Amen what a great teaching! I'm an ex Catholic and now a born again Christian. Nice to see you pastor exposing this false church. Some evangelical churches seem to join hands with Rome, which is strange to see. I'm a member of a Calvary Chapel, greetings from California! 👍
@@calvarychapelmaidstone I'm from Calvary Chapel Davis in Northern California area. Our Calvary Chapel is very small, we are about 20-25 members. I believe we are the only church in our town that teaches verse by verse. It's awesome to see that there are Calvary Chapels in the UK. I believe it was Brian Brodersen that planted the first Calvary Chapel in the 90's.
@@NorCalGospelPreacher Our fellowship is between 50-70, so not big either. The Lord bless you for your faithfulness in standing true to his word in your town. I know Brian planted Calvary Chapel Westminster in London, and many churches have been birthed from that. There have been other CC churches in the UK that have been planted by others coming over from the States too, but who came first I don’t know. We planted CC Maidstone six years ago, so are quite new.
@@calvarychapelmaidstone That's awesome to hear, well the Lord bless you all there in Maidstone and mightily use you all. I've been enjoying the apologetics series a lot, thank you! Have you thought about adding one exposing Seventh Day Adventism, just curious?
@@NorCalGospelPreacher Funny you should mention the SDA - I have a friend from Slovakia who was saved out of Adventism - it's not what it first seems. I've mentioned a couple of times how I'd like him to give a message about what the SDA is like, so I must formalise that invite.
Not sure what's going on with the old thread but I've tried to post a response twice and it is not viewable to the public. I guess I just resume it here. I’ve read your post multiple times and l have let it simmer on my mind for a few days. I’m currently working on my perspective towards your post as a whole but for right now I want to talk about two statements that stood out to me. One was “the Scriptures provide the only objective basis for authority while the indwelling Holy Spirit provides illumination, conviction and discernment” & secondly “since the books were written under the inspiration of God, they were canonical the moment they were written. A council was not necessary to affirm what was already true.” So scripture is the only objective basis for authority in the church. Well, that’s just not true. If by objective, you mean something that is an external norm, something outside of my own head and opinions to which we could publicly appeal, to settle matters of controversy about theology or mode of life. Well, there is clearly all kinds of authorities to which one can appeal that are objective in that sense. I could appeal for example to a roll of a dice. That’s objective, if its higher than three then we go left, higher than 3 we go right. We could have a trial by ordeal, that’s objective. I could advert to the US Constitution or you know a game of Parcheesi or there’s all kinds of things that would be external norms to which we could appeal to settle matters of controversy. We could select any one of the arbitrarily, we could restrict ourselves to matters that could be resolved by empirical scientific investigation, the scientific method or statistical sampling. We could take a vote. All these ways are objective, now whether or not they should be made authoritative that’s a different question. But it’s clearly false that scripture is the only objective norm. And Scripture on the face of it is not particularly clear and it’s not well suited to answer all kinds of questions about Christian faith and life. What does scripture have to say about artificial intelligence, absolutely nothing. The task of applying the Bible to the difficulties of Christian life requires all kinds of prudential choices and selective readings and things of this sort out. Objective maybe not very, they’re definitely other objective norms, that might be on the face of the easier to interpret. I’m not recommending them. I’m just saying are alternatives. The claim that the Bible was canonical, the second it was written. Well, no that’s just not what canonical means. So, I would concede as a Catholic, I believe that the Bible was inspired by God, so it was authoritative as soon as it was written, but that’s not the same thing as canonical. Canonical means that it’s been established as a rule. That’s what the word canon means rule. As a rule, governing Christian life, and thought in a particular way and particularly THE canon as a list of biblical books, is not something that the biblical books themselves identify. So the biblical books don’t establish themselves as biblical, like if you pick up the gospel of Matthew, the gospel of Matthew doesn’t begin, here is the biblical book of Matthew intended to be included within a canonical list. It just starts telling the story of Jesus Christ. It doesn’t make any pretentions to authority or divine inspiration or canonical status. All of those things are things that Christians have asserted about the book and those assertions are either authoritative and accurate or not. So do you trust the assertions that the Church has made about the book of Matthew and other books in the New Testament, and if so, on what basis. The Holy Spirit is sufficient to illumine the meaning of the sacred text. Well, Catholics believe in the illumination of the Holy Spirit but we have to ask, How is that illumination communicated? How was it communicated authoritatively in a way that objectively recognizable? So if you get 10 Christians in a room and they all claim to have the illumination of the Holy Spirit yet they come up with 10 divergent interpretations. Was the Holy Spirit changing his mind or are we missing the boat somehow? Well, we’re missing the boat if the Holy Spirit has never indicated that that’s the way to go about biblical interpretation or even more, whether the Bible was meant to serve as the singular rule of faith of the Church. A council was not necessary to affirm what was already true So, the point of church councils regarding the Bible is not simply to establish whether not the texts are true. It’s to establish which texts are authoritative and how there to be regarded in the church. And finally, you know you can have a divinely, inspired text that is inerrant and everything it says is true, without God intending for that text to serve as the rule of faith of the church. So, take hypothetically let’s say God inspired a divine cookbook that told you how to make the perfect lemon meringue pie. well on the face of it you wouldn’t necessarily consult that book for questions about the validity of marriage. You would go there for cooking recipes, but you wouldn’t go there for say instructions about marriage. The way the Bible presents itself, if you look at the individual texts, none of them particularly presents itself as a comprehensive answer to all questions about the theology or practice. Jesus actually gave us a different rule of faith to answer those kinds of questions, namely the teaching Church.
I brought together my voice notes. First of all, you state that you don’t agree with the year 46 AD and provide a source to say otherwise. If you disagree with the year 46, that’s fine, the year is moveable for my argument. There is nothing hanging on this date. If Bernier says 40AD, you can set my argument date for 38. It works for any year after Jesus ascended and before the first book was written. Your full response is an interesting one. Because I’ve been talking about two main points 1) that people back in 46AD can’t have the same exact beliefs and practices as you do today. They can’t because you have two testaments, they only had one. 2) Jesus’s provision for the authoritative transmission of the Christian faith. I appreciate your response and the time you spent on it, but again you ignore those two points that I have been making. One disagreement occurred about the a date of the argument, but there were no substantial counters made or points that said that you agree or disagree with them. Your reply was a broad description of Catholic and non-Catholic authority belief systems instead of a specific retort. You also bring up canon matters even though I never mentioned it. I’ll say a quick word since you brought it up. The early church indeed used a twofold test, and both are based on the Church’s Tradition. They asked, is this in agreement with traditional doctrine and is there a tradition that this had been used in the church since the first century. And if something didn't meet either one of those criteria, it was not included in scripture. I would say here, why do you accept and keep this Tradition that was first made in the Council of Rome (382 AD) and later reaffirmed by the Church Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), Council of Florence in 1442 and again solemnly defined this same canon in 1546? You say the Catholic Church has so many errors but yet you keep the same exact list of NT books the Church declared to be canonical. If you, believe the Catholic Church doesn’t have authority, then why not add or remove books by your own authority? Also, an interesting point to add, is that most modern critical Scholars do not believe that Paul wrote second Timothy. Should you pull that book out? Why don’t you accept the other books written by Paul like the 3rd Corinthians or the Epistle to the Laodiceans? According to you, Paul penned them so that makes them Scripture, right? Even though there is no direct command from Jesus or the Apostles that says the ultimate authority of the New Testament Church are going to be these 27 New Testament books, you provide me with 9 proof verses for sola scriptura. From my experience there are two kinds of advocates for the doctrine of sola scriptura-the careless and the careful. The people who are careless in how they support it, will press even the most tangential of things into service as proof that the idea is true. For example, in your list of passages you provide many examples of verses in the gospels where Jesus is being questioned about some doctrine by his enemies and in answering them, he points their attention to some passage in the Old Testament. This kind of verse can be validly used to prove that the Old Testament has doctrinal authority, but it cannot be used to prove sola scriptura since Jesus does not say that only the Old Testament has doctrinal authority (in which case we would have a sola Old Testament doctrine). Jesus citing the Old Testament to prove a particular doctrine shows only that Jesus considered that doctrine to be provable by that passage of the Old Testament. It does not show that he considered all doctrines to be provable by the Old Testament or by Scripture in general. And so it is no surprise when we see Jesus sometimes answering his enemies by appeals to his own authority or other extra-Scriptural sources, as I commented in my last post. The idea that Jesus (the living Word of God who came to bring us new revelation via his oral preaching and teaching) would have believed and practiced the proposition that all doctrine must be proved only by the written word of God is absurd on its face, yet this does not stop the careless advocate of sola scriptura from appealing to instances where Jesus uses Scripture to prove an individual doctrine as if they were proof Scripture is able to validate all doctrines whatsoever. The careful advocate limits the verses they appeal to in support of the doctrine to only those that have some hope of being relevant. They in fact recognize that there are really only one or two passages which have any hope of being looked to as support for sola scriptura. One is of course the first one you list. First of all, in 2 Timothy 3:16, the writer of the epistle tells Timothy that the scriptures that he has known from childhood are profitable for salvation, for teaching, rebuking and training in righteousness so that the man of God can be equipped for every good work. That’s what Paul says. Nothing in there about testing all doctrines against that standard to begin with. But more interesting to me is these are the scriptures that Timothy knew from childhood. What scriptures did Timothy know from childhood? Clearly not second Timothy 3:16. Timothy did not grow up reading Paul's second letter. Jesus never mentioned 2 Timothy 3:16 or the book of second Timothy. No other apostle that we know of ever mentioned second Timothy. Arguably Paul never mentioned second Timothy if you think the critical Scholars are right. The author of 2 Timothy never suggested that 2 Timothy was somehow a rule of Faith against which all doctrines should be tested. He grew up with the Old Testament, right? so that's clearly what 2 Timothy is referring to. That portion, that canonical Old Testament scripture. This brings me back again to what I have been saying from the beginning, what does the Bible itself, what does Jesus himself actually say about this question, against what standard do we test doctrine, practice, claims to what is true Christianity? Well, when Jesus made provision for handing on the Christian faith, he never mentioned anything about second Timothy. For that matter, he never mentioned anything about the complete canon of the Bible. What he said instead was to 11 guys he said go into all nations and make disciples and teach everything I've commanded you and I'll be with you to the end of the age. Matthew 28. Christ sent authorized individuals with the promise of divine assistance with the charge to teach his oral tradition. Everything I've commanded you. Jesus didn't write anything down it was oral tradition. I'll be with you to the end of the age, whoever hears you hears me whoever rejects you rejects me, whoever sins you forgive are forgiven, whoever sins you retained or retained. When we actually look to the teaching of Christ, the standard that he gave for determining Christian Orthodoxy was sacred tradition and the teaching authority of the church. No mention of the New Testament canon of the Bible, which we can arrive at only after the fact through sacred tradition. So, I think the principle that you suggest, that we have to test all doctrines against scripture is not itself a scriptural doctrine. Let's test that against scripture, does the Bible say test everything against the Bible? There is no direct command to do so, it does not, so it fails the test.
“So if I don’t post again, they are the reasons, nothing else that you may suppose. Okay, wink, wink. I made the claim that I could poke holes in the points in the video. Well, since it unlikely that you will post again, so I will verify my claim and show how easy it is to poke the water out of your arguments that you are repeating from others. You copy the claim from Gendron and say “Roman Catholicism who have departed from the truth who hold the doctrine that you that priests are forbidden to marry which is a doctrine of demons so here these verses clearly identify by the Roman Catholic Church is within that apostate Church bracket.” The word forbid means refuse to allow something. Let’s see if that’s the case. It should be pointed out that the Catholic Church does have married priests. It always has been a tradition to have a mix of married priests and celibate priests in the eastern churches. This tradition is preserved in the eastern Catholic Churches where we have many married priests. Even in the Latin rite of the Catholic Church though priestly celibacy is the normal discipline, there are dispensations granted which allows for some married men to also serve as Latin rite priests. In other words mandatory priestly celibacy is a discipline in the Latin rite only and one which allows for exceptions. So what is first timothy 4 3 about? Even Protestant commentators recognize it is about gnostics who were not suggesting priestly celibacy but were opposed to marriage entirely the interpreters in one volume commentary on the bible says “this is undoubtedly a reaction to gnostic tendencies towards asceticism in the church.” It was the gnostics who believed the material world was evil so they forbade marriage as a matter of principle not as a discipline for a select group of people. So does the Catholic Church absolutely forbid all the priests in the Catholic Church and that its a unchanging doctrine. All incorrect information. It a disciple in only one rite of the Catholic Church. POKE! It was that easy.
Hello daveevans3276 Thank you for taking the time to time to listen to message, or at least the opening introduction…did you listen to the whole thing? You pose an interesting question, can I ask the reason behind it and why 46AD? As for what I said, I’m speaking to today’s church and where believers need to be today. As for 46AD, all the apostles believed the Bible, as it consisted then. Certainly where the gospel spread to, churches began and they held to the Scriptures and traditions of the apostles. So yes, there were Bible believing, Bible teaching churches then. There was also error then, and that was challenged and corrected in the New Testament writings. As apologetics was needed then, so it is needed now. God Bless you.
@@calvarychapelmaidstone Thanks for responding! “Christian’s need to be in a true Bible believing, Bible teaching Church.” That is an assertion that even though you say it’s for today, there is a suggestion, that this was the standard from the beginning, as you alluded to in your response. “So yes, there were Bible believing, Bible teaching churches then” and “There was also error then, and that was challenged and corrected in the New Testament writings. As apologetics was needed then, so it is needed now.” Many people try and compare today’s beliefs and practices and make the impression that they had the same exact usage and practices of authority as today. Is that true? Now this is when the reasoning of the year 46AD comes in. Historically, scholars say the first book of the New Testament was written close to 50AD. So that’s the problem with saying yes, back in 46 AD “Christians need to be in a true Bible believing, Bible teaching Church.” The historical fact to counter that statement is that no books of the New Testament existed at that time. From that statement, as a Non-Catholic, you would have to conclude that no final authority existed for the New Testament Church, for the first many, many years of the early Church. No one went to the writing when there was error in the New Testament Church in 46 AD. The usage and practice of the Bible are not identical to today. This also shows that Jesus indeed made a provision for the authoritative transmission of the Christian faith. It wasn’t the NT books of the Bible. You would think that if Jesus wanted New Testament writings to be the final and only authority then Jesus himself would be writing or before Jesus ascended, he would be commanding the Apostles to write but we don't see anything like that in revelation. He didn't say I know the books aren't around currently but here in 15-20 years, books will be written and once we get 27 specific books, (and he lists them) once that happens, you'll have your final authority. He didn't give a teaching like you are the Bible and on this Bible I will build my Church. He left it to living persons, that was the provision Jesus made.
@@daveevans3276 Scripture consists of both the Old Testament writings and the New Testament writings. Jesus was Bible-believing, He quoted the Old Testament all the time. The apostles were Bible-believing, they quoted the Old Testament writings, all the time. To suggest that “no final authority existing for the New Testament Church, for the first many, many years of the early Church” is quite simple not true. Scripture was the authoirty. Did you listen to the whole message? Did you consider the other points made - the six differences between Roman Catholicism and the Bible?
@@calvarychapelmaidstone Thanks for the response. You say “Scripture consists of both the Old Testament writings and the New Testament writings.” Okay if you do the math here, if the first book of the NT was written around 50AD then back in 46 AD just the OT existed. And you assert, they believed like you do today. Lets apply that sentiment. You believe that the final authority is the Scriptures alone. So that means you want to assert that the early church in 46AD believed in the theory of sola Old Testament. With that theory, you are asserting that for the New Testament Church all they needed was the writing of the OT to pass on the Christian Faith. That no NT writing is needed. If you want to subscribe to that theory that’s fine but that’s not what Jesus believed. Yes, Jesus of course refers to scripture as an authority. So do Catholics. I've never denied that, Scripture is an authority, it's just not a sufficient rule of faith for the Church. Its authority is delimited in a certain sense, it has a job description. Saint Paul says that all scripture is inspired and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness so that the man of God can be equipped for good works and it's evident from the context he's talking about our moral behavior. Scripture is a guide to the life of prayer, scripture is a source on which theologians can reflect for insight into the nature of God or salvation, or the church or the Christian life. Scripture is a witness to the life of Christ and the apostles to the teaching of the prophets, to the history of the people of God. It's a book of poetry and narrative and law. In all these ways it's fruitful for the church to have sacred Scripture and to read it and study it, and meditate and pray with it. To use it in that way, because that's what it's for. But it's not for giving a comprehensive finally authoritative answer to everything about what Christians are meant to hold or to do. It doesn't have that function, it never has represented itself as having that function. Nor did Jesus. In John, Jesus actually criticizes, he says to the Jews, you guys study the Scriptures because you think that in them you will have life but you refuse to come to me and they wrote about me. Moses wrote about me. The Scriptures point to Jesus. Paul says that the law was a pedagogue to lead us to Christ. He also says in 2 Corinthians 3 that it's possible to read the law with the veil covering your heart and to be blind to what it actually teaches. Only when one turns to the Lord is the veil taken away. There's a spiritual wisdom he says in 1 Corinthians 2 which God kept hidden from all ages but now has revealed to those who are reborn in Christ. this is a perspective that's only available to one from within the heart of the Church in relationship to Jesus. The Bible is not a stand-alone self-interpreting authority and not adequate for that purpose. It never was designed for that purpose and Jesus while he does quote the scriptures, he has absolutely no problem, whatsoever at all, giving an authoritative interpretation that departs from the letter. He doesn't treat them like they're a self-sufficient authority. So for example, the law of Moses commanded that adulterers be put to death. Jesus said don't do that. The law of Moses said men could divorce their wives. Jesus says don't do that. If the Bible were a self-sufficient adequate authority to rule on all matters of faith and practice, in a kind of prima fascia, fundamentalist sort of way, then Jesus would been out of line. Actually, abrogating or mitigating the force of the law through the authority of his own divine person but that's exactly the way he behaved. He supersedes the Bible. So as I commented in my past post, that Jesus indeed made a provision for the authoritative transmission of the Christian faith. He makes no mention of passing it on through the Scriptures alone. Nowhere does Jesus reveal to us that if you want to know the content of the Christian Faith, you should look to the Bible alone. He passes this authority to living individuals, not only and exclusively to 27 specific books written from around 50AD to 100AD.
@@daveevans3276 Well, @daveevans3276 It’s very nice that you have given this much time and effort to writing. I don’t agree with you on a number of fronts, and at the same time I’m not confident that this is the best forum to discuss such matters, or that you are open minded to consider alternate points of view. So it makes discussion a bit of hiding to nothing. It is also clear to me you haven’t listened to the entire message, only the opening few minutes and are something of a heresy hunter looking to argue against anyone who the temerity to post anything that suggest that Roman Catholicism has faults and errors. Jesus died for you and me, that we might be reconciled to God. I sincerely hope you have put your faith in Jesus for salvation. God Bless you
Awesome Teaching Pastor Matt!! God Bless You Abundantly!!❤
Thank you, @lindaw7803 - I'm glad the message was helpful.
Amen what a great teaching! I'm an ex Catholic and now a born again Christian. Nice to see you pastor exposing this false church. Some evangelical churches seem to join hands with Rome, which is strange to see. I'm a member of a Calvary Chapel, greetings from California! 👍
Bless you brother - thank you for sharing. Good to hear of God's work in your life. Greetings from England to California...which Calvary are you at?
@@calvarychapelmaidstone I'm from Calvary Chapel Davis in Northern California area. Our Calvary Chapel is very small, we are about 20-25 members. I believe we are the only church in our town that teaches verse by verse. It's awesome to see that there are Calvary Chapels in the UK. I believe it was Brian Brodersen that planted the first Calvary Chapel in the 90's.
@@NorCalGospelPreacher Our fellowship is between 50-70, so not big either. The Lord bless you for your faithfulness in standing true to his word in your town.
I know Brian planted Calvary Chapel Westminster in London, and many churches have been birthed from that. There have been other CC churches in the UK that have been planted by others coming over from the States too, but who came first I don’t know.
We planted CC Maidstone six years ago, so are quite new.
@@calvarychapelmaidstone That's awesome to hear, well the Lord bless you all there in Maidstone and mightily use you all. I've been enjoying the apologetics series a lot, thank you! Have you thought about adding one exposing Seventh Day Adventism, just curious?
@@NorCalGospelPreacher Funny you should mention the SDA - I have a friend from Slovakia who was saved out of Adventism - it's not what it first seems. I've mentioned a couple of times how I'd like him to give a message about what the SDA is like, so I must formalise that invite.
Not sure what's going on with the old thread but I've tried to post a response twice and it is not viewable to the public. I guess I just resume it here.
I’ve read your post multiple times and l have let it simmer on my mind for a few days. I’m currently working on my perspective towards your post as a whole but for right now I want to talk about two statements that stood out to me. One was “the Scriptures provide the only objective basis for authority while the indwelling Holy Spirit provides illumination, conviction and discernment” & secondly “since the books were written under the inspiration of God, they were canonical the moment they were written. A council was not necessary to affirm what was already true.”
So scripture is the only objective basis for authority in the church.
Well, that’s just not true. If by objective, you mean something that is an external norm, something outside of my own head and opinions to which we could publicly appeal, to settle matters of controversy about theology or mode of life. Well, there is clearly all kinds of authorities to which one can appeal that are objective in that sense. I could appeal for example to a roll of a dice. That’s objective, if its higher than three then we go left, higher than 3 we go right. We could have a trial by ordeal, that’s objective. I could advert to the US Constitution or you know a game of Parcheesi or there’s all kinds of things that would be external norms to which we could appeal to settle matters of controversy. We could select any one of the arbitrarily, we could restrict ourselves to matters that could be resolved by empirical scientific investigation, the scientific method or statistical sampling. We could take a vote. All these ways are objective, now whether or not they should be made authoritative that’s a different question. But it’s clearly false that scripture is the only objective norm. And Scripture on the face of it is not particularly clear and it’s not well suited to answer all kinds of questions about Christian faith and life. What does scripture have to say about artificial intelligence, absolutely nothing. The task of applying the Bible to the difficulties of Christian life requires all kinds of prudential choices and selective readings and things of this sort out. Objective maybe not very, they’re definitely other objective norms, that might be on the face of the easier to interpret. I’m not recommending them. I’m just saying are alternatives.
The claim that the Bible was canonical, the second it was written.
Well, no that’s just not what canonical means. So, I would concede as a Catholic, I believe that the Bible was inspired by God, so it was authoritative as soon as it was written, but that’s not the same thing as canonical.
Canonical means that it’s been established as a rule. That’s what the word canon means rule. As a rule, governing Christian life, and thought in a particular way and particularly THE canon as a list of biblical books, is not something that the biblical books themselves identify. So the biblical books don’t establish themselves as biblical, like if you pick up the gospel of Matthew, the gospel of Matthew doesn’t begin, here is the biblical book of Matthew intended to be included within a canonical list. It just starts telling the story of Jesus Christ. It doesn’t make any pretentions to authority or divine inspiration or canonical status. All of those things are things that Christians have asserted about the book and those assertions are either authoritative and accurate or not. So do you trust the assertions that the Church has made about the book of Matthew and other books in the New Testament, and if so, on what basis.
The Holy Spirit is sufficient to illumine the meaning of the sacred text.
Well, Catholics believe in the illumination of the Holy Spirit but we have to ask, How is that illumination communicated? How was it communicated authoritatively in a way that objectively recognizable? So if you get 10 Christians in a room and they all claim to have the illumination of the Holy Spirit yet they come up with 10 divergent interpretations. Was the Holy Spirit changing his mind or are we missing the boat somehow? Well, we’re missing the boat if the Holy Spirit has never indicated that that’s the way to go about biblical interpretation or even more, whether the Bible was meant to serve as the singular rule of faith of the Church.
A council was not necessary to affirm what was already true
So, the point of church councils regarding the Bible is not simply to establish whether not the texts are true. It’s to establish which texts are authoritative and how there to be regarded in the church. And finally, you know you can have a divinely, inspired text that is inerrant and everything it says is true, without God intending for that text to serve as the rule of faith of the church. So, take hypothetically let’s say God inspired a divine cookbook that told you how to make the perfect lemon meringue pie. well on the face of it you wouldn’t necessarily consult that book for questions about the validity of marriage. You would go there for cooking recipes, but you wouldn’t go there for say instructions about marriage. The way the Bible presents itself, if you look at the individual texts, none of them particularly presents itself as a comprehensive answer to all questions about the theology or practice. Jesus actually gave us a different rule of faith to answer those kinds of questions, namely the teaching Church.
I brought together my voice notes. First of all, you state that you don’t agree with the year 46 AD and provide a source to say otherwise. If you disagree with the year 46, that’s fine, the year is moveable for my argument. There is nothing hanging on this date. If Bernier says 40AD, you can set my argument date for 38. It works for any year after Jesus ascended and before the first book was written.
Your full response is an interesting one. Because I’ve been talking about two main points 1) that people back in 46AD can’t have the same exact beliefs and practices as you do today. They can’t because you have two testaments, they only had one. 2) Jesus’s provision for the authoritative transmission of the Christian faith. I appreciate your response and the time you spent on it, but again you ignore those two points that I have been making. One disagreement occurred about the a date of the argument, but there were no substantial counters made or points that said that you agree or disagree with them. Your reply was a broad description of Catholic and non-Catholic authority belief systems instead of a specific retort.
You also bring up canon matters even though I never mentioned it. I’ll say a quick word since you brought it up. The early church indeed used a twofold test, and both are based on the Church’s Tradition. They asked, is this in agreement with traditional doctrine and is there a tradition that this had been used in the church since the first century. And if something didn't meet either one of those criteria, it was not included in scripture. I would say here, why do you accept and keep this Tradition that was first made in the Council of Rome (382 AD) and later reaffirmed by the Church Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), Council of Florence in 1442 and again solemnly defined this same canon in 1546? You say the Catholic Church has so many errors but yet you keep the same exact list of NT books the Church declared to be canonical. If you, believe the Catholic Church doesn’t have authority, then why not add or remove books by your own authority? Also, an interesting point to add, is that most modern critical Scholars do not believe that Paul wrote second Timothy. Should you pull that book out? Why don’t you accept the other books written by Paul like the 3rd Corinthians or the Epistle to the Laodiceans? According to you, Paul penned them so that makes them Scripture, right?
Even though there is no direct command from Jesus or the Apostles that says the ultimate authority of the New Testament Church are going to be these 27 New Testament books, you provide me with 9 proof verses for sola scriptura. From my experience there are two kinds of advocates for the doctrine of sola scriptura-the careless and the careful. The people who are careless in how they support it, will press even the most tangential of things into service as proof that the idea is true. For example, in your list of passages you provide many examples of verses in the gospels where Jesus is being questioned about some doctrine by his enemies and in answering them, he points their attention to some passage in the Old Testament. This kind of verse can be validly used to prove that the Old Testament has doctrinal authority, but it cannot be used to prove sola scriptura since Jesus does not say that only the Old Testament has doctrinal authority (in which case we would have a sola Old Testament doctrine). Jesus citing the Old Testament to prove a particular doctrine shows only that Jesus considered that doctrine to be provable by that passage of the Old Testament. It does not show that he considered all doctrines to be provable by the Old Testament or by Scripture in general. And so it is no surprise when we see Jesus sometimes answering his enemies by appeals to his own authority or other extra-Scriptural sources, as I commented in my last post.
The idea that Jesus (the living Word of God who came to bring us new revelation via his oral preaching and teaching) would have believed and practiced the proposition that all doctrine must be proved only by the written word of God is absurd on its face, yet this does not stop the careless advocate of sola scriptura from appealing to instances where Jesus uses Scripture to prove an individual doctrine as if they were proof Scripture is able to validate all doctrines whatsoever. The careful advocate limits the verses they appeal to in support of the doctrine to only those that have some hope of being relevant. They in fact recognize that there are really only one or two passages which have any hope of being looked to as support for sola scriptura.
One is of course the first one you list. First of all, in 2 Timothy 3:16, the writer of the epistle tells Timothy that the scriptures that he has known from childhood are profitable for salvation, for teaching, rebuking and training in righteousness so that the man of God can be equipped for every good work. That’s what Paul says. Nothing in there about testing all doctrines against that standard to begin with. But more interesting to me is these are the scriptures that Timothy knew from childhood. What scriptures did Timothy know from childhood? Clearly not second Timothy 3:16. Timothy did not grow up reading Paul's second letter. Jesus never mentioned 2 Timothy 3:16 or the book of second Timothy. No other apostle that we know of ever mentioned second Timothy. Arguably Paul never mentioned second Timothy if you think the critical Scholars are right. The author of 2 Timothy never suggested that 2 Timothy was somehow a rule of Faith against which all doctrines should be tested. He grew up with the Old Testament, right? so that's clearly what 2 Timothy is referring to. That portion, that canonical Old Testament scripture.
This brings me back again to what I have been saying from the beginning, what does the Bible itself, what does Jesus himself actually say about this question, against what standard do we test doctrine, practice, claims to what is true Christianity? Well, when Jesus made provision for handing on the Christian faith, he never mentioned anything about second Timothy. For that matter, he never mentioned anything about the complete canon of the Bible. What he said instead was to 11 guys he said go into all nations and make disciples and teach everything I've commanded you and I'll be with you to the end of the age. Matthew 28.
Christ sent authorized individuals with the promise of divine assistance with the charge to teach his oral tradition. Everything I've commanded you. Jesus didn't write anything down it was oral tradition. I'll be with you to the end of the age, whoever hears you hears me whoever rejects you rejects me, whoever sins you forgive are forgiven, whoever sins you retained or retained. When we actually look to the teaching of Christ, the standard that he gave for determining Christian Orthodoxy was sacred tradition and the teaching authority of the church. No mention of the New Testament canon of the Bible, which we can arrive at only after the fact through sacred tradition. So, I think the principle that you suggest, that we have to test all doctrines against scripture is not itself a scriptural doctrine. Let's test that against scripture, does the Bible say test everything against the Bible? There is no direct command to do so, it does not, so it fails the test.
“So if I don’t post again, they are the reasons, nothing else that you may suppose. Okay, wink, wink.
I made the claim that I could poke holes in the points in the video. Well, since it unlikely that you will post again, so I will verify my claim and show how easy it is to poke the water out of your arguments that you are repeating from others. You copy the claim from Gendron and say “Roman Catholicism who have departed from the truth who hold the doctrine that you that priests are forbidden to marry which is a doctrine of demons so here these verses clearly identify by the Roman Catholic Church is within that apostate Church bracket.” The word forbid means refuse to allow something. Let’s see if that’s the case. It should be pointed out that the Catholic Church does have married priests. It always has been a tradition to have a mix of married priests and celibate priests in the eastern churches. This tradition is preserved in the eastern Catholic Churches where we have many married priests. Even in the Latin rite of the Catholic Church though priestly celibacy is the normal discipline, there are dispensations granted which allows for some married men to also serve as Latin rite priests. In other words mandatory priestly celibacy is a discipline in the Latin rite only and one which allows for exceptions. So what is first timothy 4 3 about? Even Protestant commentators recognize it is about gnostics who were not suggesting priestly celibacy but were opposed to marriage entirely the interpreters in one volume commentary on the bible says “this is undoubtedly a reaction to gnostic tendencies towards asceticism in the church.” It was the gnostics who believed the material world was evil so they forbade marriage as a matter of principle not as a discipline for a select group of people.
So does the Catholic Church absolutely forbid all the priests in the Catholic Church and that its a unchanging doctrine. All incorrect information. It a disciple in only one rite of the Catholic Church. POKE! It was that easy.
Hello, you say "Christian's need to be in a true Bible believing, Bible teaching Church." Could that statement and belief be said in 46AD?
Hello daveevans3276
Thank you for taking the time to time to listen to message, or at least the opening introduction…did you listen to the whole thing?
You pose an interesting question, can I ask the reason behind it and why 46AD?
As for what I said, I’m speaking to today’s church and where believers need to be today.
As for 46AD, all the apostles believed the Bible, as it consisted then. Certainly where the gospel spread to, churches began and they held to the Scriptures and traditions of the apostles.
So yes, there were Bible believing, Bible teaching churches then. There was also error then, and that was challenged and corrected in the New Testament writings.
As apologetics was needed then, so it is needed now.
God Bless you.
@@calvarychapelmaidstone Thanks for responding! “Christian’s need to be in a true Bible believing, Bible teaching Church.” That is an assertion that even though you say it’s for today, there is a suggestion, that this was the standard from the beginning, as you alluded to in your response. “So yes, there were Bible believing, Bible teaching churches then” and “There was also error then, and that was challenged and corrected in the New Testament writings. As apologetics was needed then, so it is needed now.”
Many people try and compare today’s beliefs and practices and make the impression that they had the same exact usage and practices of authority as today. Is that true? Now this is when the reasoning of the year 46AD comes in. Historically, scholars say the first book of the New Testament was written close to 50AD. So that’s the problem with saying yes, back in 46 AD “Christians need to be in a true Bible believing, Bible teaching Church.” The historical fact to counter that statement is that no books of the New Testament existed at that time. From that statement, as a Non-Catholic, you would have to conclude that no final authority existed for the New Testament Church, for the first many, many years of the early Church. No one went to the writing when there was error in the New Testament Church in 46 AD. The usage and practice of the Bible are not identical to today.
This also shows that Jesus indeed made a provision for the authoritative transmission of the Christian faith. It wasn’t the NT books of the Bible. You would think that if Jesus wanted New Testament writings to be the final and only authority then Jesus himself would be writing or before Jesus ascended, he would be commanding the Apostles to write but we don't see anything like that in revelation. He didn't say I know the books aren't around currently but here in 15-20 years, books will be written and once we get 27 specific books, (and he lists them) once that happens, you'll have your final authority. He didn't give a teaching like you are the Bible and on this Bible I will build my Church. He left it to living persons, that was the provision Jesus made.
@@daveevans3276 Scripture consists of both the Old Testament writings and the New Testament writings.
Jesus was Bible-believing, He quoted the Old Testament all the time.
The apostles were Bible-believing, they quoted the Old Testament writings, all the time.
To suggest that “no final authority existing for the New Testament Church, for the first many, many years of the early Church” is quite simple not true. Scripture was the authoirty.
Did you listen to the whole message? Did you consider the other points made - the six differences between Roman Catholicism and the Bible?
@@calvarychapelmaidstone Thanks for the response. You say “Scripture consists of both the Old Testament writings and the New Testament writings.” Okay if you do the math here, if the first book of the NT was written around 50AD then back in 46 AD just the OT existed. And you assert, they believed like you do today. Lets apply that sentiment. You believe that the final authority is the Scriptures alone. So that means you want to assert that the early church in 46AD believed in the theory of sola Old Testament. With that theory, you are asserting that for the New Testament Church all they needed was the writing of the OT to pass on the Christian Faith. That no NT writing is needed. If you want to subscribe to that theory that’s fine but that’s not what Jesus believed.
Yes, Jesus of course refers to scripture as an authority. So do Catholics. I've never denied that, Scripture is an authority, it's just not a sufficient rule of faith for the Church. Its authority is delimited in a certain sense, it has a job description. Saint Paul says that all scripture is inspired and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness so that the man of God can be equipped for good works and it's evident from the context he's talking about our moral behavior.
Scripture is a guide to the life of prayer, scripture is a source on which theologians can reflect for insight into the nature of God or salvation, or the church or the Christian life. Scripture is a witness to the life of Christ and the apostles to the teaching of the prophets, to the history of the people of God. It's a book of poetry and narrative and law. In all these ways it's fruitful for the church to have sacred Scripture and to read it and study it, and meditate and pray with it. To use it in that way, because that's what it's for.
But it's not for giving a comprehensive finally authoritative answer to everything about what Christians are meant to hold or to do. It doesn't have that function, it never has represented itself as having that function. Nor did Jesus. In John, Jesus actually criticizes, he says to the Jews, you guys study the Scriptures because you think that in them you will have life but you refuse to come to me and they wrote about me. Moses wrote about me. The Scriptures point to Jesus. Paul says that the law was a pedagogue to lead us to Christ. He also says in 2 Corinthians 3 that it's possible to read the law with the veil covering your heart and to be blind to what it actually teaches. Only when one turns to the Lord is the veil taken away. There's a spiritual wisdom he says in 1 Corinthians 2 which God kept hidden from all ages but now has revealed to those who are reborn in Christ. this is a perspective that's only available to one from within the heart of the Church in relationship to Jesus.
The Bible is not a stand-alone self-interpreting authority and not adequate for that purpose. It never was designed for that purpose and Jesus while he does quote the scriptures, he has absolutely no problem, whatsoever at all, giving an authoritative interpretation that departs from the letter. He doesn't treat them like they're a self-sufficient authority. So for example, the law of Moses commanded that adulterers be put to death. Jesus said don't do that. The law of Moses said men could divorce their wives. Jesus says don't do that. If the Bible were a self-sufficient adequate authority to rule on all matters of faith and practice, in a kind of prima fascia, fundamentalist sort of way, then Jesus would been out of line. Actually, abrogating or mitigating the force of the law through the authority of his own divine person but that's exactly the way he behaved. He supersedes the Bible.
So as I commented in my past post, that Jesus indeed made a provision for the authoritative transmission of the Christian faith. He makes no mention of passing it on through the Scriptures alone. Nowhere does Jesus reveal to us that if you want to know the content of the Christian Faith, you should look to the Bible alone. He passes this authority to living individuals, not only and exclusively to 27 specific books written from around 50AD to 100AD.
@@daveevans3276 Well, @daveevans3276
It’s very nice that you have given this much time and effort to writing.
I don’t agree with you on a number of fronts, and at the same time I’m not confident that this is the best forum to discuss such matters, or that you are open minded to consider alternate points of view.
So it makes discussion a bit of hiding to nothing.
It is also clear to me you haven’t listened to the entire message, only the opening few minutes and are something of a heresy hunter looking to argue against anyone who the temerity to post anything that suggest that Roman Catholicism has faults and errors.
Jesus died for you and me, that we might be reconciled to God. I sincerely hope you have put your faith in Jesus for salvation.
God Bless you