Don't you just love comments sections? People come in, stating broad claims and just leaving without listening or engaging with the hours of content. Beautiful.
Who says people haven’t heard this argument a thousand times? The title alone is enough to know the entire argument. With a few minutes of reading documentation of the history of the canonization of the Bible, the argument can be taken down starting with the idiotic title.
@@dinopad10 "This argument" as if it's a single argument being made. A topic as nuanced as this can't just be dismissed by either side. New arguments are made as time goes on. This comment further points to my original one. Blanket statements about the content without talking about anything therein.
@@redknight8215 How do you not get it? The Bible was given to us at the turn of the 5th century. End of story. Nobody today has any authority to question the Word of God. What you’re saying is like the Sadducees saying, “you know what, we only need 9 Commandments.”
@dinopad10 I wish it were that simple. Unfortunately, conversations like this have been going on since the 4th century because it isn't that simple. Church fathers have never been unanimous on this topic, nor on almost any topic.
The pre Catholic non denominational Christians had already accepted 66 books. the disputes were on exactly which of the 66. Apocrypha was never in the running. 4 Criteria for Determining a New Testament Book The early church used four criteria to determine the canonicity of a New Testament book. First, each book was written by an apostle or one closely associated with an apostle. Second, the contents of these books were revelatory in nature. Third, these books were universally recognized by the church in their teaching and preaching ministry. Fourth, these books were considered inspired because they bore the marks of inspiration. They also pass the test of a prophet.
Where were those non denominational Christians that look like Sister Ethel and Brother Jethro American protestants in the early Church. There was no Church North of the Alps from where all you people sprung for the most part at the time of the Council of Nicea in 325 save in France. The early Church never held to the 66 book Canon. No Church in the world hold to it save American Protestants and what remains of Protestantism in Europe. The Catholic Church does not, the Orthodox Church does not (Greek, Serbian, Romanian, Bulgarian, etc, SE/Eastern European autocephalous Churches) nor the Oriental Orthodox (Coptic in Egypt, Armenian, Ethiopian, Syriac and Syro-Malabar-Indian) nor the Assyrian Church of the East. None of them do. Note that the Assyrian Church of the East has not been in communion with the Catholic, Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox since the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD and the Oriental Orthodox have not been in communion with the Catholic and Orthodox Church since 451 AD (Council of Chalcedon). All have at some amount of the Deuterocanonical books. In fact, those 4 Churches even though they have not all been together in 1500 years agree more on dogma and doctrine, about 99% than modern sola scriptural protestants.
@@donhaddix3770 Nope.. Saint Ignatius of Antioch who lived at the time of the Apostle John (died during reign of Emperor Trajan around 100 AD per Saint Irenaeus of Lyons) already in his writings, circa 107 AD, described the ecclesiology of the Church. It was Catholic and what you would find in the the other Apostolic Churches (Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian Church of the East).
@@donhaddix3770 Nope, All of the Apostolic Churches founded were in either Southern Europe (Italy and Greece) and the eastern part of the Roman empire, in the Levant, Anatolia and Near East along with the Church of Cyrene in Libya-North Africa. No such Church in areas where protestantism was born, England and Henry the VII, Northern France-Calvin, and Northern Germany-Luther. Well before 300 AD, we have Pius I Bishop of Rome (Pope) unilaterally excommunicating the Gnostic Heretic Marcion. In 215 Pope Callistus unilaterally excommunicating the Modalist Sabellius. The 300 AD date is pure fiction. The Church of Rome and the Bishop of Rome was defending orthodox Doctrine from the start. Saint Clement's Letter from Rome to the Corinthians Church is another example. The reality and history willed by Christ is that He was incarnate during the pax Romana and the early Church in terms of Liturgy developed in the context of the Mediterranean culture of Southern Europe and the Near East (Levant and Anatolia).
Everyone listen to all sections. Watch with your kids. Watch with your grandkids. Watch with your pastor. Watch with your wife. Learn this material and you will be able to teach others and defend against Romanists and atheists.
And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine 39 Articles of Religion
@@donhaddix3770 Biblical argument for the canon of Scripture Hebrews 12:1“Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience: the race that is set before us,” Jude 1:3“Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” Notice" so many witnesses e.g., Aramaic, Greek, Coptic, Latin, and other churches in the majority have received 27 books once delivered, so the 27-book canon agrees with Scripture. Paul, say we received the oracles of God from the Jews, so the Protestant OT books agree with Scripture. The mayor of Vatican City not so much. And the Lord said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach them. Exodus 24:12
@@donhaddix3770 Biblical argument for the canon of Scripture Hebrews 12:1“Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience: the race that is set before us,” Jude 1:3“Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” Notice" so many witnesses e.g., Aramaic, Greek, Coptic, Latin, and other churches in the majority have received 27 books once delivered, so the 27-book canon agrees with Scripture. Paul, say we received the oracles of God from the Jews, so the Protestant OT books agree with Scripture. The mayor of Vatican City not so much. And the Lord said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach them. Exodus 24:12
Also, Karaites are often confused with the Samaritans today. See Nehemiah Gordon’s main viewed lecture on YT, and they have to clarify they are not. The Karaites come from the Saducees line. And if it’s the case also, how come their institution as the leaders in the second temple comes from the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, if all they recognized was the first five books.
Of course, and that isn't the heretical 'church of rome.' What makes you think that timothy was in Rome or that Paul meant to write 'church of Rome'? Please read the chapter.
@@danocinneide1885 whoever doubted there is only One Church, of which the Lord Jesus Christ is the only Head? Not the reformers. But why should you think a heretical and false bishop of Rome is somehow also the Head of the Church?
@@dinopad10 I have, and I don't see any good reason to accept either one of the different EO lists or the arguably two lists in rome. Do you have any good reasons? Is the tale of the swordsmen part of holy Scripture yes, no, or maybe?
@@dinopad10 obsessed? Because whether it is part of Scripture or not is important. Tens of thousands of Christian churches say no. Different Roman defenders give different answers, such as maybe which shows the uncertainty of Rome which claims certainty. Will you answer the questions? If you have no idea you can just say admit that.
@@truthisbeautiful7492 I’ve never considered it, nor seen anyone who bothered to ask, which tells me you’re conflating the issue more than necessary. I’ve also looked up the situation you posited, and found little to nothing about it as an argument among Bible scholars.
So what is the canon using Scripture Alone, removing all these human authorities. Can you compile your canon using the Scripture Alone as your final authority, for both NT and OT books?
you seem to have a misunderstanding of what sola scriptura is. It does not mean that everything a Christian believes must be explicitly stated in scripture. That is SOLO scriptura, not SOLA scriptura. Sola scriptura simply means that scripture is the sole infallible revelation from God for Christian doctrine and morals. It does not mean that we can’t utilize sources and authorities outside of scripture for us to be certain what scripture is, just so long as that authority does not conflict with it, and that it is falsifiable. The problem is Rome cannot do that because it ends up engaging in circular reasoning: it claims to have the infallible authority to define what scripture is, and then claims scripture gives the church the authority to define scripture. But protestants don’t have this problem, which is The purpose of this lengthy four part series. We can glean from the New Testament who possessed the old testament canon, and Jesus affirms this, which is backed up by verifiable history.
@@BornAgainRN why do you think I misunderstand Sola Scriptura. You can utilize other sources and other authorities but according to Sola Scriptura they are all not infallible, which means their contribution even though nice they are bound to commit error. In short, Protestants fail to use Scripture as the final and only infallible authority on deciding the canon. They actually use other sources as the final authority on the canon. Once again Protestants have failed to adhere to their chief doctrine and have a fallible canon. The four part series failed to defend the 66 canon and it further failed to show where the church decided on the 66 books besides alluding to individuals.
Yes because the Scriptures are self authenticating. The Divine Holy Spirit wrote them and enlightens the minds of those who read who God has chosen to illuminate. The Law of God brings conviction of sin, and the Good news that my sins are forgiven because of the Lord Jesus and His life and death brings me peace with God and trust in Jesus and belief in his true Resurrection. Only the Holy Scripture converts sinners to believers in Christ, as the Holy Spirit uses the scripture as His instrument. The gospels bring sinners to repentance, and not any false books. Since Christians have the Scriptures with them already, just by reading them God brings the conviction to their hearts that this is truly God's Word. So there is sufficient internal evidence for the truth of Scripture and plenty of external evidence, but the Holy Spirit, not by a new revelation, by their illumination, causes us to believe and trust God's promises. The Lord Jesus Christ said 'Write!' And Search the Scriptures. So you should read the Holy Scriptures, as it is God speaking to you.
And the Lord Jesus Christ is not a merely human authority, He is God Almighty. And the Father says Listen to my Son. And the Holy Spirit points to Jesus. And the Lord Jesus Christ wrote through the Apostles and speaks through His chosen Apostles who were eyewitness of his physical and literal Resurrection. So the authority of the Apostles is jot merely human authority, but Divine Authority because Christ spoke through them and the Holy Spirit cause them to only teach the truth in their writings. God has only preserved the writings of the Apostles, and they are now in Heaven. And these New Testament teach that the Lord Jesus Christ is the only Head of the Church, and Scripture is able to make one wise for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. Scripture is ABLE. It has as an ability! Now tell me, do you watch all parts of the presentation?
Just borrow it from the library. There is inter library loan at public library. You can also listen to all parts of the presentation more then once and you will get the main points.
Catholic Christians dont like to "attack " you, we just like to defend Truth against false accusations! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
But the problem is many of the things that Catholics think are “truth“ are actually false, such as the false belief that Jesus and the apostles embraced the same books that were later defined by the council of Trent in the 16th century, which this four-point presentation demonstrates.
@BornAgainRN Nah, for the real problem is that Protestants can never know with infallible certitude what books belong in the Bible and which do not, as Protestants themselves disagree with each other on the deuterocanonical books as Holy Scripture, with many accepting them. Protestants like yourself can never know with infallible certitude what Jesus Christ meant by "this IS MY BODY ", or who the Woman is in Revelation 12, or who the rock is in Matthew 16, as Scripture ALONE is infallible, thus making all their interpretations, FALLIBLE! Even though you preach a false Gospel and follow the unbiblical teachings of men and white out the Holy Scripture verses you Don't like, I still love you very much in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink! You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth!
@@BornAgainRN So, do you accept my challenge to a debate on Purgatory as to if Biblical or not? You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!
@BornAgainRN Except of course that Protestants can never know with infallible certitude, which books are actually Holy Scripture or not, as Scripture ALONE is infallible, thus making all their interpretations, FALLIBLE, for even Protestants themselves disagree with each other on the deuterocanonical books, as many accept them as Holy Scripture! Also, the Problem is that what Protestants claim to be the True Gospel, is actually a False Gospel! Even though you preach a false Gospel and follow the unbiblical teachings of men and white out the Holy Scripture verses you Don't like, I still love you very much in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink! You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth!
@@matthewbroderick6287 That’s because as you said only scripture is infallible, because only Scripture is God breathed. The Roman Catholic Church claiming infallibility is just a claim, nothing more. Claiming infallibility is not the same thing as actually being infallible. So the Roman Catholic claim to infallibly to interpret scripture is just subjective, and cannot be proven, especially since they admit they did not have a settled canon until centuries after the time of Christ. By then, it was simply a subjective and unfalsifiable declaration of their canon that they cannot prove that Jesus and the apostles embraced centuries earlier. Protestants do not claim to be able to declare their Canon with infallible certainty, nor do they need to. This does not violate sola Scriptura, since sola Scriptura does not have anything to do with defining the canon. That is a misunderstanding of the doctrine. Rather, protestants can be certain they have the right canon, and that it was the canon that Jesus and the apostles embraced, because they adopted a pre-Christian Jewish canon, which was laid up in the temple, and we know what those books were. Therefore, it is a verifiable historical certainty, which the Roman Catholic Church does not have, because their infallible declaration of the canon did not take place until the 16th century. The protestant canon has been certain since centuries before the time of Christ, which Jesus and the apostles adopted. Again, the biggest problem for Rome is there were different versions of the Septuagint with different books in the early church. And the church of Rome embraced a version of the Septuagint that had the deuterocanonical books, which were not in other versions of the Septuagint, and were not in the version of the Septuagint that Jesus and the apostles adopted, because no Jew or Jewish sect embraced them prior to and contemporary with a time of Christ. That is the argument being made, which is a problem for Rome, but not a problem for Protestants.
Yet, Jesus Christ and the Apostles referenced the deuterocanonical books later removed by Protestants! Even the first edition of the King James Bible includes the deuterocanonical books! Also, why did many early Church Fathers disagree with each other on what books were to be included in both the old and new testament Canon? Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!
@javierperd2604 You covered them incorrectly of course! I have seen the video! You never answered the objections properly! I am so very grateful to the Holy Spirit for keeping me in the Church that Jesus Christ established on Peter the rock, way before the new testament was ever written! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!
@@ScroopGroop Javier is also very confident in his comments. I am waiting for substance! If you have any specific questions for me, I would be glad to answer! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@@matthewbroderick6287 What specifically in this video did we get wrong? Making an accusation, which is all you did, is not the same as proving us wrong. Be specific - from the video - what we got wrong.
My brother, that’s not what an anathema is… An anathema is basically saying XYZ teaching is condemned. It’s a strong disapproval. We aren’t saying you’re going to hell.
Man, you’re taking that definition out of context for anathema :( If someone accepted the idea that God was merely human and not divine, that would be a bad thing. That’s an anathema. Think about what that belief can lead to. Imagine if someone taught that merely acknowledging that Jesus is God is enough. That could lead to someone thinking repentance isn’t needed and they could live in sin their entire life. Thats what an anathema would help with.
@@weswesriddd as I mentioned in this four part series, the belief that anathema is just a serious penalty is a contemporary post Vatican II view. Biblically and historically, it is always meant condemnation to hell, which is how it was used in the council of Trent. So I’m afraid you’re using it as a contemporary understanding, rather than a biblical and historical one pre-Vatican II.
So as 'catholic answers' jimmy akin claims, all of the church of rome's 'anthemas' were gotten rid of in the 1983 Canon law? What does Scripture say anthema is? Please read Galatians 1 and John chapter 8 and 1 Corinthians chapter 6. Anathema to all heretics. Anathema to those who don't believe Jesus is God. Anathema who live in sin and don't repent. I believe that the church of Rome is teaching a false Good News, so I warn you that hell is real. If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit. How will you escape the fires of he'll and eternal judgment, when you see the Law says Do not Covet Do not commit Adultery Do not Steal?
@@truthisbeautiful7492 That has nothing to do with which books were originally put into the Bible. You might as well ask if the book of Revelation is the Word of God and why. Point being, you and I, and nobody for the last 1600 years has any right to say either way. It was put in, and that’s the way it was done. You’re not qualified or in any position to say there should be 66 books.
@@dinopad10 just out of curiosity, did you take the time to watch the actual discussion? Because we addressed the preChristian historicity of the OT canon (including the origin of the "22 books"), up to the 4th century...and even beyond. The rest will be covered in Parts 2 through 4 later in the month.
@@BornAgainRN The videos Steve Christie has made in the past have clearly shown he has an adulterated sense of history, twisting things to fit his own arguments. Trent Horn has proven that several times. And if I’m addressing Steve right now, I’m never going to trust enough to watch your videos EVER. Steve (if that’s you) is a charlatan when it comes to Christian History.
Don't you just love comments sections? People come in, stating broad claims and just leaving without listening or engaging with the hours of content. Beautiful.
I know right! Like, talking to other people as if they're humans? Why would you do a thing like that?
Who says people haven’t heard this argument a thousand times? The title alone is enough to know the entire argument.
With a few minutes of reading documentation of the history of the canonization of the Bible, the argument can be taken down starting with the idiotic title.
@@dinopad10 "This argument" as if it's a single argument being made. A topic as nuanced as this can't just be dismissed by either side. New arguments are made as time goes on. This comment further points to my original one. Blanket statements about the content without talking about anything therein.
@@redknight8215
How do you not get it? The Bible was given to us at the turn of the 5th century. End of story. Nobody today has any authority to question the Word of God. What you’re saying is like the Sadducees saying, “you know what, we only need 9 Commandments.”
@dinopad10 I wish it were that simple. Unfortunately, conversations like this have been going on since the 4th century because it isn't that simple. Church fathers have never been unanimous on this topic, nor on almost any topic.
By far my favourite episode this topic was so well articulated and thorough!
The pre Catholic non denominational Christians had already accepted 66 books. the disputes were on exactly which of the 66. Apocrypha was never in the running.
4 Criteria for Determining a New Testament Book
The early church used four criteria to determine the canonicity of a New Testament book.
First, each book was written by an apostle or one closely associated with an apostle.
Second, the contents of these books were revelatory in nature.
Third, these books were universally recognized by the church in their teaching and preaching ministry.
Fourth, these books were considered inspired because they bore the marks of inspiration.
They also pass the test of a prophet.
Where were those non denominational Christians that look like Sister Ethel and Brother Jethro American protestants in the early Church. There was no Church North of the Alps from where all you people sprung for the most part at the time of the Council of Nicea in 325 save in France. The early Church never held to the 66 book Canon. No Church in the world hold to it save American Protestants and what remains of Protestantism in Europe. The Catholic Church does not, the Orthodox Church does not (Greek, Serbian, Romanian, Bulgarian, etc, SE/Eastern European autocephalous Churches) nor the Oriental Orthodox (Coptic in Egypt, Armenian, Ethiopian, Syriac and Syro-Malabar-Indian) nor the Assyrian Church of the East. None of them do. Note that the Assyrian Church of the East has not been in communion with the Catholic, Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox since the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD and the Oriental Orthodox have not been in communion with the Catholic and Orthodox Church since 451 AD (Council of Chalcedon).
All have at some amount of the Deuterocanonical books. In fact, those 4 Churches even though they have not all been together in 1500 years agree more on dogma and doctrine, about 99% than modern sola scriptural protestants.
@palermotrapani9067 all the first christian were non denominatioal
@@donhaddix3770 Nope.. Saint Ignatius of Antioch who lived at the time of the Apostle John (died during reign of Emperor Trajan around 100 AD per Saint Irenaeus of Lyons) already in his writings, circa 107 AD, described the ecclesiology of the Church. It was Catholic and what you would find in the the other Apostolic Churches (Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian Church of the East).
@@palermotrapani9067 rcc began in the 300s, orthodox in the 1100s.
@@donhaddix3770 Nope, All of the Apostolic Churches founded were in either Southern Europe (Italy and Greece) and the eastern part of the Roman empire, in the Levant, Anatolia and Near East along with the Church of Cyrene in Libya-North Africa. No such Church in areas where protestantism was born, England and Henry the VII, Northern France-Calvin, and Northern Germany-Luther.
Well before 300 AD, we have Pius I Bishop of Rome (Pope) unilaterally excommunicating the Gnostic Heretic Marcion. In 215 Pope Callistus unilaterally excommunicating the Modalist Sabellius.
The 300 AD date is pure fiction. The Church of Rome and the Bishop of Rome was defending orthodox Doctrine from the start. Saint Clement's Letter from Rome to the Corinthians Church is another example.
The reality and history willed by Christ is that He was incarnate during the pax Romana and the early Church in terms of Liturgy developed in the context of the Mediterranean culture of Southern Europe and the Near East (Levant and Anatolia).
Everyone listen to all sections. Watch with your kids. Watch with your grandkids. Watch with your pastor. Watch with your wife. Learn this material and you will be able to teach others and defend against Romanists and atheists.
And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine 39 Articles of Religion
Anglicanism represent!
not biblical.
@@donhaddix3770 Biblical argument for the canon of Scripture Hebrews 12:1“Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience: the race that is set before us,” Jude 1:3“Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” Notice" so many witnesses e.g., Aramaic, Greek, Coptic, Latin, and other churches in the majority have received 27 books once delivered, so the 27-book canon agrees with Scripture. Paul, say we received the oracles of God from the Jews, so the Protestant OT books agree with Scripture. The mayor of Vatican City not so much. And the Lord said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach them. Exodus 24:12
@@donhaddix3770 Biblical argument for the canon of Scripture Hebrews 12:1“Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience: the race that is set before us,” Jude 1:3“Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” Notice" so many witnesses e.g., Aramaic, Greek, Coptic, Latin, and other churches in the majority have received 27 books once delivered, so the 27-book canon agrees with Scripture. Paul, say we received the oracles of God from the Jews, so the Protestant OT books agree with Scripture. The mayor of Vatican City not so much. And the Lord said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach them. Exodus 24:12
@@donhaddix3770 We have many witnesses which is Biblical. Peace.
Also, Karaites are often confused with the Samaritans today. See Nehemiah Gordon’s main viewed lecture on YT, and they have to clarify they are not. The Karaites come from the Saducees line. And if it’s the case also, how come their institution as the leaders in the second temple comes from the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, if all they recognized was the first five books.
Thats amazing. Josephus mentions that ? The Sadducees are the antecedent of the Karaites it seems to confirm that.
1 Tim 3:15...The Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth
Of course, and that isn't the heretical 'church of rome.' What makes you think that timothy was in Rome or that Paul meant to write 'church of Rome'? Please read the chapter.
@@truthisbeautiful7492 There is only one Church, one body of Christ...
@@danocinneide1885 whoever doubted there is only One Church, of which the Lord Jesus Christ is the only Head? Not the reformers. But why should you think a heretical and false bishop of Rome is somehow also the Head of the Church?
The contradictions of Roman and Eastern Orthodox list of books - they don't match and aren't written by God.
Do a little research as to why there are contradictions. There are answers.
@@dinopad10 I have, and I don't see any good reason to accept either one of the different EO lists or the arguably two lists in rome. Do you have any good reasons? Is the tale of the swordsmen part of holy Scripture yes, no, or maybe?
@@truthisbeautiful7492
Why are you obsessed with the swordsman? What does that have to do with this discussion?
@@dinopad10 obsessed? Because whether it is part of Scripture or not is important. Tens of thousands of Christian churches say no. Different Roman defenders give different answers, such as maybe which shows the uncertainty of Rome which claims certainty. Will you answer the questions? If you have no idea you can just say admit that.
@@truthisbeautiful7492
I’ve never considered it, nor seen anyone who bothered to ask, which tells me you’re conflating the issue more than necessary.
I’ve also looked up the situation you posited, and found little to nothing about it as an argument among Bible scholars.
So what is the canon using Scripture Alone, removing all these human authorities. Can you compile your canon using the Scripture Alone as your final authority, for both NT and OT books?
you seem to have a misunderstanding of what sola scriptura is. It does not mean that everything a Christian believes must be explicitly stated in scripture. That is SOLO scriptura, not SOLA scriptura. Sola scriptura simply means that scripture is the sole infallible revelation from God for Christian doctrine and morals. It does not mean that we can’t utilize sources and authorities outside of scripture for us to be certain what scripture is, just so long as that authority does not conflict with it, and that it is falsifiable. The problem is Rome cannot do that because it ends up engaging in circular reasoning: it claims to have the infallible authority to define what scripture is, and then claims scripture gives the church the authority to define scripture. But protestants don’t have this problem, which is The purpose of this lengthy four part series. We can glean from the New Testament who possessed the old testament canon, and Jesus affirms this, which is backed up by verifiable history.
@@BornAgainRN why do you think I misunderstand Sola Scriptura. You can utilize other sources and other authorities but according to Sola Scriptura they are all not infallible, which means their contribution even though nice they are bound to commit error. In short, Protestants fail to use Scripture as the final and only infallible authority on deciding the canon. They actually use other sources as the final authority on the canon. Once again Protestants have failed to adhere to their chief doctrine and have a fallible canon. The four part series failed to defend the 66 canon and it further failed to show where the church decided on the 66 books besides alluding to individuals.
Yes because the Scriptures are self authenticating. The Divine Holy Spirit wrote them and enlightens the minds of those who read who God has chosen to illuminate. The Law of God brings conviction of sin, and the Good news that my sins are forgiven because of the Lord Jesus and His life and death brings me peace with God and trust in Jesus and belief in his true Resurrection. Only the Holy Scripture converts sinners to believers in Christ, as the Holy Spirit uses the scripture as His instrument. The gospels bring sinners to repentance, and not any false books. Since Christians have the Scriptures with them already, just by reading them God brings the conviction to their hearts that this is truly God's Word. So there is sufficient internal evidence for the truth of Scripture and plenty of external evidence, but the Holy Spirit, not by a new revelation, by their illumination, causes us to believe and trust God's promises. The Lord Jesus Christ said 'Write!' And Search the Scriptures. So you should read the Holy Scriptures, as it is God speaking to you.
And the Lord Jesus Christ is not a merely human authority, He is God Almighty. And the Father says Listen to my Son. And the Holy Spirit points to Jesus. And the Lord Jesus Christ wrote through the Apostles and speaks through His chosen Apostles who were eyewitness of his physical and literal Resurrection. So the authority of the Apostles is jot merely human authority, but Divine Authority because Christ spoke through them and the Holy Spirit cause them to only teach the truth in their writings. God has only preserved the writings of the Apostles, and they are now in Heaven. And these New Testament teach that the Lord Jesus Christ is the only Head of the Church, and Scripture is able to make one wise for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. Scripture is ABLE. It has as an ability! Now tell me, do you watch all parts of the presentation?
Yes, Christians take the list of books that Christ and His Apostles held to, and that is not a merely human authority, but Divine.
Indonesian's hearing
Can someone please send me his book "why protestant bibles are smaller" in PDF?
Buy it.
@@Travis.L I cant afford it.
@@Bogudarz then be content with what you have.
Just borrow it from the library. There is inter library loan at public library. You can also listen to all parts of the presentation more then once and you will get the main points.
Where is the "umbrella" mentioned in Scripture?
Catholic Christians dont like to "attack " you, we just like to defend Truth against false accusations! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
But the problem is many of the things that Catholics think are “truth“ are actually false, such as the false belief that Jesus and the apostles embraced the same books that were later defined by the council of Trent in the 16th century, which this four-point presentation demonstrates.
@BornAgainRN Nah, for the real problem is that Protestants can never know with infallible certitude what books belong in the Bible and which do not, as Protestants themselves disagree with each other on the deuterocanonical books as Holy Scripture, with many accepting them. Protestants like yourself can never know with infallible certitude what Jesus Christ meant by "this IS MY BODY ", or who the Woman is in Revelation 12, or who the rock is in Matthew 16, as Scripture ALONE is infallible, thus making all their interpretations, FALLIBLE! Even though you preach a false Gospel and follow the unbiblical teachings of men and white out the Holy Scripture verses you Don't like, I still love you very much in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink! You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth!
@@BornAgainRN So, do you accept my challenge to a debate on Purgatory as to if Biblical or not? You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!
@BornAgainRN Except of course that Protestants can never know with infallible certitude, which books are actually Holy Scripture or not, as Scripture ALONE is infallible, thus making all their interpretations, FALLIBLE, for even Protestants themselves disagree with each other on the deuterocanonical books, as many accept them as Holy Scripture! Also, the Problem is that what Protestants claim to be the True Gospel, is actually a False Gospel! Even though you preach a false Gospel and follow the unbiblical teachings of men and white out the Holy Scripture verses you Don't like, I still love you very much in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink! You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth!
@@matthewbroderick6287 That’s because as you said only scripture is infallible, because only Scripture is God breathed. The Roman Catholic Church claiming infallibility is just a claim, nothing more. Claiming infallibility is not the same thing as actually being infallible. So the Roman Catholic claim to infallibly to interpret scripture is just subjective, and cannot be proven, especially since they admit they did not have a settled canon until centuries after the time of Christ. By then, it was simply a subjective and unfalsifiable declaration of their canon that they cannot prove that Jesus and the apostles embraced centuries earlier.
Protestants do not claim to be able to declare their Canon with infallible certainty, nor do they need to. This does not violate sola Scriptura, since sola Scriptura does not have anything to do with defining the canon. That is a misunderstanding of the doctrine. Rather, protestants can be certain they have the right canon, and that it was the canon that Jesus and the apostles embraced, because they adopted a pre-Christian Jewish canon, which was laid up in the temple, and we know what those books were. Therefore, it is a verifiable historical certainty, which the Roman Catholic Church does not have, because their infallible declaration of the canon did not take place until the 16th century. The protestant canon has been certain since centuries before the time of Christ, which Jesus and the apostles adopted.
Again, the biggest problem for Rome is there were different versions of the Septuagint with different books in the early church. And the church of Rome embraced a version of the Septuagint that had the deuterocanonical books, which were not in other versions of the Septuagint, and were not in the version of the Septuagint that Jesus and the apostles adopted, because no Jew or Jewish sect embraced them prior to and contemporary with a time of Christ. That is the argument being made, which is a problem for Rome, but not a problem for Protestants.
Yet, Jesus Christ and the Apostles referenced the deuterocanonical books later removed by Protestants! Even the first edition of the King James Bible includes the deuterocanonical books! Also, why did many early Church Fathers disagree with each other on what books were to be included in both the old and new testament Canon? Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!
We cover these and MANY more Roman Catholic objections in this video series -- actually watch till the end and you'll see!
@javierperd2604 You covered them incorrectly of course! I have seen the video! You never answered the objections properly! I am so very grateful to the Holy Spirit for keeping me in the Church that Jesus Christ established on Peter the rock, way before the new testament was ever written! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink!
@@matthewbroderick6287 You're always so confident in your comments to Javier. I'd love to actually hear you support that confidence with substance.
@@ScroopGroop Javier is also very confident in his comments. I am waiting for substance! If you have any specific questions for me, I would be glad to answer! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is true food and Blood true drink
@@matthewbroderick6287
What specifically in this video did we get wrong? Making an accusation, which is all you did, is not the same as proving us wrong. Be specific - from the video - what we got wrong.
My brother, that’s not what an anathema is…
An anathema is basically saying XYZ teaching is condemned. It’s a strong disapproval. We aren’t saying you’re going to hell.
Man, you’re taking that definition out of context for anathema :(
If someone accepted the idea that God was merely human and not divine, that would be a bad thing. That’s an anathema. Think about what that belief can lead to.
Imagine if someone taught that merely acknowledging that Jesus is God is enough. That could lead to someone thinking repentance isn’t needed and they could live in sin their entire life. Thats what an anathema would help with.
@@weswesriddd as I mentioned in this four part series, the belief that anathema is just a serious penalty is a contemporary post Vatican II view. Biblically and historically, it is always meant condemnation to hell, which is how it was used in the council of Trent. So I’m afraid you’re using it as a contemporary understanding, rather than a biblical and historical one pre-Vatican II.
So as 'catholic answers' jimmy akin claims, all of the church of rome's 'anthemas' were gotten rid of in the 1983 Canon law?
What does Scripture say anthema is? Please read Galatians 1 and John chapter 8 and 1 Corinthians chapter 6. Anathema to all heretics. Anathema to those who don't believe Jesus is God. Anathema who live in sin and don't repent. I believe that the church of Rome is teaching a false Good News, so I warn you that hell is real. If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit. How will you escape the fires of he'll and eternal judgment, when you see the Law says Do not Covet Do not commit Adultery Do not Steal?
There’s no way to defend a 66 book Bible. That’s like defending a dictionary that doesn’t have words that start with vowels. 🙄
So is the tale of the swordsmen the Word of God yes or no? And why?
@@truthisbeautiful7492
That has nothing to do with which books were originally put into the Bible.
You might as well ask if the book of Revelation is the Word of God and why. Point being, you and I, and nobody for the last 1600 years has any right to say either way. It was put in, and that’s the way it was done. You’re not qualified or in any position to say there should be 66 books.
@@dinopad10 just out of curiosity, did you take the time to watch the actual discussion? Because we addressed the preChristian historicity of the OT canon (including the origin of the "22 books"), up to the 4th century...and even beyond. The rest will be covered in Parts 2 through 4 later in the month.
What a terribly fallacious analogy.
@@BornAgainRN
The videos Steve Christie has made in the past have clearly shown he has an adulterated sense of history, twisting things to fit his own arguments. Trent Horn has proven that several times.
And if I’m addressing Steve right now, I’m never going to trust enough to watch your videos EVER. Steve (if that’s you) is a charlatan when it comes to Christian History.