I am Catholic, with that said, if I was a sola scriptura I would agree with Steve. In my opinion he argues his point the best ( from scripture only) Not going to lie , maybe you guys can help me pray for Steve to come back home. At least he is past the rapture and into church history
@30:00 the argument is self defeating. Yes Paul had to wrote another letter to correct them, but that is exactly what an elder/bishop does. The argument was they had the deposit of faith and departed, but also you can argue they had scriptures and departed, same as any hundreds of denominations have scriptures and departed. But then Paul correct them. That is the magisterium. We train each other in faith, some get elected to a role of authority, but the correction comes from the WHOLE body of the church. One or two may depart, but the rest of the church can correct them. Matthew 18:15 “Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’ 17 And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector. 18 “Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. 19 “Again[a] I say to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.”
a point that the protestants don't understand is the fact that apostles did not knnow they were writing the sacred scripture, they din't know the letters they were was writing was going to become inspired from God, and be canonised in to the list of canonical books. this was the Job of the bishops of the church.
My question for Steve would be, that if you think people can so quickly divert from what they are taught and most commonly do divert, why would Christ then make his authoritative teachers expire within 1 generation? It seems apostolic succession is a common sense answer to that problem. Otherwise after the last apostle dies, all of humanity is then just set to deviate from what was taught. Scripture wouldn't fo anything to keep us on track, the vast majority of all people for many centuries would be illiterate. And if there was no authority left, even people knowledgeable in the apostolic teaching trying to correct these deviations are just men with opinions, not authoritative. It just seems to me to be so contrary to what we know about God to work that way. He says he will be with his church always, until the end of the age. To both hold that people deviate so easily and so quickly while also denying apostolic succession does not seem to me like Christ being with his church always until the end of the age. It sounds more like Christ said "good luck, I'll see some of you at the end, sort this mess out yourselves." I do greatly appreciate how Steve's views are for more developed and nuanced than we get with typical protestant debates on the topic. Much less talking past eachother and more talking deeply on the subject matter.
Paul elucidated one of his "traditions" : if a man doesn't work he doesn't eat. This can actually be derived from Scripture : "by the sweat of man's brow he will eat bread". It seems valid "traditions" would be like Christian "halachot"--rulings that guide believers on how to practically implement Scripture.
(1Pe, 1, 24-25) THE CHURCH NEVER LOST THE DEPOSIT 24 For, “All people are like grass, and all their glory is like the flowers of the field; the grass withers and the flowers fall, 25 but the word of the Lord endures forever.”[c] And this is the word that was preached to you.
Great discussion. Thank you gentlemen for listening so well. And being clear, knowledgeable, succinct & articulate. I expected to hear the fact that in Paul's first letter to Timothy, he QUOTES SCRIPTURE from the Torah and from Luke's gospel. And seemed to be used to add significant credibility to his argument by quoting written down Scripture in the 1st Century. In fact, it looks like almost all the Apostles did this in their recorded texts. All in the 1st Century. Traditionalists almost always try to drag the written record deeper into 2nd Century and beyond. Not sure why.
Peter as the Rock "Then Simon Peter answered and said, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' And Jesus answered and said to him, 'Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona, for flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but My Father, Who is in heaven. And I say also to you, that you are Peter [petros, a pebble or small stone]; but upon this Rock [petra, a boulder or large rock-Christ] I will build My church, and the gates of the grave shall not prevail against it. And I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you may bind on the earth will have already been bound in heaven; and whatever you may loose on the earth will have already been loosed in heaven' " (Matthew 16:16-19). From the above passage we may conclude: 1) Jesus was referring to Himself (this Rock, Christ) upon which He would build His church, not on Peter. The disciples, familiar with the Old Testament, knew Rock to be a name of God. a) "The LORD is my Rock, and my fortress" (Psalms 18:2). "He is the Rock" (Deuteronomy 32:4). "Who is a Rock except our God?" (Psalms 18:31). We see here that there is no other rock but God-not even Peter. b) Christ is the foundation Rock on which the church is built, not Peter. Jesus referred to Himself when He said: "The Stone that the builders rejected, this has become the head of the corner" (Matthew 21:42). Paul wrote of "the spiritual Rock that followed them"-saying that "that Rock was Christ" (I Corinthians 10:4). Peter referred to Jesus as a "living Stone," "the Cornerstone," a "Stone of stumbling," and a "Rock of offence" (I Peter 2:4-8). c) When Peter tried to stop Jesus from going to the cross, Jesus rebuked him, saying: "Get behind Me, Satan!" (Matthew 16:23). Jesus wouldn't build His church on Satan. d) In Mark 9:33-35, the disciples argued about who was the greatest among them. If Jesus had given Peter the rank of Pope, then He would have referred to Peter as the greatest, but He didn't. Thus, Jesus gave no special papal leadership to Peter. Nor should we. 2) Peter was given the keys of the kingdom, but only in the sense that it was Peter who opened the door to preaching the Gospel to Israel on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38-42) and to the Gentiles in the house of Cornelius (Acts 10:34-46). Still, everyone enters the kingdom through Christ, not Peter. 3) Priests do not have the power to bind, loose, forgive, or not forgive sins-because only God has this power. 6. Was Peter the First Pope? No, because: 1) Peter was married (Matthew 8:14, 15; I Corinthians 9:5). Popes cannot be married. 2) Peter wore no crown, as the pope does. 3) Peter had no wealth (Acts 3:6), as the pope has. 4) Peter rejected the "traditions" of the fathers (I Peter 1:18), yet Catholic teachings are based on human traditions. 5) Peter would not allow men to bow down to him (Acts 10:25-26), as the pope does. 6) Peter never took the title "PONTIFIX MASIMUS" or "PONTIFF," as all popes do. This was the title of pagan Roman emperors, meaning "chief bridge-builder between earth and heaven." Only Jesus can claim this title (John 1:51). For a pope to take this title is blasphemy against Christ. Peter never spoke like a pope, never acted like a pope, never dressed like a pope, and people never approached him as a pope. 7. Papal Infallibility (Declared in 1870) When a pope is speaking in his official position on any issue of faith or morals, he is speaking infallibly, without error. But the apostles never regarded any man (except Jesus) to be infallible. Only the Word of God is without error. Paul rebuked Peter for being deceived by Judaizers (Galatians 2:11-14). Papal infallibility is seen to be false, as these events reveal: 1) Five popes-Innocent III, Gregory XI, Clement IV, Hadrian VI, and Paul IV-all disagreed with papal infallibility. 2) Pope Eugene IV (1431) had Joan of Arc burned alive as a witch, but later Pope Benedict (1919) declared her to be a saint. 3) Pope Stephen VI (896) had the dead Pope Formosus (891-896) dug up, tried, questioned, fingers hacked off, dragged through the streets of Rome, and thrown into the Tiber River. 4) Pope Hadrian II (867) declared civil marriage to be valid, but Pope Pius VII (1800-1823) declared it to be invalid. 5) The pope and the Vatican advised the German Catholic Party to vote for Nazi candidates. In 1933, the Vatican and Hitler signed a Concordat where the Catholic Church swore allegiance to the Nazi government. Later on, when Hitler was losing World War II, Pope Pius XI condemned him. Surely, these errors of judgment and contradictions between popes disproves papal infallibility to any honest, open-minded person.
(2 Jhon 1-2) PERPETUAL POSESION THRUTH Deposit despite the presure of corruption will be in the Church forvever 1 The elder, To the lady chosen by God and to her children, whom I love in the truth-and not I only, but also all who know the truth- 2 because of the truth, which lives in us and will be with us forever:
(2 Timothy, 1 13-14) INFALIBLE APOSTOLIC TRADITION 12For this reason I also suffer these things. But I am not ashamed, for I know whom I have believed, and I am persuaded that He is able to guard my deposit entrusted for that day. 13Retain the pattern of sound words, which you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. 14Keep the good deposit entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit, the One dwelling in us.
Would like to see both debate an orthodox apologist. Jay dyer would be a great candidate. Both side gave truth to them but there was only one church established at Pentecost which was the orthodox church☦ the roman catholic see split in 1054AD at which point they lost apostolic succession which is known as the great schism and then from there the reformers left the roman catholic church.
@Sirach_5_11 there is only one orthodox church. Krill is the patriarch of Russia and Bartholomew is the patriarch of Constantinople. Both diocese are in communion with each other.
(Mt 23, 1 ss) shows BINDING AND LOOSING ARE INHERITED INDEFINITELY THROUGH GENERATIONS, consult the jewish encyclopedia Binding and loosing wich also says this authority resided in the Sanhedrin or body of teachers of EVERY AGE: Just as Moses had great authority and the subsequent teachers had a lesser authority to maintain the covenant functuinal and explicate it, in the same way the Apostles had great authority and the successors who participated of the same authority to keep the new covenant functional and explicate it. Here the text. 23 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4 They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.
Just as Moses had great authority and the subsequent teachers had a lesser authority to maintain the covenant functional... Only because they wanted to hear Moses,not God. And God grant their wish the same way He granted when they have wanted a king. Because from the beginning there was only ONE command Exodus 19: 5 ‘Now therefore, if you will indeed hear My voice and keep My covenant... Which they rejected. Exodus 20:19 Then they said to Moses, “You speak with us, and we will hear; but let not God speak with us... Same way Adam listened to Eve Gen 3: 17 And to Adam he said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife... Same way people listen what the churches say to the churches,instead to hear what the Spirit say to the Churches.. There is no life in Scriptures John 5 : 39 / 2 Cor 3: 6 There is no more physical ministry , this people are just what Jesus in Mat 7 tells,´´Two blind man judging each other´´ Scripture is clear John 6 : 45 2Co 3: 8 how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious? 1Jo 2: 27
Sola Scriptura is a myth. All protestant denominations have differing interpretations of scripture based on their traditional understanding of it. They have that tradition based on their founders' interpretation, be it Baptised, Presbyterian, Anglican, etc. Each denomination has a magisterium, be it a single paster or a group such as the southern Baptist conference, who determines doctrine and dogma. The all ape Catholicism while claiming otherwise. Its time Catholic Apologists call them out on this.
It’s 2025 and Christianity has gone from forced through empire. To influenced regional governments to separation of church and state. It’s the marketplace now. Each dogma has to be defended and each individual will decide what to believe. From there he/she can decide what denomination or community to join.
I am Catholic,
with that said, if I was a sola scriptura I would agree with Steve. In my opinion he argues his point the best ( from scripture only)
Not going to lie , maybe you guys can help me pray for Steve to come back home.
At least he is past the rapture and into church history
@30:00 the argument is self defeating. Yes Paul had to wrote another letter to correct them, but that is exactly what an elder/bishop does.
The argument was they had the deposit of faith and departed, but also you can argue they had scriptures and departed, same as any hundreds of denominations have scriptures and departed. But then Paul correct them. That is the magisterium. We train each other in faith, some get elected to a role of authority, but the correction comes from the WHOLE body of the church. One or two may depart, but the rest of the church can correct them.
Matthew 18:15 “Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’ 17 And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.
18 “Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
19 “Again[a] I say to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.”
a point that the protestants don't understand is the fact that apostles did not knnow they were writing the sacred scripture, they din't know the letters they were was writing was going to become inspired from God, and be canonised in to the list of canonical books.
this was the Job of the bishops of the church.
Mr. Akin swept and mopped up this debate. Good job to both
Sure.
@HM-vj5ll indeed
My question for Steve would be, that if you think people can so quickly divert from what they are taught and most commonly do divert, why would Christ then make his authoritative teachers expire within 1 generation?
It seems apostolic succession is a common sense answer to that problem. Otherwise after the last apostle dies, all of humanity is then just set to deviate from what was taught. Scripture wouldn't fo anything to keep us on track, the vast majority of all people for many centuries would be illiterate. And if there was no authority left, even people knowledgeable in the apostolic teaching trying to correct these deviations are just men with opinions, not authoritative.
It just seems to me to be so contrary to what we know about God to work that way. He says he will be with his church always, until the end of the age. To both hold that people deviate so easily and so quickly while also denying apostolic succession does not seem to me like Christ being with his church always until the end of the age. It sounds more like Christ said "good luck, I'll see some of you at the end, sort this mess out yourselves."
I do greatly appreciate how Steve's views are for more developed and nuanced than we get with typical protestant debates on the topic. Much less talking past eachother and more talking deeply on the subject matter.
Sola scriptura is self-refuted doctrine
Paul elucidated one of his "traditions" : if a man doesn't work he doesn't eat.
This can actually be derived from Scripture : "by the sweat of man's brow he will eat bread".
It seems valid "traditions" would be like Christian "halachot"--rulings that guide believers on how to practically implement Scripture.
(1Pe, 1, 24-25) THE CHURCH NEVER LOST THE DEPOSIT
24 For,
“All people are like grass,
and all their glory is like the flowers of the field;
the grass withers and the flowers fall,
25 but the word of the Lord endures forever.”[c]
And this is the word that was preached to you.
Nice to hear a civil discussion between two intelligent men. I've not heard Mr Gregg before but Jimmy is always civil in his discussion with others.
Great discussion. Thank you gentlemen for listening so well. And being clear, knowledgeable, succinct & articulate.
I expected to hear the fact that in Paul's first letter to Timothy, he QUOTES SCRIPTURE from the Torah and from Luke's gospel. And seemed to be used to add significant credibility to his argument by quoting written down Scripture in the 1st Century. In fact, it looks like almost all the Apostles did this in their recorded texts. All in the 1st Century. Traditionalists almost always try to drag the written record deeper into 2nd Century and beyond. Not sure why.
Peter as the Rock
"Then Simon Peter answered and said, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' And Jesus answered and said to him, 'Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona, for flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but My Father, Who is in heaven. And I say also to you, that you are Peter [petros, a pebble or small stone]; but upon this Rock [petra, a boulder or large rock-Christ] I will build My church, and the gates of the grave shall not prevail against it. And I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you may bind on the earth will have already been bound in heaven; and whatever you may loose on the earth will have already been loosed in heaven' " (Matthew 16:16-19).
From the above passage we may conclude:
1) Jesus was referring to Himself (this Rock, Christ) upon which He would build His church, not on Peter. The disciples, familiar with the Old Testament, knew Rock to be a name of God.
a) "The LORD is my Rock, and my fortress" (Psalms 18:2). "He is the Rock" (Deuteronomy 32:4). "Who is a Rock except our God?" (Psalms 18:31). We see here that there is no other rock but God-not even Peter.
b) Christ is the foundation Rock on which the church is built, not Peter. Jesus referred to Himself when He said: "The Stone that the builders rejected, this has become the head of the corner" (Matthew 21:42). Paul wrote of "the spiritual Rock that followed them"-saying that "that Rock was Christ" (I Corinthians 10:4). Peter referred to Jesus as a "living Stone," "the Cornerstone," a "Stone of stumbling," and a "Rock of offence" (I Peter 2:4-8).
c) When Peter tried to stop Jesus from going to the cross, Jesus rebuked him, saying: "Get behind Me, Satan!" (Matthew 16:23). Jesus wouldn't build His church on Satan.
d) In Mark 9:33-35, the disciples argued about who was the greatest among them. If Jesus had given Peter the rank of Pope, then He would have referred to Peter as the greatest, but He didn't. Thus, Jesus gave no special papal leadership to Peter. Nor should we.
2) Peter was given the keys of the kingdom, but only in the sense that it was Peter who opened the door to preaching the Gospel to Israel on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38-42) and to the Gentiles in the house of Cornelius (Acts 10:34-46). Still, everyone enters the kingdom through Christ, not Peter.
3) Priests do not have the power to bind, loose, forgive, or not forgive sins-because only God has this power.
6. Was Peter the First Pope? No, because:
1) Peter was married (Matthew 8:14, 15; I Corinthians 9:5). Popes cannot be married.
2) Peter wore no crown, as the pope does.
3) Peter had no wealth (Acts 3:6), as the pope has.
4) Peter rejected the "traditions" of the fathers (I Peter 1:18), yet Catholic teachings are based on human traditions.
5) Peter would not allow men to bow down to him (Acts 10:25-26), as the pope does.
6) Peter never took the title "PONTIFIX MASIMUS" or "PONTIFF," as all popes do. This was the title of pagan Roman emperors, meaning "chief bridge-builder between earth and heaven." Only Jesus can claim this title (John 1:51). For a pope to take this title is blasphemy against Christ. Peter never spoke like a pope, never acted like a pope, never dressed like a pope, and people never approached him as a pope.
7. Papal Infallibility (Declared in 1870)
When a pope is speaking in his official position on any issue of faith or morals, he is speaking infallibly, without error. But the apostles never regarded any man (except Jesus) to be infallible. Only the Word of God is without error. Paul rebuked Peter for being deceived by Judaizers (Galatians 2:11-14). Papal infallibility is seen to be false, as these events reveal:
1) Five popes-Innocent III, Gregory XI, Clement IV, Hadrian VI, and Paul IV-all disagreed with papal infallibility.
2) Pope Eugene IV (1431) had Joan of Arc burned alive as a witch, but later Pope Benedict (1919) declared her to be a saint.
3) Pope Stephen VI (896) had the dead Pope Formosus (891-896) dug up, tried, questioned, fingers hacked off, dragged through the streets of Rome, and thrown into the Tiber River.
4) Pope Hadrian II (867) declared civil marriage to be valid, but Pope Pius VII (1800-1823) declared it to be invalid.
5) The pope and the Vatican advised the German Catholic Party to vote for Nazi candidates. In 1933, the Vatican and Hitler signed a Concordat where the Catholic Church swore allegiance to the Nazi government. Later on, when Hitler was losing World War II, Pope Pius XI condemned him. Surely, these errors of judgment and contradictions between popes disproves papal infallibility to any honest, open-minded person.
JESUS will have the final say!
(2 Jhon 1-2) PERPETUAL POSESION THRUTH
Deposit despite the presure of corruption will be in the Church forvever
1 The elder,
To the lady chosen by God and to her children, whom I love in the truth-and not I only, but also all who know the truth- 2 because of the truth, which lives in us and will be with us forever:
(2 Timothy, 1 13-14) INFALIBLE APOSTOLIC TRADITION
12For this reason I also suffer these things. But I am not ashamed, for I know whom I have believed, and I am persuaded that He is able to guard my deposit entrusted for that day.
13Retain the pattern of sound words, which you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. 14Keep the good deposit entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit, the One dwelling in us.
Would like to see both debate an orthodox apologist. Jay dyer would be a great candidate. Both side gave truth to them but there was only one church established at Pentecost which was the orthodox church☦ the roman catholic see split in 1054AD at which point they lost apostolic succession which is known as the great schism and then from there the reformers left the roman catholic church.
Which Orthodox church? Kirill's or Bartholomew's?
@Sirach_5_11 there is only one orthodox church. Krill is the patriarch of Russia and Bartholomew is the patriarch of Constantinople. Both diocese are in communion with each other.
then why the orthodox church never manager to hold a single council?
Jay dyer is an immature man. Emotionally not stable
(Mt 23, 1 ss) shows BINDING AND LOOSING ARE INHERITED INDEFINITELY THROUGH GENERATIONS, consult the jewish encyclopedia Binding and loosing wich also says this authority resided in the Sanhedrin or body of teachers of EVERY AGE: Just as Moses had great authority and the subsequent teachers had a lesser authority to maintain the covenant functuinal and explicate it, in the same way the Apostles had great authority and the successors who participated of the same authority to keep the new covenant functional and explicate it. Here the text.
23 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4 They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.
Just as Moses had great authority and the subsequent teachers had a lesser authority to maintain the covenant functional...
Only because they wanted to hear Moses,not God. And God grant their wish the same way He granted when they have wanted a king.
Because from the beginning there was only ONE command
Exodus 19: 5 ‘Now therefore, if you will indeed hear My voice and keep My covenant... Which they rejected. Exodus 20:19 Then they said to Moses, “You speak with us, and we will hear; but let not God speak with us...
Same way Adam listened to Eve Gen 3: 17 And to Adam he said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife...
Same way people listen what the churches say to the churches,instead to hear what the Spirit say to the Churches..
There is no life in Scriptures John 5 : 39 / 2 Cor 3: 6
There is no more physical ministry , this people are just what Jesus in Mat 7 tells,´´Two blind man judging each other´´
Scripture is clear John 6 : 45
2Co 3: 8 how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious? 1Jo 2: 27
Steve Gregg Debates Playlist: ruclips.net/p/PLyukfhErm6OKSFCYEzSWBo5Cdr530sLg7
Sola Scriptura is a myth. All protestant denominations have differing interpretations of scripture based on their traditional understanding of it. They have that tradition based on their founders' interpretation, be it Baptised, Presbyterian, Anglican, etc. Each denomination has a magisterium, be it a single paster or a group such as the southern Baptist conference, who determines doctrine and dogma.
The all ape Catholicism while claiming otherwise. Its time Catholic Apologists call them out on this.
It’s 2025 and Christianity has gone from forced through empire. To influenced regional governments to separation of church and state.
It’s the marketplace now. Each dogma has to be defended and each individual will decide what to believe. From there he/she can decide what denomination or community to join.