείας
Many sectarians teach that this passages says we must rightly expound Scripture. And this is a noble sentiment, because indeed we must. But this is not THE SENSE (Nehemiah 8:8) of this passage at all. In the Greek it has to do with ""apportioning The Word of God" an is addressed to a Christian Pastor. The Greek word ὀρθοτομοῦντα (orthotomounta) has to do with cutting straightly. And elsewhere Paul explains that minsters are
"Stewards of the mysteries of Go"" (1 Corinthians 4:1)
The work of a steward was to apportion rightly what each member of the household needed.
So here, as all through the entire Bible, the two great doctrines of scripture are in view. The LAW and The GOSPEL. To rightly Divide the Word of Truth is to correctly distinguish and cut straightly between these two doctrines in all preaching and teaching and writing. (I refer all readers to Dr CF Walthers "Law and Gospel" for further reading).
So by these Scripture Rules of exposition, we are held to strict discipline in expounding Scripture by Scripture Alone and not by human reason. All sectarian thinking falls away and pure Christian doctrine results.
Catholic reasoning on Scripture and Authority is quite circular. The scriptures have authority because the church recognizes (and interprets) them. However, when you ask for proof that the RCC has authority, they will go to scripture to try to prove it (Peter, you are the Rock! - Matthew 16).
So, you have authority because the scriptures say so, but the scriptures only have authority because you say they do and only you can properly interpret them? That's so silly! I used to be afraid of debating Catholics on this, but when you get down to it, they are so easily refuted.
Where are the church Father cards from? I would love to order a set for our homeschool and one for my seminary husband 😀
Material sufficiency is not Sola Scriptura. The Scriptures have been always read in the Apostolic Tradition of the Catholic Church.
The heretics also used the Scriptures to validate their personal views, what to do there? The Church interpreted the Scriptures in the light of the Apostolic Tradition and solve the dispute.
I love that you’re using the church fathers here, many Protestants don’t even consider them worth reading, so thank you. However, nothing that was said here is out of line with the apostolic teaching of tradition and authority. It simply confirms that the authority of the church to carry on TRUE theology MUST come from scripture. Which is always has (not RC btw, I am Orthodox). Let’s examine scripture, what does it say in 1Tim 3:15? It says the CHURCH is the pillar and ground of truth. Why not scripture the pillar and ground of truth? Because scripture, logically, needs interpretation.
Even in this comment section I see Protestants that are all using scripture to make a claim about their beliefs and coming to different conclusions about it.
Very clearly in John 16 we see Christ explain that He will send His spirit to guide them into “all truth”. And Paul speaks to the Thesselonians and says to keep their traditions whether by ORAL teaching or by epistle. Therefore, the Church has and always will continue to deliver truth, including the decision around the final canon of WHAT IS HOLY SCRIPTURE! :) Ie. The Bible. This is why the scripture can only be *reliably* interpreted within the context of THE CHURCH. It does NOT mean that the church can make authoritative claims or doctrines OUTSIDE of what the scriptures say. (We call those historical claims… heresies 😎)
God bless you all, it’s a tough subject, we’re all doing our best but I recommend looking into Orthodoxy! The great schism left RC to follow a (unfortunately) heretical teaching and “infaliable” pope that led the RCs into some bad places and doctrines. The Orthodox continued the tradition and SCRIPTURAL teaching of Christ and His apostles and continue to to this day :)
I like to watch catholic apologist videos, because the more I watch them, the more steadfast lutheran I be.
The only issue is all these guys celebrated the Divine Liturgy and believed in real presence. So they can’t be sola scriptura.
Sola scriptura is blatantly false:
1) if the Bible was all we needed, why are there 30,000 denominations with different Biblical interpretations? Why do Protestants protest Protestants? For example, why don’t Baptists accept Lutheran infant baptism? Why do Pentecostals think Baptists are not going to heaven unless they speak in tongues? Because fallen men, including Luther, when interpreting the Bible as individuals are often wrong. The Bible needs a sacred INTERPRETER. Without that, each individual becomes their own pope, and Christ’s church is divided.
2) where in the Bible does it say the Bible is the only source of authority? It doesn’t. It says it will equip us, making us complete for good works, but that is NOT the same as saying the Bible is the only source of truth and that it doesn’t need an authoritative interpreter.
3) tradition came well before scripture. Several biblical passages require us to follow tradition. The oral stories of Christ preceded the Gospels. Paul founded many churches with tradition, not a written owners manual. His epistles were written to correct or support the churches, against the traditions that he taught them.
4) the Bible TOC wasn’t official until 350+ years after Christ. Sure, most of the Bible was widely circulated, but several other books almost made the Bible (letter of Clement, Shepherd of Hermas), and several books in the Bible almost didn’t make it (Revelation, Peter, etc). The Bible TOC was NOT as clear as Protestants think. The CHURCH, inspired by the Holy Spirit, chose the books of the Bible.
5) the Sacraments of the Catholic Church, such as Baptism, Eucharist, Holy Orders, etc. were instituted by early church fathers before the Bible was canonized. If their decisions were true on the canon, they were also true on other church matters (trinity, liturgy, sacraments, date of Easter, apostolic succession, priest celibacy, etc).
6) Christ hand picked 12 men as Apostles. He breathed on them, giving them the power to forgive sins. The Bible (Acts) describes the Apostles choosing their own successors (Apostolic succession). The Bible (Acts) describes them holding a council to define doctrine not yet in scripture (Council of Jerusalem, on circumcision). Acts is describing these traditions that already took place. This validates the polity of Apostolic Succession (Bishops as leaders, choosing their successors), and the CHURCH being able to define doctrine that is not in scripture. This is biblical evidence for extra-biblical authority.
If you defend sola scriptura, how can you defend any of your Lutheran interpretations over any other church’s interpretation? Oneness Pentecostals use the same Bible and deny the Trinity. Sola scriptura has created serious heresy. Add Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons to that list. Similar heresies were there in the early church, and were squashed because of the authority of the Catholic Church.
I challenge you to name one Catholic doctrine or dogma that is anti-biblical. Not EXTRA-biblical, but ANTI-biblical (contradicts the Bible). Dogmas about Mary are extra-biblical, not anti-biblical.
Face it, sola scriptura has led to a fractured and weakened Church. Christ wants us to be united, not divided. This doctrine is divisive, and blatantly wrong.
@@billmartin3561
Not looking to get into an obnoxiously complicated long debate, so I'll just give you some counter points.
1) The number from that study is debunked, and doesn't even mean each has different biblical interpretations; Many denominational differences are just because of history, location, administration, etc. (LCMS and AALC for example). I'd say there are bigger disagreements within the Roman church than there are between many denominations.
2) The language of that verse is very strong. Perfect, complete, fully equipped... doesn't really leave room for needing something else.
3) How do you tell which traditions are infallible? We'd say you have to check with Scripture, then at that point you're back to Scripture being the one infallible source.
The Lutheran Sola Scriptura isn't the same as some protestants; We mean that the only infallible source is Scripture, not that nothing else matters/is useful. As you see in this video, we do and always have looked to the early church fathers.
I'd say Rome is to blame for the Reformation and even earlier divisions. Over the centuries, Rome added more and more requirements and narrowing definitions for being in the church. That's not a recipe for unity.
@@billmartin3561 well done Bill, all true and good points. Sola scriptura is patently non sensical and a product of Luthers heresy and manifest hubris. It is plainly contrary to 1500 years of church history.
@@F7dJa But what you’re describing isn’t Sola Scriptura. It’s Prima Scriptura. Sola means sola. No other authority period, above or below. Scripture and absolutely nothing else. Prima means first. Scripture is the first authority but not the only one. Everyone who claims to be Sola Scriptura isn’t really because even their interpretation of scripture was learned from other people. This video is an exercise in that very principle! No one is only listening to Scripture. Everyone has a theological bent. Yes, even the Book of Concord. It’s unavoidable. But it’s okay as long as we keep our focus on obeying God’s word above all else.
This is like idk... this is a blessing from God. I'm in tears literally because the RCC wouldn't call me back. It was God wanting me to become Lutheran.
but most of your reference are not clear, I found it after long search on the documents, example Letter to Jerome which chapter ? bla bla
I think it’s also helpful to point out the fundamental distinction between reformed Protestants and Lutherans in their respective approaches to scripture.
John Calvin says that faith and reason are not at odds and thus even matters of faith must stand to reason.
Martin Luther said that reason is faith’s greatest enemy and more often than not finds itself fighting against the things of God rather than along side or with.
The reform camp birthed Anglicanism, epiacopalianism, Methodism, baptists, Pentecostals, non-denominationals, puritans, and Presbyterians.
The Lutheran camp gave birth to confessional Lutherans who believe the Bible is the word of God and non-confessional Lutherans who aren’t even Christian.
You either believe scripture and set your thoughts beneath it or else you believe yourself, and filter scripture through your own ideas and biases.
It is baffling how some people don't want to accept their errors. I was raised Catholic. By the time I was ten I had more questions than answers from the church. I became a "protestant" at 24. It was so easy for me to see the error in the Catholic doctrine. When approached by other churches, Mormons, Jehova Witnesses and such I would ask them if God's plan for our salvation was not complete? To which they would answer yes. So, why do I need to read other books outside the Holy Bible? Scripture is all we need. Anything else you can discard.
One of the titles of the SON YESHUA HAMASHI-
ACH is Head of the Church 🙏 ✝️ 👣 🕊 🧭 🛐 🤲
The PARACLETE is our Wonderful COUNSELOR.I
Thank You Very Much Pastor Bryan Wolfmueller
for your patience,equanimity,succinct transfer-
ence of knowledge. Especially your visuals 🙃🤓🤭🙂😎
They are charging me with innovation, and base their charge on my confession of three hypostases, and blame me for asserting one Goodness, one Power, one Godhead. In this they are not wide of the truth, for I do so assert. Their complaint is that their custom does not accept this, and that Scripture does not agree. What is my reply? I do not consider it fair that the custom which obtains among them should be regarded as a law and rule of orthodoxy. If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the Word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth.[1] Basil the Great The letters Letter 189 To Eustathius the Physician
Brian, regarding that first Basil quote, do you know by any chance what he means by unwritten tradition? I only ask because I am working through Chemnitz’s examination of Trent and he proves that there is no single definition of the word tradition, and typically the fathers mean something quite different than Trent. Is it possible, for example, that the things unwritten that we must accept is the church consensus that these books are scripture? Because if so, we agree with Basil.
I refer to that quote that starts at 3:12.
I would say that fits well with CS Lewis’s defense of the Scripture, which is something like this: you trust your mom’s medical advice as a child. But when your mom takes you to the doctor, you also trust her telling you this doctor is the higher authority than she herself. In this analogy by Lewis, your mom is the church, and scripture is the doctor
Hi Pastor Lange!
All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them Canonical. 39 Articles of Religion
Interesting video, good points, and those are great quotes. I think you left out one of the best quotes though to support this, which I came across in research.
This is an interesting argument for Sola Scriptura from scripture itself, it kind of summarizes the entire debate between churches, and overcomes the Catholic argument against Sola Scriptura. Christians should, "not to go beyond what is written."
Here it is,
"I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another."
-1 Corinthians 4:6 ESV
While this biblical quote supports Sola Scriptura, I don't see how it supports any specific selection of scriptures by Luther. How can anyone justify removing books counted as scripture? It seems such an awful thing to do.
If you can, please make a video about this explaining why Luther made his choices, it would be appreciated. My concern is Luther took a preconceived notion about doctrine and shaped the bible to suit his prejudices. I am curious what you think, I am not trolling you. I am just an amateur non-denominational youtube theologian.
Luther kept the deuterocanon in his translation.
Lutherans distinguish between homolegomena and antilegomena in Scripture. The Old Testament deuterocanon, the Ethiopic Old Testament expansion books, and the New Testament pseudepigrapha books are all Holy Scripture. But they were disputed at various points in history, and various Churches rejected or downplayed the authority of those books long before the Reformation. So it's objectively more universally Christian to make a distinction between homolegomena and antilegomena without entirely rejecting or absolutely insisting on antilegomena.
No he didn’t. This is a common misunderstanding.
Luther wasn’t even the one who first disputed these books. Hilary, Jerome, rufinus, Augustine and athanasius all believed in a distinction between the ecclesiastical books and the canonical books that were fit for doctrinal disputation. Even after the supposed canonization of these books at hippo and Carthage, Gregory the great continued this distinction:
With reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical, yet brought out for the edification of the Church, we bring forward testimony. Thus Eleazar in the battle smote and brought down an elephant, but fell under the very beast that he killed (1 Macc. 6.46).
While Augustine concurred with the distinction Jerome made:
(that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, are counted by st Jerome out of the canonical books and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judg ment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial cound of Carthage.
Even during the reformation Catholic theologians (like cardinal Cajetan cited above) continued to make this distinction quite comfortably in books dedicated to the Pope. Like in cardinal cajetans commentary on all the authentic books of the Old Testament.
@@4emrys Nice! I'm gonna steal some of those.
@@4emrys so you are saying here that Luther was actually adhering more closely to the original church fathers by editing scripture? Would it be accurate to say it was the Catholics then who made changes they were not supposed to because they counted apocryphal books as scripture when they weren't supposed to?
Brilliant …. Can you address the Catholics that say you can’t take some of what they believed and deny the rest and take them out of context… I just read a comment like that and would love a solid response
Sola scriptura is blatantly false:
1) if the Bible was all we needed, why are there 30,000 denominations with different Biblical interpretations? Why do Protestants protest Protestants? For example, why don’t Baptists accept Lutheran infant baptism? Why do Pentecostals think Baptists are not going to heaven unless they speak in tongues? Because fallen men, including Luther, when interpreting the Bible as individuals are often wrong. The Bible needs a sacred INTERPRETER. Without that, each individual becomes their own pope, and Christ’s church is divided.
2) where in the Bible does it say the Bible is the only source of authority? It doesn’t. It says it will equip us, making us complete for good works, but that is NOT the same as saying the Bible is the only source of truth and that it doesn’t need an authoritative interpreter.
3) tradition came well before scripture. Several biblical passages require us to follow tradition. The oral stories of Christ preceded the Gospels. Paul founded many churches with tradition, not a written owners manual. His epistles were written to correct or support the churches, against the traditions that he taught them.
4) the Bible TOC wasn’t official until 350+ years after Christ. Sure, most of the Bible was widely circulated, but several other books almost made the Bible (letter of Clement, Shepherd of Hermas), and several books in the Bible almost didn’t make it (Revelation, Peter, etc). The Bible TOC was NOT as clear as Protestants think. The CHURCH, inspired by the Holy Spirit, chose the books of the Bible.
5) the Sacraments of the Catholic Church, such as Baptism, Eucharist, Holy Orders, etc. were instituted by early church fathers before the Bible was canonized. If their decisions were true on the canon, they were also true on other church matters (trinity, liturgy, sacraments, date of Easter, apostolic succession, priest celibacy, etc).
6) Christ hand picked 12 men as Apostles. He breathed on them, giving them the power to forgive sins. The Bible (Acts) describes the Apostles choosing their own successors (Apostolic succession). The Bible (Acts) describes them holding a council to define doctrine not yet in scripture (Council of Jerusalem, on circumcision). Acts is describing these traditions that already took place. This validates the polity of Apostolic Succession (Bishops as leaders, choosing their successors), and the CHURCH being able to define doctrine that is not in scripture. This is biblical evidence for extra-biblical authority.
If you defend sola scriptura, how can you defend any of your Lutheran interpretations over any other church’s interpretation? Oneness Pentecostals use the same Bible and deny the Trinity. Sola scriptura has created serious heresy. Add Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons to that list. Similar heresies were there in the early church, and were squashed because of the authority of the Catholic Church.
I challenge you to name one Catholic doctrine or dogma that is anti-biblical. Not EXTRA-biblical, but ANTI-biblical (contradicts the Bible). Dogmas about Mary are extra-biblical, not anti-biblical.
Face it, sola scriptura has led to a fractured and weakened Church. Christ wants us to be united, not divided. This doctrine is divisive, and blatantly wrong.
@@billmartin3561 no mate … just, no.
@@billmartin3561 also… your pope has led to a weakened church … men, lead to sinful and corrupted churches the scriptures do not lead to weakened corrupted churches … the more a church exposits the word the more they will be in alignment with the Will of God… you check scripture against scripture… it’s infallible. It’s without error.
Bryan, I think you are a pretty cool guy. My problem with the Lutheran view( I was an ELCA Lutheran) is spoken of in the book by Trent Horn, Catholic apologist, called Why We’re Catholic. I wish you would contact him and have a debate on the subject. It might have the effect of clearing up the issue. I was a Lutheran for 44 years. The large majority of the folks I went to church with don’t know enough of the deep history of all this to have a clue.
ELCA is heretical. They reject any parts of the Bible they don't agree with. There was a lesbian bishop. Double unBiblical.
They also think they can redefine Sodomite to mean opposed to accenting homosexuality as normal and proper.
confessional Lutherans use the book of Concord, especially the Augsburg Confession as a statement of faith.
One of its repeated statements is "Anything contrary to Scripture must be rejected ".
Confessional Lutherans include LCMS, Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, WELS Wisconsin Evengelical Lutheran Synod, ALS American Lutheran Synod ( in fellowship with WELS) and AALC American Association of Lutheran Churches, in fellowship with LCMS. That I know of. I highly recommend the RUclips channels Lutheran Satire (Wil Weedon) Ken Kosar a WELS elder ( The Messed Up Church, Hit the Bar and other series), Saint &Sinner (Dr. Jordan Cooper AALC) and obviously this one. By the way AALC is a group of congregations who broke with ELCA when the ELCA got too liberal.
Added I may have American and Association reversed in AALC and ALS may really be ALC. Also Dr. Cooper uses his middle initial.
@@markhorton3994 I apologize. I saw ELCA and read LCMS. The differences between the two are nothing new, and they have their origins all the back to the beginning of the Reformation, and arrived here based on what country you were from.
Unfortunately the trend continues in that the more Ecumenical Lutherans become, the less confessional (traditional) they end up becoming.
@@markhorton3994 I know that this is outside my element, given this is a LCMS channel, but I implore you to have compassion for your brothers and sisters in Christ. I know social and theological liberalism is rejected in most faith circles, hell I rejected it for years as an Eastern Orthodox Christian disgusted with the “liberalism of the West”. But as I struggle with some important social issues, I see that the mainline liberal protestantism is just trying to reconcile difficult questions of daily life. Admittedly many go way too far (John Shelby Spong, for instance of the Episcopal Churcch) but Ive met many theologically sound liberals who really try to honor the Lutheran confessions. Is there cringe from the pulpits? Sure, but know that many of us acknowledge this
@@garymatthews1280 Too many to count.
@@DeFyYing There are many liberal errors that do not damn. But accepting only the parts of God's Word that suit what they want to believe is not good.
I will not associate with a female pastor, witb the acceptance of homosexuality as not a sin or anyone who says that God does not love homosexuals and will not forgive them. There is only one sin that is unforgivable and it is not homosexuality.
It is trite but "hate the sin, love the sinner" is correct.
One of the things that liberal "Christians" tend to discard from the Bible is the Trinity in particular that divinity of Jesus. Another is Christ's sacrificial atonement.
Anyone who denies Christ or His death for my sins is not my brother in Christ.
I cannot know who is saved or will be Jesus will judge.
The church fathers you quote nearly uniformly accept the deuterocanon as part of the bible, so why don't you?
The church fathers are fallible men. This is just an example sola scriptura isn't a Luther creation is all
The critical issue with Sola Scriptura has never been affirming the authority of scripture. Protestants always misunderstand this point
The critical issue with Sola Scriptura has been that Papists and Palamists believe that tradition is allowed to directly contradict Scripture, and that the modern Papist and Palamist hierarchy is allowed to directly contradict older Tradition.
Lateran Council 1 Canon 21: We absolutely forbid priests, deacons, subdeacons, and monks to have concubines or to contract marriage.
Lateran Council 2 Canon 6: For since they should be and be called the temple of God, the vessel of the Lord, the abode of the Holy Spirit, it is *unbecoming* that they *indulge in marriage* and in *impurities.*
1 Timothy 4:1-3 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and *teachings of demons,* through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who *forbid marriage*
1 Corinthians 9:5 *Do we not have the right* to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?
Canon 21 continued: We decree in accordance with the definitions of the sacred canons, that *marriages already contracted by such persons must be dissolved,* and that the persons be condemned to do penance.
Matthew 19:6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.
Innocent III, 1204 "We destine specially to this, that the material sword may be sanctioned to supply the defect of the spiritual sword, and you, besides the temporal glory which you will attain from so pious and praiseworthy a work, may obtain that pardon for sins, which we grant
as an indulgence for the remission of their sins, since we want those who faithfully shall have laboured against the heretics to rejoice in the same indulgence as we grant as an indulgence for those crossing the sea for the aid of the Holy Land."
Lateran Council 4 Canon 3: Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, that as they wish to be esteemed and numbered among the faithful, so for the defense of the faith they ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and *to the best of their ability to exterminate* (pro viribus exterminare studebunt) in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church.
_Ad extirpanda_ of Pope Innocent IV: We decree that the head of state [...] shall observe, both what is written herein, and other regulations and laws both ecclesiastical and civil, that are published against heretical wickedness. [...] No heretical man or woman may dwell, sojourn, or maintain a bare subsistence in the country, or any kind of jurisdiction or district belonging to it, whoever shall find the heretical man or woman shall boldly seize, with impunity, all his or their goods, and freely carry them off. [...] The head of state, or whatever ruler stands foremost in the public esteem, must cause the heretics who have been arrested in this manner to be taken to whatever jurisdiction the Diocesan, or his surrogate, is in, or whatever district, or city, or place the Diocesan bishop wishes to take them to. [...] *The head of state or ruler **_must force_** all the heretics whom he has in custody, provided he does so without killing them or breaking their arms or legs* to confess their errors and accuse other heretics whom they know.
Patriarch Nikon I insisted that his liturgical innovations were “necessary for salvation,” and excommunicated and condemned the Old Orthodox churches for rejecting his public heresy. All other bishops accepted his heresy. The Russian Orthodox bishops today were all ordained by his invalidated succession.
@@Mygoalwogel your system doesn’t work, interpretation of scripture always has to come down to someone or some system. Protestantism has been frantically trying to undo the damage done of the reformation ever since because once you remove the authority of the church you remove all ability to rightly understand the scripture. Everyone thinks they have the right interpretation of scripture but not every church has the Holy Spirit via the laying on of hands through apostolic succession. I dont agree with Rome but the Orthodox church seems to be the only true church maintaining the tradition of the first millennia
@@Daciaforever95 That's simply untrue. The traditions of the Old Believers are actually older than the Nikonite Orthodox. The traditions of the Assyrian Church of the East are older still. The Eastern Orthodox introduced many innovations and excommunicated anyone who refused to submit to the novelties.
@@Mygoalwogel lol you’re talking about old calendarists? Your position is ridiculous. Everyone appeals to scripture, the Protestants try to use scripture to support scripture, the papists try to use scripture to support papal claims and the orthodox are the only ones who rightly balance both scripture and tradition. You’re welcome to debate Jay Dyer anytime he has open forums on his channel often I’d love to hear your perspective in debating with him
@@Daciaforever95 False. The Old Believers and Old Calendarists are two different movements each preserving the older traditions of the Church. Neither appeals to Scripture but to True Tradition. The Nikonites are mere pretenders. They're innovators just like Protestants.
I love how he misquoted St. Augustin even while having his quote right in front of his face. Yes, only those books which are "Canonical", pray tell who decided which were canonical, and which were not.
The Holy Spirit.
@@PastorBryanWolfmueller Yes. The Holy Spirit through the Catholic Church.
@@yeshuadvargas5552 The Holy Spirit doesn't speak through the Romanists, If He did, they would stop teaching a lot of the junk they added over the years
Where do you get those cards brother?
Minister, Ahh… you forget dear sir that what was “Divinely Inspired” and what was not was hotly debated for the first four centuries of the Christian Church. Most of your quotes are taken out of temporal, historic, and linguistic context. The quote by Basil alone should put paid to this
Explain the derivation of Sola Scriptoria. Was it commonly debated in the 5th Century, the 9th? How about in the 12th or 14th? Why did it first arise in the 16th and the Reformation? Surely it must have been some part, however small, in the myriad debates and writings in the fifteen centuries preceding. Surely! I sincerely doubt that labeling Catholics with whom you have mostly doctrinal agreement “trolls” advances your position. Please, sir, you are better that that. At least I pray that you are.
I need those cards haha
God is Spirit, and we must worship Him in Spirit and in Truth, Christ is the Truth, know one comes to the Father but by the Truth. Now then if we live by the flesh we shell die, but through the Spirit we deaden the flesh we shell live, but not that in the flesh will we live because all flesh will die, but in the Spirit we will live, know matter what way any man interprets, to keep sinning is the side of the goat's. Repeat which is to put away with sin, caz you know not when you cross turns to dust. Father, give us this day our daily needs, as meny Spiritual gifts as you see fit for us, the knowledge and strength of the whole armor but above all Father the love, so we may decern between
Consider my misspelled, but to thos who have patience, let him read
Going to scripture for doctrine is fine, but the problem is, scripture is the very battleground. All the different factions use scripture as support for their doctrines. Therefore, going to scripture does no good, because scripture is what the fight is about in the first place.
This is even neglecting to say what writings are scripture to begin with.
2 Tim 3:15 defines scripture
Just answer this simple question and I’ll become Protestant: how do you know that what you call Scripture is in fact inspired by God?
I’m waiting
The Holy Spirit spoke through the Prophets (2 Peter 1:21) and Apostles (John 16:13-14, see also 2 Peter 3:15). Peter's second encyclical covers this. Call me.
@@PastorBryanWolfmueller Thanks for providing some quotations, but you did not answer my question.
2 Pet 2:21 simply says that prophecy comes from the Holy Spirit not from man’s will. We all agree on this. How is this relevant to my question?
John 16:13-14 reiterates that the Holy Spirit will lead the Jesus’ Church in all truth. We all agree on this. How is this relevant to my question?
2 Pet 3:15 testifies Paul to be inspired. I guess you know that Paul writings do not make up 100% of Scripture.
So let me simplify the question for you: How do you know that the 27 books of the NT (and only those and not others) are inspired?
I've been waiting for more than 10 days now for a simple response to a basic question and, as expected, no credible answer was provided.
The slogan of "sola scriptura" is meaningless unless you define first what Scripture is. And there is no way you can possibly define what Scripture is with no margin of error, without violating the principle of "sola scriptura."
This is the tragedy of the doctrine of sola scriptura: the moment you impose it as an epistemological presupposition for the understanding of Scripture, you don't even know anymore what Scripture exactly is.
Sir - It is not eisegesis when, between 6:25 - 6:42 "Scripture alone" is read into the quotation? It is very clear, at least from the English translation of the quote, that the appearances of "that" prior to the word "alone" do not refer to Scripture but a point of faith that is in question. Additionally, "harmonize with the intention" strongly appears to imply a standard for judging a point of faith that is not specified in Scripture. No Catholic would disagree with that.
I submit that "Sola Scriptura" is the intellectual equivalent of a one-sided object. It only exists in theory. An infallible rule without an infallible interpreter cannot not yield infallible guidance for faith and practice. If an infallible interpreter is required, then "Sola Scriptura" cannot be "sola," it must be paired with the infallible interpreter.
What say you?
He infallible interpreter is the holy ghost my friend
@@thefellowheirs it seem like the Holy Ghost gives varying interpretations to different people, then. Take infant baptism, for example. How do you reconcile those who believe that infant baptism is right with those who think it is wrong? Both sides justify their positions with Scripture.
@@wjtruax where does it say to baptize infants in scripture?
@@thefellowheirs please reread my post. My point is not to debate about infant baptism. I am simply using infant baptism as an example of a theological dispute which is impossible to resolve without an authoritative interpreter of Scripture. Millions of devout Christians who ascribe to “Sola Scriptura” also believe that infant baptism is right and good. Millions of others, who also ascribe to “Sola Scriptura” disagree. My point is that simply saying, “The Holy Ghost is the interpreter” hasn’t yet created unity in doctrine and practice in the Protestant world. Is it reasonable to believe that such unity will ever happen among Protestants?
@@wjtruax that's what I'm saying though. You're claiming infant baptism is the big deep thought provoking controversial issue that we'll never know the answer to.
It's the same as knowing the ressurection is real. It's in the Bible. No debate. No interpretation needed. Same with infant baptism. We know it's not real because it's not contained within. I'm not saying there's topics that will not be conclusive. But where's the debate of it? If I said I interpret the ressurection verses as Jesus actually didn't rise. Couldn't we just simply use scripture to disprove that? Or would we need an educated priest or scholar to break it down?
I contend we don't need a proclaimed "professional" to understand the important topics in the Bible.
The bible says that the Chuch keeps the true, not the bible.
Also, very nice of you to use tradition to prove scripture alone.
*Jesus, Apostles and NT Church all practised Sola Scriptura in Scriptures. 150+ verses say so. Roman ctists love defying God and His Words.*
If the books are not divinely inspired then you are in the wrong religion.
So read the scripture!!!!!!!
Hmm Strawman argument in the first minute...
And The "Tradition" of "Sola Scriptura". That's a self defeating proposition. The test of Sola Scriptura is whether or not it's taught in Scripture. To appeal to Tradition, also, argues in favor of the Catholic position of Sacred Tradition.
The Canon of Scripture was concocted in the CATHOLIC CHURCH. How can you even defend "Sola Scriptura"???
As a ex Romanist, I can tell you this man is lying to you. The church has no authority whatsoever unless it is under the rule of the Holy Scriptures alone.
Black Patriot, thanks for commenting. Could you clarify? Are you saying that the Roman Catholic Church says that it has no authority apart from Scriptures, or that *you* believe that the chuch has no authority apart from the Scriptures? (I believe that as well, Sola Scriptura.)
Sola scriptora is not a tradition, it is an anti tradition in the sense that it is a deviation from the traditions that actually existed
even James White points out that the people who believe they do not live in a theological tradition are blind to their own
Sloppy work here. If you think Cyril of Jerusalem taught Sola Scriptura, then why aren't you using his "Scriptura" which contained the Aprocrapha? And Basil literally tells you that there are two sources of authority: scripture and tradition. The second quote of Basil says that if anyone is going to tell you what scripture says, make sure what their saying is right. Yet here you are saying that Basil says any doctrine must be checked against scripture. Exactly what you would expect from a sola scriputra adherent: change the meaning until it fits what you want.
Look, sola scriptura was invented by Martin Luther. Just admit it.
Luther included the deuterocanon in his translation. Papists and Nikonites often overlook the homolegomena antilegomena distinction and assume Lutherans dismiss deuterocanon and other antilegomena books.
I mean, he's Lutheran, so... he probably does indeed use the Apocrypha. Not exactly a great argument.
The only issue is all these guys celebrated the Divine Liturgy and believed in real presence. So they can’t be sola scriptura.
Unless you believe that the central worship of the church. Indeed even the Lutheran church is sola scriptura.
Sorry but your wrong
But what did those Church fathers believe? You can't take what they said about scriptural authority and leave the rest out. That's taking things out of context. Not one proves Sola Scriptura.
I would implore that you discuss this with an apologist further.
@@F7dJa okay, so you quoted a Lutheran that says it's circular reasoning yet if took them into context wouldn't be Lutheran? Makes sense.
@@BibleLovingLutheran There are so many instances of the church fathers speaking of the complete authority of Scripture. The church never canonized books by its own authority; instead, it recognized books’ inspiration and canonicity, and it had a functioning canon long before it attempted to define the canon.
@Dave that's false. Better go back. Instances compared to the rest of what they say? Isn't not scripture alone. The Catholic Church acknowledges the authority of scripture as the early fathers did. It's on you to research the rest. The burden of proof lies on your shoulders. May God guide you
EXACTLY.
@@dave1370 Sola scriptura is blatantly false:
1) if the Bible was all we needed, why are there 30,000 denominations with different Biblical interpretations? Why do Protestants protest Protestants? For example, why don’t Baptists accept Lutheran infant baptism? Why do Pentecostals think Baptists are not going to heaven unless they speak in tongues? Because fallen men, including Luther, when interpreting the Bible as individuals are often wrong. The Bible needs a sacred INTERPRETER. Without that, each individual becomes their own pope, and Christ’s church is divided.
2) where in the Bible does it say the Bible is the only source of authority? It doesn’t. It says it will equip us, making us complete for good works, but that is NOT the same as saying the Bible is the only source of truth and that it doesn’t need an authoritative interpreter.
3) tradition came well before scripture. Several biblical passages require us to follow tradition. The oral stories of Christ preceded the Gospels. Paul founded many churches with tradition, not a written owners manual. His epistles were written to correct or support the churches, against the traditions that he taught them.
4) the Bible TOC wasn’t official until 350+ years after Christ. Sure, most of the Bible was widely circulated, but several other books almost made the Bible (letter of Clement, Shepherd of Hermas), and several books in the Bible almost didn’t make it (Revelation, Peter, etc). The Bible TOC was NOT as clear as Protestants think. The CHURCH, inspired by the Holy Spirit, chose the books of the Bible.
5) the Sacraments of the Catholic Church, such as Baptism, Eucharist, Holy Orders, etc. were instituted by early church fathers before the Bible was canonized. If their decisions were true on the canon, they were also true on other church matters (trinity, liturgy, sacraments, date of Easter, apostolic succession, priest celibacy, etc).
6) Christ hand picked 12 men as Apostles. He breathed on them, giving them the power to forgive sins. The Bible (Acts) describes the Apostles choosing their own successors (Apostolic succession). The Bible (Acts) describes them holding a council to define doctrine not yet in scripture (Council of Jerusalem, on circumcision). Acts is describing these traditions that already took place. This validates the polity of Apostolic Succession (Bishops as leaders, choosing their successors), and the CHURCH being able to define doctrine that is not in scripture. This is biblical evidence for extra-biblical authority.
If you defend sola scriptura, how can you defend any of your Lutheran interpretations over any other church’s interpretation? Oneness Pentecostals use the same Bible and deny the Trinity. Sola scriptura has created serious heresy. Add Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons to that list. Similar heresies were there in the early church, and were squashed because of the authority of the Catholic Church.
I challenge you to name one Catholic doctrine or dogma that is anti-biblical. Not EXTRA-biblical, but ANTI-biblical (contradicts the Bible). Dogmas about Mary are extra-biblical, not anti-biblical.
Face it, sola scriptura has led to a fractured and weakened Church. Christ wants us to be united, not divided. This doctrine is divisive, and blatantly wrong.