One of the BIG problems with Sola Scriptura
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 фев 2025
- In this episode I discuss one of the biggest problems with Sola Scriptura. Be sure to leave a comment if you have an answer to my question in the video!
Check out more from Unapologetically Catholic here: linktr.ee/unap...
Shopping Spree by Purrple Cat | purrplecat.com/
Music promoted by www.chosic.com...
Creative Commons CC BY-SA 3.0
creativecommon...
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
Exactly If they remove 7 books from the bible then whos to say the law is not canon or the church is not canon. Protestant reformation started because men were too prideful to go to the Orthodox church they instead did it themselves. Protestants don't rely on the bible as the ultimate authority they think that the founders interpation is the correct authority like John Calvin, Martin Luther etc... Thank you from Orthodoxy ☦☦☦ (And thank you so much for not strawman ing Sola Scriptura your the first Catholic RUclipsr to get it right!)
@@TheChristianDisicple right! If you are the arbiter of truth then we can’t have truth grounded in Christ but ourselves which never turns out good.
I think you've made some good points,
@@YodatheJedi12 thank you! These are genuine questions/concerns I’ve had that I’ve not heard an answer to.
2:49 and herein lies my diagnosis for the biggest problem with sola scriptura.
One can forgive Protestants when it comes to disputes regarding the canon of Scripture. Even today there are differences in canonicity between apostolic Christians and even between churches within the Catholic Church to the extent that some churches will traditionally treat more than 73 books as inspired like the Eastern Orthodox, e.g. Psalm 151 and the Prayer of Manasseh without condemnation and suppression by Rome.
One cannot forgive a Protestant for calling the Scriptures themselves an *infallible* rule. It makes no sense to call a text infallible. Perhaps the text contains no error (inerrancy), but how does that translate to being incapable of producing error in one’s understanding of the faith (infallibility)? The moment one defines sola scriptura as the *infallibility* of Scripture as a rule of faith, we get the two problematic doctrines of formal sufficiency and perspicuity by logical necessity.
At that point, the individual Christian has elevated themselves to a final authority on any matters they hold with confidence. Hence the Church splinters into as many groups as there are varied interpretations each at odds with one another.
PS: At 13:40 you seem to be assuming that the 73 book canon is closed. I’m not convinced Rome has closed the canon. If it has, there would be insurmountable difficulties in reunification with the East. In my estimation, the Magisterium has infallibly declared those 73 books as Scripture, but it has not closed the canon to the possibility of there being other works of Scripture recognized as such by other apostolic Christians. If there is a Magisterial pronouncement that limits canonicity to the 73-books canon that I’m unaware of, please don’t hesitate to share.
@@sophia-proskomen the Catholic Church did dogmatize the 73 book Canon at the Council of Trent, so as far as I know nothing else can be added or taken away. The 73 book canon has been the same in the Catholic Church since the Council of Rome in 382 though. The Church does commend the reading of some extra-biblical books but they would not deem them apart of sacred scripture.
@ I am aware of the pronouncement of the canon, but I am not aware of any language prohibiting the recognition of other books as Scripture. Here’s the applicable text from session 4:
“If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema.”
The language seems only to indicate that one must at minimum view the 73 books as Scripture but does not limit the possibility of other books being recognized.
in council of florence.
all orthodox and catholic agree with 73 canon of scripture
dispute between orthodox and catholic only in 3 issue. filioque, purgatory, papacy
@@iwansaputra1890 the Council of Florence did not establish a canon, it merely listed 73 inspired books which the Orthodox agreed were inspired. I’m still unconvinced the canon is closed.
Addendum: I do not think the Orthodox or many Eastern Christian churches would agree that books they venerate as Scripture beyond the 73 book canon of the Latin Church are not actually inspired. That’s what I mean by an insurmountable difficulty in reunification. If the Latin Church agrees that their extra books are inspired but that the Latin tradition merely does not incorporate them in their spirituality, then there is no issue. That is what I think is the most likely possibility.
@@sophia-proskomen you said
the Council of Florence did not establish a canon, it merely listed 73 inspired books which the Orthodox agreed were inspired. I’m still unconvinced the canon is closed
your argument contradict all potestant teaching about bible. from your argument atleast 73 book was inspired by god. it can be more thatn 73 but never less than 73 book
why protestant remove 7 book from bible?
The canon is NOT created, it is observed. Traditions and Canons are like references and language. Language makes a word to describe something, references points to reality. Water is a word we created in language which can change its meaning, whereas the water itself, the thing we refer to is a necessary witness and doesn't change.
@@teravega this is a good point and one I try to make sure I don’t mess up. The Church did not “make” or “create” the canon but they did authoritatively recognized it!
To this day I have not found a good answer from the Protestant side on how to know the canon with certainty, since this is not communicated to us from the revealed Text, which for them works as the sole infallible rule of Faith. And this whole "a fallible list of infallible books" thing is not consistent with Protestant behavior regarding the canon. They do not really believe and operate as if they had a fallible list, but as if the 66 Books canon were communicated from the mouth of God Himself as much as the Sermon on the Mount or the Lord's Prayer.
Good point! That “fallible list of infallible books” logic isn’t applied to anything else in Protestantism.
The pharisees preserved the canon until the New Testament time, were they infaluable? No. Did Jesus and the apostles believe they were infaluable just because they preserved the canon? No. So why should we
To play some devil’s advocate, couldn’t the Protestant say their 66 books are the ones that wholly correspond to each other without confusion or contradiction while still being recognized as Scripture by faithful Christians and preserved through the ages?
In my very limited knowledge, it seems Luther used that kind of reasoning to remove the Epistle of James since it contradicted his eisegesis of Romans that survives today as sola fide, so it seems to accord with their attitude toward discerning individual books of Scripture.
So, it seems that Scripture is recognized as such fallibly by each individual Protestant Christian during their conversion and then taken to be the infallible foundation of their faith on faith.
@ they absolutely could. Even if they did that, it would still be impossible for them to have an infallible canon IF sola scriptura is the only infallible rule of faith.
@aleckim9337 the pharisees preserved A canon (their own), not THE canon. And precisely because they were not infallible nor did they have an infallible mechanism in this regard, in the time of Christ and the Apostles, there was a relevant diversity of considerations among jews regarding what constituted Scripture.
What we call the hebrew canon is a product of the pharisaic rabbinic schools, but after Christ, after the destruction of the Temple, which to some extent developed precisely to oppose the apostolic literature aka the New Testament, which at its time was seen as just another jewish sect.
For this reason, the discernment of jews whose religion consists of denying the Messiah is not spiritually relevant for the Church.
Also, nothing clearly indicates that the Apostles felt obliged to the pharisaic canon, so... why should we?
I have no reason to believe in the canon list of the Council of Trent, either, nor its elevation of the apocrypha and traditions as equal to Scriptures. That's something the church fathers finds heretical.
I am unapologetically a Seventh-day Adventist.😎😎😎
@@zerksepraga the canon that was dogmatized at the Council of Trent has been the same since the Council of Rome in the late 300’s. Could you tell me your infallible source for the canon of scripture?
you have to. because you only look at council of trent.
have you ever check council of florence?
according to whom? What Fathers?
Unless they're called Seventh-day Adventist Fathers, you're only going to misinterpret them too, and reject them anyway because they do not support any protestant opposite to catholic doctrine at all