Given that "humans are fallible creatures" it is obvious Christ would never ordain a practice that was not going to work. There is no way of deciding which individual or group can claim the "right interpretation". Sola Scriptura is inherently flawed.
Look at St Athanasius. He knew Scripture was valuable, but not as the Protestant assert "alone-sufficient". He knew Scripture is only useful so far as the other person accepts it's clear meaning. He appealed to the Arians on the basis of Scripture, and then he saw how they privately interpreted Scripture and did not accept it's meaning as held by the Church. So Athanasius then referred the Arians to the Church. He was instrumental in the 1st Church Council of Nicaea which was convened to deal with the Arians private interpretations, and which over-ruled the Arians interpretations of Scripture. And He devoted his life to implementing these rulings of the Council. Athanasius was the Catholic because for him Church was Final Authority OVER private interpretation of Scripture. The Arians with their private interpretation of Scripture, were just like the Protestants.
Rev. Devereux, I really think you hit the nail on the head at 10:03 - we do not claim our interpretation of scripture as infallible, but rather seek to present its truths as best we can.
The idea that Sola Scriptura leads to an arbitrary means of deciding doctrine is a terrible argument, as if the doctrines cemented into Rome or Orthodoxy are any less arbitrary having drawn their origins from "tradition" and "Oral teaching". If tradition is authoritative, why do all the "Apostolic" churches interpret tradition differently? Its the same problem.
Orthodox literally don't believe Catholics are saved, deny Divine Simplicity and Fillioque... Also, even if what you were saying is true, it's irrelevant. EO and RC disagreeing "less" (whatever that means,) is irrelevant to the case that they do indeed disagree... Your answer is insufficient in answering the question.@@emiliobazzarelli4270
I have definitely met a fair amount of great people in the Holiness movements that are truly following Christ. They affirm the 5 solas, the affirm the creeds of the faith, I think to lump all of them together is pretty similiar to lumping all of each tradition together. All Anglicans are like the COE, all the Ecclesialist together (which of course isn't true, that's my point).
I think that's so well put. The disagreements that exist exist both in the Protestant and Ecclesialist communities and they exist because we are fallen, fallible creatures and at times because people unreasonably read scripture to support their own agendas (Like Mormons and JWs as you mentioned). I also appreciate that you brought up things like the differences with Charismatics and Pentacostals. I wonder if it might be useful to make a brief video explaining why groups like theirs (which have often held to things like ongoing revelation through modern prophets, and visions) are not actually Protestant. In sum, the existence of disagreements doesn't prove anything special about Protestantism because disagreements have existed throughout all of Christian history.
So given that "humans are fallible creatures" it is obvious Christ would never ordain a practice that was not going to work. There is no way of deciding which individual or group can claim the "right interpretation". Sola Scriptura is inherently flawed.
@@dougy6237 that was a series of statements followed by a conclusion that in no way follows from them. I don't really detect an argument here so much as a group of assertions.
@@dougy6237 I don't know what you mean by "Bible practice" or why it would be an insult to Christ. Do you mean it's an insult to Christ to study scripture?
I agree with most of what you said. But regarding Pentecostals/Charismatic or Anabaptists while some groups within these categories are so wrong that are barely Christian (Oneness) that are rightfully excluded, I wonder if you can really exclude entire categories as there are Pentecostal Churches who hold to the Trinity and to a pretty traditionally protestant view of salvation that is fully by grace through faith so to say that just because they don't happen to belong to one of the "Classical" traditions they don't really "count" and thus can't be protestant? unless you would say that the only thing that makes you Protestant is that you happen to belong to one of the groups that directly came out of the Roman Catholic Church in the Reformation. But if you believe a protestant is someone that holds to the true Gospel by faith alone in Christ Alone and holds to scripture as their only infallible authority. Then it would be pretty inconsistent to say that you can't be Protestant unless you happen to be a member of an Anglican/Lutheran/Reformed church which would be a really Arbitary kind of Apostolic succession. Not sure how you can defend that view against Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox.
Over the last few months I have begun to develop a greater appreciation for Classical Protestantism, even though I obviously disagree on some things as a Catholic. Can you recommend some material that can help me understand Reformation in a fair way? As to your video - the obvious problem is that for a great many Protestants - what they mean by Sola Scriptura is really Solo Scriptura. Unfortunately, the Solo Scripturalist position is spreading like wild fire. For example, on the baptism issue - it will likely be impossible for you to convince them of infant baptism because in scripture infant baptism is absent. They would literally want to see the mention of an infant being baptised, or a command like that. Principle? That will likely be dismissed as "reading into the text". They take Sola Scriptura - the term literally - meaning not just the sole infallible rule of faith, but the only real rule of faith. Now they may deny it, but if you see how they apply Sola Scriptura - it becomes clear that past historical positions of the Church or even Reformation mean precious little to them. For them, for example, your position on the baptism is just another Roman tradition they need to shed. For them, Anglicanism is Catholicism Lite. I have literally had these Protestants say that to me, and I am sure they didnt mean to compliment Anglicanism.
It is those who are called who are all in agreeance, the massive balance can't understand things of the Spirit and opinion rules them. it's terrifyingly straight forward.
@@newkingdommedia9434 Disunity on “Faith Alone” (Part 1) Lutherans understand the formula of sola fide in a way that does not exclude baptism as a means of justification, as do some Anglicans, some Presbyterians in relation to elect infants, and members of the Campbellite or “Church of Christ” movement. For many Protestants, however, the idea of baptism as a means of salvation is seen as a direct violation of sola fide. This division goes back to the early days of the Protestant Reformation, as illustrated by Luther’s Large Catechism, in which he excoriates Anabaptists for the new, non-baptismal interpretation they were giving his “faith alone” formula. Following their founder, Lutherans also understand sola fide in a way that allows salvation to be lost, as do most Methodists, Wesleyans, Pentecostals, Charismatics, and many Anglicans. However, Calvinists, Baptists, and many non-denominational Evangelicals influenced by Calvinists hold that, if it is possible to lose salvation, then justification is accomplished in part by one’s “works” (in this case, avoiding the sins that would cause its loss), which is a violation of sola fide. (Those who concede the possibility of losing salvation are also split on the possibility of regaining it after a fall.) Lutherans, Calvinists, Methodists, Pentecostals, and many Anglicans and Baptists understand sola fide in a way that requires one to repent of one’s sins in order to be justified. However, some Baptists, non-denominational Evangelicals, and especially many Dispensationalists hold that, if repentance is understood as involving a behavioral change whereby one turns away from one’s sinful pattern of life, then salvation is in some measure “by works,” violating sola fide.
Brother, your videos are a great encouragement. I have a podcast called: The Protestant Podcast. I would love to connect with you, but how can I contact you? Number? Email? Let me know!
@@newkingdommedia9434 Disunity on “Scripture Alone” Protestants also disagree over sola scriptura. Aside from the fact that some Protestants (e.g., some Lutherans) are willing to concede that certain books might not belong in the canon of Scripture-thus disagreeing with fellow Protestants on what counts as Scripture-there is a wide range of exceptions and qualifications that different groups wish to be made. Many Anglicans and some Lutherans and Calvinists give the early Church Fathers an authoritative-but not binding-role in the interpretation of Scripture. Many of the same individuals give this interpretive role to the early ecumenical councils and certain key creeds (e.g., the Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian). Many Protestants from confessional traditions (Lutherans, Calvinists, and Anglicans) also wish to see the confessions of their particular movements given special weight in the interpretation of Scripture. Many Protestants honor the principle that academic study tools and techniques should be used in the interpretation of Scripture, such as linguistic, literary, archaeological, cultural, historical, and critical studies). Other Protestants reject some or all of these methods. Some even go to the extreme of limiting interpretation to a single translation (usually the King James Version) as interpreted without academic training or resources. Pentecostals, Protestant Charismatics, and Word-Faith adherents insist that in interpreting Scripture, information provided as “revelation knowledge” by the charismatic gifts must be taken into account. Other Protestants reject any role for such alleged information.
The various Protestant groups disagree on Faith Alone and Bible Alone, and the many and various other doctrines. People do not divide over "secondary issues". They divide over important issues.
Spot on brother. And look at St Athanasius. He knew Scripture was valuable, but not as the Protestant assert "alone-sufficient". He knew Scripture is only useful so far as the other person accepts it's clear meaning. He appealed to the Arians on the basis of Scripture, and then he saw how they privately interpreted Scripture and did not accept it's meaning as held by the Church. So Athanasius then referred the Arians to the Church. He was instrumental in the 1st Church Council of Nicaea which was convened to deal with the Arians private interpretations, and which over-ruled the Arians interpretations of Scripture. And He devoted his life to implementing these rulings of the Council. Athanasius was the Catholic because for him Church was Final Authority OVER private interpretation of Scripture. The Arians with their private interpretation of Scripture, were just like the Protestants.
I grew up nondenominational (aka undercover baptist) and I am still struggling through infant baptism. I see both sides of the argument and I can’t figure out which side I land on. I now have 2 children so the issue pressing.
@@newkingdommedia9434 Infant baptism, just another illustration how Sola Scriptura is flawed. Each reader claims the "right interpretation" whilst one claims infant baptism is right and the other claims it is wrong. A God-ordained authority is required. Sola Scriptura puts private interpretation of Scripture above the magisterium of the Church.
I believe you would also include Anglo-Catholics, Methodists and Arminians in your category of Protestants as Anglicans also have good historical relations with them till this day.
Look at St Athanasius. He knew Scripture was valuable, but not as the Protestant assert "alone-sufficient". He knew Scripture is only useful so far as the other person accepts it's clear meaning. He appealed to the Arians on the basis of Scripture, and then he saw how they privately interpreted Scripture and did not accept it's meaning as held by the Church. So Athanasius then referred the Arians to the Church. He was instrumental in the 1st Church Council of Nicaea which was convened to deal with the Arians private interpretations, and which over-ruled the Arians interpretations of Scripture. And He devoted his life to implementing these rulings of the Council. Athanasius was the Catholic because for him Church was Final Authority OVER private interpretation of Scripture. The Arians with their private interpretation of Scripture, were just like the Protestants.
Summarizing: the Bible is plain clear and if you interpret it differently from me it’s because you are either sinful or prideful or ignorant or unreasonable or all of the above.
@@thejerichoconnection3473 Yes, what is "essential"?. The many various and separate Protestant sects disagree on everything including what is "essential". They each "study the Bible under the Holy Spirit" and arrive at different and opposing doctrinal conclusions and divide, divide, divide. This is the "fruit" of Sola Scriptura. It cannot possibly be ordained by Christ. "The church is the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim 3:15) and not the private interpretations of an individual/group.
Why I'm not a catholic Mary’s intercession is not only useful but necessary for salvation: St. Alphonsus Liguori. St. Alphonsus de Liguori IT is impossible for clients of Mary to be damned, if they faithfully honor her and commend themselves to her. St. Anselm "Just as it is impossible for persons to be saved who have no devotion to Mary and are not protected by her, so it is impossible for any who recommend themselves to her, and are therefore watched over by her, to be lost St. Albert the Great: All those who are not your servants, O Mary, shall perish. St. Bonaventure: Those who neglect our Lady will die in their sins. Those who do not call on you in life will never get to Heaven. St. Ephrem calling devotion to our Blessed Lady the charter (or passport) to liberty, and Mary herself the protectress of the damned. Mary has both the power and the will to save us. Father Alfonso Alvarez claimed the devil told him to "Give up your devotion to Mary, and I will leave you alone." St. Catherine of Siena claimed God told her, "No one, not even sinners, who devoutly recommend themselves to her, would ever fall into Hell" Blessed Henry Suso I put his soul in Mary's hands. Therefore, if his Judge wished to condemn him to Hell, her most loving hands would have to handle the sentence. St. Bonaventure: "In you, O Lady, I have placed all my hopes." I have therefore the utmost assurance that I shall never be lost, but shall praise and love you forever in Heaven. St. Antonine let all tremble for their salvation who make but small account of their devotion to the Mother of God, or grow careless and give it up: it is impossible for anyone not protected by Mary to be saved
@BrianGondo so you agree that salvation is found in Mary? Because that contradicts what the Bible actually says. The Bible states that salvation is found in Christ alone.
Atheism can not end religion because the idea of God is not religious. The only question that matters is "was the universe created?", if life was designed we don't have to worry and fear excessively death because the designer is eternal, something incredible, something impossible to understand. When we die can not happen the same if the universe was created or uncreated. Do you think the creator could have created the universe so our death is like atheism, like no creator? The claim the Quran has been memorized has not been examined. I will give my three bedroom flat in Spain in the city of Burgos to the first muslim in the world who obtains a written copy of the original Quran from memory. A flat for proving you have an incredible memory, it's a win win situation. Who is the owner of the copy that could be worth fortunes, the writer or me? The truth is atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. To end the war the discovery that atheism is a logical fallacy has to be news. I keep repeating myself. Thank you.
As a cradle Anglican (returning from Catholicism) why is it that the CofE allowed women to be ordained? I haven't been able to find the Scripture passages they used because as you say, it's unbelievably clear that they shouldn't be. I'm not even sure how they got away with same sex blessings because that too is abundantly clear. (one of the few things Rome has got right, so far!).
This is a relatively new problem (1994). It is not a mystery that the Church of England has been a train wreck since the 80s and now with the passing of the LLF aberration it's clearer than ever. The CofE has succumbed to doctrines of demons, but that's not a problem of the infallibility of Scripture, but of fallibility of the heart. Anglicanism in the global south remains orthodox for the most part.
Because their leadership became infiltrated by globalists and Marxists who then turned seminaries into re-education facilities to spread their demonic false doctrine to ordinands. The laity didn't notice or care that this was happening because they preferred to stay popular in the eyes of the world and became apathetic to theology.
@@newkingdommedia9434 Disunity on faith Alone (Part 2) One of the most contentious points among Protestants is the meaning of the term faith in “faith alone.” It is widely recognized, per James 2:14-26, that not all forms of faith justify. However, there is great disagreement over the nature of “saving faith” or “justifying faith.” Some Protestants, such as Z. Hodges and C. C. Ryrie, appear to hold that saving faith consists of a person’s recognition and acceptance of the fact that Christ died for him (part of what Catholics call the virtue of faith). Others, such as R. C. Sproul, insist that saving faith includes a conscious decision to trust Christ for salvation (equivalent to what Catholics call the virtue of hope). Still others, in keeping with Galatians 5:6, insist that saving faith includes trust and results in a life of good works, which are inspired by supernatural love (equivalent to what Catholics call the virtue of charity). Various Protestants will also add into the definition of faith the need for faith to be expressed in baptism, the need for faith to be expressed in repentance, the need for faith to be expressed in good works, the need for a particular form of emotional confidence, the need to have faith in God rather than “faith in one’s own faith,” and other qualifiers. Those who do not share the same understanding of saving faith are, by necessity, looked upon as having a false understanding of “faith alone.”
Look at St Athanasius. He knew Scripture was valuable, but not as the Protestant assert "alone-sufficient". He knew Scripture is only useful so far as the other person accepts it's clear meaning. He appealed to the Arians on the basis of Scripture, and then he saw how they privately interpreted Scripture and did not accept it's meaning as held by the Church. So Athanasius then referred the Arians to the Church. He was instrumental in the 1st Church Council of Nicaea which was convened to deal with the Arians private interpretations, and which over-ruled the Arians interpretations of Scripture. And He devoted his life to implementing these rulings of the Council. Athanasius was the Catholic because for him Church was Final Authority OVER private interpretation of Scripture. The Arians with their private interpretation of Scripture, were just like the Protestants. I recommend to you the site Catholic Answers. Peace be with your spirit.
The very statement "scripture is clear" is itself an interpretation. If you cannot infallibly settle matters of faith and morals then all you have left are opinions. Your video here is an opinion. It isn't settled matter of faith. You cannot anathematize anyone for anathemas require infallibility. You cannot condemn anyone. You can say all you want about how scripture is clear but you cannot excommunicate anyone. Your faith is an opinion not something anchored in infallible teaching.
Many issues. 1. An apples-to-apples comparison compares rules of faith. Not all non-SS churches have same rule of faith. Rome's is scripture-tradition-magisterium. That's not same as EO's. Further, debate and disagreement is permitted in Rome/East - they just set interpretive boundaries circumscribing that discussion - an RC sede for example readily acknowledges he dissents from current magisterium. The issue with SS is no irreformable/binding boundaries can be set. 2. SS is the rule of faith for Protestant churches. To dismiss churches for a supposed "truncated" version of SS is just no true scotsman. Those churches certainly affirm SS and try to interpret scripture sincerely. And even if some concede they are ignoring/rejecting certain passages, the doctrines of the canon, inerrancy, and authenticity of verses are themselves provisional and revisable under SS principles. 3. That the reformers shared certain interpretations is irrelevant under SS. All doctrines and interpretations are subject to the individuals' PJ under SS. And the assertion of unity within the Reformation is misleading. Calvinists, Zwinglians, Anabaptists, Lutherans, Socinians were hurling charges of heresy and persecuting each other within the 1st generation - correspondence of various Reformers shows they were lamenting division even then. Arminians were oppressed after Dort. Anglicans persecuted presbyterians and puritans during 17th century over church govt. Lutherans still don't practice open communion with the Reformed. 4. The distinction between 1st, 2nd, 3rd order doctrines simply begs the question. On what basis should an SS adherent defer to your delineation when SS gives him the right and privilege to subject all such questions to his PJ? 5. The citation of the articles concerning church auth omitted arts 19-21 which grants right of PJ. And of course the articles themselves remain under such a disclaimer - secondary authorities are only authoritative insofar as they conform to Scripture, that is the individual's PJ of scripture, otherwise they are to be rejected in part or total. PJ remains supreme and normative, not any ecclesial judgment, confession, creed, or council. 6. Relatedly, under SS the definition of the "church" becomes subjective and amorphous. Who counts as in or out in determining doctrine? Concepts such as schism and heresy become relativized into oblivion and emptied of any meaning. 7. That Scripture is clear again begs the question. Clear in what context? Within an authorized interpretive community known as the church? Isolated? Within the complete canon? Within secular academia and modern scholarship? 8. Rome/East doesn't hold Scripture is hopelessly obscure - it's not a wax nose in which every interpretation is plausible. Even Protestants agree Scripture's clarity lies along a spectrum, SS just argues the "essentials" are clear. Rome/East merely extend that in saying even the essentials can have competing credible interpretations. So holding it's obscure is not impious or dishonoring to God by either SS or non-SS lights. 9. One can say all disagreement is simply due to sin - Whitaker defers to this defense frequently in his work. But that gives up any meaningful objective mechanism to resolve disputes and determine divine revelation from mere opinion - doctrine is reduced to subjectivism and bosom burning. And given the noetic effects of sin amongst believers taught by the Reformed, it becomes a self-defeating proposition. 10. Consider a thought experiment - let's assume SS and perspicuity are true. Now, if we presume it's false for argument's sake, how would the historical and the current state of Protestantism look any different?
I think you are forgetting one thing Diverux said which that some interpretations are not as reasonable as others and Protestants can use that as metric to determine. Also most of the "essentials" like Jesus's resurrection, atonement on the Cross are accepted by all Protestants. Now I know you say liberal Protestants would disagree but because it goes against what you agree is clear (apparently EOs and Catholics don't think it's obscure).
@@noahwhite6062 sure not all interpretations are equally plausible. "Jesus wept" does not mean "the moon is made of cheese". But since classical Protestants acknowledge Scripture can be unclear and have competing plausible interpretations in "non-essentials", saying it doesn't in the "essentials" just begs the question on distinguishing the two under SS principles. And of course the teachings you listed are also affirmed by Rome/East, yet Protestants still defend the separation at the Reformation as valid and many still hold Rome/East as heretics or dangerously obscuring (if not denying) the gospel.
@cronmaker2 Sure unclear, but unclear does not mean impossible to figure out. Disagreement, I think, between Protestants is over emphasized. It just means we need to find out what scripture says, and I think if some people can come to God (I'm undecided) by being convinced that the Gospels are historically reliable then (which involves two different side personally interptering the evidence and verses of scripture) I find it difficult to believe that we can figure only stuff out but not whole.
@cronmaker2 Another thing, when you mentioned that protestants damned each other during the reformation and the reformers couldn't agree on the lord's supper but Roman Catholics could. Well, when you use a specific term (Roman Catholic) and compare it with an umbrella term like protestant, well of course they can't agree. A better and more fair comparison would be something like Lutheran vs. Catholic or Anglican vs. Eastern Orthodox and lastly Protestant vs. Ecclesialist. But then again, at that point I could say the same thing about Ecclesialists being unable to agree on the essentials such as whether Christ has two or one nature which every Classcial Protestant can affirm.
@@noahwhite6062 the issue with clarity is we've had 500 years of the SS experiment and no sign of convergence, but further doctrinal fracturing which the Reformers saw even in their lives, but the private judgment genie was out of the bottle. Just because many things are clear doesn't entail everything is or there's no spectrum - in fact some SS defenses (eg Whitaker's) that acknowledge obscurity outlines 9 pious reasons why God may keep things unclear. As for comparisons, that's why I pointed out you compare rules of faith. All Protestant denoms affirm SS as their RoF so it's not unfair to group them. Rome/East while similar in rejecting SS do not hold the same RoF, just as Mormonism rejects SS but doesn't have same RoF. But even if Rome/East were grouped, Id say they agree on far more than Protestant/SS bodies.
At the tower of Babel, they had one language, think Latin, and God divided them into many languages. Acts 2:8“And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?”
Can any protestant or Lutheran tell me when and what council was the dogmas of sola fide and sola scriptura pronounced? Tell me what year was it? These 2 doctrines that according to protestants were so crucial and essential to the faith where and when were they dogmatized? Surely the early church knew the importance of such doctrines they had to include it in the Nicean creed right? What pope or what church father proclaimed either to be absolute truths of the faith?
Christ would never ordain a practice that does not work. There is no way of deciding which individual or group can claim the "right interpretation". Sola Scriptura is inherently flawed.
The uncertainty doesn't go away by rejecting Sola Scriptura. There are many competing authorities that are mutually contradictory. That you have chosen one, be it Rome or Constantinople or Alexandria or Assyria, does not mean that your choice is certainly true, so the problem remains.
@@mengbomin You illustrate my point precisely: without the unifying and authoritative office of Peter there is doctrinal confusion and continual division. This is what we see in the myriad of separate Protestant sects, and the many and various separate schismatic Orthodox churches. At the end of the day Sola Scriptura was the Protestant "solution" to the perceived problems of Rome. The practice, by its very nature, result in each individual/group arriving at different and opposing doctrinal conclusions and continual division when "studying the Bible under the Holy Spirit". You may bemoan the "errors of Rome" but the "solution" has not, can not, work. You can see the problem you have.
@@mengbomin Look at St Athanasius. He knew Scripture was valuable, but not as the Protestant assert "alone-sufficient". He knew Scripture is only useful so far as the other person accepts it's clear meaning. He appealed to the Arians on the basis of Scripture, and then he saw how they privately interpreted Scripture and did not accept it's meaning as held by the Church. So Athanasius then referred the Arians to the Church. He was instrumental in the 1st Church Council of Nicaea which was convened to deal with the Arians private interpretations, and which over-ruled the Arians interpretations of Scripture. And He devoted his life to implementing these rulings of the Council. Athanasius was the Catholic because for him Church was Final Authority OVER private interpretation of Scripture. The Arians with their private interpretation of Scripture, were just like the Protestants.
Even with "Peter", the Roman church has so many issues and contradictions. Your system that "works" doesn't seem to work very well. Even the orthodox have more unity without the unhistorical doctrine. Protestantism is the only one that makes sense
When starts by opening their bible to the table of contents. Then ask, "is scripture sufficient" to know which writings belong in it? Analogy: Is my teapot sufficient for me to make tea? Sufficient defined, Websters: _enough to meet the needs of a situation or a proposed end_ Answer: no. I must put water and tea into it. I must put it on the stove. I must turn the stove on. I must take it off the stove. etc. It is needed but on it's own it can not make me tea. It is not sufficient to do the task.
Disagree on the baby/child baptism. I agree that the Bible is an absolute authority that must not and cannot be ignored, but it is for that reason I believe infant baptism is un-Biblical. Following from Acts 2:37-38, Acts 2:41 says "So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls" This means that there were some in attendance who heard what he said, but rejected it; an infant would not even be able to comprehend what was being preached, so they would not be able to receive the Word. As an aside, Peter also says in Acts 2:38 the baptism is for the forgiveness of sins, which if one believes in the age of accountability, would not apply to infants or children; as they are not yet held accountable for their sins. (More about age of accountability later) Acts 16:32 states "they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house" Again, like Acts 2, this couldn't be referring to infants; You also have to read this verse and *assume* the ages of his children, which is something you're reading into the verse that is not there. Matthew 19:14 does not support infant baptism but leans against it, as Jesus states that the children [already] belong to the kingdom of heaven (Luke and Mark say "kingdom of God"); which implies the default is that they are with God already, not requiring further action. The idea that it has anything to do with infant baptism comes from a misappropriation of the Greek word for "hinder" (κωλύετε) that is alleged to be a technical term referring to baptism, however this is not true; the word in question is used twice to refer to hinder/withhold/forbid one from baptism explicitly, but 21 times it is used to refer to hinder/withhold/forbid from other actions, such as approaching Jesus; thus the word "κωλύετε" cannot be used to imply a verse is referring to baptism due to it's broad meaning. Genesis 17:7-8 and Colossians 2 I'll skip this as the requirements for baptism set out in the New Testament are not the same as circumcision. And let me be clear, baptism has a prerequisite set out in the NT that you seem to have overlooked. -- In Mark 16:15-16 Jesus gives a command to go out and proclaim the gospel, and says: "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned" So belief is a prerequisite; you cannot force baptism on a person. If every infant is being baptized, they would have to have believed to be saved. Acts 2:41 the man and his household who believed would've been saved; if it followed the prerequisites set out by Jesus, then for all his household to be saved, that would mean they all received the Word and believed. Now if you want to make an argument that infants and children have received the Word of God and believed, I would have to ask how they might receive the word, what an example of that would look like. -- On the age of accountability: "And as for your little ones, who you said would become a prey, and your children, *who today have no knowledge of good or evil*, they shall go in there. And to them I will give it, and they shall possess it." (Deuteronomy 1:39) Moses having written of Adam and Eve receiving the knowledge of good and evil wrote here that the children had no knowledge of good and evil (at that particular point in time). "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. He shall eat curds and honey *when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good*. For *before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good*, the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted." (Isaiah 7:14-16) Again, the prophecy of Jesus seems to state plainly that he will go through a stage in his life not knowing how to refuse evil and choose good; it's said as though that stage in life is typical. "And should not I pity Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than 120,000 persons who do not know their right hand from their left" (Jonah 4:11) The 120 thousand individuals mentioned are generally thought to be infants, God again here seems to separate those who are "unknowing" from the rest of the population. Throughout Romans 1-3 there is condemnation, but all the things condemned are something you'd be hard pressed to apply to an infant or even a child. In fact, Romans 1:32 says "Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them" What righteous decree does an infant know? Especially such that it would not contradict Deuteronomy 1:39. "If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have been guilty of sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin. Whoever hates me hates my Father also. If I had not done among them the works that no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin, but now they have seen and hated both me and my Father." (John 15:22-24) Jesus says here that we have not committed the sin of rejecting Jesus *before* having heard the Word. If a baptism requires belief, you would again need to have heard and accepted the Word. "And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire" (Revelation 20:12-15) How would the judgement presented in Revelation apply to infants? "He said, “While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept, for I said, ‘Who knows whether the Lord will be gracious to me, that the child may live?’ But now he is dead. Why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me.”" (2 Samuel 12:22) David understood that his child had gone to heaven, "I shall go to him"; he immediately ceases his fasting and weeping, as he knows his son has gone to God. Compare it to 2 Samuel 18 wherein David weeps for Absalom because he is not confident he has gone to be with God due to how Absalom lived; he did not weep for the former child because he was confident the child was with God.
@@cronmaker2 I think he is right that some Christians do straight up just ignore verses when they don't like what it says. On the topic of infant baptism however, I think it's not as cut and dry as some make it out to be; or if it is, there's a lot more explanation that's needed.
@@kentleighenglish1388 I can agree with that to some extent but don't think it's clear cut. Some liberals might say, yes we just ignore/reject verses we don't like and don't care. But most will likely qualify it as a hermeneutical question. For example, many Christians struggle over OT conquest narratives - I hardly think they're rejecting/ignoring those passages even if they're unsure how to fit them in their theology. Or similarly on the details of inerrancy. Or Arminians and Calvinists charge each other with shoehorning their theology into verses that seem to contradict their theology. Or see conservative views on moral issues as akin to how many devout christians thought Scripture supported antebellum slavery. It's a blurry line under SS framework distinguishing those who outright reject Scripture vs those who sincerely interpret it differently than another.
Your view of “the church” is as whacked as that of Rome and the East. Whom exactly is “the church” that interprets the Bible for you? Please be specific, thnx.
![Lil Uzi Vert - Chill Bae [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/D7F42F_JM3U/mqdefault.jpg)
16:02 I thought you said "spirit of stupid" and I spat my coffee. God bless you brother.
Lol. Cheers bro!
Classical Protestant W!
An excellent video brother
Thank you very much brother!
Given that "humans are fallible creatures" it is obvious Christ would never ordain a practice that was not going to work. There is no way of deciding which individual or group can claim the "right interpretation". Sola Scriptura is inherently flawed.
Look at St Athanasius. He knew Scripture was valuable, but not as the Protestant assert "alone-sufficient". He knew Scripture is only useful so far as the other person accepts it's clear meaning. He appealed to the Arians on the basis of Scripture, and then he saw how they privately interpreted Scripture and did not accept it's meaning as held by the Church. So Athanasius then referred the Arians to the Church. He was instrumental in the 1st Church Council of Nicaea which was convened to deal with the Arians private interpretations, and which over-ruled the Arians interpretations of Scripture. And He devoted his life to implementing these rulings of the Council. Athanasius was the Catholic because for him Church was Final Authority OVER private interpretation of Scripture. The Arians with their private interpretation of Scripture, were just like the Protestants.
A great video!
Thank you!
Rev. Devereux, I really think you hit the nail on the head at 10:03 - we do not claim our interpretation of scripture as infallible, but rather seek to present its truths as best we can.
Outstanding, as usual, River!
Thank you!
Fantastic video, brother!
Thank you!
The idea that Sola Scriptura leads to an arbitrary means of deciding doctrine is a terrible argument, as if the doctrines cemented into Rome or Orthodoxy are any less arbitrary having drawn their origins from "tradition" and "Oral teaching". If tradition is authoritative, why do all the "Apostolic" churches interpret tradition differently? Its the same problem.
Exactly
They really don’t, they are way closer than say Lutherans Calvinists and Anglicans are
Orthodox literally don't believe Catholics are saved, deny Divine Simplicity and Fillioque... Also, even if what you were saying is true, it's irrelevant. EO and RC disagreeing "less" (whatever that means,) is irrelevant to the case that they do indeed disagree... Your answer is insufficient in answering the question.@@emiliobazzarelli4270
I have definitely met a fair amount of great people in the Holiness movements that are truly following Christ. They affirm the 5 solas, the affirm the creeds of the faith, I think to lump all of them together is pretty similiar to lumping all of each tradition together. All Anglicans are like the COE, all the Ecclesialist together (which of course isn't true, that's my point).
I think that's so well put. The disagreements that exist exist both in the Protestant and Ecclesialist communities and they exist because we are fallen, fallible creatures and at times because people unreasonably read scripture to support their own agendas (Like Mormons and JWs as you mentioned). I also appreciate that you brought up things like the differences with Charismatics and Pentacostals. I wonder if it might be useful to make a brief video explaining why groups like theirs (which have often held to things like ongoing revelation through modern prophets, and visions) are not actually Protestant.
In sum, the existence of disagreements doesn't prove anything special about Protestantism because disagreements have existed throughout all of Christian history.
Absolutely! Thanks for the encouragement.
So given that "humans are fallible creatures" it is obvious Christ would never ordain a practice that was not going to work. There is no way of deciding which individual or group can claim the "right interpretation". Sola Scriptura is inherently flawed.
@@dougy6237 that was a series of statements followed by a conclusion that in no way follows from them. I don't really detect an argument here so much as a group of assertions.
@@tategarrett3042 Christ promised truth, not doctrinal confusion. The suggestion that Christ would ordain the Bible practice is an insult to Christ.
@@dougy6237 I don't know what you mean by "Bible practice" or why it would be an insult to Christ. Do you mean it's an insult to Christ to study scripture?
I agree with most of what you said. But regarding Pentecostals/Charismatic or Anabaptists while some groups within these categories are so wrong that are barely Christian (Oneness) that are rightfully excluded, I wonder if you can really exclude entire categories as there are Pentecostal Churches who hold to the Trinity and to a pretty traditionally protestant view of salvation that is fully by grace through faith so to say that just because they don't happen to belong to one of the "Classical" traditions they don't really "count" and thus can't be protestant? unless you would say that the only thing that makes you Protestant is that you happen to belong to one of the groups that directly came out of the Roman Catholic Church in the Reformation. But if you believe a protestant is someone that holds to the true Gospel by faith alone in Christ Alone and holds to scripture as their only infallible authority. Then it would be pretty inconsistent to say that you can't be Protestant unless you happen to be a member of an Anglican/Lutheran/Reformed church which would be a really Arbitary kind of Apostolic succession. Not sure how you can defend that view against Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox.
Over the last few months I have begun to develop a greater appreciation for Classical Protestantism, even though I obviously disagree on some things as a Catholic. Can you recommend some material that can help me understand Reformation in a fair way?
As to your video - the obvious problem is that for a great many Protestants - what they mean by Sola Scriptura is really Solo Scriptura. Unfortunately, the Solo Scripturalist position is spreading like wild fire. For example, on the baptism issue - it will likely be impossible for you to convince them of infant baptism because in scripture infant baptism is absent. They would literally want to see the mention of an infant being baptised, or a command like that. Principle? That will likely be dismissed as "reading into the text".
They take Sola Scriptura - the term literally - meaning not just the sole infallible rule of faith, but the only real rule of faith. Now they may deny it, but if you see how they apply Sola Scriptura - it becomes clear that past historical positions of the Church or even Reformation mean precious little to them. For them, for example, your position on the baptism is just another Roman tradition they need to shed. For them, Anglicanism is Catholicism Lite. I have literally had these Protestants say that to me, and I am sure they didnt mean to compliment Anglicanism.
It is those who are called who are all in agreeance, the massive balance can't understand things of the Spirit and opinion rules them. it's terrifyingly straight forward.
For the most part, I agree with you on this one, brother. Well done.
Thank you, glad we agree!
@@newkingdommedia9434 Disunity on “Faith Alone” (Part 1)
Lutherans understand the formula of sola fide in a way that does not exclude baptism as a means of justification, as do some Anglicans, some Presbyterians in relation to elect infants, and members of the Campbellite or “Church of Christ” movement. For many Protestants, however, the idea of baptism as a means of salvation is seen as a direct violation of sola fide. This division goes back to the early days of the Protestant Reformation, as illustrated by Luther’s Large Catechism, in which he excoriates Anabaptists for the new, non-baptismal interpretation they were giving his “faith alone” formula.
Following their founder, Lutherans also understand sola fide in a way that allows salvation to be lost, as do most Methodists, Wesleyans, Pentecostals, Charismatics, and many Anglicans. However, Calvinists, Baptists, and many non-denominational Evangelicals influenced by Calvinists hold that, if it is possible to lose salvation, then justification is accomplished in part by one’s “works” (in this case, avoiding the sins that would cause its loss), which is a violation of sola fide. (Those who concede the possibility of losing salvation are also split on the possibility of regaining it after a fall.)
Lutherans, Calvinists, Methodists, Pentecostals, and many Anglicans and Baptists understand sola fide in a way that requires one to repent of one’s sins in order to be justified. However, some Baptists, non-denominational Evangelicals, and especially many Dispensationalists hold that, if repentance is understood as involving a behavioral change whereby one turns away from one’s sinful pattern of life, then salvation is in some measure “by works,” violating sola fide.
Solid!
Yes, but the earliest Christians did not have all of the NT scriptures. Phillip used Isaiah to convert the Ethiopian Eunuch.
Brother, your videos are a great encouragement. I have a podcast called: The Protestant Podcast. I would love to connect with you, but how can I contact you? Number? Email? Let me know!
Thank you! Yes let's connect!
@@newkingdommedia9434 Disunity on “Scripture Alone”
Protestants also disagree over sola scriptura. Aside from the fact that some Protestants (e.g., some Lutherans) are willing to concede that certain books might not belong in the canon of Scripture-thus disagreeing with fellow Protestants on what counts as Scripture-there is a wide range of exceptions and qualifications that different groups wish to be made. Many Anglicans and some Lutherans and Calvinists give the early Church Fathers an authoritative-but not binding-role in the interpretation of Scripture. Many of the same individuals give this interpretive role to the early ecumenical councils and certain key creeds (e.g., the Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian).
Many Protestants from confessional traditions (Lutherans, Calvinists, and Anglicans) also wish to see the confessions of their particular movements given special weight in the interpretation of Scripture. Many Protestants honor the principle that academic study tools and techniques should be used in the interpretation of Scripture, such as linguistic, literary, archaeological, cultural, historical, and critical studies). Other Protestants reject some or all of these methods. Some even go to the extreme of limiting interpretation to a single translation (usually the King James Version) as interpreted without academic training or resources.
Pentecostals, Protestant Charismatics, and Word-Faith adherents insist that in interpreting Scripture, information provided as “revelation knowledge” by the charismatic gifts must be taken into account. Other Protestants reject any role for such alleged information.
The various Protestant groups disagree on Faith Alone and Bible Alone, and the many and various other doctrines. People do not divide over "secondary issues". They divide over important issues.
Spot on brother. And look at St Athanasius. He knew Scripture was valuable, but not as the Protestant assert "alone-sufficient". He knew Scripture is only useful so far as the other person accepts it's clear meaning. He appealed to the Arians on the basis of Scripture, and then he saw how they privately interpreted Scripture and did not accept it's meaning as held by the Church. So Athanasius then referred the Arians to the Church. He was instrumental in the 1st Church Council of Nicaea which was convened to deal with the Arians private interpretations, and which over-ruled the Arians interpretations of Scripture. And He devoted his life to implementing these rulings of the Council. Athanasius was the Catholic because for him Church was Final Authority OVER private interpretation of Scripture. The Arians with their private interpretation of Scripture, were just like the Protestants.
I grew up nondenominational (aka undercover baptist) and I am still struggling through infant baptism. I see both sides of the argument and I can’t figure out which side I land on. I now have 2 children so the issue pressing.
I'd recommend my own video on this topic, where I argue for infant Baptism.
@@newkingdommedia9434 Infant baptism, just another illustration how Sola Scriptura is flawed. Each reader claims the "right interpretation" whilst one claims infant baptism is right and the other claims it is wrong. A God-ordained authority is required. Sola Scriptura puts private interpretation of Scripture above the magisterium of the Church.
I believe you would also include Anglo-Catholics, Methodists and Arminians in your category of Protestants as Anglicans also have good historical relations with them till this day.
Look at St Athanasius. He knew Scripture was valuable, but not as the Protestant assert "alone-sufficient". He knew Scripture is only useful so far as the other person accepts it's clear meaning. He appealed to the Arians on the basis of Scripture, and then he saw how they privately interpreted Scripture and did not accept it's meaning as held by the Church. So Athanasius then referred the Arians to the Church. He was instrumental in the 1st Church Council of Nicaea which was convened to deal with the Arians private interpretations, and which over-ruled the Arians interpretations of Scripture. And He devoted his life to implementing these rulings of the Council. Athanasius was the Catholic because for him Church was Final Authority OVER private interpretation of Scripture. The Arians with their private interpretation of Scripture, were just like the Protestants.
Summarizing: the Bible is plain clear and if you interpret it differently from me it’s because you are either sinful or prideful or ignorant or unreasonable or all of the above.
It's not plain on everything but it is plain on what is essential and this has always been the Protestant view.
@@newkingdommedia9434 what is essential?
@@thejerichoconnection3473 Yes, what is "essential"?. The many various and separate Protestant sects disagree on everything including what is "essential". They each "study the Bible under the Holy Spirit" and arrive at different and opposing doctrinal conclusions and divide, divide, divide. This is the "fruit" of Sola Scriptura. It cannot possibly be ordained by Christ. "The church is the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim 3:15) and not the private interpretations of an individual/group.
@@newkingdommedia9434Marburg Colloquy has entered the chat
Why I'm not a catholic
Mary’s intercession is not only useful but necessary for salvation: St. Alphonsus Liguori.
St. Alphonsus de Liguori IT is impossible for clients of Mary to be damned, if they faithfully honor her and commend themselves to her.
St. Anselm "Just as it is impossible for persons to be saved who have no devotion to Mary and are not protected by her, so it is impossible for any who recommend themselves to her, and are therefore watched over by her, to be lost
St. Albert the Great: All those who are not your servants, O Mary, shall perish.
St. Bonaventure: Those who neglect our Lady will die in their sins. Those who do not call on you in life will never get to Heaven.
St. Ephrem calling devotion to our Blessed Lady the charter (or passport) to liberty, and Mary herself the protectress of the damned. Mary has both the power and the will to save us.
Father Alfonso Alvarez claimed the devil told him to "Give up your devotion to Mary, and I will leave you alone."
St. Catherine of Siena claimed God told her, "No one, not even sinners, who devoutly recommend themselves to her, would ever fall into Hell"
Blessed Henry Suso I put his soul in Mary's hands. Therefore, if his Judge wished to condemn him to Hell, her most loving hands would have to handle the sentence.
St. Bonaventure: "In you, O Lady, I have placed all my hopes." I have therefore the utmost assurance that I shall never be lost, but shall praise and love you forever in Heaven.
St. Antonine let all tremble for their salvation who make but small account of their devotion to the Mother of God, or grow careless and give it up: it is impossible for anyone not protected by Mary to be saved
Indeed. These quotes are blasphemous
Beautiful quotes. Love them
@@BrianGondo Sure, if you're found of blasphemy
@@sbaker8971 the quotes are just fine. You just went and found a label for them
@BrianGondo so you agree that salvation is found in Mary? Because that contradicts what the Bible actually says. The Bible states that salvation is found in Christ alone.
Atheism can not end religion because the idea of God is not religious. The only question that matters is "was the universe created?", if life was designed we don't have to worry and fear excessively death because the designer is eternal, something incredible, something impossible to understand. When we die can not happen the same if the universe was created or uncreated. Do you think the creator could have created the universe so our death is like atheism, like no creator? The claim the Quran has been memorized has not been examined. I will give my three bedroom flat in Spain in the city of Burgos to the first muslim in the world who obtains a written copy of the original Quran from memory. A flat for proving you have an incredible memory, it's a win win situation. Who is the owner of the copy that could be worth fortunes, the writer or me? The truth is atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. To end the war the discovery that atheism is a logical fallacy has to be news. I keep repeating myself. Thank you.
As a cradle Anglican (returning from Catholicism) why is it that the CofE allowed women to be ordained? I haven't been able to find the Scripture passages they used because as you say, it's unbelievably clear that they shouldn't be. I'm not even sure how they got away with same sex blessings because that too is abundantly clear. (one of the few things Rome has got right, so far!).
This is a relatively new problem (1994). It is not a mystery that the Church of England has been a train wreck since the 80s and now with the passing of the LLF aberration it's clearer than ever. The CofE has succumbed to doctrines of demons, but that's not a problem of the infallibility of Scripture, but of fallibility of the heart. Anglicanism in the global south remains orthodox for the most part.
Because their leadership became infiltrated by globalists and Marxists who then turned seminaries into re-education facilities to spread their demonic false doctrine to ordinands. The laity didn't notice or care that this was happening because they preferred to stay popular in the eyes of the world and became apathetic to theology.
Because they're apostates...the complete lack of discipline from the hierarchy allowed heretics and liberals to run amok.
@@newkingdommedia9434 Disunity on faith Alone (Part 2)
One of the most contentious points among Protestants is the meaning of the term faith in “faith alone.” It is widely recognized, per James 2:14-26, that not all forms of faith justify. However, there is great disagreement over the nature of “saving faith” or “justifying faith.” Some Protestants, such as Z. Hodges and C. C. Ryrie, appear to hold that saving faith consists of a person’s recognition and acceptance of the fact that Christ died for him (part of what Catholics call the virtue of faith). Others, such as R. C. Sproul, insist that saving faith includes a conscious decision to trust Christ for salvation (equivalent to what Catholics call the virtue of hope). Still others, in keeping with Galatians 5:6, insist that saving faith includes trust and results in a life of good works, which are inspired by supernatural love (equivalent to what Catholics call the virtue of charity).
Various Protestants will also add into the definition of faith the need for faith to be expressed in baptism, the need for faith to be expressed in repentance, the need for faith to be expressed in good works, the need for a particular form of emotional confidence, the need to have faith in God rather than “faith in one’s own faith,” and other qualifiers. Those who do not share the same understanding of saving faith are, by necessity, looked upon as having a false understanding of “faith alone.”
Look at St Athanasius. He knew Scripture was valuable, but not as the Protestant assert "alone-sufficient". He knew Scripture is only useful so far as the other person accepts it's clear meaning. He appealed to the Arians on the basis of Scripture, and then he saw how they privately interpreted Scripture and did not accept it's meaning as held by the Church. So Athanasius then referred the Arians to the Church. He was instrumental in the 1st Church Council of Nicaea which was convened to deal with the Arians private interpretations, and which over-ruled the Arians interpretations of Scripture. And He devoted his life to implementing these rulings of the Council. Athanasius was the Catholic because for him Church was Final Authority OVER private interpretation of Scripture. The Arians with their private interpretation of Scripture, were just like the Protestants. I recommend to you the site Catholic Answers. Peace be with your spirit.
The very statement "scripture is clear" is itself an interpretation. If you cannot infallibly settle matters of faith and morals then all you have left are opinions. Your video here is an opinion. It isn't settled matter of faith. You cannot anathematize anyone for anathemas require infallibility. You cannot condemn anyone. You can say all you want about how scripture is clear but you cannot excommunicate anyone. Your faith is an opinion not something anchored in infallible teaching.
Love it
Thank you!
Many issues.
1. An apples-to-apples comparison compares rules of faith. Not all non-SS churches have same rule of faith. Rome's is scripture-tradition-magisterium. That's not same as EO's. Further, debate and disagreement is permitted in Rome/East - they just set interpretive boundaries circumscribing that discussion - an RC sede for example readily acknowledges he dissents from current magisterium. The issue with SS is no irreformable/binding boundaries can be set.
2. SS is the rule of faith for Protestant churches. To dismiss churches for a supposed "truncated" version of SS is just no true scotsman. Those churches certainly affirm SS and try to interpret scripture sincerely. And even if some concede they are ignoring/rejecting certain passages, the doctrines of the canon, inerrancy, and authenticity of verses are themselves provisional and revisable under SS principles.
3. That the reformers shared certain interpretations is irrelevant under SS. All doctrines and interpretations are subject to the individuals' PJ under SS. And the assertion of unity within the Reformation is misleading. Calvinists, Zwinglians, Anabaptists, Lutherans, Socinians were hurling charges of heresy and persecuting each other within the 1st generation - correspondence of various Reformers shows they were lamenting division even then. Arminians were oppressed after Dort. Anglicans persecuted presbyterians and puritans during 17th century over church govt. Lutherans still don't practice open communion with the Reformed.
4. The distinction between 1st, 2nd, 3rd order doctrines simply begs the question. On what basis should an SS adherent defer to your delineation when SS gives him the right and privilege to subject all such questions to his PJ?
5. The citation of the articles concerning church auth omitted arts 19-21 which grants right of PJ. And of course the articles themselves remain under such a disclaimer - secondary authorities are only authoritative insofar as they conform to Scripture, that is the individual's PJ of scripture, otherwise they are to be rejected in part or total. PJ remains supreme and normative, not any ecclesial judgment, confession, creed, or council.
6. Relatedly, under SS the definition of the "church" becomes subjective and amorphous. Who counts as in or out in determining doctrine? Concepts such as schism and heresy become relativized into oblivion and emptied of any meaning.
7. That Scripture is clear again begs the question. Clear in what context? Within an authorized interpretive community known as the church? Isolated? Within the complete canon? Within secular academia and modern scholarship?
8. Rome/East doesn't hold Scripture is hopelessly obscure - it's not a wax nose in which every interpretation is plausible. Even Protestants agree Scripture's clarity lies along a spectrum, SS just argues the "essentials" are clear. Rome/East merely extend that in saying even the essentials can have competing credible interpretations. So holding it's obscure is not impious or dishonoring to God by either SS or non-SS lights.
9. One can say all disagreement is simply due to sin - Whitaker defers to this defense frequently in his work. But that gives up any meaningful objective mechanism to resolve disputes and determine divine revelation from mere opinion - doctrine is reduced to subjectivism and bosom burning. And given the noetic effects of sin amongst believers taught by the Reformed, it becomes a self-defeating proposition.
10. Consider a thought experiment - let's assume SS and perspicuity are true. Now, if we presume it's false for argument's sake, how would the historical and the current state of Protestantism look any different?
I think you are forgetting one thing Diverux said which that some interpretations are not as reasonable as others and Protestants can use that as metric to determine. Also most of the "essentials" like Jesus's resurrection, atonement on the Cross are accepted by all Protestants. Now I know you say liberal Protestants would disagree but because it goes against what you agree is clear (apparently EOs and Catholics don't think it's obscure).
@@noahwhite6062 sure not all interpretations are equally plausible. "Jesus wept" does not mean "the moon is made of cheese". But since classical Protestants acknowledge Scripture can be unclear and have competing plausible interpretations in "non-essentials", saying it doesn't in the "essentials" just begs the question on distinguishing the two under SS principles.
And of course the teachings you listed are also affirmed by Rome/East, yet Protestants still defend the separation at the Reformation as valid and many still hold Rome/East as heretics or dangerously obscuring (if not denying) the gospel.
@cronmaker2 Sure unclear, but unclear does not mean impossible to figure out. Disagreement, I think, between Protestants is over emphasized. It just means we need to find out what scripture says, and I think if some people can come to God (I'm undecided) by being convinced that the Gospels are historically reliable then (which involves two different side personally interptering the evidence and verses of scripture) I find it difficult to believe that we can figure only stuff out but not whole.
@cronmaker2 Another thing, when you mentioned that protestants damned each other during the reformation and the reformers couldn't agree on the lord's supper but Roman Catholics could. Well, when you use a specific term (Roman Catholic) and compare it with an umbrella term like protestant, well of course they can't agree. A better and more fair comparison would be something like Lutheran vs. Catholic or Anglican vs. Eastern Orthodox and lastly Protestant vs. Ecclesialist. But then again, at that point I could say the same thing about Ecclesialists being unable to agree on the essentials such as whether Christ has two or one nature which every Classcial Protestant can affirm.
@@noahwhite6062 the issue with clarity is we've had 500 years of the SS experiment and no sign of convergence, but further doctrinal fracturing which the Reformers saw even in their lives, but the private judgment genie was out of the bottle. Just because many things are clear doesn't entail everything is or there's no spectrum - in fact some SS defenses (eg Whitaker's) that acknowledge obscurity outlines 9 pious reasons why God may keep things unclear.
As for comparisons, that's why I pointed out you compare rules of faith. All Protestant denoms affirm SS as their RoF so it's not unfair to group them. Rome/East while similar in rejecting SS do not hold the same RoF, just as Mormonism rejects SS but doesn't have same RoF. But even if Rome/East were grouped, Id say they agree on far more than Protestant/SS bodies.
At the tower of Babel, they had one language, think Latin, and God divided them into many languages. Acts 2:8“And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?”
Can any protestant or Lutheran tell me when and what council was the dogmas of sola fide and sola scriptura pronounced? Tell me what year was it? These 2 doctrines that according to protestants were so crucial and essential to the faith where and when were they dogmatized? Surely the early church knew the importance of such doctrines they had to include it in the Nicean creed right? What pope or what church father proclaimed either to be absolute truths of the faith?
now u tell me when and what creeds was the invocation of saints pronounced papist?
@@doomer12345 scripture and tradition.
Christ would never ordain a practice that does not work. There is no way of deciding which individual or group can claim the "right interpretation". Sola Scriptura is inherently flawed.
The uncertainty doesn't go away by rejecting Sola Scriptura. There are many competing authorities that are mutually contradictory.
That you have chosen one, be it Rome or Constantinople or Alexandria or Assyria, does not mean that your choice is certainly true, so the problem remains.
@@mengbomin You illustrate my point precisely: without the unifying and authoritative office of Peter there is doctrinal confusion and continual division. This is what we see in the myriad of separate Protestant sects, and the many and various separate schismatic Orthodox churches. At the end of the day Sola Scriptura was the Protestant "solution" to the perceived problems of Rome. The practice, by its very nature, result in each individual/group arriving at different and opposing doctrinal conclusions and continual division when "studying the Bible under the Holy Spirit". You may bemoan the "errors of Rome" but the "solution" has not, can not, work. You can see the problem you have.
@@mengbomin Look at St Athanasius. He knew Scripture was valuable, but not as the Protestant assert "alone-sufficient". He knew Scripture is only useful so far as the other person accepts it's clear meaning. He appealed to the Arians on the basis of Scripture, and then he saw how they privately interpreted Scripture and did not accept it's meaning as held by the Church. So Athanasius then referred the Arians to the Church. He was instrumental in the 1st Church Council of Nicaea which was convened to deal with the Arians private interpretations, and which over-ruled the Arians interpretations of Scripture. And He devoted his life to implementing these rulings of the Council. Athanasius was the Catholic because for him Church was Final Authority OVER private interpretation of Scripture. The Arians with their private interpretation of Scripture, were just like the Protestants.
Even with "Peter", the Roman church has so many issues and contradictions. Your system that "works" doesn't seem to work very well. Even the orthodox have more unity without the unhistorical doctrine. Protestantism is the only one that makes sense
And Christ would never ordain a guy who says all religions lead to god to be a infallible guy and a head of roman church. Right papust?🤡🤡🤡
When starts by opening their bible to the table of contents. Then ask, "is scripture sufficient" to know which writings belong in it?
Analogy: Is my teapot sufficient for me to make tea?
Sufficient defined, Websters: _enough to meet the needs of a situation or a proposed end_
Answer: no. I must put water and tea into it. I must put it on the stove. I must turn the stove on. I must take it off the stove. etc. It is needed but on it's own it can not make me tea. It is not sufficient to do the task.
Disagree on the baby/child baptism.
I agree that the Bible is an absolute authority that must not and cannot be ignored, but it is for that reason I believe infant baptism is un-Biblical.
Following from Acts 2:37-38, Acts 2:41 says "So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls"
This means that there were some in attendance who heard what he said, but rejected it; an infant would not even be able to comprehend what was being preached, so they would not be able to receive the Word.
As an aside, Peter also says in Acts 2:38 the baptism is for the forgiveness of sins, which if one believes in the age of accountability, would not apply to infants or children; as they are not yet held accountable for their sins.
(More about age of accountability later)
Acts 16:32 states "they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house"
Again, like Acts 2, this couldn't be referring to infants;
You also have to read this verse and *assume* the ages of his children, which is something you're reading into the verse that is not there.
Matthew 19:14 does not support infant baptism but leans against it, as Jesus states that the children [already] belong to the kingdom of heaven (Luke and Mark say "kingdom of God"); which implies the default is that they are with God already, not requiring further action.
The idea that it has anything to do with infant baptism comes from a misappropriation of the Greek word for "hinder" (κωλύετε) that is alleged to be a technical term referring to baptism, however this is not true; the word in question is used twice to refer to hinder/withhold/forbid one from baptism explicitly, but 21 times it is used to refer to hinder/withhold/forbid from other actions, such as approaching Jesus; thus the word "κωλύετε" cannot be used to imply a verse is referring to baptism due to it's broad meaning.
Genesis 17:7-8 and Colossians 2 I'll skip this as the requirements for baptism set out in the New Testament are not the same as circumcision.
And let me be clear, baptism has a prerequisite set out in the NT that you seem to have overlooked.
--
In Mark 16:15-16 Jesus gives a command to go out and proclaim the gospel, and says: "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned"
So belief is a prerequisite; you cannot force baptism on a person.
If every infant is being baptized, they would have to have believed to be saved.
Acts 2:41 the man and his household who believed would've been saved; if it followed the prerequisites set out by Jesus, then for all his household to be saved, that would mean they all received the Word and believed.
Now if you want to make an argument that infants and children have received the Word of God and believed, I would have to ask how they might receive the word, what an example of that would look like.
--
On the age of accountability:
"And as for your little ones, who you said would become a prey, and your children, *who today have no knowledge of good or evil*, they shall go in there. And to them I will give it, and they shall possess it." (Deuteronomy 1:39)
Moses having written of Adam and Eve receiving the knowledge of good and evil wrote here that the children had no knowledge of good and evil (at that particular point in time).
"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. He shall eat curds and honey *when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good*. For *before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good*, the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted." (Isaiah 7:14-16)
Again, the prophecy of Jesus seems to state plainly that he will go through a stage in his life not knowing how to refuse evil and choose good; it's said as though that stage in life is typical.
"And should not I pity Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than 120,000 persons who do not know their right hand from their left" (Jonah 4:11)
The 120 thousand individuals mentioned are generally thought to be infants, God again here seems to separate those who are "unknowing" from the rest of the population.
Throughout Romans 1-3 there is condemnation, but all the things condemned are something you'd be hard pressed to apply to an infant or even a child.
In fact, Romans 1:32 says "Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them"
What righteous decree does an infant know? Especially such that it would not contradict Deuteronomy 1:39.
"If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have been guilty of sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin. Whoever hates me hates my Father also. If I had not done among them the works that no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin, but now they have seen and hated both me and my Father." (John 15:22-24)
Jesus says here that we have not committed the sin of rejecting Jesus *before* having heard the Word.
If a baptism requires belief, you would again need to have heard and accepted the Word.
"And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire" (Revelation 20:12-15)
How would the judgement presented in Revelation apply to infants?
"He said, “While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept, for I said, ‘Who knows whether the Lord will be gracious to me, that the child may live?’ But now he is dead. Why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me.”" (2 Samuel 12:22)
David understood that his child had gone to heaven, "I shall go to him"; he immediately ceases his fasting and weeping, as he knows his son has gone to God.
Compare it to 2 Samuel 18 wherein David weeps for Absalom because he is not confident he has gone to be with God due to how Absalom lived; he did not weep for the former child because he was confident the child was with God.
Clearly this means your mind is clouded by sin. I'm being sarcastic but this is basically the argument of the video.
@@cronmaker2 I think he is right that some Christians do straight up just ignore verses when they don't like what it says.
On the topic of infant baptism however, I think it's not as cut and dry as some make it out to be; or if it is, there's a lot more explanation that's needed.
@@kentleighenglish1388 I can agree with that to some extent but don't think it's clear cut. Some liberals might say, yes we just ignore/reject verses we don't like and don't care. But most will likely qualify it as a hermeneutical question. For example, many Christians struggle over OT conquest narratives - I hardly think they're rejecting/ignoring those passages even if they're unsure how to fit them in their theology. Or similarly on the details of inerrancy. Or Arminians and Calvinists charge each other with shoehorning their theology into verses that seem to contradict their theology. Or see conservative views on moral issues as akin to how many devout christians thought Scripture supported antebellum slavery.
It's a blurry line under SS framework distinguishing those who outright reject Scripture vs those who sincerely interpret it differently than another.
Your view of “the church” is as whacked as that of Rome and the East. Whom exactly is “the church” that interprets the Bible for you? Please be specific, thnx.