Scripture Alone: What is Reformed Theology? with R.C. Sproul
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 мар 2015
- Christians ought to submit to the authority given them by Christ. But what happens when those in authority teach things contrary to the Word of God? Is there a higher court to which we can appeal? The answer is yes. The appeal was made in the sixteenth century and the motion still carries. Reformers call this Sola Scriptura. That’s the Latin slogan for Scripture alone. Dr. Sproul teaches us about this in the message entitled “Scripture Alone.”
This is the 3rd in a series of messages by Dr. Sproul on Reformed theology. See other videos in the series: • What Is Reformed Theol...
Own this series on DVD: www.ligonier.org/store/what-is...
Learn more about Dr. R.C. Sproul: www.ligonier.org/about/rc-sproul/
#ReformedTheology #RCSproul
Never liked history lessons until Dr. RC poped up on my feed. He speaks at a specific rythmn that allows for even the hardest terms be understood and the most confusing concepts unfolded.
Maruk ~ How long ave you known about RC? l just found him in the last 8 months. My understanding has been exponentially clearer! Of course it is ALL The Holy Spirits doing!
Standard question posed by Fundamentalists: “Have you been saved?” What the question also means is: “Don’t you wish you had the assurance of salvation like me?”
All they have to do is “accept Christ as their personal Savior,” and it’s done. They might well live exemplary lives thereafter, but living well is not crucial and does not affect their salvation. But is this true? Does the Bible support this concept?
Scripture teaches that one’s final salvation depends on the state of the soul at death. As Jesus himself tells us, “He who endures to the end will be saved” (Matt. 24:13; cf. 25:31-46). One who dies in the state of friendship with God (the state of grace) will go to heaven. The one who dies in a state of enmity and rebellion against God (the state of mortal sin) will go to hell.
For many Fundamentalists and Evangelicals it makes no difference-as far as salvation is concerned-how you live or end your life. You can announce that you’ve accepted Jesus as your personal Savior, and, so long as you really believe it, you’re set. From that point on there is nothing you can do, no sin you can commit, no matter how heinous, that will forfeit your salvation. You can’t undo your salvation, even if you wanted to. God has already preordained everyone's fate heaven or hell and we can't change it even if we wanted to
Take a look at what Wilson Ewin, the author of a booklet called There is Therefore Now No Condemnation, says. He writes that “the person who places his faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and his blood shed at Calvary is eternally secure. He can never lose his salvation. No personal breaking of God’s or man’s laws or commandments can nullify that status.”
“To deny the assurance of salvation would be to deny Christ’s perfect redemption,” argues Ewin, and this is something he can say only because he confuses the redemption that Christ accomplished for us objectively with our individual appropriation of that redemption. The truth is that in one sense we are all redeemed by Christ’s death on the cross-Christians, Jews, Muslims, even animists in the darkest forests (1 Tim. 2:6, 4:10; 1 John 2:2)-but our individual appropriation of what Christ provided is contingent on our response.
Certainly, Christ did die on the cross once for all and has abundantly provided for our salvation, but that does not mean that there is no process by which this is applied to us as individuals. Obviously, there is, or we would have been saved and justified from all eternity, with no need to repent or have faith or anything else. We would have been born “saved,” with no need to be born again. Since we were not, since it is necessary for those who hear the gospel to repent and embrace it, there is a time at which we come to be reconciled to God. And if so, then we, like Adam and Eve, can become unreconciled with God and, like the prodigal son, need to come back and be reconciled again with God.
You Can’t Lose Heaven?
Ewin says that “no wrong act or sinful deed can ever affect the believer’s salvation. The sinner did nothing to merit God’s grace and likewise he can do nothing to demerit grace.” But when one turns to Scripture, one finds that Adam and Eve, who received God’s grace in a manner just as unmerited as anyone today, most definitely did demerit it-and lost grace not only for themselves but for us as well (cf. also Rom. 11:17-24)
Yes popped up and never could stop. I thought who is this? 2019 still 2022. The teacher preacher all time. ♥️🙏✝️
“For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.”Ephesians 2:8-9“for ‘everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’” Romans 10:13
this is a refreshing articulation of the sola scriptura position. I am a Catholic so naturally and theologically I find sola scriptura hogwash, but seeing it used to prop up future confessions and doctrines because they faithfully represent the doctrine of scripture is very reasonable.
the only problem that still persists is that solely by tradition, liturgical and oral, did the early Church actually succeed in compiling the Bible in the first place. Thus, the scripture itself relies on tradition and tradition alone
I miss him.
We'll see him in heaven with GOD!
Yet, to the glory of God alone, here we stand upon the shoulders of faithful giants. The many inspired to praise His glory by scripture with evident reason in Christ alone..the object of beloved R.C.'s life and ministries. 📖🎶📯
He’s aiit
Me too
Praise God for the life of RC Sprouls who stood unwaveringly for the five solas of the Reformation throughout his whole life
Ggeg0000 John macarthur
Ggeg0000 I will pray that he is in Heaven but it may be doubtful, anyone who does not accept the teachings of the One True Church started by Jesus Christ is not of Israel. God founded his church on Peter. He didn’t come to make a Bible.
@@sapereaude6339 That bible came before the church.. i.e. the OT. What were the Apostles expounding before the NT was canonized?
@@sapereaude6339 Christ is the Rock of our salvation, not Peter. "...thou art Petros, and upon this petra I will build my ecclesia." "Thou art...upon this..." First pointing outward to Peter, then pointing back to Himself. In the parable, the wise man built his house upon a 'petra.' 1Cor.10:4 "...and Christ was that Rock (petra)." Every time the word "rock" appears in the NT, it is 'petra' in the Greek. Again, Christ is the Rock of our salvation.
Jack Tyrell One point to make, our Lord did not speak Greek, He spoke Aramaic. The Greek language is a romantic language, utilizing the masculine and feminine form. Please see John 1:42. Jesus hints to Peter what his future role will be by telling him what name he will be given, by calling him Cephas, which means rock.
Scripture alone, amen! I join with Peter who said ...Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life.
+Milton Rivas Which book or books of the bible did Jesus write? And did Jesus give him a oral response or did he write it down so Peter could read his response!? And where in the scriptures do we find the canon of scripture? Sola scriptura and sola fide the two greatest errors of protestantism among many.so that, if I am slow in coming, thou mayest be in no doubt over the conduct that is expected of thee in God’s household. By that I mean the Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation upon which the truth rests.(1Tim 3:15) The pillar and foundation of truth is the CHURCH NOT SCRIPTURE!! Pax!!
Hi there, Thomas...well is not the same as talking in person for this needs o lot of time, and time to go through the Bible.
In John 6:68 Peter answered Jesus, "You have the words of eternal life." (That's what I commented on this video) and I do lean towards bible only, and I'll try to respond to you.
So in answer to your question Thomas, Yes Jesus gave Peter an oral response but Peter didn't write it down, the Apostle John did for he was there and wrote it by inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
The books of the bible were written by the prophets and apostles moved by the Holy Spirit, wright? (2 Peter 1:20-21) Do we have one God or many gods? I trust you agree there's one God. Father, Son and Holy Spirit so to me Jesus Christ wrote the books of the bible from Genesis to Revelation unless Jesus is not God.
Concerning sola scriptura and sola fide we won't find it in one clear verse just as we won't find that Jesus is God in one verse clearly enough to convince us all at once, but that's what the bible says from Genesis to Revelation, Jesus said the Scriptures testify of Him (John 5:39). By reading trough all the Scripture we see Jesus is God.
The church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, I aggee, but the apostle Paul said that truth in the household of God is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets (Ephesians 2:20) thats Scripture the word of God.
Just as in Luke 16:19-31 on verse 31 it is written ..."if they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead." So Moses and the prophets are the Scriptures, the word of God or is it not?
The bible says all over in the old testament more so, "Thus saith the Lord" so doesn't that mean the spoken word of God?
Jesus Christ Himself says in the bible it is written, and in John 7:38 He said "as the Scripture has said"
Even Satan said "it is written" (Matthew 4:5)
The church of Jesus Christ is the truth as you quoted in 1 Timothy 3:15 but we shouldn't say the Scripture is not the truth
If Scripture is to say the word of God, for our Lord Jesus Christ says to the Father in John 17:17 "your word is truth". Amen.
What foundation do you stand on to assume papal succession, to then proceed to build upon that this assumed authority to then deny sola scriptura? Elaborate for me this evidence that initiates this papal succession, to therefore legitimise this "sacred tradition".
Milton Rivas Paul also said test everything that is said and hold on to that which is good. So how do we test what a prophet or church says? There's two ways. The first way is by checking to make sure what is said doesn't contradict the scriptures. The second way is to examine the prophet's or church's actions. Jesus warned us of false prophets who are really viscous wolves in sheep's clothing. He said you can identify them by their actions. The Catholic Church sanctioned the inquisitions for 1000 years in which they arrested, imprisoned, tortured, and executed thousands of nonbelievers. Jesus also said the powers of hell will not prevail against His church. It appears that the powers of hell did prevail against the Catholic Church during the inquisition times.
Don't you think it's a bit much to expect the NT to have a canon of scripture in the scriptures since the letters were written by different authors over long distances? If your point is to try to say the RCC gave us the BIble, this is totally bogus
Amen! Praise Christ for the biblical teachings of the late Dr. R.C. Sproul.
Thank you dr.rc sproul for all teaching.that i will always remember ,😇🙏💚💙
These videos are the true blessing. R.C. Sproul is one of my favourite pastors-teachers. But we definitely are Christians firstly and then Calvinists. Knowledge is so important, but debating with the Arminian bretheren with love is more important. Greetings from Ukraine (Evangelical Reformed Presbyterian church of Odesa).
Do watch Dr Gavin ortlund
I'm Catholic but I love the way he presented. He spoke like a real human being, not a practiced "persona" or character. I could listen to him for hours.
Why are you catholic? Do you also deny the sufficiency of scripture?
@@wesleysimelane3423 I didn't come in to debate or try to convert anyone. Just wanted to comment on the video.
@@notavailable4891 Appreciated. But I urge you to seek the truth. There is no gospel truth in the rcc. God bless you, in Jesus Christ's mighty name AMEN!
@@wesleysimelane3423 I appreciate you. I pray we are both blessed to know truth and our Lord more fully. Take care.
God bless you my brother
Do watch Dr Gavin ortlund
Preach it RC. Thankyou for this great sermon. You are praising constantly your God in heaven now. You were given to the church as a great treasure.
Boy the Holy Spirit _through_ RC has taught me a lot of things! l just found out about him in the last 8 moths or so! _ALL GLORY_ goes to The KING of kings, and LORD of lords! :D
I love this, the written scripture inspired by the voice of God. Infallible inerrant. It is divine wisdom. It is the message of our Salvation. Sola Scripture Lecture. Vox Dei - The voice of God is why the Scripture is inerrant. When you are taught this the reading of the written word is so capable of being written on the “Tables of thine heart forever”. Amen
Come on! Do Presbyterians ever laugh? RC was a funny guy, loved his teaching and sense of humor.
I know that this an older video, but I had to laugh at your comment. I have been attending a Protestant Church for a number of years now, primarily to be in a Church of friends. As much as I love my fellow congregation, there are a number that would laugh for fear of cracking the scowl on their face. Some of us can smile, and even burst out in laughter.
How do you come up with so many idols for God one creator and judgement
@@Emrio3 what do you mean?
@@saved6655
He has no idea...
Thank you for this upload.❤️
rc was always cathegory for itself. such gift from God for church. Thank you God for RC Sproul
I love this especially the last words of Dr. R.C.
The question should be: "Does the Church create the Word? Or does the Word create the Church?"...I say that the Word creates the Christian Church...Sola Scriptura!
Then Nugget you don't understand history. Jesus founded the Church in the first century a.d. but the Church did not compile the Bible until 393 a.d., almost 400 years later. First came Jesus, then came the Church, then much later came the Bible.
Nugget of Truth, we must distinguish between the Word and the word. The Word is Jesus Christ Himself. The word is the Bible. First came Jesus (4 b.c. to 29 a.d.), then came the Church (29 a.d.), and then came the Bible (393 a.d., almost 400 years later).
@Jake Sanders But the only way we know that the Bible IS the Bible, IS the word of God, is that the teaching authority of the Catholic Church says so! First came Jesus (4 b.c.), then came the Church (29 a.d.), then came the Bible (393 a.d., almost 400 years after Christ). The Bible came from the Church!
@Jake Sanders This IS the crucial difference between Catholic and Protestant, this and the sola fide issue. Protestants believe in sola scriptura, Catholics believe in scripture and the handed down oral traditions, as described at 2 Thessalonians 2:15.
Jesus did not say, "for lo I am with you, for the next 364 years until the Council of Hippo, and then you are on your own." He said, "for lo I am with you always, even to the consummation of the world."
@Jake Sanders The individual books of scripture were not written in 393. The Council of Hippo was not a marathon writing session wherein the bishops of the Church wrote all the books of the Bible. At the Council of Hippo the Church's bishops decided, yes with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, which books would go into the Bible and which ones not. There was not universal agreement as to which books should go into the Bible until this council.
Every time you crack open your Bible, thank the Catholic Church. That's where it came from.
Prayers please 🙏
Praying
Shame on the Christian Culture for not celebrating this man's public ministry but gave all their accolades to Billy Graham! Both died within weeks of each other.
I’m just reading this nowTruly agree with you.
“For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.”Ephesians 2:8-9“for ‘everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’” Romans 10:13
So true. He is absolutely a wonderful teacher of God's word. I was never impressed with the other.😮
And Billy Graham was a false teacher.
@@jamesers99You mean to say he wasn't calvinist. Ahh I see
Roman Catholics reject Sola Scriptura, even though Scripture teaches this in general, that God's Word is perfect, therefore sufficient 2 Tim 3:16-17. So when you reject Scripture alone as final authority, what is NOW your infallible guide? The Roman Catholic church? Well now it's your turn to prove that the church is infallible, where does the Scriptures teach this? No Roman Catholic has given me clear passages from Scripture. They appeal to the traditions found in the letters of Thessalonians, but those traditions are referring to the Gospel, the Gospel is the tradition as St. Irenaeus referred to in his books which was later to be the Apostles creed.
Roman Catholics many time ask us where does the Scriptures teach Sola Scriptura, that they forget they must prove their infallible church from Scripture, which always comes up short.
Biblical Theology this is good.
Jesus promised to stay with the Church until the end of the age (until He returns). What does this mean? Obviously not that every member of the Church would be morally perfect. So the only thing it can mean is that the Church will never teach error. So the New Testament DOES teach that the Church is infallible.
The Church didn't finally and authoritatively put the Bible together until 393 a.d. Until that time all Christians had were the infallible teachings of the Church.
George Penton That verse has nothing to do about church teaching😓 it’s Jesus concluding the Commission, commanding the apostles to go to all nations preaching the common salvation of God the Father’s wrath being satisfied through the atoning work of the Son, and that they may be regenerated by the Spirit, along with all His commandments and ordinances. In addition, they were to teach the crucial element of discipleship, which is that our Lord Jesus Christ will always be with us. His presence in every second of every hour during everyday will always be shown, never at a distance but close and personal, for He is the “God with us.” - Matthew 1:23 Yes, He will not forsake His church, but He never said the Church itself is infallible. Why would Paul, who labored in church planting, say he is chief of sinners? Because we are not infallible or perfect. Only the holy triune God who’s glory reigns and His perfect will shines from heaven to earth is infallible, absolute and perfect. Churches teach error all of the time. It’s the Holy Spirit working in and through us which causes no error. That’s the difference between God-breathed, incorruptible Scripture and fallen man’s traditionalism.
Amen - Hallelu-Yah
God Bless
Bonuccio and Noccianti
Jeremiah 6:16 Thus says the Lord: "Stand in the ways and see, And ask for the old paths, where the good way is, And walk in it; Then you will find rest for your souls. But they said, 'We will not walk in it.'
i’ve got a friend who is struggling with the reliability of scripture. please pray for us
Prayers for you.
Time point 20:19
Private interpretation:
"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation"
2 Peter 1:20-21
How then do we know which writings are canonical scripture, & is that determination inerrant?
If the RC Church hadn't distorted scripture for power and advantage so much, we would all still be Roman Catholics.
Standard question posed by Fundamentalists: “Have you been saved?” What the question also means is: “Don’t you wish you had the assurance of salvation like me?”
All they have to do is “accept Christ as their personal Savior,” and it’s done. They might well live exemplary lives thereafter, but living well is not crucial and does not affect their salvation. But is this true? Does the Bible support this concept?
Scripture teaches that one’s final salvation depends on the state of the soul at death. As Jesus himself tells us, “He who endures to the end will be saved” (Matt. 24:13; cf. 25:31-46). One who dies in the state of friendship with God (the state of grace) will go to heaven. The one who dies in a state of enmity and rebellion against God (the state of mortal sin) will go to hell.
For many Fundamentalists and Evangelicals it makes no difference-as far as salvation is concerned-how you live or end your life. You can announce that you’ve accepted Jesus as your personal Savior, and, so long as you really believe it, you’re set. From that point on there is nothing you can do, no sin you can commit, no matter how heinous, that will forfeit your salvation. You can’t undo your salvation, even if you wanted to. God has already preordained everyone's fate heaven or hell and we can't change it even if we wanted to
Take a look at what Wilson Ewin, the author of a booklet called There is Therefore Now No Condemnation, says. He writes that “the person who places his faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and his blood shed at Calvary is eternally secure. He can never lose his salvation. No personal breaking of God’s or man’s laws or commandments can nullify that status.”
“To deny the assurance of salvation would be to deny Christ’s perfect redemption,” argues Ewin, and this is something he can say only because he confuses the redemption that Christ accomplished for us objectively with our individual appropriation of that redemption. The truth is that in one sense we are all redeemed by Christ’s death on the cross-Christians, Jews, Muslims, even animists in the darkest forests (1 Tim. 2:6, 4:10; 1 John 2:2)-but our individual appropriation of what Christ provided is contingent on our response.
Certainly, Christ did die on the cross once for all and has abundantly provided for our salvation, but that does not mean that there is no process by which this is applied to us as individuals. Obviously, there is, or we would have been saved and justified from all eternity, with no need to repent or have faith or anything else. We would have been born “saved,” with no need to be born again. Since we were not, since it is necessary for those who hear the gospel to repent and embrace it, there is a time at which we come to be reconciled to God. And if so, then we, like Adam and Eve, can become unreconciled with God and, like the prodigal son, need to come back and be reconciled again with God.
You Can’t Lose Heaven?
Ewin says that “no wrong act or sinful deed can ever affect the believer’s salvation. The sinner did nothing to merit God’s grace and likewise he can do nothing to demerit grace.” But when one turns to Scripture, one finds that Adam and Eve, who received God’s grace in a manner just as unmerited as anyone today, most definitely did demerit it-and lost grace not only for themselves but for us as well (cf. also Rom. 11:17-24)
Acts 2:38-41
Acts 2:38-41 KJV
"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls."
I can't hear this at all. Adjust the volume please.
22:33 It's not a result of sola scriptura that the bible was put into the church. It was always in the church. Reading from the sacred scriptures and preaching on their message has been a part of the mass since the early centuries of Christianity. It's called the liturgy of the Word.
For those of you who do not agree with Sola Scriptura please provide us with the other source of infallible truth. 2 Tim 3:16 is enough to establish SS. But for those of you who do not accept it please tell me where the other source of infallible truth is
ANd I would say this to Christians: Don't let the fact that Catholics don't agree that 2 Tim 3:16 estanblishes SS diminish the truth of the verse
Ggeg0000
2 Tim 2:16 "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." (NIV)
Please explain how this passage affirms SS? "Useful" does not mean sufficient. It is "useful" having a laptop to respond to your comment but without the internet and someone to type it would not be sufficient (or perhaps a better way of phrasing it would be "my laptop alone" would not be enough to respond). It was "useful" for the Ethopian Eunuch in the book of Acts to have Isaiah to hand but it was not sufficient for him to come to understanding of what it was saying or who Christ was. Phillip, with the authority invested in him by Christ (Matt 28:16-20), had to teach him what the scriptures were saying. Clearly the scriptures were not sufficient in this instance but required apostolic oversite and teaching.
Even in 2 Tim 3:10 (the verses that precede the one you've quoted) Paul says:
"You, however, know all about my teaching..."
And in 2 Tim 3:14
"But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15 and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus."
Paul tells Timothy to continue in what he has learned. Who did he learn it from? From Paul as he says in v10. Timothy's knowledge of the faith (v10) and the scriptures were guided by Paul's apostolic teaching (and presumably others who had been given authority by the apostles). Yes the scriptures are able to make us wise for salvation but they cannot do that on their own. They are ABLE to just as a car is able to get you from A to B but is totally incapable of doing it without a driver! The teaching authority of the church is necessary to guide our understanding of what the scriptures say. Anything else is a form of Gnosticism.
Yes scriptures are useful in helping us to be "thoroughly equipped for every good work" but this is said in light of everything Paul has said before (which I have quoted above). If I had a puzzle and was missing one piece I would not be thoroughly equipped to complete it. Scripture is absolutely necessary to achieve the ends Paul describes. Without it I could not hope to be thoroughly equipped but Paul does not make the claim that the scriptures alone are sufficient to accomplish this but rather that they are "useful" and necessary (to be thoroughly equipped).
I'm a Protestant trying to figure this stuff out and frankly I'm struggling to see how SS is a coherent doctrine or how 2 Tim 3 argues for it. Please forgive me if I come across as patronising or angry that is not my intention. I would be grateful for your response (or anyone else's) as I'm trying to find a reason to remain protestant but this doctrine is really the deal breaker for me. It makes no sense and doesn't seem to be argued by scripture (which is ironic!)
Forgive me for being skeptical but I can’t believe that you are trying
“to find a reason to remain protestant but this doctrine is really the deal breaker for me. It makes no sense and doesn't seem to be argued by scripture”
Too many Catholic trolls pretending. But if it is true that you are a “struggling protestant” notice that I posted a question for those who do not believe in Sola Scritura (SS). Those who do not accept it must have some other source of infallible truth no? They must have some other rule of faith. Where is that? The traditions of the RCC? What would make anybody believe that the traditions are a second source of infallible truth. Because they claim they inherited the apostolic authority of the apostles, so the magisterium with the pope are the only ones that can interpret scripture infallibly. The problem is that this has no basis in the NT. There is no promise by Jesus of an infallible authority passed from the apostles to the future leaders of the church. It is not in Mt 16 or Jon 20. So if you are having doubts just look for the succession of infallible authority in the Bible and as you will not find it should put your mind at ease.
Jesus left us the Bible and a teacher
John 16:13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come
1 John 2:27 But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie-just as it has taught you, abide in him.
If the RCC is the only one that can interpret scripture then why did they add so many unbiblical doctrines to the RCC faith?
You said
Phillip, with the authority invested in him by Christ (Matt 28:16-20), had to teach him what the scriptures were saying. Clearly the scriptures were not sufficient in this instance but required apostolic oversite and teaching.
Today we do not have apostles like Phillip but we do have the writings of the apostles and the HS to guide as Jesus said
As far as 2Tim 3:16 goes,
2 Timothy 3:16 New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)
16 All scripture is inspired by God and is[a] useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
All scripture is God-breathed the Greek says and is useful for teaching correction and training in righteousness. Do you see anything else that can compete with scripture? The RCC does nit have any?
If you are a sincere protestant looking for answers, look at James White materials on Sola Scriptura, I couldn't even come close to giving you good information as that. The RCC has nothing else, there's no second authority
Ggeg0000 if I as a brought up C of E Protestant can see some of the objections even from the RCC as scriptural. Leave aside all the incorrect sacraments and indulgences of the RCC, the Reformation is leading to destruction of Christianity due to the incorrect five sola's.
For a start none of the five (sola's) issues is alone, they are a combination that are integral for Salvation. The crime committed by the Reformers is to be selective of scripture, I employ a method of totam scripturam, all of scripture. In debate about Christianity Catholics have as many verses that deny Protestant doctrine, as Protestants have in support, where I add the two positions as they both are truth.
The just shall live by faith, where faith is complete trust and the duty to fulfil that trust. Ye are saved by grace through faith without ceremonial works, a good bargain as the gift of grace is from God, with the faith in Christ. We are justified by the grace of Christ for our good works, or works of righteousness, as Titus 3:7.
To find the truth we must falsify any doctrine we or others hold in trust. Not look to re-interpret scripture to suit, or dismiss as Luther did. To add my own discoveries, I am a Praeterist trusting in the promises of Jesus for the end of all prophecies, and find double-justification as the necessity for Salvation. Two reforms to the spiritual church from totam scripturam.
You said
In debate about Christianity Catholics have as many verses that deny Protestant doctrine, as Protestants have in support, where I add the two positions as they both are truth
Sure they have verses. But look at salvation by grace alone. You have three options: Grace Alone, Grace and works or the NT contradicts itself. Which one is it? How can you believe the second when the first is so clearly taugh? Anybody can throw verses around but to properly interpret scripture, each verse has to be interpreted in light of its immediate context and then the larger context of the whole NT and the whole Bible. Catholics rip verses totally out of context because they come to the NT with a huge baggage of false doctrine to support, then they accuse Christians of cherry-picking. But Sola Scriptura is honest because it lets the Bible speak for itself
You said
Leave aside all the incorrect sacraments and indulgences of the RCC, the Reformation is leading to destruction of Christianity due to the incorrect five sola's
But thanks to the Reformation we have a restored real Christianity in the first place! How can we leave aside the incorrect teaching of the sacraments, this is intrical to salvation. Either all your sins are forgiven when we accept Christ (the biblical view) or we need absolution from a priest.
In the end it’s only the HS that can help us put each verse in the right perspective and understand it in its proper context. The argument of the 500,000 “protestant” denominations notwithstanding
What was the source of Paul's revelation?
Jesus Christ himself. (I had a 'somewhat' similar experience). So good question, because this video did not address that. I made a comment under the video too, that the Source of Revealtion is The Source itself, who is God through Christ Jesus. It can and does still happen, I know that for a fact...you can "Know" (Yada) more in 10 mins. that 4 years in a university could ever do with mere 'head knowledge'. I promiise, It's all True.. Christ is LORD and the only Way.
Jesus, and some of the apostles in their writings warned us time and again about those who would bring false teachings into the church. As we see in the New Testament this was already happening while the Apostles were still living, and they rebuked them in their writings of Scripture.
Galatians 1:6-9 KJV I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
How much more so would false teachings surface after the Apostles were no longer on the scene? Therefore, God had to give us a standard to test everything against and that standard is the written word of the apostles which is Scripture.
When you deviate from Scripture as the sole authority, you are opening yourself up for anything. It is deviating from Scripture that EVERY cult is built upon.
John 8:32-33 ESV So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed him, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
1 John 5:11-13 NASB And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life. These things I have WRITTEN to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may KNOW that you have eternal life.
John 3:36 KJV Jesus said: He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
John 20:30-31 KJV And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are WRITTEN, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
The word translated believe in the book of John is not a mental or intellectual assent to Jesus or His death on the cross.
The Greek word means to trust in, to completely rely on.
So, to believe on Jesus is to trust completely in His death on the cross for the payment of your sins.
Jesus took your sins upon Himself, paid the penalty for them, and now you can stand justified before the Father.
1 Peter 3:18 ESV For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit,
2 Corinthians 5:21 NASB He (God) made Him (Jesus) who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
The RCC has pronounced many dogmas no where to be found in the Bible, and tells you that you must believe them in order to be saved. If you reject them, you will go to hell.
After telling us in His written Word how to be saved, God would be very unjust to later on down through the centuries to give us other conditions through word of mouth that became traditions.
I dare not trust the eternal destiny of my soul to any person or church, but to the written Scriptures alone.
Mike Hamlin sola fide is nowhere to be found in the Bible, the only scripture Jesus was talking about was OT scripture. Sola scriptura is nowhere in the Bible.
2 Thessalonians shows sola scriptura not to be true. Matthew 25:31-46 shows sola fide not to be true. "If we, or an angel, preach another gospel"----another gospel than the Catholic gospel, the original gospel----"let him be anathema".
Mike Hamlin, some rebel men have pronounced some dogmas ( i.e. faith alone without love justifies, Scripture alone without the guidance of the Church, etc) nowhere to be found in the Bible and tell you that you must believe them in order to be saved. Catholics rather believe God's God's written Word: the Church is the pillar and ground of truth, not any one's private interpretation of)Scripture alone plus some one's ignorant assumptions and opinions about everything
RIP RC ;(
Rip~
2017
Shaloms~
Thanks for your toils~
Whenever you wish anyone to R.I.P. (rest in peace) you are praying for their soul which might be in Purgatory.
George Penton The Roman Catholic Church was founded by Satan
@@Wgaither1 The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ. He appointed Peter to be the first pope (Matthew 16:18-19) and the other apostles to be the first bishops (Acts 1:20). And He promised to stay with the Church "until the end of the age" (until He returns).
@@Wgaither1 Satan You means Serpent...? The bronze Serpent hang on the pole by Moses Number 21:9 So Moses made a bronze snake and put it up on a pole. Then when anyone was bitten by a snake and looked at the bronze snake, they lived.
My question is, when the early church did not have the written New Testament, they therefore did not have the scriptures to grow in their faith. So how did they know what was the word of God and what was not?
They where taught by the apostles
The apostles did not have the written letters from Paul, etc to use/be considered scripture until after they died.
@@justenhug632they had their own
@@monso7871 where does scripture say that?
How I understand it , The Old Testament was canonized .Jesus preached and taught repentance for the kingdom of God is at hand , the disciples learned and taught from Jesus , the main push by the disciples was the life death and resurrection of Jesus . Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to teach . I just started taking a class on the very things you are asking about. The pieces are slowly coming together it does take work. Bruce Metzger is mentioned a lot and has the respect across the field. But I’m like you if questions aren’t properly answered they don’t go away .
"What saith the Word". "Sola Scriptora"(KJV).
"At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes".
hmmm... iI thought when talking about tradition it means man-made, it can not be "et", it should be "sola", sola Scriptura. Thank you RC
Time point 19:44
Translation of the Bible into the vernacular, Wycliffe and Luther.
First of all, we know from history that there were vernacular translations of the Bible available in most Europe languages before the invention on the printing press, but there is a common fallacy that Wycliffe gave us the first English translation in 1382.
But we have scripture translations in the vernacular of the times, (before there even was an English language that we would recognize) going back to the seventh century.
Translations by:
Caedmon, a monk of Whitby.
St. Bede of Jarrow.
Bishop Eadhelm of Sherborne.
Guthlac, a hermit near Peterborough.
Bishop Egbert of Holy Island.
Aelfric, Archbishop of Canterbury.
King Alfred the Great, who was still working on the Psalms when he died.
Translations after 1066 are in Middle English and still unintelligible to us.
Wycliffe was a Catholic priest who was teaching heresies and openly preaching against most of the doctrines of the Church, and his bible was condemned because it had so many errors.
For the first time in England, the Church felt obliged to put restrictions on the reading of the vernacular bible.
A decree of Archbishop Arundel, Oxford,1498, prohibited the translation of any part of the Bible into English by any unauthorized person, and the reading of any version before it was formally approved.
Luther?
Well everyone knows that there were already about sixteen German translations of the Bible available when Luther produced his, and that thirteen of those translations were published before Luther was even born!
Because of the technological advancements of mankind it was inevitable that eventually the Bible would be in the hands of the common man. It was never a matter of if rather when it would happen.
Scripture doesn’t say what constitutes Scripture, so if Sola Scriptura is true, how does one know what constitutes Scripture?
First and foremost you must understand what the word revelation means : it is a sentence crying out with loud voice. When the Word became flesh and dwelled among them, it is named : " the Testimony", which was given 2 Timothy 3:16 to put all against Isaiah's 8:20, which is the Rock, Jesus had in mind. That is all and that is that : a council !!
Reformed means to improve or to make better. How can the gospel of Christ be improved? The scriptures were before the reformers ever came on the scene. So, does this mean that everyone before the reformers improved the gospel of Jesus were lost? I am in no way trying to be argumentative or disrespectful towards anyones beliefs. I’m truly trying to understand the reformed theology. I’m very interested. Thank you and God Bless!
I though the reformers were reforming the indulgences selling church
@@johnpeavey6066:
But the Church wasn't the one selling indulgences, that was the scam of a few unscrupulous scoundrels who came up with the idea to prey on the ignorant and vulnerable.
We still have those kind of people in the Church. Always have and always will have.
Do t think Luther got it right either he didn't change structure of the "church"
Scripture Alone means leave Alone
So all we need is the scripture... which we can interpret correctly without church authority... even though as fallen creatures we are totally depraved and have zero ability to interpret or make choices correctly... yup makes total sense.
That's not what he's saying. What he is saying is scripture is the ultimate authority over everything else, because it's the Word of God. The bible does teach you everything you need to know about God with authority, but maybe not everything you want to know.
If we are in Christ we have the interpreter, and inspiration of scripture living inside us.
@@darrickcato9499 How can you know if you are in Christ if it is impossible for you to have any sense of right vs wrong or good vs evil. You could just be under demonic deception.
I think you taking the idea that we are born sinners to an extreme place. Any sin will put you in hell, and we are all tainted by it, but that doesn't mean we all serial killers without a conscience. God is Holy Holy Holy, and anything less than his holiness can't be in His presence. God must bring justice to sinners. When Jesus died he took our punishment on himself, and now those who trust in Him are covered by grace. We no longer have to worry about sin because Jesus righteousness is now mine.
@@darrickcato9499 To trust is an act of free will.
Why don't we use sola scriptura to determine if one can lose their salvation? If all these theologians, scholars and pastors would just open their bible for once in their life, they'll know the truth to that question! Which is...
Sproul was a good guy, but unfortunately fell victim to the subjectivism and schismaticism of the Protestant scholastics... I was Protestant my whole life until I actually read the ancient Christian teachers of the first 300 years of Christianity and many in the first 1000 years. And they unfortunately never taught these Protestant “doctrines”. Sola scriptura is the single most divisive and destructive heresy to enter the church and God help us now. 40,000 denominations and counting. Thankful for the firm, consistent faith of the Eastern Orthodox who truly still keep the faith “once delivered to the Saints” despite the distortions within Catholicism and later, in Protestantism. Please my fellow brothers and sisters, don’t just listen to your local pastor but read the ancient writers of our faith!! Ignatius, irenaeus, justin Martyr, etc! Scripture is INERRANT and God-breathed!! Yet we must not twist scripture and distort it... it must be understood within the context of the apostolic teachers and ancient writers/councils
@@MichaelTheophilus906 so do you believe the gates of hell prevailed against the church from 330AD on? How is that not a denial of Pentecost and of the Spirit’s work to bring the church “into all truth”?
@@MichaelTheophilus906 my second question is... who are these “real Christians” you are referring to?? Anti-trinitarian sects and cults? The Gnostics?? I think the point you are missing is that the church BEFORE 330AD was not very close at all to Protestantism. So if yo I want to make an argument the church became pagan, you’ll have to answer as to why all the same beliefs (on the important points) were taught by even the apostolic fathers and those leading up to Nicea😕
@@alexanderderus2087 Can you tell me more about the distinctions between Orthodox and Catholicism aside from iconography? I have my own opinions but I'm curious about your point of view
How can the Bible be a perfect dictation from God when the people, especially Moses and David, and others doing the dictation are themselves not perfect?
Does anyone else see that if there are 5 Solas there are 0 solas? If there is more than one it is no longer “sola.”
Haha, not quite. For example, sola scriptura states that we adhere to scripture alone; that only scripture in inerrant and God breathed. Whereas sola fide states that salvation is given through faith alone, and not in works. They are sola, alone, on different subjects. Statements on different things, not all relating to the same exact thing.
Jesse Ayotte this is convoluted. If Jesus didn’t need 5 solos neither do I. No wonder people are confused. Interestingly enough the most important aspect of the walk of faith is absent from the list. Jesus said “my sheep hear my voice and another they will not follow.” This is central to knowing the lord and being born of his spirit. If you were stuck on an island with no bible the voice of the lord could still be perceived. These so called “Solas” leave out hearing from the lord in ones soul which is tantamount to denying it.
lelandro42 Solus Christus.....Christ alone.
lelandro42 the point of the solae are to take central concepts out of the Gospel, not from an outside source but from scripture, and separate themselves from the false doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. One doesn’t need to know the format of the solae to be saved, the solas are defining the central aspects of the gospel for Christians. Saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone by the guidance of scripture alone for the glory of God alone
Jesse Ayotte the solas are a product of the reformers who were no better than the Catholic Church. Martin Luther hated Jews as did John Calvin, who also happened to be a murderer. I don’t need the likes of such men to create scholastic outlines of any precepts found in the gospels. Neither do you. The word of God doesn’t need doctors to explain it which is precisely why Jesus chose fisherman and not theologians as his disciples. The whole idea of “solae” is a distraction from the simplicity of the gospel, drawing people’s attention away from the pure and powerful teaching of the Lord and drawing them towards their own biased leanings and opinions, and I assure you, the reformers agreed no more with one another than they did with the Catholic Church.
this is a refreshing articulation of the sola scriptura position. I am a Catholic so naturally and theologically I find sola scriptura hogwash, but seeing it used to prop up future confessions and doctrines because they faithfully represent the doctrine of scripture is very reasonable.
the only problem that still persists is that solely by tradition, liturgical and oral, did the early Church actually succeed in compiling the Bible in the first place. Thus, the scripture itself relies on tradition and tradition alone
At 8:46 Sir its ur interpretation. It simply means scripture and tradition MUST go together, hence AND. Partly doesn't mean quite the same.
At 20:51 "Every Christian has the right to interpret the Scriptures for themselves, but no Christian ever has the right to misinterpret the Scriptures" , How can you tell the difference? How do you know when somebody is misinterpreting the Scriptures? Who is to decide what is a "right interpretation", and what is a "misinterpretation"? This is why we need an infallible teaching office (Magisterium of the Catholic Church).
Santa Escritura How do you know the Catholic Church is infallible?
Is there a reason you didn't answer her question?
And who is to say the MAgestirium is the infallible interpreter of the Bible? The Bible does not support the transmission of an infallible authority from Peter to the current Pope
good question, they don't
@@Davian_James We know that the Church is infallible because Jesus founded it, promised to stay with it until He returns, and promised that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it.
In 1 Corinthians 11:2 Paul writes "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you." Since this is the first letter from Paul to them, he is obviously referring to oral teaching.
2 Thessalonians 2:15- Paul writes "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." This sentence clearly establishes the practice of the early church to place equal authority to both oral teaching and written. This is Paul's direct order and expectation.
2 Thessalonians 3:6- "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us." Since this is in the same letter as the earlier phrase, it is reasonable to assume that Paul here also means whether by oral or written teaching, why would he feel the need to repeat himself about that.
These are 3 texts that point to a very important truth- Christianity was primarily an orally transmitted truth; indeed there are numerous proofs in the words of Jesus himself, for example Mt 24:14- "And this gospel of the Kingdom will be preached throughout the whole world, as a testimony to all nations; and then the end will come."
It is clear after only a quick examination of biblical texts that the gospel was initially spread by word of mouth, and the teaching of the apostles was transmitted orally. Writing came along much later, and mostly from Paul. Usually, he wrote to churches that he had established himself, with a view to addressing pastoral problems that he was informed about from others who had visited these places. Many of the issues he writes about are practical ones, and in the process of teaching and correcting he refers to Old Testament passages to back up his arguments. However, there is one instance in Titus where he quotes a Cretan considered a prophet by the pagans (not necessarily by Paul) who said "Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons." Then Paul states that he agrees with this assessment, and counsels Titus to rebuke the members sharply to keep them faithful to the gospel.
Paul, being a man of learning and student of philosophy both Jewish and Greek, was known for writing lengthy epistles, and mentions this in 2 Cor 10:9. 2 Peter 3:15-16 Peter also refers to Paul's letters, noting that some of Paul's teachings, because of the depth of the concepts involved, are sometimes having their meaning twisted with destructive consequences. Unfortunately, this situation has, if anything, become even more pronounced.
Sola scriptura is a tradition of men, not from Jesus or the apostolic tradition. Were it not for the invention of the printing press, this would not even be an issue. I believe Luther went too far when he decided he could not submit to the authority of Rome. History shows that there were many others who hated the corrupt practices going on in the church; if he had been willing to work with them, wait and organize a more united front, things could have gone quite differently. The sad fact is, he was a deeply troubled, impatient man who ended up in a state of rebellion, probably needlessly. The fruit of these actions is, in my opinion, of the worst possible kind. Unqualified "teachers" are rampant in the world today; in fact, Luther complained about this IN HIS OWN LIFETIME. He opened a Pandora's box onto the theological world, and we are all paying for it. The present church is now in the same state that Israel was in prior to the time of Samuel and David- "In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit.' I hope and pray that this is a sign that Jesus, the Son of David, will soon return and establish His righteous reign on earth. Maranatha!
In human history, the period of the Old and New Testament is a small blip in time. The location of the Hebrew theology is in a very very small part of the world. Up until 200 years ago, most people on the planet did not know of or have access to the Hebrew scripture or could read it. There are thousands of languages and dialects on earth. That is a daunting barrier if a book is needed to learn about salvation. Each culture on earth througout time has had their own theology. To think the Jesus is the center of everything and that is book is needed for salvation is an example of pure arrogance and ignorance.
It was what Jesus taught that is important not who he was. Yes, he was a spiritual master and maybe he was the most evolved of spiritual masters but his message was universal and timeless. LOVE ONE ANOTHER. Love saves. Jesus taught love, so then you can say that Jesus saves. If A = B and B = C then A = C.
How come you teach about reformation...when you ardently cling to sunday as a sacred day...yet thers not a single word in the whole bible that sunday is now the new sabbath nor the sacredness which God placed on the seventh day has been transferred to sunday...Jesus gave a commlsion to his disciples to go and preach the gospel to the whole world...you see this commision in Rev.14:6-7 ...notice verse 7..and worsip him that made the heavens and theseas and fountains of waters...in other words worship the Creator....only the sabbath identifies the Creator!!...the sabbath is Gods holy day..He makes that claim in the 4th commandment...in the new earth all of Gods people will keep the sabbath and not sunday...to violate any of Gods commands makes one a sinner...1John 3:4..James 2:10...what then is "sola scripura?"...sunday was the work of the catholic churh...so why do we have to embrace catholic church. God gave us the seventh day sabbath to know who our God really is Ezek20:20...when a man professes to speak for God to his people we must test what he is saying..Isa 8; 20 why to the law and to the testimony?
And the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ the King still remains...as it will until the Kings return.
I find the concept of Sola Scriptura wholly untenable. In listening to James White, RC Sproul and many others, I have not found enough evidence to support this claim. After reading many early writings, I have also found that proponents of Sola Scriptura use random quotes from the early Christians without regard to their other writings. This was a huge red flag for me as I investigated this issue. For instance, RC Sproul utilizes a quote from Augustine that shows very high regard for Scripture and it potentiallysupports the case he is making. Yet we can look at other quotes from Augustine and see that he in no way supported Sola Scriptura:
(Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus; Chp 5 [397 AD])-
For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.
He just previously explained many key features of the Catholic Church:
(Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus; Chp 4 [397 AD])
The succession of priests keeps me [in the Catholic Church], beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called "Catholics," yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house. Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church, as it is right they should, though from the slowness of our understanding, or the small attainment of our life, the truth may not yet fully disclose itself. But with you, where there is none of these things to attract or keep me, the promise of truth is the only thing that comes into play. Now if the truth is so clearly proved as to leave no possibility of doubt, it must be set before all the things that keep me in the Catholic Church; but if there is only a promise without any fulfillment, no one shall move me from the faith which binds my mind with ties so many and so strong to the Christian religion.
Then, we see that Augustine was emphatic in numerous letters to Jerome, that he translate the Septuagint (which includes the 7 Deuterocanonical books):
Augustine’s Letter to Jerome [405 AD]
I beg of you, moreover, to send us your translation of the Septuagint, which I did not know that you had published…I desire, moreover, your translation of the Septuagint, in order that we may be delivered, so far as is possible, from the consequences of the notable incompetency of those who, whether qualified or not, have attempted a Latin translation; and in order that those who think that I look with jealousy on your useful labours, may at length, if it be possible, perceive that my only reason for objecting to the public reading of your translation from the Hebrew in our churches was, lest, bringing forward anything which was, as it were, new and opposed to the authority of the Septuagint version, we should trouble by serious cause of offense the flocks of Christ, whose ears and hearts have become accustomed to listen to that version to which the seal of approbation was given by the apostles themselves.
Sproul didn't lie; he misspoke. Lying implies deliberate deception.
Did Jesus believe in Sola Scriptura? Did he teach his apostles this doctrine? Did the apostles teach this doctrine? Did the Old Testament prophets believe this doctrine? My answer is NO. If Jesus believed in Sola Scriptura, his purpose of coming to this world in human form would have been defeated. Moreover, there would have been no New Testament as Jesus could not have taught anything new apart from the Old Testament which was the scripture in his time. Jesus would have limited himself to the Old Testament alone if he believed in Sola Scriptura. If the Old Testament alone was the source of divine revelation and the sole binding authority, where would be any place of another scripture (the New Testament)? Why didn't Jesus believe that the Old Testament was sufficient for our salvation?
@@MichaelTheophilus906 The whole idea of sola scriptura is false and illogical. The Old Testament itself proves at the end that it is not sufficient for salvation. Sola scriptura says that scripture alone is sufficient, contradicting the Old Testament itself. The fact that Jesus came and established a new Covenant abrogating the Old proves that sola scriptura is false.
@@albertdevasahayam6781 You misunderstand. The Scripture was not closed when Jesus came. The scripture wasn't "finished." Once it was finished it became the sole source of Divine authority. It was in effect written by God himself. Jesus came to earth to die on the cross as atonement for our sins - nothing in the Old Testament was going to save humanity. Once his work was finished then the Word of God - contained in the Scriptures was final, inerrant, absolute, and eternally sufficient.
@@codyvandal2860 Please make your points clear. You have also not addressed my questions and points. My point is that neither Jesus nor the Apostles nor any Old Testament prophets believed in the Protestant doctrine of Scripture Alone.
The Bible ITSELF Contradicts Luther's doctrine of "scripture alone" (solascriptura) The Bible tells us that the authority is THE CHURCH: ...
● 1 TIMOTHY 3:15 The pillar & foundation of TRUTH is the CHURCH.
● EPHESIANS 3:10 10 His intent was that now, THROUGH THE CHURCH, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms,
● 2 THESS 2:15 We are to hold fast to the TRADITIONS we have been given, either by WORD OF MOUTH or by the letter.
● 1 Cor 11:2 I commend you because you remember me in everything, and maintain the TRADITIONS even as I have delivered them to you.
● JOHN 21:25 Jesus said & did Many other things that are too numerous to be recorded in writing.
● HEB 13:17 Obey the eldars in the CHURCH
The True Church is a TEACHING Church: (to Teach means to impart knowledge that is not presently know....not in writing)
● JOHN 14:26-31
26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall TEACH you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
(To TEACH is to impart knowledge that is not presently known....not in writing)
● ACTS 8:31: And he said, HOW CAN I, (understand scripture) EXCEPT SOMEONE SHOULD GUIDE ME? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
(The scriptures are not for individual interpretation. They need the guidance of the CHURCH. It is PROTESTANTS who are following the doctrines of a man.)
Protestants focus on the BIBLE instead of the CHURCH because the message & meaning of the Bibvle is easy to manipulate / change by ignoring all scriptures that contradict the protestant agenda.
CHURCH and BIBLE go TOGETHER. Bible without the CHURCH means nothing and "solascriptura" is a rebellion against the CHURCH.
JESUS Never told us we must read the Bible in order to be saved. JESUS Founded a CHURCH. LUTHER (who never knew Jesus) came along 15 centuries later and told gullible people to IGNORE the church and follow "scripture alone" Protestants obey LUTHER and are depending on their "Knowledge" (albeit skewed) thinking that their knowledge will get them into heaven even though they attack and abuse ordinary decent people, ignoring the fact that Jesus told us to Love our neighbours and to treat others the way we would like to be treated.
"The Source of Divine Revelation is The Source itself!" He left one out, God ACTUALLY Revealing Himself through Christ JESUS to you As One in the Same, in Power. When that happens == The Gospel , He is The Gospel and you will also know Fear of The LORD- Adam never knew Fear of the Lord to start with and the glorified Satan and not God just as Paul said, 'They worshiped the creature rather than the creator, for though they knew (of) God, they did not Know Him as God - Adam was never some 'perfect' person, he was already fallen per se BEFORE anything ever happened - that is WHY they disobeyed, no Fear of the lord before their eyes; any fall was of God, 'And God caused a Deep Sleep to Fall upon the man, and He Slept" (And he STILL SLEEPS for those in Adam) when you 'receive His WORD in Power" is not receiving words on paper but CHRIST Himself.It DOES happen because it DID happen; and in one millisecond you will Know Fear of the LORD, That the Lord He is God and Christ in Fact DID Resurrect otherwise there is no way you could have had The Revelation. You will learn more in 10 mins . than 4 years in a university could ever teach a person and fill their head with 'mere information' (the confirmation after the fact is Scripture, however) but with The Fact of God which is Christ. When You receive His 'Word all is Christ and nothing else matters any more. All He had so 'speak into your soul is, 'Now You Will Know". Your life into Eternity utterly depends on Him, I Promise. There is something yet more, Forgiveness of One's Nature which is Sin...the threshing floor will take care of that.
The problem with SA is that it assumes 2 things.
1. God will make scripture affirm itself.
2. God will guide His people to confirm what is and what isn't scripture.
The protestant contention is that you don't need an infallible rule to determine scripture. It can determine itself. This is tantamount to saying the universe was created by itself and it had no need for God. There were many scriptures in early christian times how would anyone know which book is inspired or not? It is ridiculous to assume that the bible protestants use today basically just happened by itself. As if the councils and all of Cristendom with the Magisterium had nothing to do with it.
You misrepresent their position because you didn't even mention the role of the Holy Spirit, who is the true author of God's Word and the explainer of it
bob polo
The role of the HS is to unite every Christian under ONE Church and ONE truth. Anything else would be blasphemy. Now tell me are protestants united under ONE Church and ONE Truth? You invoke the HS but approve of denominations. How contradictory is that? Did Jesus say I will build my Church or Churches on this Rock or on these rocks? The HS is the principle of unity, some scriptural and freestyle interpretation with NO standard or infallible truth is insane. When we speak of infallible we speak of an attribute of the HS. We are not saying the Pope through his own nature is infallible we are saying through the power of the HS he is infallible.
"You invoke the HS but approve of denominations"
Your assumption, friend. I neither claim to be protestant or anything else, except a follower of Christ and a servant of God. My relationship with the Father is established through His Son by the binding power of His Spirit. I need no other mediators or saints or so-called sinless virgins. Christ alone, cornerstone
bob polo
So if you claim Christ alone then why did Jesus use his Apostles to do His work. If Jesus can do everything on His own why use men and women?
"If Jesus can do everything on His own why use men and women?"
The Father uses His children to lead sinners to His Son.
This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone. And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” Acts 4:11-12
SOLA SCRIPTURA. DO NOT COMPROMISE THIS, CHURCH!
Every appeal to Scripture is an appeal to an interpretation of Scripture. The Bible sitting on the table does not interpret itself.
Bu it does
And what is your authority?
Yes it does, keep reading and praying, it comes to life!
@@c.g.ryderii2405 Protestants keep reading the Bible and praying, and this year there twice as many denominations and independent churches as last year, and twice as many as the year before that, and twice as many as the year before that......all of them with a different interpretation of scripture than the one down the street. Meanwhile century after century goes by and the Catholic Church remains united and her core doctrines never change.
Psalms83:18ASV"18That they may know that thou alone, whose name is JEHOVAH, Art the MOST HIGH over all the earth." Note please that there is but one named JEHOVAH. Note also that this one is the MOST HIGH. Thus if ones God is associated with multiple co'equals (e.g the Trinitarian Jesus). He is not the Lord JEHOVAH.
ASV is not an accurate translation. "Jehovah" was first written by a man named Peter Galatin who took Yahweh and Adonai and mixed them together. God's name is YHWY. At Jesus' baptism we have Jesus in the water, then we hear "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." And then the Holy Spirit of God descends like a dove. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
@Cody you do know that the name Jesus is derived from JEHOVAH, it means JEHOVAH is salvation. Ancient Hebrew was written without vowels or vowel pointers so no one really knows how any of the bible names were originally pronounced. If JEHOVAH wanted it plainly understood that his union with his messiah is a union of equals, calling my Son in the context of the extremely patriarchal culture of that time and place hardly seems the way to go.
@@aservantofJEHOVAH7849 That's untrue. While there was no vowels in the tetragrammaton YHWY is pronounced Yahweh - it means "I AM." That is God's covenant name. Adonai means "ruler" or "Lord" and is a title given to God by the people who worship him. in 1520 a man in Europe named Peter Galatin took the word Adonai and the word Yahweh and mixed them together to create the word "Jehovah" which he put into his English translation of the Bible and that's it's origin.
And actually it's definitely the way to go in the context of the extremely patriarchal culture of that time because the son of a king or dignitary was treated precisely as if he was the king or dignitary himself. Pharoah's son was treated just like Pharoah etc.
Father and Son are considered the same fundamental essence their union would have been obvious to everyone and in fact this is exactly what the Pharisees accused Jesus of - making himself equal to God which Jesus did not deny at all.
It may help if you could provide a reference to support your claim. In what year exactly did this alleged name change occur? I have no problem with the name Yahweh but if you going to be dogmatic about it, you will need to change the name Jesus to yasus or something similar as it was derived from the name JEHOVAH. At 2Samuel18 you will get a glimpse of the fate of heirs to the throne who forgot their place, it wasn't pretty. The Father of the heir retained the final say until he either abdicated the throne or became incapacitated that was the reality.
Read Mathew 25:31-46 and forget "faith alone." Only the Catholic (and Orthodox) Church follows the Bibles. Your brother in Christ, Fr. Dave
"Faith Alone" my friend as described by R.C., never meant merely a "do nothing" faith. This shouldn't be taken in isolation from the rest of scripture. I believe James and even Paul, take up the matter on these issues in their letters, as the works of our faith as Jesus describes as the fruit of our salvation-not the means. I can have "faith" i.e. belief or intellectual ascent to certain propositional truths, yet not act on them. I can have "works" of charity toward my fellow man, thus "working for my salvation" or even be an an atheist. These attitudes I believe, will find us equally under Christ's judgement, "Depart from me I never knew you".. It seems pretty clear from Matt. 25; this is central to the parables of the bridesmaids and the talents. Peace in Him!
And Jesus said to them, “Amen, I say to you, take up your bibles and memorize My words. Interpret them for your just cause.”
At these words there was much murmuring among the crowd. Jesus asked Peter, “What troubles my disciples?” One of the disciples, hearing Jesus’s question, asked Jesus, “What is a bible?”
Jesus said to them, “the bible is a compilation of all My teachings that have been written down for everyone to see.” But again, much murmuring took place among the crowd. So again, Jesus asked them, “What troubles my disciples?” Another man turned and asked Jesus, “Teacher, how are we to know Your words as written, when we know not how to read?”
Jesus reflected on this and replied, “My children must be patient, and… in several hundred years, with the proper social standing, some of you will know how to read.”
The crowd was displeased at the words that Jesus spoke, but He calmed them, “Fear not, eventually almost all of you will be able to read, regardless of social standing.”
Another disciple, a man from Hebron, called Gary, spoke to Jesus, “Teacher, how do we acquire one of these… bibles? Books are very rare and extremely expensive and I am but a poor farmer.” Jesus replied, “Well… ok, so here’s the deal, you will have to wait until the invention of the printing press in about 400 years, then the translation of my words into the tongues of the world, and then maybe, if you are in the proper social standing, you can buy a bible. Eventually, by the eighteenth century books will become more affordable and families will each have their family bible to pass on to generations.
The crowd was very confused by the words that Jesus spoke. Even the twelve were troubled. One of the disciples asked Him, “Teacher, how will we know how to interpret Your words as written in times to come?” Jesus said, “Oh each of you will be able to interpret My words just by reading the bible for the Truth is written.”
The disciples discussed this amongst themselves. One said, ”So we get to decide the meaning of your words and which teachings are most important?” Jesus started to speak, “No, the words I have said, and those that are written, are the true Word of God and…” but the crowd was too busy talking amongst themselves and did not hear His words.
One said, “Wow, this is such a relief, we didn’t know what to think of that “must eat My Flesh and drink My Blood” part You were saying up on the mountain, and You just kept going on about it.” “Yeah,” another said, “I just like the parts where You talk about believing in You, as savior, the rest seemed too hard.” Jesus tried to speak over the crowd as they walked away, still talking amongst themselves. “Wait… What about my Church?” but the evil one had entered the crowd and was whispering in their ears so they could not hear Him. Jesus, Peter, and the other apostles watched the crowd as they went, forming little groups of like minded people as they walked farther away from Jesus’s Word and entered back into the towns.
First came Jesus. From Jesus came the Catholic Church (Jesus founded it and appointed its first pope, Peter). From the Catholic Church came the Bible. Reject the Catholic Church and how can you still believe in the Bible?
This man clearly fails to distinguish between human traditions and Sacred Tradition. Sacred Tradition is Divine. In fact scripture is Sacred Tradition in writing.
I find it hard to think he didn't know this. It seems he just ignored these facts to keep his listeners ignorant of what the Catholic Church actually teaches.
The same Augustine which Luther quotes says that if not for the authority of the Church he'd not believe the Bible. So clearly, Augustine's view was of the sufficiency of scripture, not scripture only. More so, because he also talks about the authority of the Church which gives us what books should even be in the scriptures. During his time the table of contents was still in dispute.
I
I assume you are a Catholic brother. Amen.
@@voxnonvox6382 Indeed, I am. Bless you!
Where did sacred tradition come from?
@@johnpeavey6066 Sacred Tradition spelled with a capital "T" is different from human traditions condemned in Mark 7:1-10. Divine revelation crystalizes into Sacred Tradition before it is eventually put into writing. So the Scriptures is the written part of this revelation. Even those who reject Sacred Tradition as taught by the Catholic Church still rely on it in some way. For example, it is Sacred Tradition that tells us what books should be in the Bible. Similarly, the New Testament makes reference to ancient truths not found in the old testament, Acts 17:28, Jude 1:9. It's through Tradition that we know what prophets like Elijah and Elisha did 'cos they never wrote anything, but the Tradition was later written down.
Tradition gives us the basic understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity as it is not explicitly stated as we now know it.
St. Paul in 2 Thess 2:15 makes it clear that not all teachings are in writing. So does St. John, Jn 21:23-25.
In the Catholic faith revealed truth comes from 3 sources: the Magisterium (teaching authority), Sacred Tradition, (revealed truth) and the Scriptures (Holy Bible).
Since our Blessed Lord gave His apostles power and authority (and not a book), then Magisterium comes first. Through Tradition the faith was transmitted through generations making it second. The Bible comes last, chronologically speaking, after the Church had survived centuries of brutal persecution with no compiled Bible as we know it. And the Bible bears the same importance and authority.
I hope this is useful.
God bless you 🙏🏽
Heads exploded across Christendom when the new world translation,entirely in keeping with Greek grammar,inserted the indefinite article at John1:1c. There were even erroneous claims that it was the only translation to render the verse thus. Jesus is not a God insisted opponents. Well here is my question. If Jesus is not a God,how can he be JEHOVAH,whom the bible plainly declares to be a God.
Deuteronomy4:24ASV"Jehovah thy God is a devouring fire, a jealous God".
The level of irony on display in this series is staggering. I'm enjoying it immensely.
For R. C. Sproul, since Scripture doesn’t affirm what constitutes Scripture, and since Scripture alone is infallible, Scripture is a “fallible collection of infallible books.” But this notion is absurd, because a collection is no more than the sum of its parts. If you can’t guarantee the whole, you can’t guarantee the parts. The collection might have too many parts, and it might have too few.
Ironically, the Protestant dogma teaches that Scripture is the SOLE, infallible rule of faith, such that the answer to “what constitutes Scripture?” is fallible. So if Sola Scripture is true, the canon of Scripture is fallible. But if the collection of biblical books is fallible, then the Scripture that composes the collection is not infallible. And if Scripture is not infallible, Sola Scriptura is not true. So, in brief, if Sola Scriptura is true, then Sola Scriptura is not true.
"Scripture doesn’t affirm what constitutes Scripture"..Hmm. What then did Jesus affirm and mean when He taught us about everything written in the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms (writings), (scripture) are about Him, His coming, rejection, crucifixion, burial and resurrection and the radical grace of forgiving ALL of our sins ? The Apostles were to be the witnesses of these things, taking this Gospel to the world. We as believers, follow this 'tradition' as taught by them. This is the 'Canon", 'Sola Scriptura" laid out by Jesus and taught by the Apostles. Therefore, Jesus tells us plainly what constitutes Scripture. The Apostles and therefore the Church, passes these down these truths. The Church does not imo, determine the Canon but rather recognizes it from the Lord's teaching and the Apostles (eyewitnesses) account of what He taught, handing this message down to us. Therefore, the BIBLE does affirm what constitutes Scripture. LK. 24:44-48
@@BobJones-in7hz Thanks for this thoughtful reply. We agree, of course, that everything in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms was written about Jesus (cf. Luke 24:44). Let’s assume, as you suggest, that “the Psalms” here represents the Ketubim (the Writings), such that Jesus is referring to what Christians call the Old Testament and Jews call the Tanakh. Even still, this verse only highlights my conundrum. For what books constitute the Writings? For example, is the Book of Sirach to be included? Whatever your opinion or mine, it’s indisputable that Luke’s passage does not resolve the question, nor does any other passage of the NT.
Furthermore, we agree that the Church discerns the boundaries of the canon. But Catholic discernment and Protestant discernment disagree. So, whose discernment is right? Sola Scripturists can only opine. They cannot pronounce infallibly what constitutes Scripture. Thus, they force themselves into holding the self-defeating position which Sproul articulates masterfully: “a fallible collection of infallible books.”
@@andrewdalton5988 Hi Andrew, I believe Sproul primarily is explaining the reformed position. Even he would admit the many translations and extra-canonical books added by the RCC and the Gnostics doesn't necessarily qualify as infallible scripture. Nor do I believe the RCC or any body is its sole interpreter as often is dogmatically claimed. That being said, I do believe there is a sufficient and reasonable witness to the Gospel accounts to help us form a reasonable faith. We can agree therefore what is essential for faith, doctrine, reproof etc. as Paul outlines in 2Tim 3:16, and of course at the very foundation of the Gospel, I Cor.15;1-11. Adding to or subtracting from the Word we have been given of course will land us in trouble, "Do not go beyond what is written" Or like Jesus said from Isaiah; In vain to they worship me teaching as doctrine the precepts of men". So I believe what I do have in the 66 books of the Bible I read from is sufficient for my understanding. I don't claim anything beyond that. It's enough to teach me about my salvation in Christ. Amen? It is Christ who saves us, not a Church and not any particular canon or witness. Jesus alone! This is what I believe. gotta go. Thanks for the conversation.
@@BobJones-in7hz Thank you! This response is helpful. If I’ve understood you rightly, you acknowledge that the canon has been closed, such that there are exactly 66 books in the Bible. We cannot add or take away from this exact compilation. Have I understood your position?
If so, you have a problem as a Sola Scripturist. Is your knowledge that the canon is closed fallible or infallible?
If you know it fallibly, then you affirm Sproul’s self-defeating formula: “a fallible collection of infallible books." If you know it infallibly, then you deny Sola Scripture, which affirms that Scripture ALONE is the infallible rule of faith and practice.
So, you may affirm a closed canon or Sola Scriptura. But you can’t affirm both without contradicting yourself.
@@andrewdalton5988 There is no conundrum for me. So what are you saying Andrew? What constitutes "Scripture"? Does the Church discover the canonicity of Scripture or determine it?
This destroys now dead Sarah Youngs arguments. 😮😅
Logic and simple reasoning will say that Sola Scriptura is false - do you think that Jesus would just have left us a book and left us among ourselves to figure it out? what a crock - even this complicated book was compiled only after 400 years after His death and was only widely circulated around the 1800, when printing was widely available - this is just a means to water down the teachings of Christ, so that they can interpret this book to suit themselves - God is all knowing and you cannot fool Him
This shows you no nothing. He didn’t leave us to ourselves. See when a true Christian is REBORN he has something you guys no nothing about it’s the Holy Spirit. Which leads us into all truths. Says the inspired word of God. The Holy Spirit is not going to go against himself and say hey why don’t you guys make up stuff like Marian dogmas and purgatory and papal infallibility.
- The 5 keys of Calvinism:
*1.* "God" is so so sovereign and loving that creates 100 depravated persons who hate him.
*2.* But before creating them, he lovingly chooses 90 to be in hell forever.
*3.* He is very merciful so he send his son to die for the 10 he has chosen.
*4* "God" lovingly forces this 10 to believe in his son.
*5.* Finally he forces this 10 to enter in heaven, although some of them returned to their old life, finishing worst than when they met "God".
I wonder who this man thinks canonized his Bible?
T F Look at where your Roman Catholic church stands today: homosexuality is no longer a sin, creation is denied and evolution accepted by pope, this is what emphasizing on tradition and power of pope leads to.
1. You avoided the question. Who canonized your Bible?
2. And I just checked the Catholic official doctrines, and homosexuality is still listed as a sin. And it still says God created the entire universe. Don't know what in the world you are talking about.
T F Ok lets say, it was under the Catholic church the Bible was cannonised. What was the purpose of canonisation ? So that we could have a cannon(a measurement of what our faith is). And the cannon was and is closed. That means we cannot add or substract anything from the cannon.
The RC church , due to its emphasis on the authority of Pope is in a dangerous position today. For eg. The pope has declared that everyone (atheists, buddhists,muslims) can go to heaven based on their works. This is totally contradictory to the bible. Jesus' death and resurrection have been nullified.ruclips.net/video/oXWukJF9nc4/видео.html
Because of the importance of pope as the Vicar of Christ, everything that the pope says and does is regarded as authoritative. That is why the RC church is in a precarious position. With the pope making statements contradictory to the Bible every now and then, it is only a matter of time before the Catholic church rejects the Bible altogether.
ruclips.net/video/2eHVXmT4weM/видео.html
1. Correct, the Catholic Church canonized the Bible. God spoke infallibly through the Catholic Church to declare 73 books that were the inspired word of God and acceptable to be read in Mass. That was the purpose of canonization. The Bible is a liturgical book.
2. Who told you the Canon is closed? Again, that is the Catholic Church.
So you rely upon the authority of the Catholic Church to have a Bible. If a book of Scripture disagreed with Catholic beliefs or doctrines, the Church wouldn't have selected that book to go in the Bible.
And please do actually learn what the Church teaches about Papal authority and infallibility. You're making yourself look like a fool.
Sola Scriptura is NOT scriptural and not Christ’s plan … Christ left his word with His church. Because of sola scriptura we now have thousands of beliefs and churches all claiming orthodoxy and all claiming to be more Bible-based than the other neighborhood churches
In the beginning was the Word.
Jesus Christ is the Word.
The Protestant idea of the "Bible alone" (sola scriptura) is, ironically, nowhere in the Bible. On the contrary, the Bible speaks of an infallible Sacred Tradition and an infallible Church that has authority to interpret Scripture. The Bible even warns against sola scriptura. In the Old Testament God gave authority to his priests to interpret his laws and issue binding teaching based on those interpretations, even with regard to criminal and civil issues -- both of which were dealt with by divine revelation (d. Lev. 20:1-27, 25:1-55). In the New Testament, he endowed the Church with infallibility in teaching. Ref Blog; Sola Scriptura Is Unscriptural
June 01, 1995 Catholic Answers.
J we debated this in other forum, tell me where the other source of infallible truth is
Well , interesting question. Did we not exchange a dialog on this topic?
Yes we did!
Did you learn anything?
He he yes I did, but not anything we would agree on
Sola scriptura is self refuting.
how so
Sola Scriptura is unbiblical, inhistorical, unreasonable.
unbiblical:
Jesus and the Apostles never taught sola scriptura.
inhistorical
Early Church Fathers never taught sola scriptura.
unreasonable:
In 2 Timothy 3:16, Paul is only referring to the Old Testament.
It is the Authority of the Church that says the New Testament books are inspired.
out of 300 books claiming to be written by the Apostles. It is the Catholic Church who determined what books belongs to the new testament and what books doesn't...The Catholic Church knows what books that are inspired, because the Catholic Church that was established by Jesus Christ personally on Peter is guided by the Holy Spirit as Jesus Promised before He ascended to Heaven. even the Gates of Hell Cannot Prevail against it.
393 AD(hippo)
bible was compiled by Catholic Church.
397 AD(carthage)
bible was canonized by Catholic Church.
zero - Paul said ALL Scripture is God-breathed, not just old testament. Can you show me where Jesus or Paul ever said there will be infallible sinners appointed to interpret Scripture for God's people, who are ALL considered as the royal priesthood
SAINT PAUL IS ONLY REFERRING TO THE OLD TESTAMENT...
bob polo
1)Paul said ALL Scripture is God-breathed, not just old testament.
You are wrong... even bible scholars knows that.
St. Paul is only referring to the OLD TESTAMENT
The Apostles don't even know that there is going to be a bible...
Where in the Bible says that There will be new Testament???The 27 books was only being written by the apostles when Paul said that...1st letter of St. Paul to Timothy was dated 64-65 AD. The last books was Revelation by St. John 100 AD...
Let me repeat.
St. Paul is only referring to the OLD TESTAMENT in Timothy 3:16-17
The Bible was only compiled and canonized in 393 AD,397 AD by the Roman Catholic Church.
Trivia:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Damasus_I
Pope Damasus the 37th Pope
Council of Rome of 382
"He presided over the Council of Rome of 382 that determined the canon or official list of Sacred Scripture. He spoke out against major heresies in the church (including Apollinarianism and Macedonianism) and encouraged production of the Vulgate Bible with his support for St. Jerome."
"One of the important works of Pope Damasus was to preside in the Council of Rome of 382 that determined the canon or official list of Sacred Scripture."
2) show me where Jesus or Paul ever said there will be infallible sinners appointed to interpret Scripture for God's people, who are ALL considered as the royal priesthood
Well, Not Only Interpret...but Also the Infallible Teachers...
YOU WANT EVIDENCE???
There are a lot of verses in Bible to Prove Church Teaching is Infallible.
but I want to use this the verse protestant usually use...
1 Timothy 3:16-17
The Epistle of Paul to Timothy itself...
1 Timothy and 2 Timothy.
Do you think he is talking to all?
No, Please understand that these 2 books were letters to TIMOTHY ONLY...
St. Paul is teaching Timothy on how to become Holy and Effective Bishop...(Proof of Apostolic Succession)
the context of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is Paul laying down a guideline for Timothy to make use of Scripture and tradition in his ministry as a bishop. Paul says, "But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; and that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God (Greek: theopneustos = "God-breathed"), and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works" (2 Tim. 3:14-17). In verse 14, Timothy is initially exhorted to hold to the oral teachings-the traditions-that he received from the apostle Paul. This echoes Paul’s reminder of the value of oral tradition in 1:13-14, "Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us" (RSV), and ". . . what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2:2). Here Paul refers exclusively to oral teaching and reminds Timothy to follow that as the "pattern" for his own teaching (1:13). Only after this is Scripture mentioned as "profitable" for Timothy’s ministry.
zero - By your logic, the new testament isn't God breathe or profitable for instruction. And the basis of the oral teaching was Scripture, friend. And do you really think all bible scholars agree with one another?
The new testament doesn't know or mentions anything about popes or infallible men, or sinless virgins or anything catholic related
Massive lie. He claims here to rely on scripture only and at the same time is locked in to all kinds of tradition.
And, faith alone is unscriptural nonsense.
You have no idea what scripture is
Yo7 need to actually read it. You are a heathen pagan unbeliever you have no clue what a Christian is.
Sola scripture is false. 1) nowhere in the Bible does it say scripture is the only authority, that itself refutes the doctrine. 1 Timothy 16-17 refers to the Old Testament, which is certainly not adequate to make us “complete”, though it is profitable. 2) Christ did not write the Bible, he founded a Church. The Catholic Church, and their authority is passed on through Apostolic Succession as seen in the book of Acts. The Church is the authority that canonized the New Testament, which all Protestants follow. 3) sola scripture has produced 30,000+ independent churches in the USA, and every denomination has split multiple times over biblical interpretations. That also proves sola scripture is false. We need an official interpreter, sanctioned by Christ, who the gates of hell will not prevail against…and that interpreter is the Catholic Magisterium.
The rule of SS is that there is no rule. The hallmark of SS is private interpretation. The end product of SS is denominations. It is theological relativism and anarchy at its finest.
There is a rule. The canon of the NT. The RCC is its own rule claiming that it inherited an infallible authority from the Apostles which cannot be proven from the NT. And you did not give the NT to the church as you claim
Ggeg0000
Who approved the Canon? Who put the table of content together and proclaimed it inspired? Who?
I'll tell you who NOT the RCC,. It was not Carthage that put the list together
Ggeg0000
Answering with a negative just goes to show how ignorant you are.
i started with a question tough guy. Show me where the other source of infallible authority lies/ You cannot prove a succession of apostolic infallibility from Peter to the current Pope. The Bible doesn't teach it
33,000 Sects
Prove it, prove your 33,000 sects lie. Many of those sects are not even Evangelical, because they deny the Trinity, believe in a false gospel and even reject Sola Scriptura, you have shot yourself in the foot.
Not all evangelical but all you are PROTESTANTS
The irony of Calvinism is they say scripture only but take every verse out of context and try to make the doctrine work. It goes doctrine of Calvinism taken to scripture. Limited atonement is the most ridiculous thing. The argument always given is that you can’t pay for it twice. First nothing says you can’t(God makes the rules not you). Second that makes the assumption the people in hell will pay for there sins. They can’t since they will be in hell eternally. Therefore Christ never actually will defeat death and sin since it can never be atoned for
Calvinists (including most denominations called Presbyterians) clearly don’t believe in scripture alone as they also rely on catechisms and creeds and various traditions inherited directly from the RC church not to mention the voluminous philosophical treaties of “Saint” John Calvin.
Your view of Sola Scriptura is flawed, Sola Scriptura holds that scripture is the only infallible source for Christianity. Therefore something such as a creed would be consistent as Sola Scriptura as long as it is not considered infallible.
I was reared Presbyterian. St. Augustine said only holy scripture was inerrant. He was a Catholic bishop who took his view from Jerome. Just as Catholics always must explain and explain what they really mean by the Immaculate Conception and really mean by saying the Hail Mary a thousand times-- Sproul here is explaining what Sola Scriptura really means to Protestants.
Fine. Catholics were greedy and corrupt in practice and one sect of Presbyterians are now totally apostate in doctrine. This sect is suffering for their idiocy.. The Catholics and Protestants both do good works. Neither of them "like" poor people in their actual congregations. Catholics I know don't believe the Virgin Mary was a virgin and become drunken idiots every chance they get. They say they don't believe
Catholic doctrine that I do believe. I believe the Virgin Mary was a virgin when she conceived Jesus by the Holy Spirit. Yet, cradle Catholics don't care what she was?
It all gets tedious.
I'll trust in Jesus as my Saviour is about all you can say anymore-- if you get lucky.
Calvin didn't come up with anything new. Look, the Catholic church was taking land and money at every turn and people got sick of it. Now, the Protestants do the same. And we are sick of it.
Calvinism is not scripture alone. It's more like a little scripture and the rest is Augustinian speculation about scripture.
First sentence right on the money. After that he should just absorb his truth and tremble at the reality of being a false teacher.
If you really believe in Sola Scriptura then why does he have to teach? Just spend this time reading the Bible and you’ll all come out completely unified.
You really only need a couple examples to show that Sola Scriptura is not a legitimate teaching.
“I am writing you about these matters, although I hope to visit you soon. But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.” (1 Timothy 3:14-15)
Paul doesn't mention the Scriptures here for questions of faith, but "to the Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth." Some of the NT Scriptures had been written already when Paul wrote 1 Timothy, but he still claims the Church itself as the authority and source of truth.
Same goes for the issue of circumcision of Gentile believers in Acts 15. The question was brought before the Council of the Jerusalem Church, and they debated among themselves. The answer that they came up with was:
"It is the decision of the holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities,
namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meats of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage. If you keep free of these, you will be doing what is right."(Acts 15:28)
Notice that they did not consult the Scriptures for the answer, because the answer was not to be found there, but the Church made the decision in combination with the Holy Spirit.
The Bible is not the Church, it's not a complete instruction manual for Christians, and Jesus never commanded the NT Scriptures be written. But what Jesus did do is found a Church, the pillar and foundation of Truth, and did give authority to the Church to teach the faith.
Only one source of special revelation? And it's the bible? It's not Jesus Christ and his body, that is - the Church?
yes it is the church, but not the only claiming infallibility
Great, but.....
Who have than authority to interpret scripture? You, me, everyone? That is reason why you have milion different protestant denomination and all of them claim they are according scripture. If you really can't avoid if you think deeply, that someone must have authority who rightly interpret scripture. If not, than all of us can interpret Bible and nobody can't say to another thah his interpretation is better than the other one. We just end up in jungle!
The Bible ITSELF Contradicts Luther's doctrine of "scripture alone" (solascriptura) The Bible tells us that the authority is THE CHURCH: ...
● 1 TIMOTHY 3:15 The pillar & foundation of TRUTH is the CHURCH.
● EPHESIANS 3:10 10 His intent was that now, THROUGH THE CHURCH, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms,
● 2 THESS 2:15 We are to hold fast to the TRADITIONS we have been given, either by WORD OF MOUTH or by the letter.
● 1 Cor 11:2 I commend you because you remember me in everything, and maintain the TRADITIONS even as I have delivered them to you.
● JOHN 21:25 Jesus said & did Many other things that are too numerous to be recorded in writing.
● HEB 13:17 Obey the eldars in the CHURCH
The True Church is a TEACHING Church: (to Teach means to impart knowledge that is not presently know....not in writing)
● JOHN 14:26-31
26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall TEACH you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
(To TEACH is to impart knowledge that is not presently known....not in writing)
● ACTS 8:31: And he said, How can I, (understand scripture) except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
(The scriptures are not for individual interpretation. They need the guidance of the CHURCH. It is PROTESTANTS who are following the doctrines of a man.)
The Mysterious Cynthia X Following the RCC will lead someone to hell
@@Wgaither1 Wgaither1 's opinion ALONE. Believe the Bible, you are not the pillar and ground of truth. The Church is ( 1Tim.3:15). Doubt your own wisdom. Doubt your reading comprehension, doubt your pride