7 Bible Verses That Don't Prove Sola Scriptura

[@shamelesspopery]

Several of you pointed out that when I used the phrase "unbiblical," it would be far better to use the clearer term "extra-biblical." In hindsight, I agree. Mea culpa!

[@tonyl3762]

Your videos are so good that they give very little/rare opportunity for constructive criticism, so no worries :) But yeah, it occurred to me that it would be comparable to saying that "un-American" just means not found in America rather than anti-American.

[@SneakyEmu]

It's seems to me that you're biggest point is that the Bible doesn't forbid acceptance of extra biblical doctrines that aren't anti biblical, but what do we do with later developments like the Marian dogmas? These aren't just doctrines that are good to be believed and aren't anti biblical, but the fact that they were made compulsory to believe to be a part of the "one true church" when they're never mentioned in any scripture whatsoever.... The fact that something like that was made dogma is stepping over the line into anti-biblical territory because it's adding to the gospel "once and for all delivered"

[@tonyl3762]

@@SneakyEmu How much "later" do you think the Marian dogmas are? Give me a century for each, if you would. If extra-biblical means "never mentioned in any scripture whatsoever," that is overstating it somewhat. Some are not explicitly stated, but still supported by the biblical evidence implicitly. (In fact, contrary to popular belief, I'd say the implicit biblical evidence for the Assumption in Rev 12 is stronger than that for the Immaculate Conception in Lk 1 and Gen 3.) It's "the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints," not the gospel, which is a subset of the faith.

[@Jiko-ryu]

Yes, while "extra-biblical" may indeed be "clearer" than "unbiblical", because of the assumption that "unbiblical" explicitly means "anti-biblical", I think that your original use of "unbiblical" better hammers in the point as many Evanmgelicals believe in many unbiblical things like the "Sinner's Prayer" and the pre-tribulation Rapture and yet do not hold these as anti-biblical. By showing Evangelicals that they are inconsistent in rejecting some unbiblical doctrines and yet accept other unbiblical doctrines, hopefully it will make them think, especially since they hold the unbiblical doctrines that they do accept as de facto infallible. On the other hand, many Catholic doctrines touted as "unbiblical" actually has some biblical support, as your many videos have shown.

[@Jiko-ryu]

@@SneakyEmu Except that all the Marian doctrines "by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture", as has already been noted elsewhere, in the very same way that the doctrine of the Trinity is deduced from Scripture. All the early Protestant Reformers believed in Mary's perpetual virginity, such as Martin Luther who firmly believed in Mary's immaculate conception, her role as the Mother of God, her reign as the Queen of Heaven, and her perpetual virginity. Even John Calvin believed in Mary's perpetual virginity, as did John Wesley. “It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary’s soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God’s gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin," which Luther wrote in ”𝘖𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘋𝘢𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘱𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘔𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘎𝘰𝘥”, circa 1527. In order for Mary to become the Mother of God, Luther adamantly maintained in this and other sermons and writings that she was conceived without original sin, and all this through Scripture alone. The Marian doctrines are not anti-biblical, in fact, they have been declared dogma because to believe otherwise is to deny aspects of Christology, e.g., to deny that Mary is the Mother of God is to deny that Jesus Christ is God, or to deny Mary's Assumption and Coronation is to deny Revelation chapter 12 verse 1.

[@macbride33]

A year into coming out of 25 years of Protestantism my paradigm has been changing from Bible ALONE. Jesus founded a church with the apostles and built it upon the Cepha giving the keys of the kingdom to Peter and breathed on those apostles giving them the Holy Spirit and sent them with authority. He left us an authoritative church to live in and practice our faith and grow in love and unity. He didn't leave a text! These are facts. Years later men of the church began writing letters to the church for the edification of the church. Years later, with many texts in circulation, the church canonized a few of them for the attestation of the worthiness of those being proper and suitable for the church. The letters came out of the church for the church not the other way around. Jesus founded and left a living breathing organism, called his body on earth, not a text, with authority to minister the sacraments of the church for building up of the house of God.

[@elizabethking5523]

Well stated! Amen.🙏🏻❤️

[@bullyboy131]

I'm always amazed when a Protestant comes into full communion with Christ's church. What do you feel is the biggest stumbling block for someone who has been a Protestant for 10 years?

[@ji8044]

No Jesus didn't found any church. He and Paul both expected an imminent end of the world.

[@dolphinitely_bro3944]

@@ji8044research early church history friend, your heart will change

[@dolphinitely_bro3944]

@@bullyboy131the lack of not knowing church history before the reformation is the main thing holding Protestants back from the fullness

[@timboslice980]

I remember when i began to believe in god. I got there on my own and was barely aware that there were different bible books out there. I talked to a few christian friends, visited their churches, then tried a few out on my own. I asked everyone “how do you pick and choose which parts of the bible to believe in?” The answer 99% of the time was “i believe all of it” then in their denominations i would find parts of the bible they obviously didnt believe in. At that point my assumption was, the vast majority of christians are not following the bible. The vast majority of denominations are corrupt…. Therefore im just gonna stick to the scriptures. The problem is the scriptures told me to submit to the church especially in matters of salvation and doctrine. So began my long journey to find that church, finally i converted to the catholic church after realizing their theology is coherent where everyone elses is not. They have the best scientific claim, the best historic claim, the best traditional claim. I was exhausted by the search and it took over 10 years but it felt good to finally follow scripture. Until you submit, you cant say you follow scripture. In essence anyone holding to sola scriptura is only doing so temporarily, incompletely, or in bad faith. If you know its wrong and you still hold to scripture alone, then youre just being disobedient so that you dont have to submit.

[@edurado1996]

Bro, that is so similar to what experienced. That’s why I was an atheist for so long 😂

[@HAL9000-su1mz]

What I have noted: EGO is not your amigo. It takes humility to open eyes.

[@susand3668]

Welcome home!

[@elizabethking5523]

@@timboslice980 , so true! It took me 7yrs of full time study. I couldn’t believe how much I didn’t know!😂 I am a Catholic now and I am sooo blessed! And still so much to learn and loving every moment of it! 🙏🏻❤️ Blessing to you and all who are seeking the early church! 😀

[@paulmualdeave5063]

Not being critical, but God is capitalized. Probably a typo. Grad you are on this path!

[@The-Good-Life]

This is the most underrated KZbin channel ever. Pure gold thank you Joe.

[@datalore8270]

How to Be Christian deserves a nod there too. Both Joe and HTBC deserve way more subs.

[@JenniferMcMann]

19:34 Its unfortunately a man-made tradition that is the catalyst of denominationalism and the unending division in the body of Christ. 500 years of splintering should be sufficient to judge this tree by its fruit. When I've talked with friends who are Protestant, they almost all grieve the division of the body of Christ, yet dont seem to trace it back to its origin of the unbiblical tradition of Sola Scriptura. It inverts the historical and biblical model of the Church, which supports the Scripture flows from the Church. Under Sola Scriptura, the church flows out of the Bible. It takes the Divinely instituted "top-down" Church and distorts into a grass-roots, man-made model. Thankfully, it seems a growing number of people are coming to this realization.

[@elizabethking5523]

And they’re not done splitting yet!💔 actually actively getting worse year after year.🙏🏻

[@DanielAluni-v2t]

They have splintered more in 500 yrs than even Islam in 1300 yrs has. The same principle of self-interpretation flavors both heretical impulses.

[@partydean17]

A lot are running away from labels of the denominations and further into the problem. A lot virtual baptists are now even further away from at least the label of Baptist tieing them to someone of authority. I know people with so much anti catholic Prejudice they won't come home but think they are not part of the problem because they stopped using labels of Baptist and Catholics are part of the problem because we have a label.

[@HAL9000-su1mz]

I find that all seek unity. None, however, want to change their beliefs. What does that tell us?

[@samuelotache9239]

@@elizabethking5523 They are still better than the Catholic Church who are united in Apostasy . God scattered men at the tower of babel because they were united in rebellion and apostasy. The Catholic Church is the tower of babel and Protestants are the various divisions that came from it. It is better to split than to be united in errors. The weaknesses of the Protestant Church doesn't make it wrong.

[@TurtleMarcus]

21:23 In Norwegian, the word "appendix" (in a book) is simply the word "additions". So in your Norwegian Bible, you'll read Revelation 22 saying "do not make additions to this book," and on the next page it'll literally say "Additions" (i.e. appendix; usually maps, weights and measures etc.). This has been a the source of many jokes.

[@shamelesspopery]

I also like the idea of a Bible verse governing book formatting. I could use divine intervention on the footnote v. endnote question, personally.

[@PadraigTomas]

​@@shamelesspoperyBoth. Trust me I prayed on it!

[@champagne.future5248]

That’s hilarious

[@buirvin1236]

Joe, I am so thankful for your channel! I’m a Protestant who’s been exploring the Catholic Church for about 1.5 years now. Hoping to join RCIA in the fall. Your breakdowns of scripture and doctrine and explanations of how the Catholic faith sees the Bible through the eyes of ancient Judaism and the early Church are incredible. And on top of that you are so charitable, happy, and funny while teaching. Thank you so much!!

[@adrianap8974]

@buirvin1236 I pray that God will use me, to help you and any Catholic friend, to open up your eyes. I used to be Catholic. Therefore, I know of all of it’s teachings. I was so proud to be Catholic, and I notice most people are so proud to be in their religion. Which is wrong because we should all be humble. And be willing to change if we are wrong. But anyways, the Catholic Church has a lot of claims. They claim they were the first church, that Jesus wanted. Yet violating so many scriptures that God is against Idolatry, and having no other God but him. They claim the Church Fathers knew or were with the Apostles. But how do we know they weren’t heretics because even in the Apostle Paul’s day, people were preaching another Gospel. They claim many things to draw people in, but they are all claims that people blindly believe in, more than the Word of God. I genuinely don’t want to offend anyone but the Catholic Church reminds me of Satan when, his first evil act was when he made Eve question God’s Word. There are so many scriptures telling us to trust in God’s word. But the reason I know the Catholic Church is not what Jesus wanted is because they teach another Gospel. They are like any other religion that teaches that in order to go to heaven, one must believe in god + do good works. Satan has deceived the masses to believe this lie, and that is why there are so many religions. Please open your eyes that Jesus alone saves us! That is why he came to this world. That yes we believe we should do good works, like God commands us to do, but we can never do our part in our salvation. That all are good works are like dirty rags unto God. I think people get deceived the most is because they don’t understand the scriptures. For instance, there are few scriptures that seem to suggest that we also have to do our part in order to make it to heaven, but God says that if you ask the Holy Spirit to help you understand them, you will understand. Please read God’s word for yourself, and you will realize that there are hundreds of Scriptures telling us we are saved by faith alone in Christ. As I mentioned before, Jesus alone saves. But if you refuse to believe this, and instead put your faith in your Church and all of her teachings, you will be like the people in Matthew 7:21-23, who will not enter the kingdom of God. Matthew 7:21 reads Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. (Jesus tells us what the will of the Father is in John 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. So we see that the will of the Father isn’t whoever believes and does good works shall be saved. This verse is clear that we are saved by faith without our works). Jesus continues to show us that we cannot be saved by our works either in Matthew 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? (So we see that these people claim the name of Jesus, and so they tell Jesus of all the wonderful works they have done). But in Matthew 7:23, we see the scariest answer that Jesus gives. Verse 23 says, And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.(Therefore, we see that Jesus is not impressed by these peoples works. Jesus even tells them that he never even knew them. And Jesus even confirms what the Old Testament says about all our works are as filthy rags unto God, that is why he calls these peoples works full of iniquity).

[@TruthHasSpoken]

God's blessings on your journey. Of many suggestions, near the top of the list is to listen to Dr Brant Pitre's talk, Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist. The book is excellent too. I have given it away numerous times. kzbin.info/www/bejne/hmWYc3t6h6Zqprcsi=_llRnO3e2HrJJnSw

[@buirvin1236]

@ thank you! I will definitely give it a listen.

[@tanishalavri3278]

Welcome Home! May I suggest you pray the rosary and attend eucharistic adoration at least once a week if you can?

[@TruthHasSpoken]

@ First or foremost, attend Mass. :)

[@Chinmookchin]

The belief of self-interpretation is the biggest mistake in Sola Scriptura, well as we know, the Holy Spirit won't cause division just because of different interpretation

[@sivad1025]

It's always insulting when Protestants say they know things to be true "because of the Holy Spirit" as if all the plebes who disagree on their controversial positions don't have the Spirit of God

[@ji8044]

The early Jesus movement was torn repeatedly with division, caused mainly by Paul himself. "For if someone comes and proclaims a Jesus other than the One we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit than the One you received, or a different gospel than the one you accepted, you put up with it way too easily. 5 I consider myself in no way inferior to those “super-apostles.” 6Although I am not a polished speaker, I am certainly not lacking in knowledge. We have made this clear to you in every way possible" 2 Corinthians 11:5.

[@emilyzlockard]

Yes! The talk is about scripture, but the TRUE issue is not scripture, it’s the interpretation. We all love the Bible. It’s the individual’s interpretation that they act like is identical to scripture that’s the problem.

[@jeromepopiel388]

​@@emilyzlockard the problem is with those churches that place their traditions equal to scripture RCC, LDS, SDA, etc. Proverbs 30:5-6 (KJV 1900): 5 Every word of God is pure: He is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. 6 Add thou not unto his words, Lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

[@jeromepopiel388]

I think what Joe is seeking to do is remove the guard rails so that we are open to adding different theology as long as it is old and it arose with someone we can claim as influential in the church.

[@theurzamachine]

Even the solid idea of "Sola Scriptura" isn't safe from Protestant interpretation.

[@tsitsifloramunikwa5468]

Haha

[@guyguytchombi5425]

😂😅😂😅😂😅 That's a good one.

[@StringofPearls55]

🤭

[@PatrickInCayman]

Torpedo!

[@redrkstone]

All denominations including Catholicism are built on interpretation.

[@UrielAngeli147]

"I can do all things through a Bible verse taken out of context." You will hear Protestants quote many verses, but they will almost never put them in their proper context. Consequently, their doctrines, like their quotations, are distorted.

[@461weavile]

All you have to do is quote the Bible. > and he said to him "all these I shall give to you, if you will prostrate yourself and worship me." See how easy?

[@uncle_Samssubjects]

​@@461weaviledo what thou will is the whole of the Law. Saving lip service from the devils mouth to Protestant hearts.

[@susand3668]

@@461weavile , oooo, I see what you did there! Yes, even the devil can quote Scripture.

[@hexahexametermeter]

And Christ answers him *WITH SCRIPTURE*

[@joeleach5089]

I think I understand your point. Any Tom, Dick or Harry can read the Bible and come up with bizarre interpretations. We have seen this happen over the last 500 years, resulting in Jehovah’s Witnesses, Quakers, Mormons, Christian Scientists, Unitarians, Liberal Churches, Prosperity Gospel, etc. I would posit that the restraining elements are the Holy Spirit and the Church. Let me define these two terms. The Holy Spirit (Jn 14-17) should witness that mankind is fallen and needs a savior, that Jesus is God and that the Bible is true. The Protestant would say that the Holy Spirit does NOT witness, for instance, that Mary is our co-redemptrix or that the Roman system of priests and sacraments is valid--the Holy Spirit would not denigrate Jesus in such a manner. The Protestant view of the church would be along the lines of 1 Pet 2:9-the priesthood of all believers. So for matters of faith and morals, it is necessary to have the inward witness (Holy Spirit) and the outward witness (Church elders-Mt 16 binding and loosing, Mt 18 two or three gathered together in my name). Protestants also deny that there is one central magisterium capable of elevating church tradition to the level of scripture. Protestants differ among themselves on many things-soteriology, the working of the Holy Spirit, the nature of the sacraments, church government, worship style and eschatology. Yet there are many denominations that agree on the fundamentals-Orthodoxy, Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura-and there is great unity there.

[@ReactivatedCatholicMan]

Merry Christmas, Joe.

[@michaelbeauchamp22]

Trent yesterday, you today. Anti Sola Scriptura must be an Advent theme 😂

[@samuelotache9239]

It is Satanic. Satan questioning the word of God during advent.

[@ji8044]

Attack is often the best form of defense.

[@shinta9377]

Fighting heresy as it's said in Scripture.

[@BlitchSixsix]

This might be one of your best videos yet❤🎉

[@shamelesspopery]

Thanks, Blitch! (Very good to hear from you, also).

[@henrysylvester]

Another dilemma that protestants ignore is that when Paul wrote that "all scripture is profitable... etc," the new testament biblical canon was not yet defined, nevermind completed!!

[@ji8044]

He meant the OT. His epistles are older than any other writings in the NT

[@HAL9000-su1mz]

I note that scripture was not necessary to be Christian. ZERO Christians IN the bible HAD a bible. They had the Gospel, which they heard (Luke 10:16) from the Apostles.

[@ji8044]

@@HAL9000-su1mz The entire Bible was written about Jews, not Christians.

[@Sirach144]

No, but his letters were there and so were the gospels. The fact that you guys will just believe anything is sad. For example, where do you see anybody praying the rosary in the Bible? You’re just gonna trust it because the pope said so? Trying to argue against going to God’s scripture for every belief and listening to your church is pretty much indoctrination. Kind of like how the Jehovah’s Witnesses ignore what the Bible says, and go straight to what their governing body says about the Bible.

[@truthnotlies]

​@@Sirach144 Wrong, and I used to be a JW. Do you celebrate Christmas? Not in the Bible. Do you have a big long sermon after a half hour of singing? Not in the Bible. Need I go on?

[@DC-zz7fm]

Much love from Italy, Joe! I love your videos. God bless.

[@TriciaPerry-mz7tc]

He's a nutcase whose lost and denying the gospel. They want to be able to add and subtract fro.the word of God when if doesn't fit their narrative of a clever Virgin Mary They are the only ones complaining about the scriptures constantly AND SAYING THE SAME CATHOLIC RHETORIC and Catholic dogma over and over....it's sad to claim to KNOWand have written the word of Christ and then BASH AND TEAR IT DOWN WHEN THEIR VERSION OF MADY AND THEIR STORY DOESN'T AGREE WITH WHAT JESUS TAUGHT it always comes up when you tell them show me in the scriptures!!!!!!!! They can not because THEY DON'T AGREE WITH THE WRITING OF THE APOSTLS YET THEY wrote and MADE THE BIBLE😂😂😂

[@TriciaPerry-mz7tc]

Clever (Forever) Made the bible. They don't have the holy ghost and can't understand THE WORDS THESE Y CLAIM TO OWN

[@TheThreatenedSwan]

Why do they cite the old testament like that when the Jews weren't sola scriptura and had a valid priestly authority to settle matters?

[@carolzappa1804]

Because they are not interested in the Truth. They rather make up their own Doctrines according to what they personally believe with their own natural - not spiritual - understanding.... even though it is against the Old Covenant teachings and the New Gospel of Salvation that has been handed down to us through the Apostles and their successors for 2000 years.

[@michaeldulman5487]

@TheThreatenedSwan, your question suggests a false dilemma, that a non-Sola Scriptura Christian could not cite Scripture to persuade someone of the truth of their position. The Apostles could and did cite their own authority from Christ along with Scripture.

[@aceswizzo8665]

@@michaeldulman5487the apostles didn’t use there own source they quoted the old testament to make there case

[@carolzappa1804]

@@aceswizzo8665 , They also had Jesus, who had chosen them to preach, teach, make disciples (also successors to take their place when their time was up) and Baptize "...all peoples, all nations and all generations..." until He returns on the Last Day.

[@hexahexametermeter]

How did it settle matters when it is blatantly obvious matters weren't settled. Why did the Pharisees and Sadducees come to Jesus with disputes? Because they weren't settled.

[@Chicken_of_Bristol]

"Was Sola Scriptura true when those words were written?" I find it neat how there are analogous questions that similarly undermine muslim and mormon claims as well. "When exactly did the great apostacy happen?" and "did anyone during the time of Muhammed actually have access to the Injeel?"

[@BensWorkshop]

Good work Joe.

[@vinciblegaming6817]

"this isn't the kind of nerd i am" 😂😂😂

[@edurado1996]

Lmao

[@thenewcinema.7403]

Another great episode!

[@dannycv82]

I think the fact that sola scriptura is not sola scriptura is funny. few years ago I was in ignorance believing protestants ideas. studying the history of the early church and Catholic Answers brought me back home

[@PatrickSteil]

Sola Scriptura is relativism. There is One Truth, His name is Jesus.

[@PuzzlesC4M]

Have you noticed how popular it is for them to say, "All of us are wrong on some doctrine or another." Excuse me, what? Why should I believe you if you believe you're wrong, and you don't even know what you're wrong about?"

[@PatrickSteil]

@@PuzzlesC4M Yes, "we don't need a church with authority" and also "you Catholics are wrong based on my own authority". At least Catholicism claims to have the authority given by Jesus. Non Catholics can only have authority out of thin air. The Bible isn't an authoritative judge to determine correct / incorrect doctrine. Same reason we have a Supreme Court and not "constitution alone"... :)

[@dejuanbattles6062]

@@PuzzlesC4Mit’s a facade, it’s false humility. it’s a mask that allows them to reject true authority, to pick and choose what to believe since basically no one has the fullness of truth i guess. “we’re all wicked sinners! no one has the right interpretation! just do you’re best on your own!” but this attitude often crumbles when they are unable to speak on abortion without sounding like the Pope making an infallible statement.

[@susand3668]

@@PuzzlesC4M , yes, it made me so sad to hear my nephew say that.

[@paulmualdeave5063]

Very good point

[@TheLjdevlin86]

1500 years of church fathers and Christians and not one comes up with sola scriptora….

[@alfonstabz9741]

that is the whole point of sola scriptora actually. martin luther knew no church father supports his doctrines that is why he invented scripture alone. With scripture alone what ever the church fathers believe is irrelevant. personal interpretation of the bible can easily be twisted to suit personal agenda.

[@HAL9000-su1mz]

Combined with the fake 400 year "Inter-testamental period" Protestants are lacking almost 2000 years of the faith .

[@carolzappa1804]

Thank you for all of your videos. They are so well spoken and clear to understand, and I always learn so much, not only about what protestant groups believe, but also whether or not I am actually telling others the proper, true Catholic Faith . I am also grateful for your clarifications on the arguments some protestants have regarding "do not add or take away any of the words spoken in this book". To me that passage has always clearly been about Revelation; but some how someone managed to twist that passage as well to mean All of Scripture (even though we shouldn't change any infallibly interpreted and translated words and meanings in Any of Scripture, which goes without saying). Thank you also for your clarifications on the Bereans, the "do not go beyond what is written" and the word "Scripture" meaning "Writings". I used to get so upset when the Bagavad Gita (sp?) was called "Scriptures". The term "Sacred Scripture", can be used for the Old and New Testaments ONLY. Blessed Advent to you and your family, Joe.

[@eplongmichael8880]

Great job, Joe. You're a true destroyer of false teachings.

[@tookie36]

Like Kali 😊

[@wjtruax]

For my fellow Catholics, as (former) devout adherent to “Sola Scriptura” for 40+ years, I would like to ask you to be gentle with those who cling to it as a shipwrecked man to flotsam. The intent and desire of devout Protestants is to preserve the purity of faith and ensure that no impure doctrines are brought into the Church. Most have never been faced with the idea that “Sola Scriptura” is, itself, a man-made tradition, is human-centric, and self-refuting. They are (unwittingly) terrified to look objectively at the arguments against it because having to reject “Sola Scriptura” would completely undermine their theological world view and cost them dearly in relationships and perhaps professionally as well.

[@larrys4383]

Bravo. Well said.

[@wjtruax]

@ thank you. You’re very kind.

[@HAL9000-su1mz]

Humility is key. It opens eyes and leads us to emulate the meek and humble Savior.

[@hirakisk1973]

I was in the same boat as you. Even if your branch/denomination/church of Protestantism doesn't openly attack Catholicism, there are still a lot of underlying assumptions that we are taught that really have to be unlearned. It takes the grace of God to be humble enough to ask the most dangerous question a Protestant can ask, "What IF Catholics are right?"

[@wjtruax]

@ amen! When the Holy Spirit convicted me that I had to become Catholic, I wasn’t extremely thrilled. The personal cost was pretty high.

[@TheThreatenedSwan]

Sola scriptura is a rhetorical trick to get out of having to justify their traditions. They also try to get away from the issue by the fact that many contemporary protestant groups are quite indifferent, but their forebears definitely weren't

[@Sirach144]

Can you show me in the Bible anyone praying the rosary? How do you know that it’s a true belief other than your pope said so? Or that you just believed it for a long time. Did you know that your tradition of believing that Mary was bodily assumed in heaven only stems back to 1950. How do you know that that’s an accurate belief?

[@michaelbarry1664]

@sirach144 Do better research and try again.

[@Sirach144]

@ You have anything specific you want to refute or just make something up and move on?

[@michaelbarry1664]

@@Sirach144 I'm not going to make anything up. Clearly you know not of the things you speak of. I repeat, please do your research and try again.

[@TheThreatenedSwan]

@@Sirach144 Lol

[@SonofJohn-w8j]

OUCH!!! I love this video. Of all the video, the part I loved the most is how you took shot at Luther adding to Romans 3:28. I really believe Sola Scriptura is one of the most indefensible doctrines of Protestantism. But, I think you should address Mark 7 in more depth since the steel man argument is that Our Lord used the Scripture to show that the tradition is a tradition of men (he didn't use any tradition). Even if the Roman Catholic Church claims to have sacred tradition which is different from tradition of men, someone (similar to Jesus) is going to examine that tradition using scripture. Making the Scripture an authority over the tradition of the Church.

[@RealSeanithan]

The title of the video is "7 Bible Verses That Don't Prove Sola Scriptura", but I can think of thousands of verses that don't prove Sola Scriptura.

[@jacobfagan646]

Jesus wept certainly doesn't but it also isn't relevant lol

[@BW-li2ub]

Awesome video just started questioning Protestantism myself. John 10:22 is one that causes me to ponder

[@TruthHasSpoken]

"John 10:22" You are referring to once saved, always saved? _22 It was the feast of the Dedication at Jerusalem; 23 it was winter, and Jesus was walking in the temple, in the portico of Solomon. 24 So the Jews gathered round him and said to him, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.” 25 Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness to me; 26 but you do not believe, because you do not belong to my sheep. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me; 28 and I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me,[c] is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”_ If so, you are right to question it. The parable of the vine is just one example in scripture refuting it. - a branch attached to Christ is 100% saved (anyone ATTACHED to Jesus - who is IN Jesus - is SAVED) - can be cut off - bundled - thrown in to the fire ... salvation loss.. No one does this outside of oneself. One can out of their own free will turn away from Christ, and reject the gift of salvation. God out of love doesn't force us to love him. So too scripture is explicit: there are seeds that fall on the path, take root, but die off.

[@shamelesspopery]

In John 10:22, Jesus is celebrating Chanukah, even though that's only mentioned in 1 and 2 Maccabees? So it seems that He either accepts 1/2 Maccabees and/or unbiblical tradition... am I following your train of thought here?

[@BW-li2ub]

@ 👍 exactly. I don’t want to bombard you with questions. I’ll ask one though can you point to a good video or resource that explains the doctrine of perpetual virginity?

[@smartismarti4049]

​@@BW-li2ub Not to intrude, but in addition to Joe's videos about Mary, I highly recommend Kenny Burchard over at "Catholic Bible Highlights". He has a short series of Bible study videos about the perpetual virginity.

[@macbride33]

The new covenant is a marriage covenant...and this marriage covenant is not between Christ and me, but it is between Christ and his church. I can become a member of that Covenant by entering the Church. However, I have no authority to administer, alter, or end that covenant in any way I choose. The reformation was actually a revolution, a divorce of sorts of those reformers divorcing from the church to start their own churches. And since Jesus and his church are married as one, such as a man and a woman becomes 1 in marriage. And also, Jesus said, "What God brings together, let no man put asunder". Again in Ephesians Paul says, This is a great mystery, and I mean in reference to Christ and the Church; - Ephesians 5:32 Therefore, the "reformers" actually "divorced" themselves from the covenant by renouncing the church and seeking to become a new bride. The "reformers" were not apostles. They didn't start churches, for there is always only 1 that Christ found upon a rock. They had no authority from christ to start churches. Jesus started the church, and the apostles spread the good news to bring people into the church and into the new covenant.

[@hirakisk1973]

I have been pondering this exact idea lately. As Catholics, we view that a marriage can't be broken for any reason and if you remarry, it is adultery. Which is why there is the process to look at if the "contract" of marriage was valid to begin with. Protestants add their own idea to Jesus' words and claim an "exception clause" for marriage/divorce. Because they claim a person can get divorced for adultery (sexual infidelity-don't confuse them that any sexual infidelity would be adultery, but that's not what Jesus said) they apply that to the Church. They will claim that the Catholic Church was unfaithful that they can divorce from the Church and create a "new bride". The problem is that there are now THOUSANDS of alleged "brides" because none of them were really faithful to their opinions.

[@macbride33]

@hirakisk1973 good point and add to that all the scriptures that demand of Christians in the church to be one, love each other, forgive one another, cry with each other and rejoice with each other, and consider each other over yourself, and die to yourself daily and the church IS His body and we are members of his body, and add to that apostolic tradition and authority and one must conclude there is no command to leave the church for any reason. Additionally is plain to see each revolter becomes their own pope...each protestant becomes a sola-pope.

[@notatall8722]

Y'all keep forgetting the critical aspect of Sola Scriptura: That it is used as an _epistemic method._ The Protestant Authority Claim, ultimately, is that _whatever else_ Sola Scriptura may be, or _however_ it's supposed to be implemented, _all_ of the Required Content of the Christian Religion can be known (with sufficient well-founded certainty to permit action) by using the Sola Scriptura method. There is no avoiding this claim, for conservative Protestants, because the _alternative_ is to say that the Required Content of the Christian Religion _cannot_ be known, with sufficient certainty to permit action, by means of Sola Scriptura. And if _that_ were true, then "true Christianity" would be inaccessible to us moderns: Something lost in the mists of time, to be "reconstructed" from insufficient and ambiguous evidence in a thousand competing ways. Now, a liberal Protestant might be comfortable claiming that, but not a conservative one! So, they logically can't avoid that Sola Scriptura is an "Epistemology of Faith" for them, not just a "rule of faith." The term "rule of faith" is too imprecise: It's a way to duck the logical consequences of how Sola Scriptura is really used. The term "rule" suggests to the hearer, "Just _do it this way_ and you'll be okay." But as shown above, that's not how Sola Scriptura functions for a conservative Protestant. It _functions_ as an Epistemology, and to _succeed,_ it has to meet the minimum requirement of making the Required Content of the Christian Religion accessible to us moderns with sufficient confidence to allow us to teach the faith to our kids, or for Protestant pastors to teach the faith to their flocks. And THAT, of course, is precisely what it doesn't do. I don't mean that Protestant pastors aren't frequently full-to-the-brim with confidence in their opinions! Sure, that happens all the time. But it's a poorly-founded confidence, not a principled one. For, if Sola Scriptura were truly an effective epistemic method for coming to know the required content of the Christian religion, then everyone _using_ that method would get the same conclusions derived _from_ that method. But the output of Sola Scriptura is, as history shows, non-deterministic. It's not like a math function where the same input values always returns the same output. Nope, every individual attempting to make use of Sola Scriptura arrives at _different_ conclusions about what church he should belong to, or about divorce-and-remarriage, or about sexual morality, or about pacifism, or about sacramentology, or about liturgy... _et cetera, et cetera, et alia, ad infinitum, ad nauseam._ So, don't call it a _regula fidei_ and allow them the benefit of that ambiguous fog. Point out that it's an _epistemic method,_ a way of coming to correctly know, and know-that-you-know, the Required Content of the Christian Religion. And then point out it doesn't work, and never has.

[@gk3292]

@notatall…spot on!!🎯💯💯…thanks for your well articulated comment!

[@tonyl3762]

Arguing that the Berean Jews considered Wisdom and Sirach to be Scripture and that that helped them accept Paul's preaching is quite novel and clever to me! Did you come up with that?

[@shamelesspopery]

I think so! It was something I noticed many years ago, and found kind of funny.

[@the3rdchief]

Beroea is an ancient Greek city within the Roman Province now known as Veria. It is located in biblical time Macedonia (northern greece)

[@annakimborahpa]

Studying 2 Maccabees 12:44 would help the Bereans to accept Paul's preaching that he wrote down in 1 Corinthians 3:15: 2 Maccabees 12:44 (KJV): For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should have risen again, it had been superfluous and vain to pray for the dead. 1 Corinthians 3:15 (KJV): If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. And if the King James Bible was good enough for both the author of 2 Maccabees and St. Paul ...

[@aaronsmith5904]

Yeah wisdom 2 really convinced them that Paul’s teaching was true. 😂 (Wisdom 2 talks from the perspective of an unbeliever, that imitates the Pharisees very much. They say that the person claims God is his Father, and the person says they (the Pharisees) are sinning.)

[@tonyl3762]

@aaronsmith5904 What exactly are you laughing at? Wisdom 2 is a prophecy of the Passion and Crucifixion of Jesus. The Jewish leaders fulfill it by their words and actions. The early Church also saw Jesus in the personified Wisdom of the book.

[@TheThreatenedSwan]

Ortlund can't even keep the same definition of sola scriptura over and hour

[@masterchief8179]

😄

[@redrkstone]

What were his different definitions?

[@aceswizzo8665]

What definitions did he say

[@drewdungan7985]

Gotta Quote 'Em All!

[@rayboi7924]

Amazing video

[@sodetsurikomigoshi2454]

even the BEREANS DID NOT use Sola Scriptura, because the Gospel Paul preached to them WAS NOT WRITTEN YET.

[@HAL9000-su1mz]

The noble "Bereans" - Lets' consider them as examples. They were absolutely absorbed in scripture. 24/7/365 they studied it, disputed over it, pondered it, read it and memorized it. In all of this, they missed one small detail: JESUS CHRIST! Even after he had preached for three years. Even when Paul preached Christ to them, they still DOUBTED and ran back to the same scriptures (which had not revealed Christ to them!) And again, even AFTER THAT, not all of them converted. Noble? More like a bunch of blockheads.

[@jeff55555]

Finally someone is pulling this fella up.

[@HAL9000-su1mz]

Oracle Ortlund?

[@dave_ecclectic]

53:36 *If He hasn't told me to do it?* Does he mean like Baptism? The Eucharist?...

[@paulmualdeave5063]

They are talking about teachings that might not be specifically in the Bible like prayer to Mary. Mary isn’t noted to have died in the Bible, so we wouldn’t verses on prayer to her. Baptism and the Eucharistic are in the Bible, so are not examples of this. The Protestant though is overly liberal on this and just says all of it isn’t in the Bible

[@debbiegraham5585]

Thank you, Joe

[@tpoy1274]

If sola scriptura is a very modest claim, then how come it produced so much permanent division and disruption in the early modern church? Magistrates across Europe took the church into their own hands on the basis of this idea. That doesn’t seem very modest.

[@TruthHasSpoken]

"f sola scriptura is a very modest claim," Not really. It was heretical claim stemming from great pride. It's fruit was, is, and shall ever be .... doctrinal chaos, confusion, and division.

[@anontcr]

Joe, really liked this one. Very well said. You are one of the best representatives of Catholic doctrine I've seen in my long search of truth. I agree with you on about as many points as one can without converting to your church. Keep up the good work.

[@SilverioFamilyforChrist]

Seems that the Protestant claim of sola scriptura (Scripture alone as the sole infallible source of God's Word) often rests on a foundational assumption about the reliability of the early Church. This creates a tension or paradox in the argument because, to trust Scripture as the sole reliable source of God's Word, one must implicitly trust the Church that identified, preserved, and transmitted the Bible. This reasoning doesn't work because: 1. The Early Church Identified the Canon: The Bible did not come with a table of contents. The process of discerning which writings were divinely inspired and belonged in the canon (e.g., excluding apocryphal or heretical works) was carried out by the early Church through councils (e.g., Councils of Hippo [393 AD] and Carthage [397 AD]). This process relied on Sacred Tradition and the authority of Church leaders. 2. Trusting the Church's Discernment: For Protestants to affirm that the 66 (or 73 for Catholics) books of the Bible are divinely inspired, they must implicitly trust that the Church was guided by the Holy Spirit in its discernment. Without the Church’s authority, the canon itself could be questioned. 3. The Paradox of Rejecting the Church's Authority: By claiming that Scripture is the only reliable source of God's Word, sola scriptura adherents dismiss the Church's teaching authority (Magisterium) yet rely on that very authority to validate the canon. This creates a reliance on Tradition at least at the foundational level. 4. The Catholic Perspective: Catholics address this paradox by affirming the complementarity of Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium. The Church teaches that divine revelation was handed down in both written and oral forms (2 Thessalonians 2:15) and that the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, is the guardian of this revelation. Thus, the Protestant view of Scripture’s reliability often requires the unspoken presupposition of trust in the Church’s reliability-at least during the early centuries when the canon was recognized and defined. PS. I appreciated the Pokémon reference lol

[@johnp.6043]

Notice 2Thess. 2:15 Hold to the traditions that ( ye, plural) have been taught. ( meaning already taught) Galatians 1:8 If us or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. Paul is saying let men teach men the gospel of truth that I have given to you from Jesus, nothing added..

[@alfonstabz9741]

@@johnp.6043 He was not even referring to the scripture.

[@the3rdchief]

Great video & I love the arguments. Just one point, though. The English Oxford dictionary defines unbiblical as: not found in, authorized by, or based on the Bible. Merriam-Webster also defines the same word as: contrary to or unsanctioned by the Bible. While I get and agree with the point made, I think the better word to use is "extra-biblical" rather than "unbiblical" Unbiblical can be categorized as a synonym of anti-biblical. Thanks & God bless.

[@shamelesspopery]

Yeah, I think you're right about that. "Extra-biblical" would have been better than "unbiblical."

[@shamubilogbilog6456]

Ortland is inventing his own religion

[@tpoy1274]

He is doing to Catholicism what many atheists at this point are doing to theism. He is quietly admitting defeat by carving out a safe space for him merely to hold on.

[@annakimborahpa]

It's his variant of Protestantism and still Christian.

[@fantasia55]

Ortlundism is an accretion.

[@hexahexametermeter]

How's that? The Bible is sufficient towards salvation. St John believed his own Gospel was sufficient.

[@fantasia55]

@@hexahexametermeter The Bible did not exist until AD 382. How were Christians saved before then?

[@461weavile]

I've been summoned by a Pokemon in the thumbnail.

[@starlightHT]

These 7 verses are weak "hadiths" for Protestants.... They prefer to deny them because it hurts their feelings.

[@sivad1025]

They are not Hasan like the prophet's wise teaching, "The eyes are the leather strap of the anus!"

[@jonathanstensberg]

Protestants can’t even agree on the meaning on sola scriptura, much less use it as a principle to agree upon the meaning of nebulous and challenging words like “is”.

[@tonyl3762]

Better to use the term extra-biblical than unbiblical. Only confusing Protestants by using the latter.

[@ST-ov8cm]

While they can be used near-synonymously most people, when using “unbiblical”, mean that the teaching actually goes against, or conflicts with, the Bible.

[@tonyl3762]

@@ST-ov8cm Yes, that was my implicit point.

[@chrisharrison6220]

Or use the term 'non-biblical'

[@tonyl3762]

@@chrisharrison6220 I still think "extra," meaning "outside of," is best. "un" and "non" mean "opposite of" or "not."

[@shamelesspopery]

Agreed. Mea culpa!

[@marknovetske4738]

One of the best thinkers out there ❤... thanks Joe

[@manny75586]

It's interesting to see and read the historical "development" of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. It's been refuted so thoroughly that they now essentially restate Catholic/Orthodox doctrine but claim it is somehow different.

[@Chicken_of_Bristol]

Sola Fide too.

[@Justas399]

What else in your church is considered to be inspired and inerrant besides the Scriptures and how do you know?

[@Justas399]

@@Chicken_of_Bristol Salvation=faith alone in Christ alone by grace alone. (John 3:16; Romans 10:9-10; Ephesians 2:8-9)

[@Chicken_of_Bristol]

@@Justas399 See what I mean

[@vinciblegaming6817]

​@@Justas399For generations, the proof text for Sola Scriptura has been that only scripture is God-Breathed. Except we have in the gospels Jesus LITERALLY breathing on the disciples and giving them authority. That SHOULD give an honest protestant pause. It should stop people from claiming scripture is the only thing God-Breathed. But it won't. And that's just one more reason I'm not protestant anymore.

[@g_br]

Sola Scriptura is the most disseminated wrong idea in the world.

[@EmmaBerger-ov9ni]

Okay but how do you explain the treasury of merit? Seriously I cannot find one video defending this doctrine on KZbin or on catholic websites. I know for many protestants it's a big stumbling block.

[@charlespagano9636]

​@EmmaBerger-ov9ni I believe there are articles you can read about this subject on the Catholic Answers website.

[@brittoncain5090]

@@EmmaBerger-ov9niDoes that have anything to do with Sola Scriptura?

[@84prussell]

@@EmmaBerger-ov9ni The ideas of the treasury of merit come from Colossians 1:24-25 and Matthew 6:19-33

[@marcondespaulo]

That is a fierce competition, but I agree that Sola Scriptura is a strong contender.

[@sodetsurikomigoshi2454]

Scripture is NOT the only thing "God-breathed" -- John 20:21-23 21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” 22 And when he had said this, HE BREATHED ON THEM, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” THEN, HE SENT THEM OUT WITHOUT ANY COMMAND TO BRING/USE SCRIPTURE OR WRITE ANYTHING DOWN.

[@HAL9000-su1mz]

CORRECT! The Apostles were GOD-BREATHED decades before they wrote a single line.

[@CascadianExplorer]

The fact that there are different definitions of what Sola Scriptura is and how constrained/restrictive it is suggest it's just another man made concept and not that strictly Biblical.

[@henrytucker7189]

So sola Scriptura is “biblical” even when Protestants can’t even agree on what it means?

[@hexahexametermeter]

Catholics can't even agree if their Pope Francis or Vatican II is valid, let alone what their statements mean.

[@starshipchris4518]

When I pushed a pastor family member on the canon being itself a tradition, he just hid behind "The canon is perspicuous." As though everyone in the first 700+ years with their open canon and disputes were either too dumb to get, or none of that happened at all.

[@sodetsurikomigoshi2454]

when Paul wrote 2Tim3, he himself didn't know that this writing will become "scripture". It was up to the compilers of the Bible, the Catholics in the 300's, to include this verse in Scripture. The Catholic Councils could have very well omitted this letter in the Bible, just like the hundreds of writings that didn't make the cut.

[@ji8044]

The majority of scholars don't believe Paul wrote the Pastoral Epistles. It's ok if you think differently.

[@fantasia55]

Several of Paul's letters are not in the Bible.

[@ji8044]

@@fantasia55 I have never read such a position. Do you have more information?

[@davidramsey2566]

Excellent elucidation of some of the deep problems inherent in this clearly false doctrine. Thank you!

[@gnomeresearch1666]

Scripture is infallible; an individual's interpretation of it is not.

[@HAL9000-su1mz]

Interpretations are fallible. The fake JW bible for example.

[@jonatasmachado7217]

In his book "Harmony of the Gospels", Augustine writes that some ancient existing gospels were left out of the biblical canon because they didn't agree with Catholic Apostolic teaching.

[@ji8044]

In the last 150 years we have an advantage that no scholar/theologian has had since Nicea. We now have copies or fragments of the dozens of gospels in circulation before then. For instance a copy of the Gospel of Judas was the latest find discovered in the 1970s and published in 2006. The manuscript is 3rd Century and the gospel 2nd Century.

[@Lara-gj1du]

Protestant pastors: the bible alone is all you need! Me: then, why do you want me to go to your church?

[@joeleach5089]

To worship. To thank God for saving you. To take communion. To get equipped for building Christ's kingdom. To edify one another. To obey Heb 10:25. To grow in your faith.

[@Lara-gj1du]

@@joeleach5089 In other words, the bible alone is not all you need. Thanks for the clarification!

[@joeleach5089]

@@Lara-gj1du I understand the confusion, but want and need are two different verbs. I want you to go to my church, but you need the Bible.

[@Lara-gj1du]

@@joeleach5089 The bible tells me not to forego going to church, that I NEED to worship, and also that I NEED to ask for forgiveness, and nowhere does that bible ever say I do not NEED anything else. The bible says I NEED instruction, and the best place I have found the most consistent instruction is the Catholic Church, which has not changed any of its teachings to make itself more popular or palatable. The bible is needed but it's not the ONLY thing needed. For the people I normally hear saying "the bible alone is all you need" are in the same breath telling me that I will go to hell for going to a church that isn't theirs, which is usually a place tells me that I don't NEED to act on the Word of God. So yes, I agree, we need that bible, but it is not ALONE everything I need. Without the Church, the Bible is not complete, for we are to learn from the writings and ALSO from what has been passed on to us by word of mouth.

[@HAL9000-su1mz]

No bible needed! It's FAITH ALONE! No pastor! No tithing! WooHoo!

[@dynamic9016]

The Canon of Scripture is the Achilles Heel to Sola Scriptura...Thanks much for this video.

[@aceswizzo8665]

The Protestant Bible is the Jewish old testament the tanakh

[@TruthHasSpoken]

@@aceswizzo8665 God never gave the Jews the authority to decide the OT canon. This includes the Sadducees who only held to the books of Moses as inspired, AND the Disapora Jews (plus Jesus and the apostles) who used the Septuagint. 4th c Catholic Christians would decide the canon of scripture based on the revelation of Jesus Christ.

[@ji8044]

@@TruthHasSpoken Jesus Christ, his family, and all his disciples were Jewish. I know that comes as a revelation to you.

[@lukeohanlon2960]

Love this topic ❤

[@MrDoyle07]

The Protestant bible has 66 books, 6 books absent, and it is labeled with a man’s name… 666 and the number of a man’s name… is it the 666 as in the number of a man’s name like we find it in Rev 3:18, “This calls for wisdom: let the one who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666”? It does make me think.. The development of that, which was prophesied long before there was any bible at all which first came with 72 books in it,, and even longer before there was a 66 book bible with 6 books missing. With a man’s name on its cover. (Which has always struck me as an absurd liberty for a mere man to take). I just woke up with that in my thoughts..

[@bengoolie5197]

The Prots. can scream as loud as they want, but they must still accept the truth that there is no salvation outside the Holy Catholic Church.

[@joeleach5089]

why?

[@bengoolie5197]

@@joeleach5089 "why"? The first word uttered by Prot. satan in the garden.

[@HAL9000-su1mz]

@@joeleach5089 Christ sets the rules.

[@joeleach5089]

Screaming Prot here. Is there salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church? CCC 846-8:“Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it” Protestants would say that people are generally not saved outside the church, as long as the church is recognized by the marks of the church, which they define as proper administration of the Word and sacrament, rather than apostolic succession. Of course, there is disagreement that the RC church is properly doing the word and sacrament. Is the Catholic Church the only true church? From a strictly scriptural point of view, the Roman Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18 is divorced from its proper biblical context. The Roman Church states that Matthew 16 teaches that the Church is built upon Peter and therefore upon the bishops of Rome in an exclusive sense. What is seldom ever mentioned is the fact that Ephesians 2:20 uses precisely the same language as that found in Matthew 16 when it says the Church is built upon the apostles and prophets with Christ as the cornerstone. The same Greek word for build upon in Matthew 16 is employed in Ephesians 2:20. This demonstrates that from a biblical perspective, even if we were to interpret the rock of Matthew 16 to be the person of Peter, the New Testament does not view the apostle Peter to be unique in this role. Christ is the foundation and the Church is built upon all the apostles and prophets in the sense of being built upon their teaching. And in addition, the Roman Catholic interpretation imports a meaning into the Matthew 16 text that is completely absent. This text says absolutely nothing about infallibility or about successors.-Wm Webster

[@timrichardson4018]

It may help skeptics of the Catholic Church to understand that the Catholic view is that scripture is not only infallible. It contains the words that God positively wanted to be written, which makes it the Word of God. This is unique to scripture. The infallibility of the Church and Popes does not rise to this level. They are infallible in their official teachings in the sense that those teachings are preserved from error, but not necessarily the wording directly orchestrated by God like Holy Scripture. Therefore, the Catholic can place Scripture as the highest authority in a sense. However, even scripture says the Church will be lead into all truth by the Holy Spirit. So we must accept the official judgments of the Church as infallible; otherwise, we are disbelieving what Jesus says about the Church in scripture.

[@ealdorman5053]

I was wondering are there any historian writers on the martyrdom of the apostles I think James death is in the book of Acts, but not the others outside of Judas suicide The others come from oral tradition & apocryphal writing But it's been quite a while since that happened & I'm wondering where do Protestants get the belief that the apostles were put to death I think John was the only one that wasn't 🤔🤔 I've always just seen Sola scriptura as the doctrine of seeing an individual's reason as the sole authority in interpreting scripture

[@ji8044]

There are two versions of the death of Judas, which are incompatible with each other and only one was a suicide. It means the early Christians didn't know what happened to him, but wanted to give the story a bad ending.

[@tonyl3762]

@@ji8044 lol, is this what you do with your life? You think what you're saying is new to us? There is no necessary incompatibility. It is quite possible to attempt to hang oneself but then something slips or breaks and one falls.

[@ji8044]

@@tonyl3762 You are the typical apologist attempting to reconcile completely different outcomes in the most intellectually tortured way possible. By the way, what so you think scholars and theologians have been DOING for 2,000 years but spending entire lifetimes arguing the most tiny details of the Bible? LOL

[@tonyl3762]

@@ji8044 You can choose to believe an explanation quite possible and compatible is "most intellectually tortured," but that is a you thing, not a problem with the text. That's not an actual proof of a contradiction. Even if it were an actual contradiction, it wouldn't actually undermine Christian/Catholic claims about Scriptural inerrancy or the Resurrection. Many scholars over the past few centuries have gone well beyond what the evidence actually allows for, nitpicking and leaping to conclusions. If one approaches the text with certain agnostic/atheist assumptions (e.g. "wanted to give the story a bad ending"), you will come to conclusions based on those assumptions. I don't understand why you are commenting on a Protestant vs Catholic video rather than one examining the reliability of the New Testament, if these are the kinds of comments you are going to make.

[@ji8044]

@@tonyl3762 How about the different birth stories of Jesus? I guess those direct contradictions don't matter either.

[@agentjs09]

Your pokemon analogy was actually good.

[@tonyl3762]

Context first: Paul is talking to Bishop Timothy, who is a man of God who has authority to rebuke and correct, not to every Christian in Ephesus. Dave Armstrong has pointed out "man of God" biblically refers to prophets or ordained leaders like Timothy, not every believer. Why not make this argument?

[@ji8044]

The big majority of scholars don't believe Paul wrote the Pastoral Epistles.

[@tonyl3762]

@@ji8044 Of which scholars? Protestant scholars? Liberal Protestant scholars? Why should I believe any of them compared to those closer in time and space to the Apostle Paul (i.e. Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Irenaeus, etc.) who affirm Pauline authorship?? If you don't even believe Paul wrote the Pastoral Epistles, you're in the wrong conversation. The reasons those "scholars" give based on style, new info not in other letters, and/or presumptions about when monarchical bishops arose are not very convincing

[@ji8044]

@@tonyl3762 No they don't affirm Pauline authorship. For instance Paul is remarkably "tolerant" toward women involved in devotion and spreading the word of God in the 7 genuine letters of Paul. In the Pastoral Epistles he takes the exact opposite side of that issue. The real Paul never mentions children or families because he expects an imminent end of the world. Pastoral Paul however says women should have children as their way of worshipping God. There are many scholarly works you could find online about this, but I know you won't.

[@tonyl3762]

@@ji8044 They who? Clement of Rome, Polycarp, and Irenaeus don't affirm Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles? That's your claim? Do you read scholarly works critically by going back to the primary sources? Do you read scholarly works with opposing viewpoints? The gap in time between Paul's earliest and latest epistles could be as much as about 2 decades. That's a lot of time for changes in Paul's view of the timing of the "end of the world." Even 2 Peter 3:9 acknowledges that it could be thousands of years until the 2nd Coming/Day of Judgment, and the historical record records Peter and Paul being together in Rome at the end of their lives. Not hard to disprove your "scholars": "As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church." -1 Cor 14:34-35 "Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent." -1 Tim 2:11-12 1 Cor 7 talks about children and families, not that I accept the dumb premise "If Paul doesn't talk about children and families, it is a genuine letter." What an irrational/unreasonable criteria for authenticity.

[@smartismarti4049]

​@@ji8044 It would be easier to find them if you named some of them.

[@FourKidsNoMoney]

Well, case closed. I really don't understand how one can hold to sola scriptura unless they just refuse to engage with the evidence against it.

[@rhwinner]

There is actually at least as much if not more evidence for sola ecclesia in the Bible as sola scriptura. The Bible never says whoever hears the Bible hears God. The Bible never says the Bible is the basis and foundation of all truth. But the Bible does say these things about Holy Church....

[@ji8044]

No it doesn't.

[@definitelynotsarcasm]

I think we would also be remiss were we to fail to mention that the Gospel of John directly contradicts the idea that the Bible could have "caught up to" or encompassed the word of God paired with the fact that the Word of God at the time of Jesus would have been the Septuagint which included the Deuterocanon that protestants removed. It is an impossibility

[@triconcert]

Christ wrote nothing down. From history, Tradition precedes Scripture.

[@Maranatha99]

Christ gave us orally the bulk of the NT

[@ji8044]

Upside down and backwards, from history, you are worshipping a Jewish rebel messiah.

[@TKOTraddish]

@@Maranatha99 And in none of it did He say to write anything down. He did establish a Church, though.

[@Maranatha99]

@TKOTraddish 1. Don't you think God knew that Jesus' words would be recorded???? 2. 12x says Jesus to write something in Revelation. 3. Yes, Jesus founded His church in Pentacost Day. That church does not correspond to any specific institution.

[@ji8044]

@@TKOTraddish How does a group of Jews establish a church?

[@croixsens]

I used to hear Baptists point out Jude 3 as a proof of Sola Scriptura. Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. That again would rule out the book of Revelation if taken litteraly.

[@joeleach5089]

"Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints." That faith was delivered in Gen 15. So you could stop there. You don't NEED the book of Revelation to contend for the faith once delivered to the saints. But I am glad we have it and agree it is canon.

[@slanz1]

My biggest question for the Prots is that IF the Bible is the SOLE authority (divinely inspired) to understand your salvation, then why utilize a fallible interpretative agent (human being) to interpret it? Doesn't it make sense that Jesus would want everyone in His current and future time to understand and follow his teaching, without error to ensure it is understood for our salvation, and establish some kind of interpretative authority through the Holy Spirit? (Luke 8: 10-13). Oh, wait...... I think He did that.

[@aceswizzo8665]

War about the pope? Literally for 1800 there was no papal infallibility until the 18th century y the change also my question to Catholics is what did the early church fathers use to fend of heretics?

[@lellachu1682]

​@@aceswizzo8665 "Literally for 1800 there was no papal infallibility until the 18th century " By that logic there was no Trinity or Divinity of Christ for hundreds of years. Codifying the faith doesn't mean it hasn't always been true. The early Church Fathers used both Scripture and Apostolic and Ecclesial tradition to defend the faith against heretics and warned that a mark of heresy was separating from Apostolic Tradition and relying on Scripture alone. St. Athanasius writing against the Arians said, "Therefore let them tell us, from what teacher or by what tradition they derived these notions concerning the Savior? “We have read in Scripture” they will say. But they seem to me to have a wrong understanding of this passage also; for it has a religious and very orthodox sense, which had they understood, they would not have blasphemed the Lord of glory...The blessed Apostle approves of the Corinthians because, he says, “you remember me in all things, and keep the traditions as I delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2). But they, as entertaining such views of their predecessors, will have the daring to say just the reverse to their flocks: “We praise you not for remembering your fathers, but rather we make much of you when you hold not their traditions.” St. Epiphanius wrote about heretics, "There can be no doubt that the meaning of the divine Scripture is different from the interpretation by which he unfairly wrests it to the support of his own heresy. This way of acting is common to the Manichaeans, the Gnostics, the Ebionites, the Marcionites, and all the votaries of the other eighty heresies, all of whom draw their proofs from the pure well of the Scriptures, not, however, interpreting it in the sense in which it is written, but trying to make the simple language of the Church’s writers accord with their own wishes."

[@coryaky]

Could you please do a video primarily addressing Protestants who argue that spiritual guidance leads to correct interpretation?

[@alfonstabz9741]

I ask many non catholics about this topic. With thousands of sects and denominations having different interpretation of the bible all claiming to ask the Guidance of the HOLY SPIRIT how can they determine which is true. MOst of the time they resort to attacking the Catholic church or ignore my question and talk something else.

[@coryaky]

@@alfonstabz9741right, it is baffling to think that so many Protestants just accept this idea that they somehow know who is and isn’t earnestly seeking God. Moreover, they hardly realize these “correct” interpretations aren’t even their own…

[@HAL9000-su1mz]

Protestants can prove this by unity in teaching.

[@coryaky]

@@HAL9000-su1mz surely you mean disunity? 😆

[@HAL9000-su1mz]

@@coryaky By SHOWING unity.

[@robertopacheco2997]

It's just a historical fact that the church got along without "sola scriptura" for its first two decades of existence! If we (for the sake of easy math) date Jesus's death, burial, resurrection, and ascension, and then Pentecost, to 30 CE/AD, and if we further recognize that our earliest NT text (1 Thessalonians) dates to about 50 CE/AD, then that's about 20 years between the birth of the church and the very first apostolic document. How did the church get by during the intervening 20 years? By resorting to the oral tradition of the apostles handed down to their successors. Is that oral tradition coterminous with Scripture? Even if it were, the historically correct interpretation of the Bible still requires an appeal to the wisdom of the first church fathers and their students.

[@ji8044]

They got along by being Jews and quoting from Scripture (Old Testament) like Jesus himself did.

[@fantasia55]

​@@ji8044They were Christians.

[@TruthHasSpoken]

@@ji8044 " like Jesus himself did." Jesus and the apostles used the Septugint, which included all the Old Testament Catholic writings, plus a few more that the Orthodox hold as inspired today.

[@SaintlySaavy]

@Joe H, I hope you see this! I’ve been studying this topic a lot and would really appreciate your feedback on refuting Sola Scriptura. When engaging in a discussion about doctrine, a good starting point is to ask how the Bible’s infallibility can be proven. As Catholics (and Orthodox), we demonstrate this through the Church and Sacred Tradition, which preserved and authenticated Scripture. However, Protestants reject these foundations, so how do they prove the Bible is infallible without appealing to them? Also, doesn’t Acts 15 show the Church binding the faithful with authority and the guidance of the Holy Spirit? At that time, they weren’t relying on the New Testament Scriptures-many of which hadn’t even been written yet. What are your thoughts?

[@Heythere24561]

So you did not include this but Protestants and Catholics also agree scripture is inerrant and infallible right?

[@shamelesspopery]

Yes!

[@ji8044]

How is that possible since it is so often contradictory? For instance we have two different versions of the death of Judas which are incompatible with each other.

@@ji8044 Luke’s purpose in Acts may have been simply to report what Peter said at a point in time when the apostles’ information on Judas’s death may well have been sketchy. After some of the Temple priests converted (cf. Acts 6:7), they may have given further details on Judas’s death that were later incorporated into the Gospel accounts. It is also possible that after Judas hanged himself the rope broke and he fell onto rocks that disemboweled him postmortem. Matthew’s emphasis then would have been Judas’s actions in taking his own life, while Peter’s emphasis was on what happened to him after his suicide.

[@ji8044]

"After some of the Temple priests converted" No Temple priests ever converted because there was nothing to convert TO. Jesus and all his disciples were Jews. Jesus worshipped and taught in the Temple and celebrated a Passover meal before his death.

@@ji8044 what the heck you talking about dude? The temple priests did not believe that Jesus was the son of god and the messiah neither did the Jews.

[@TruthHasSpoken]

That protestants can't even agree to Sola Scriptura's definition is a proof of how unbiblical it is. And it completely fails at the table of contents, before one ever turns the page to Genesis.

[@classicalteacher]

Read Hezekiah 4:16. This explicitly teaches Sola Scriptura. Mic drop.

[@MotherLovingChristian]

Exactly! This is what the Beariens where reading.

[@most_rustic_patrick]

We will despair in our rationed scripture? Also, to the berians part. Most converted to Christianity accepting new scripture and future scripture that hadn't been even written yet. So it's illogical to say they believed in sola scriptura....

[@most_rustic_patrick]

​@MotherLovingChristian the verses say they were reading this exact verse? Lol. Sounds like an unbiblical claim... also why that's illogical as I pointed out in the earlier comment

[@MotherLovingChristian]

@@most_rustic_patrick Yes, read the verse!

[@most_rustic_patrick]

@MotherLovingChristian I read all of Acts 17. The verse is never quoted, and hezekiah is never mentioned... please provide they were looking at that verse for old testament scripture only being a source of divine inspiration

[@rescuehamster1734]

Gavin saying that Sola Scriptura doesn't mean that all doctrine has to be in the Bible and that you can interpret doctrine from Scripture defeats the entire Protestant argument against the Papcy, veneration of the Saints, Mary's perpetually virginity and so much more.

[@TruthHasSpoken]

And his definition of Sola Scriptura is exactly why its fruits have been, are today, and will ever be: doctrinal chaos, confusion, and division.

[@ji8044]

There is no such thing as Mary's perpetual virginity. It has no basis in the entire NT.

[@TruthHasSpoken]

@@ji8044 "There is no such thing as Mary's perpetual virginity. It has no basis in the entire NT." Aside from your statement being in error, scripture doesn't teach that a doctrine must come from scripture. That's the heresy of Sola Scriptura. It fails right at the table of contents.

[@ji8044]

@@TruthHasSpoken You say my statement is in error, but of course you cannot refute it with any quote from the NT. "scripture doesn't teach that a doctrine must come from scripture." That's what all the people say who assert things that have no Biblical basis say.

[@TruthHasSpoken]

@@ji8044 "That's what all the people say who assert things that have no Biblical basis say." Well hold yourself to the same standard you hold others: Where does scripture state a doctrine must come from scripture? And where in the scripture does one find the table of contents? "you cannot refute either above with any quote from the NT. "

[@batmaninc2793]

Batman: The Animated Series is necessary. R.I.P. Kevin Conroy

[@hglundahl]

2:21 When Westminister states "or by good and necessary consequence" it implies there may be a necessity of some kind of magisterium. To the individual parishioner of a Presbyterian Church, the authorities for saving doctrine are concretely two: * the Bible * his "teaching presbyter" (or "minister") interpreting the Bible (and behind him the board of "ruling presbyters" ~ roughly lay pastoral council, but nearly always run by rich men).

[@HAL9000-su1mz]

I believe in Sola Scriptura because I know the last thing Jesus did before ascending was to hand the King James Bible to Martin Luther.

[@TruthHasSpoken]

And that KJV of 1611 had all the Catholic Old Testament writings in it, plus a listing of Catholic feast days !

[@ji8044]

That seems unlikely since the last thing Martin Luther did was call for the enslavement and murder of all Jews

[@jacquesvincent3897]

Psalms 56:10 “In God will I praise his word: in the LORD will I praise his word.”

[@HAL9000-su1mz]

The WORD is Jesus Christ.

[@jacquesvincent3897]

@@HAL9000-su1mz The Word (capital W is Jesus)...the word (lower cap) of God is the scripture!!! 1 Thessalonians 2:13 “For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.” VS John 1:1 “In the beginning was the🚩 Word, and the Word was with God, and 🚩the Word was God.” John 1:14 “And 🚩the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.” 1 John 1:1 “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;” 1 John 5:7 “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, 🚩the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” Revelation 19:13 “And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and🚩 his name is called The Word of God.”

[@jacquesvincent3897]

@@HAL9000-su1mz .......1 Peter 1:18 “Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold,🚩🚩 from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;🏁” Matthew 15:3 “But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?” Matthew 15:6 “And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.” Mark 7:8 “For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.” Mark 7:13 “Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.” Colossians 2:8 “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.”

[@jacquesvincent3897]

@@HAL9000-su1mz Acts 17:11 “These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, 🚩AND SEARCHED 🚩🚩THE SCRIPTURES daily,🚩 🚩whether those things were so.”........NOT THE WORD OF MEN... NOR TRADITION OF MEN !!!....YOU IGNORANT!! .

[@SuperTommox]

I'll never understand how a book cam be an authority

[@Maranatha99]

The authority is God, not the book. And God communicates with us through His inspired Word.

[@SuperTommox]

@Maranatha99 the popular protestant motto is "The Bible is the only autorithy". Everyone believes that God is the only autorithy, even Muslims.

[@rdrdmaster5378]

​@@Maranatha99 So the Bible does not actually have authority?

[@TKOTraddish]

@@Maranatha99 Jesus is also the Word, and He never told anyone to write anything down (Unless you count Revelation, but then that would reduce it to that one book, which I'm sure some cult does.)

[@Maranatha99]

@TKOTraddish I'm not sure of what you mean.

[@hirakisk1973]

Coming from a Protestant background, their counter claim that every single time oral tradition/teachings etc. is mentioned in the NT, they will say that ALL of the oral teachings were written down in the NT. The claim is that there wasn't anything taught that isn't written down. Which is an odd claim, because there is nothing IN the Bible either explicit or implicit that we can get this idea from. It is just something made up to get around things.

[@thepflare6050]

Pause, you just referenced pokemon. Wow did that make instant sense to me.

[@JustinWest]

26:43 interestingly this is also exactly what Jesus does when the Sadducees bring him an objection to the Resurrection based on the book of tobit. He tried them for not understanding the power of God nor the scriptures, and then he gives them an Old Testament citation about God being the god of the living and not the dead which comes from Deuteronomy. He could have given them a much more explicit passage about Resurrection like in daniel, but instead he starts with where they are and goes from there. But of course what's really interesting is the fact that the Sadducees are objecting to the story found in Tobit, and Jesus tells them they don't know the scriptures.

[@theliterarycritic939]

Another red flag is that Paul did not foresee his letters becoming part of Scripture. When addressing Timothy, Paul referred only to the Old Testament, as he was unaware of the New Testament writings, including his own. This demonstrates that Paul viewed his letters not as Scripture but as personal correspondence. If Paul, the apostle, did not consider his own writings to be part of the foundational authority of the faith, citing Paul's very letters as the reason behind sola scriptura is misplaced and misguided.

[@sodetsurikomigoshi2454]

another useful analogy for the "sufficient" issue is Vitamins. Vit A makes your multi-vit complete and sufficient, but Vit A is not the only thing you need. Scripture doesn't contain everything Jesus did, and more so, everything the Apostles did. More than half of them DID NOT WRITE anything down.

[@acezenfu3293]

Deuteronomy 4:2 / Revelation 22:18-19

[@acezenfu3293]

Deuteronomy 4:2 NKJV [2] You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

[@TruthHasSpoken]

@@acezenfu3293 Yep. And this would include "taking away" 7 Old Testament writings from the Original KJV of 1611 that all Christians held as scripture for the previous 1,100 years. Question is: who had the authority to do so, so that your NKJV is incomplete?

[@mariasoto-r7d]

Last point… SLAM DUNK!

[@jacquesvincent3897]

John 17:17 “Sanctify them through thy truth: THY WORD is truth.”

[@HAL9000-su1mz]

Bible does not save. Bible was not crucified. Bible did not rise from the dead. Bible did not ascend to heaven. Bible shed no blood. Bible did not say "eat my paper and drink my ink" Sounds like the bible is an IDOL.

[@Collins12246]

Joe, thank you so much for your videos. They're really educative. Wouldn't it be okay if Catholics positively prove their case like: there is something as Sacred Tradition, Apostolic succession and Magisterium. I don't mean a surface level talks about Tradition and the likes. All I see mostly on the internet is attacking Sola Scriptura

[@concrete3030]

One of the funniest debates I had was with a fundamentalist and all I said was that this scripture doesn't say "only" and his face started getting red and he was shaking... he said yeah but it says it's profitable..I said yeah but it doesn't say Only... he said yeah but it makes us perfect... I said yeah but it doesn't say only.. he said but it says for every good work and I said yeah but it doesn't say only!! 😂😂😂😂 I asked can you admit it doesn't say only? And he wouldn't do it... comical if it wasnt a lost soul

[@joeleach5089]

He should have used Deut 4:2 or Prov 30:5-6 Or Jude 3

[@concrete3030]

@joeleach5089 ??????? I SPEAK to you"... seriously reaching... no where does it say only scripture.. we are to depend on the saints, the church, bishops etc... no where does it say only scripture by ones own personal interpretation NOWHERE

[@joeleach5089]

@@concrete3030 I think I understand your point. Any Tom, Dick or Harry can read the Bible and come up with bizarre interpretations. We have seen this happen over the last 500 years, resulting in Jehovah’s Witnesses, Quakers, Mormons, Christian Scientists, Unitarians, Liberal Churches, Prosperity Gospel, etc. I would posit that the restraining element is the Holy Spirit and the Church. Let me define these two terms. The Holy Spirit (Jn 14-17) should witness that mankind is fallen and needs a savior, that Jesus is God and that the Bible is true. The Protestant would say that the Holy Spirit does NOT witness, for instance, that Mary is our co-redemptrix or that the Roman system of priests and sacraments is valid. The Protestant view of the church would be along the lines of 1 Pet 2:9-the priesthood of all believers. By this definition, all believers are saints. So for matters of faith and morals, it is necessary to have the inward witness (Holy Spirit) and the outward witness (Church elders-Mt 16 binding and loosing, Mt 18 two or three gathered together in my name). Protestants also deny that there is one central magisterium capable of elevating church tradition to the level of scripture. Protestants differ among themselves on many things-soteriology, the working of the Holy Spirit, the nature of the sacraments, church government, worship style and eschatology. Yet there are many denominations that agree on the fundamentals-Orthodoxy, Sola Fides and sola Scriptura.

[@concrete3030]

@joeleach5089 so again... anyone who disagrees with you does not have the Holy Spirit including a Church that has been around for almost 2000 years with many martyrs for her? And teachings that are instrumental in being a Christian and canonizing the very Bible itself... responsible for implanting chapters and verse to every scripture even 1000 years after the Bible was canonized that you do agree with... can you not see how hypocritical and illogical this view is? That you have the Holy spirit and everyone else who disagrees with you doesn't? That in itself should tell you that you have been deceived exactly the same way as Adam and Eve was. That you have followed your own pride.. and the True Church that Christ built would take some type of humility and submission to be apart of ... not everything you will understand because it takes faith... it is the supernatural and invisible that the Church I put my faith in gives us

[@joeleach5089]

@@concrete3030 I agree that the Church did many good things in the early centuries. I also agree that humility and submission to legitimate authority are important. But healthy skepticism is also important. The Catholic Church claims exclusive authority to interpret the Bible correctly, basically because it says so. It denies anyone salvation outside the church. Through its use of the sacraments, it claims control over the souls of people. One would suspect that such absolute power inevitably corrupts. In my view, the Roman Church has strayed to the point that: I Jn 2:19--They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us. How many "Holy Spirits" are there? One testifies that Jesus is Lord, that Jesus saves and that His Word is truth. Another spirit says, "yes Jesus is Lord, but he needs Mary's help and assent, and he needs human priests to mediate his salvific grace, and his word is truth but don't let the laity read it until Vatican 2, and burn people who try to translate the Bible into their own language." Test the Spirits.

[@carolzappa1804]

Who gave protestants the authority to make their own private interpretations and personal opinions "Doctrine"? And, Who gave them the authority to claim these things, against the OHCA Church's authentically Christian Doctrine and Dogma?

[@mcchubbz2975]

The answer to your question is pride and laziness. I’ve never seen Luther (a MONK mind you) depicted with one chin. So.

[@HAL9000-su1mz]

It is based on ego. That's why the 3 musketeers of the reform immediately split.

[@carolzappa1804]

@@HAL9000-su1mz , Ah, Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin? Caused the Worse Schism in all of Christendom; and the destruction of Millions of souls.💔

[@desertrose6555]

Does this instance in Acts relate to the sola scriptura issue and how we need the Church? When Philip asks the Ethiopian official “Do you understand what you are reading?” In Acts 8:31 and the official replies “How can I”, “unless someone guides me?”.

[@mcchubbz2975]

A common objection to the Catholic Church (one that I found to be pretty good) is the difference between V1 and V2 Catholicism and the East Catholics and West Catholic having separate Creeds. Do you plan on covering these or have you in the past? Edit: I put “V1” twice.